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 ...
Wait a minute, didn’t you claim over and over to have already answered? Now you say you won’t answer.
LOL
Well at least you’re up to third grade manipulations now.
LOL
Not gonna answer?
Okay, let’s play that game.
Why are you afraid to just make the statement you want to regarding that topic?
I think we all know.
LOL
Not going to cut to the chase and make your own statement on the topic?
LOL
Who said I wanted to make a statement?
LOL
Answer the questions.
Nah. If you’ve got a point make it.
I’m getting ready to exit the thread.
Well... Bye.
Reading your comments on this thread has been intriguingly confusing.
However, you mentioned combat and technical capabilities towards the end.
I don’t feel like piling on, so I will merely correct and clarify a few technical inaccuracies you seem to have acquired.
The requirements of combat are not only to shoot but to move and communicate.
In order to adequately perform the above, one needs a minimum of three senses in addition to mobility and equipment. Those being vision, hearing and feeling.
As for the capabilities of a suppressor, or silencer if you prefer, they do indeed increase velocity, and consequently, range and accuracy.
This is an effect of momentarily trapping the expanding gasses for cooling and forcing them through holes only slightly larger than the diameter of the originating barrel. It essentially acts as an extension to it while containing the muzzle blast.
If you are interested in observing this effect, I would recommend looking into some long range shooting videos. And one particular slow motion capture of an experimental clear suppressor.
Lastly, how are they “not arms”? I do not understand this reasoning.
A firearm operates. Ammunition makes the operation relevant. A barrel makes it directable. A magazine makes it repeatable. An optical device makes it accurate. A stock makes it comfortable. A shroud prevents burns. Muzzle devices redirect blast for effect.
Individually, they do nothing. They are parts. None are integral to the operation of a firearm.
But added to a firearm, they affect control and effects.
If they are parts of an arm, how are they not arms?
Is not a weapon the sum of its composition?
Bye...
I ain’t going anywhere.
Apparently not as pistols are regulated from having an affixed shoulder stock without Constitutional issue.
Do you know that In over 300 posts, you’re the only one to address those issues.
I don’t object to your clarifications, and if you are correct on matters of accuracy and velocity, then the silencer is elevated.
In that case I would deem it a necessary object to the functioning of the guns and indeed classify it as an integral part of the weapon, in which case a Second Amendment claim is valid.
Well, have fun.
Is that in the emoluments clause? Don’t know the difference between the emoluments clause and the enumerated powers doctrine. What a joke.
You poor thing. This is really messing with your head.
I said good bye in return to you saying good bye, and you informed me you weren’t leaving.
No brainiac. I told you I was.
As for tossing out the wrong name. I do that once in a while these days.
Make of it what you will. Your opinion ceased to matter the further our conversation lasted.
You poor thing.
Still afraid of those questions, I see.
Funny how you try to pass off your breathtaking ignorance of the cons as some kind of slip of the tongue.
You admitted right away that you didn’t know what the enumeration (the single most important part of the cons) was.
It’s still a part designed as an addition or improvement to a weapon, an “arm”. Does it not add to the sum of that weapon?
Much the same as an engine improves a car? Or the rubber in mounting brackets improve the engine?
The only problem with attaching it is one of law that appears to contravene what is supposed to be superseding law.
That and personal preference.
You know, for a guy who seems to think he cleaned my clock, you sure still seem to be trying awfully hard to convince yourself of it.
If you think you prevailed, you should be content with me leaving.
Sure.
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.