Posted on 06/03/2019 5:25:40 AM PDT by JamesP81
“Q The suspect in the Virginia Beach shooting used a silencer on his weapon. Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t like them at all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
Oh I don’t know, I kinda like being able to hear.
Especially after spending years in the Infantry and suffering from Tinnitus and hearing loss as I get older.
> Do you resolve this by making all States abide by the most restrictive rules? <
Just the opposite. I’d like to see the states abide by the least restrictive rules. That would be very difficult to accomplish, I know.
Oh, please. Why the hell do we care about silencers. Give me a break. Silencers are associated strongly with murder. They are not associated with hunting or even defense.
We don’t have silent lawn mowers, leaf blowers or chain saws. We really don’t need silent guns. We have ear phones. Think of an ear phone as legal silencers for one.
Doesn't matter. It's not my job--nor any government's--to protect your hearing.
That's up to you--whatever your method.
Banning suppressors is just another nibble at the 2nd.
Not only that, but there is absolutely zero recoil regardless the caliber of the gun. And even skinny little gi jane ho's can handle it with no more effort than lifting a latte.
“Silencers are associated strongly with murder.”???
You watch too many movies.
“But what about the phrase “well-regulated”? Does that not allow for some restrictions? (And yes, I realize that’s a slippery slope.)”
No joke, but that’s actually a leftist problem with grammar.
At that time in history, the phrase ‘well-regulated’ implied a condition we might phrase as ‘well-trained’ or ‘well-equipped’. Democrats, of course, think history started in 1980 and apply the current understanding of the term ‘regulated’.
A better way to understand it would be to write the 2A in modern common parlance. Would go something like this:
“Because a well-trained militia of the people is necessary for a free state to maintain its security and liberty, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Wow, that’s your evidence that he’s anti 2nd amendment?
Let me see:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But somehow, “I don’t like them.” when asked about silencers, is anti the above sentence?
You know the problem with zealots? They are unable to recognize who their friends are.
“Sorry, but Cruz lost and pretty much everyone here agrees that he would have also lost to HRC.
So who’s your great Second Amendment savior? Bill Weld?
In other words, we take what you get and leave the bitching to the leftists.”
So I don’t get to criticize Trump when he does wrong then? Is that what I’m hearing here?
I'm pretty sure they didn't envision the internet when they created the 1st Amendment, but yet here you are, blindly offering an uninformed opinion to the whole damned world.
And besides, why would civilians even need a silencer for guns, anyways? Last I checked, silencers would be needed in order to avoid detection if you shoot a gun, such as during black ops or assassinations, and I really don’t see the need for a silencer when, say, trying to ward off burglars inside your house (if anything, keeping it unsilenced would ward the burglars off just from shooting.). Now, if they’re trying to ward off someone actively trying to kill you, that might be a good reason to have a silencer.
We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. But since you asked the question, framed exactly the same way as anti-gunners and FUDDS incrementally seek to eliminate all gun rights (see also: "why does anyone NEED an 'assault weapon'" (sic)) Suppressors are useful for not losing one's hearing while shooting (or preserving the remaining hearing of those of us who lost too much of it in the service of our country), for being able to provide instruction on the range, to minimize noise complaints that make it hard to site shooting facilities, and to hunt herd animals like wild hogs who will bolt at the first report of an un-suppressed firearm.
Your idea of suppressors as a tool for "black ops or assassinations" is clearly based on movie BS, not reality. They're not what you see in the movies, and you owe it to yourself and those of us who actually care about the 2d Amendment to become informed about such topics before you blindly opine on that which you clearly don't understand.
The French Revolution was demonic from the outset. The revolutionaries were from the beginning worse tyrants than the royals they overthrew.
Here are some real world suppressed firearms being fired for comparison, then. Please note that volume levels will not be entirely realistic due to vagaries of camera automatic audio level control, the volume on your own computer’s speakers, etc., etc., so it will be quieter in the video than in reality but it will give you some idea of what a suppressed firearm actually sounds like. Note the comments in some from the shooter/presenter about how loud the suppressed guns are - with the first gun he notes that it’s so loud he goes ahead and puts his hearing protection back in. (Also, listen to the echoes to get an idea of how loud these are.)
Suppressed Sten gun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U213FyZVBrM
Replica Russian suppressor on AK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVqo6hywAtE
Suppressed 12 gauge pump shotgun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtIqTfObXIo
They’re anything but silent, especially on the last one when he’s firing slugs.
“This is largely a Hollywood lie. Violent crime on the frontier was relatively low. Skirmishes with Native American tribes was another matter.”
That’s why I said “reputed”.
“If the people have degnerated to that level of moral corruption, existence or non-existence of arms in the hands of the people will not stop them from butchering each other, but it might save the few who have not so degenerated by giving them an option to fight back.”
Oh, I agree, that it allows those not corrupted to fight back, and that is in fact why I ultimately support the second amendment, even if I DO feel cynical about it thanks to how the Jacobins and other French Revolutionary gangs used it, and make no mistake, the Cordeliers Club, which was more radical than even the Jacobins, also used American founding documents for their basis if Conservapedia is to be believed (and I would assume that included the Second Amendment).
“This leads me to believe you are, in fact, not pro-2A or you don’t understand what it means. You’re going to have to be more specific though.”
The Second Amendment, or the Right to Bear Arms, allows people to own a weapon specifically to ensure they can defend themselves from encroaching government or someone who wants them dead. That’s what I support. It does NOT advocate, for example, handing guns to criminals, and to law enforcement, and egging on people to have a riot and kill each other for a sick laugh, and even encouraging people to kill you as you try to kill them in a fit of nihilism (in other words, something like what Jerome Valeska inspired in the ending to Gotham here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFwBhZniiQ or heck, what the Joker frequently does in the Batman comics.). That’s what I mean by that statement, and I’m pretty sure most of the Founding Fathers are for that interpretation, other than MAYBE Thomas Jefferson, who wasn’t even involved in the creation of the Constitution due to his being in France at the time it was being drafted, and given how he sang praises for the Jacobins despite getting a pretty big hint on how they are absolutely NOTHING like the American Minutemen in even ideals, he probably WOULD have encouraged a Bolshevik-style revolution down the line. Heck, part of the reason why the Constitution was created was specifically to AVOID our going the way of France, based on comments by Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Ben Franklin.
Ummmm, I’m pro-suppressor. It is not the government’s job to *deprive* me of effective hearing protection while undertaking legal conduct.
Commonly used in Europe for pest control. You can (unless things have changed) buy them at a hardware store, no permits needed.
There, fixed it for you, moron.
Try video games, and quite frankly, I’m supporting civilian usage of suppressors now, especially after I was educated on the subject by others.
Thanks.
Trump’s judicial picks have been predominantly pro 2nd amendment.
Also, for comparison to the suppressed MGS weapons - the classic MP5 with suppressor, in real life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGNAg1wmqzo
Shooting starts at 1:45. Even with subsonic ammo, that thing doesn’t sound like the MGS counterparts and it’s not that quiet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.