POTUS Showing His Gun Control Colors Again

White House Comment Log ^ | 6-2-2019 | White House Comment Log

[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.”

[NorthMountain]

The question was: "Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?"

The correct answer is "They already are." You do know that, right?

Instead, he stepped on his own feet. Again.

[PreciousLiberty]

“What’s the purpose of suppressors? I thought those were only used by hit men on TV. I’m pro 2A and noise control isn’t part of it.”

Like President Trump, you should educate yourself before pontificating for all to see.

Noise control is a crucial concern for hunters in particular. It’s also great at the range where every time you fire you’re potentially damaging nearby shooter’s ears. The military should make them standard equipment on the next generation 6.5 Creedmoor battle rifle.

Silencers don’t really sound like they do in the movies. Any supersonic round will produce a crack as the bullet passes, which is a small sonic boom. Also, the suppressor does nothing to quiet the operation of the action, and there’s still substantial muzzle blast with most loads. What they actually do is either greatly reduce or eliminate ear damage, and they also help with recoil.

We’re now allowed to use silencers when hunting here in SC. I’ll do so once I pay my extra $200 fee, and endure the 9+ month wait for approval. At the moment you have to do that for each suppressor you buy. That really ought to be fixed...

[AmericanCheeseFood]

Shall not be infringed.

Anything should be permitted, it’s when the weapon is used on others unlawfully that -the person using it- should be regulated. Be it to court, or to an early grave in response.

[backwoods-engineer]

No, he isn’t instinctively pro-2A. He’s from Noo Yawk, after all. But I’m praying we can get through his two administrations unscathed, because other than on the 2A, he’s the best President in my lifetime. Better than Reagan, who also was instinctively anti-2A, and who signed the ‘86 machine gun ban.

[otness_e]

Yeah, and Jefferson was all for killing tyrants with his watering the tree of liberty speech, yet he backed some of the worst tyrants in existence, the Jacobins, who were the direct forefathers for the Bolsheviks, Nazis, and various Communist groups.

And I never said I didn't like it, I was just saying that the founding fathers never exactly indicated such. And just as an FYI, you can have a dislike of guns yet still let people have them without banning them. My mom, like I said, is wary of guns, and yet she doesn't try to get them banned at all, and has even gone to a firing range once with my cousin-in-law to get over it.

I might as well point out also that the citizenry having guns isn't necessarily all good. Let me point out the French Revolution had the citizenry owning shotguns, yet last I checked, they just used it to slaughter each other solely for fun, not even to ward off tyranny. I'll even quote it from Operation Parricide:

"The "moderates" fared just as badly. Cities like Lyon, Toulon and Bordeaux, which were led by the Girondists against the Jacobins, were partially leveled and their inhabitants decimated. When the guillotining threatened to go too slowly, many victims were drowned and others were executed with shotguns, so that the crowds could revel in seeing them slowly bleed to death. (Napoleon, a Jacobin, and close friend of Robespierre, achieved his first victory by subduing "unruly" Toulon.)" Source: http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html

Note that it did not say military officials or even government officials were the ones doing this, just crowds, indicating civilians, and more likely, mobs.

Heck, the Wild West had loads of citizens owning guns, and many times that was reputed to be utter lawlessness.

And just as an FYI, I'm pro-second amendment, at least insofar as people have a right to defend themselves.

[NorthMountain]

Is there any type of weapon that you would prohibit?

No. The constitution doesn't allow it. The natural right of We the People doesn't allow it, either. If you don't like that, get an amendment passed.

[OKSooner]

"GTF out of here with your 2 cent complaint."

Thank you.

[semaj]

Trollin, trollin, keep those lefties trollin...

[JamesP81]

You’ve watched too many movies. Silencers don’t even come close to making gunfire “silent”.

You sound like an anti. “But what do you NEED those for?” None of your business. You believe in the 2A or you don’t.

Tell you what. I think maybe gun owners should support your conservative causes as much as you support theirs. I bet that would adjust some attitudes pretty quick.

[Bonemaker]

And they just go “pfffft” quietly when you shoot.

[backwoods-engineer]

You are Meryl ignorance. Silencers are silent. They massively reduce the noise signature. I have terrible hearing loss because silencers (and suppressed guns) are unnecessarily expensive in this country. Suppressors (actual name of silencers) are excellent for teaching new shooters. Cuts the noise and felt recoil.

[PreciousLiberty]

“To be fair, I’m doubtful the founding fathers necessarily envisioned silencers when they created the second amendment.”

They didn’t envision AR-15s to the exact same extent. Your point?

(An aside: “Fairness” is the most abused concept ever. See “socialism”, “social justice”, and “communism”.)

[otness_e]

After someone pointed out some stuff, I can think of some reasons now, namely preserving ear-lobes.

[backwoods-engineer]

You are merely ignoranct. Silencers are NOT silent. They massively reduce the noise signature. I have terrible hearing loss because silencers (and suppressed guns) are unnecessarily expensive in this country. Suppressors (actual name of silencers) are excellent for teaching new shooters. Cuts the noise and felt recoil.

[Vermont Lt]

I believe he is more ignorant about suppressors than he is against them. I think if folks “educated” him on this it would be good. Most people, especially urban dwellers, think of “hit men” when they think of them.

I would give the guy a break on this one. But his 2nd amendment stance is about as good as you will get from a Northeastern guy.

[Spktyr]

There’s also the sound of the action even with subsonics. Surprisingly loud.

[NorthMountain]

I was just saying that the founding fathers never exactly indicated such.

They deliberately left the Second Amendment open ended, just for people like you. It's open ended to cover things that had not yet been invented.

I'm pro-second amendment, at least insofar as people have a right to defend themselves.

Yes, people have the right to defend themselves from tyrants. The failure of some people to exercise that right properly in the past does not negate the right.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Suppressor is the most apt term for them. Who uses them? I do, for one, so my target shooting doesn’t disturb my neighbors. Not all of us live in the city limits. There are numerous other good reasons to use them, involving health and safety. I’ll let you try and figure those out on your own.

[Vermont Lt]

The second amendment says nothing about suppressors. That is a stretch.

I agree he doesn’t “get it” about them, but they could be banned and your right to defend yourself has not been altered.

[backwoods-engineer]

So, suppressors are not part of the 2A? Who are you to say? I bet you have NEVER shot a suppressed gun. Go to a free state and try it. You’ll love it.