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 ...
“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.”
The logic of that doesn’t work. You’re going to have to explain to me how you get from a guaranteed and unlimited right to keep and bear arms = a guaranteed and unlimited right to deprive other people of their lives.
That is not logically consistent. In the slightest.
“Can’t” is not the same as “won’t.” It would be a travesty for us to lose the 2A, because too many of us superciliously dismissed the largest voting block for lack of humility and goodwill.
The problem is not the ownership of arms. The problem is the misuse thereof. The problem with the sicko French revolutionaries wasn't that they owned shotguns. The problem was that they were sickos who abused their right to be armed.
““Can’t” is not the same as “won’t.””
No it isn’t. It also doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion.
“It would be a travesty for us to lose the 2A, because too many of us superciliously dismissed the largest voting block for lack of humility and goodwill. “”
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. I’ve done quite a bit in terms of convincing friends and family with some success, but that’s about it. If the voting public, all voting blocs, choose to make a grand mistake on the 2A, they will suffer the penalty due for their error. And no, I won’t lift a finger to help them in their distress should that day come. Why should I?
There’s no one on this thread that doesn’t support the second amendment.
You’re attempt to play the part of a Second Amendment lord of the forum, is comical.
Others have read the Second Amendment. Take my word for it.
Arms = Armaments or weapons
Duh!
There are ways to criticize Trump without BASHING him. Bashing him just implies you’re a NeverTrumper, and they’re not welcome there.
You are side-stepping the true meaning of the comment.
Nobody on this thread is advancing the thought any weapon be banned.
Those two items are not weapons.
And nobody has advocated the banning of silencer / suppressors either.
Just did another search. Still no word about how he got the silencer.
Considering all legal silencers are registered, it shouldn’t be a difficult thing to find out.
Of course if he built it with $30 and a trip to Home Depot, that would make it illegal, and more laws wouldn’t have stopped that.
“Those two items are not weapons.”
Federal law says they are firearms. Suppressors are defined as firearms by the 1934 NFA. So in legal terms, yes, they are weapons.
If you consider them to not be weapons (completely reasonable since they are not devices that fire projectiles) then they are a firearm accessory. Certain firearm accessories are useful for protection from tyranny. They are covered by the 2A. To say they aren’t, you might as well say that ammo, stocks, and sights are accessories and are not protected.
Duh indeed. That category is NOT limited to firearms. therefor, your prior argument (regarding suppressors):
You can’t load one. You cannot fire one. You can fire any weapon without one.
is inane. You can't fire a pistol, either, unless it has cartridges in it. You can't fire a knife at all.
It remains that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear ARMS. That term is completely open-ended, extending to all weapons technologies, even to weapons technologies not yet invented. Worse, to argue that it protects some, but not all, functional components of weapons is idiotic.
They have a classification, but you cannot load one or fire one.
Why are you pushing that nonsense?
We’re on the same side of gun rights. You guys go over the top to prove you’re more of a supporter than anyone else, and at times it’s nonsensical.
You’ve reached the point of being a devout nutjob on the topic.
A firearm and ammunition is required in combat.
A suppressor/silencer is not.
For a guy that claims to be much more in tune on the topic, you have shown yourself not able to grasp a very elemental point.
It is if you go by the idea that freedom and rights = absolutely no restraints whatsoever, and that even the slightest restraint, even under beneficial manners like morality, is intolerable tyranny, right down to not even being restrained from committing murder, especially if you go by a dog eat dog world of individualist views along the scope of Jean Paul Sartre (and make no mistake, his idea of freedom involves individuals not even standing one-another and wanting them killed). If I have any reservations towards the Second Amendment, it’s in order to prevent a sicko like Sartre from using it to allow for that. Even Thomas Jefferson seemed to think that based on his cheerleading the Jacobins and his advocation of “a revolution per decade” that comes across as too similar to Trotsky, Che Guevara, and Ernst Rohm.
You are 100 percent correct. My 45 is a weapon and will fire with no magazine inserted. The mag is not a weapon but is still covered by the 2A
Yes, and in fact, that’s EXACTLY the reason why I’m wary of the Second Amendment, because of it being misused and thus rendered junk as a result. Unlike the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, which DID in fact do gun control, the French Revolutionaries DIDN’T utilize such, which makes it even WORSE.
You like It,,,
Trouble is that “They Are Not!”
They keep chipping at the 2A.
Thank you for being honest about it.
We are all ignorant about many areas - and I’ll start with myself. Part of what is great about FR is that there is a wealth of knowledge and experience that we have as a group, and we should all (as you have) welcome it when someone else clues us in on the facts (hopefully in a polite manner).
FReegards.
Now where does "don't like them" == "outlaw the 2nd Amendment"?
So you found a thesaurus with fancy words in it. You still accused me of making death threats, something I don’t appreciate or take lightly.
You have much experience firing a 10.5” 5.56 AR in “tight spaces?” And then “acquiring the target?” I’ll keep my silencer, thank you.
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.