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 ...
Hiram Maxim patented it as a “silencer”, though the tacticool crowd has taken to tr term “suppressors”, and pinching the front slide from underneath (to clear the racegun optic that isn’t on their pistol). They also call some soldiers and sailors “operators” these days too. I always laugh at that one, my mom was am operator. Silencer is a legitimate term.
For a guy that claims to know something, you seem to be sadly fixated on one particular weapons technology when the Second Amendment clearly applies to any and all weapons technologies.
For what it’s worth, an email from GOA:
“Dear XX,
You may have already seen the news. But President Trump has nominated an anti-gunner to lead the ATF.
His name is Chuck Canterbury, and he is the president of the anti-gun Fraternal Order of Police.
Sadly, Canterbury has a long track record that should concern gun owners:
He’s testified before Congress to support anti-gunners like Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Attorney General Eric Holder.
Under his watch, the FOP backed Congressional measures to expand the unconstitutional and failing NICS system — which is the same system where 95% of the initial denials are false positives.
And on the state level, the FOP under his watch has supported Universal Background Checks and opposed Constitutional Carry.
Please email your U.S. Senators and urge them to reject the Canterbury nomination. GOA will be sending follow-up alerts when the Senate comes back in session. So stay tuned for additional updates.”
Silencer is also what ATF calls it, and what I call it on my Form 1’s when I register the ones I make for myself. I wish they silenced my gun, or even made it OSHA hearing safe. They don’t (at least in 5.56), nothing “silent” about it.
It applies only to the arms we need to defend ourselves. PERIOD!
Why don’t you try reading the Amendment over yourself.
WRONG. Utterly, catastrophically, incontrovertibly wrong. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried to be wrong.
Your words prove all that is needed as well as the source
Nothing more need to be said, I have been on this site for almost 20 years and I have seen many of your ilk and the latest infestation is nothing new
A silencer by itself is not a weapon. It is not armament. It cannot be loaded or fired.
You can throw a hissy fit for months or years on end, but that isn’t going to change. And the sad thing is, the longer you make this false claim, the less credibility you have.
Loading the rebuttal with charged words to try and buttress your claim just makes you look more desperate to get someone to acquiesce to your numbskull claim.
I’m not wrong here, even though you have used that childish tactic.
Once again, Trump did not propose to or ban silencers.
Your hissy fit doesn’t even have a legitimate cause at this point.
Back to the tiresome, old, irrelevant fixation on firearms. "Arms" is completely open ended. Deal with it.
the less credibility you have.
So says the guy who has no credibility whatsoever.
Goodbye.
Thank you for conceding.
You had nothing and that’s exactly what I told you early on.
A silencer is not a weapon. You hissing and loaning doesn’t change reality.
The second amendment does not guarantee you a silencer.
Duh!
Clarification:
...the right to own a silencer.
My, aren’t you the fickle little bird?
First, you substitute “educate” for “castigate. Then you, by some process I can’t even imagine, equate that to death threats; followed by recommendations for reading comprehension remediation, and accusations of cribbing from a thesaurus! (pro tip: unless you speak multiple foreign languages, I recommend you at least become articulate in your own.)
But tell me, how much of your inconsistency do I have to point out before can I drop the rather charitable “little bird” for petulant female dog?
Do the Feds have the rite to ban silencers? If yes, where in the cons is this power found?
If something isn’t guaranteed, it’s free game.
The Constitution doesn’t limit the ability of Congress to set laws for things that aren’t protected.
I appreciate the angle you’re trying to pursue there, but I think you’re missing the point.
Congress makes laws all the time that set limits or bans.
What was the refrigerant that was banned years ago? CFCs? Can’t remember the exact name now.
Wrong. Again. As usual. "Arms" isn't limited to firearms. You know it. I know it. We all know it. You simply won't admit it in public for reasons only you can know.
Sorry you haven’t the tools to grasp this topic, but you are dead wrong.
You have given me nothing but, “I am right and you are wrong.”
Silencers do not:
Increase velocity
Increase accuracy
Increase impact
Increase kill rates
or make it possible for a gun to function when it otherwise wouldn’t.
It is not a weapon, and is not integral to the performance of a weapon.
You lose.
It is not an armament.
To repeat myself, since it hasn’t sunken in yet.
In addition to what I just posted to you, a silencer cannot be loaded or fired.
Is is a worthless piece of merchandise on it’s own, a non-lethal device.
It is not an armament.
A tripod could be construed to be integral to the function of a gun.
A larger magazine could be construed to be integral to the function of a gun.
A magazine is not a weapon, but it is also integral.
Even a screw holding a gun together is integral.
Yes, you are right, not everything has to be a weapon in and of itself.
A silencer is not an integral part of a weapon, and the weapon can operate fully without it.
Are you familiar with the enumerations? For any real conservative, it is THE heart soul and essence of the cons.
Best post of the thread. These people sound like the Dems accusing Trump of obstruction of justice because he may have had thoughts about doing something that could lead to something that might be construed as contemplating obstruction of justice. Same here. He made a comment about his distaste for silencers. That’s a far cry from trying to change the law on the matter.
Game, Set, Match.
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.