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 ...
Yes … it covers anything from throwing rocks to "science fiction" stuff that hasn't been invented yet. It's open ended. Good Heavens, man! Have you actually read the text of the Second Amendment? "Guns" are nowhere mentioned in it! The word used is "arms". That word is deliberately open-ended. It is in now way limited to any particular technology, or to any particular stage of development of any particular technology. The authors weren't stupid. They knew well that "arms" would advance beyond what existed in their time, and worded their Amendment to cover any and all developments.
It seems to me that you're talking about crimes. Murder, rape, robbery, and the like … A proper function of government is to punish the malefactors who do such things, while protecting the rights of the people who don't.
;’}
What's that? Hold on. Let me put my hearing aids in.
Bud, you’re trying too hard and coming up with a big fat goose egg.
Take a few deep breaths and relax.
You’ve gone off the deep end after nobody talking about banning anything.
Expand on that a little, because I’m not sure what you’re actually referencing there in total.
Yes, that’s exactly what government is supposed to do: punish the malefactors who do those things, and also to ensure no one even THINKS of trying to do those crimes, either. When one doesn’t enforce the laws, they are weak laws. I want STRONG laws, STRONG rights, ones that are invincible.
Your response is meaningless.
Like … murder will get you a very long time in prison … (or a very short time ;'})
STRONG rights
Like, the government is forbidden to restrict the sort of arms we may own.
When one doesn’t enforce the laws, they are weak laws.
Chicago has a less than 20% clearance rate on homicides. That's part of the problem. Lots of people are literally getting away with murder.
As is your pointless over the top prattle on this thread.
Oh, you and me both!
I was thinking about getting some kydex on amazon and making a kind of side-release holster for my Springfield XDm .45 with the Silencerco Osprey installed. Haven’t had time, though.
“Pretty much, on this site. If you need to BASH TRUMP in the way did there are PLENTY of sites for that, and they’ll welcome you with open arms.”
What bashing? I’m criticizing the man for a position I disagree with, and I’m giving him the extra boot for saying the attack on our 2A rights was over and then proceeding to attack them.
If people around here can’t take it...I hate it for them.
“You are obviously well informed and educated about the subject matter. I can not disagree with any point you have made. However, I ask that you re-examine your stridency in discussing arms, and criticism of potential allies.
Why? Am I recommending you support and defend our Constitution as the supreme law and principle of our country, in moderation?
In a word: yes.
I do not think you have sufficiently considered the fact that in this age of identity politics, as a group, a majority of the voting public got absolutely no say in the formation and adoption of our Constitution. Consequently, as a group, they have little in the way of commitment to that Constitution beyond its ability to provide for their PERSONAL security.
Of course, I am speaking of women. And like it or not, they have and will legitimately change the Constitution by organic means not provided for in the Constitution. And frankly, they have every moral right to do so.
So take care to defend your rights in a way so as not to offend the sensibilities of the majority, or you may lose them for the sake of nothing more than your own self-indulgence. “
I didn’t create the world where people are unwilling to listen to reason because of feelz. I only have to live in it until my time here is done.
Sow the wind, reap with whirlwind. They’ve chosen to learn the hard way. It will be a very hard day when the things they care about slip away because they received as much support from people like me as they rendered to people like me.
I can’t change any of that. The voting public will listen to the warnings and heed them, or it won’t and it will suffer. I have no sway over that other than the efforts I’ve long since put forth.
Your understanding of the Second Amendment is inadequate and incorrect.
Strong rights that don’t result in America becoming the French Revolution. And let’s face it, if I were to go take the Second Amendment to its logical extreme of not allowing the government to restrict the sort of arms we may own, I’d go even farther and say they’re not even allowed to interfere with people killing others for a sick laugh, under the pretense that even that is grounds for tyranny. Even you would realize that’s just flat out nuts and far too extreme of a use of the Second Amendment that’s more likely to just wipe out humanity, to the level of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, possibly even the September Massacres.
“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.”
The only silliness is in these statements.
If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, I can still ban firearms because we can always defend ourselves from tyranny with sufficient application of molotov cocktails, riots, and rock throwing. This is has been successful in the past. So why do we even need firearms?
Most things that are useful for protecting oneself or his state from tyranny is covered by the 2A. That includes suppressors. It even includes bump stocks, because suppressing fire is an actual, real thing and until Trump messed it up, that was the only legal means people had of gaining that capability.
I just figured turn-about is fair play.
If you’re going to make asinine, obtuse and/or intellectually dishonest eisegesis of my writing, why shouldn’t I do the same to yours?
Now what were you saying about reading comprehension courses?
“Troll thread, avoid as this is nonsense and disruptive”
Prove it
“Yes, that’s exactly what government is supposed to do: punish the malefactors who do those things, and also to ensure no one even THINKS of trying to do those crimes, either. When one doesn’t enforce the laws, they are weak laws. I want STRONG laws, STRONG rights, ones that are invincible.”
Doesn’t really exist in the real world, unfortunately. There is no deterrent strong enough that no criminal minded person would never even think of doing criminal things. There is no such thing as a right so strong that a government won’t try to take it.
These are all nice thoughts but they don’t exist in the reality we do.
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.