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 ...
Yeah right keep thinking that.
In case you haven’t noticed, while I initially didn’t see the value of keeping them among civilian public (I do now, however), I had no intention of restricting guns or banning them outright, as they are the only way of ensuring self-defense.
Yeah, back then, I might not have thought it through, and if anything, I have to thank some users on here for setting me straight.
In your post 17 you stated among other things, that the Second Amendment was about killing tyrants. You set up that parameter. I didn’t.
I would also add that it’s about personal defense.
Bump stocks and silencers are not necessary to kill tyrants or mount a personal defense.
An AR-15 or a myriad of other firearm weapons most certainly are required to kill tyrants or mount a personal defense.
Denying any of this is the silliness.
You're introducing the Sarah Brady argument: You don't need that (whatever bogeyman weapon of the moment), therefore it's OK to ban it.
No sale.
1. Yeah, I know. Problem is, their misuse of those rights leads to the rights themselves being tarnished at times. I don’t want rights to be outright abused precisely BECAUSE they tarnish those rights. In fact, my idea is if rights are abused, what’s the point in keeping them? My idea of rights is that they must be perfect and 100% effective.
2. I fully agree with you there. Our War of Independence is the closest thing we have to an exception, and even there, we nearly dodged a bullet regarding Thomas Jefferson.
The “silencer” issue shows the absolute STUPIDITY of the gun laws. All because it has an “image” of being used by criminals and assassins... MOVIE BS!. If the left was consistent, they would DEMAND silencers on all guns .. to cut down on the decibels and PROTECT people from hearing loss. (They try to protect me from second hand smoke, which is bogus and not +100 decibel sound which is real?) And you should see the paperwork one has to CARRY AT ALL TIMES when you have the Suppressor mounted. I had to get a special case for my gun to go to the range to hold the damned paperwork. (Also it took 3 years to get it approved).
Please elaborate on that point. Thanks.
I stated an AR-15 OR another firearm.
I don’t really care if you’re buying or not. People with common sense will.
Sarah Brady advocated for banning weapons. I haven’t. You do realize that right?
All of which clearly illustrates the complete absurdity of both the question and the President's answer. Is it possible that neither the reporter nor the President have the slightest clue how ridiculously restricted suppressors already are?
Do you advocate:
1) Banning them outright?
2) Maintaining the current transfer tax and restriction on ownership and transport?
3) Reducing the current restrictions?
4) Something else?
I personally don’t like silencers. That make harder to quickly aquire the target and harder to maneuver in tight spaces.
Troll thread, avoid as this is nonsense and disruptive
Our guns and rights get jumped every time one of these killings happen. How about some death penalty arguments? The left has all but abolished real punishment for hideous crimes.
Yeah, they’re a weapon if you pick one up and throw it. So is a rock. Does the Second Amendment cover our right to possess and throw rocks too?
Silliness indeed.
Firearms are weapons. A suppressor is not a weapon.
You can’t load one. You cannot fire one. You can fire any weapon without one.
No one has advocated for banning them.
By that, I mean are never abused, are never violated, everyone follows them to the letter, are not flawed in ANY WAY. When they are violated, abused, in any way, they’re broken, plain and simple.
1) Banning them outright?
2) Maintaining the current transfer tax and restriction on ownership and transport?
3) Reducing the current restrictions?
4) Something else?
4) The United States Government issues one for every single firearm owned in the United States, including for firearms that cannot truly use them (such as revolvers).
I have not never would and never will make a death threat. There are good reading comprehension courses out there. I suggest you take one
Oh, I fully agree with that, that weapons are the only surefire way for resistance of government tyranny. Unfortunately, the French Revolution ALSO showed instances where it doesn’t do any good against stopping actual bad people, and if anything makes things worse, like crowds laughing as a guy bled out to death from being shot by shotguns as recounted in Operation Parricide. And bear in mind, that was the progenitor of liberalism/leftism.
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.