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 ...
Sorry, but Cruz lost and pretty much everyone here agrees that he would have also lost to HRC.
So who’s your great Second Amendment savior? Bill Weld?
In other words, we take what you get and leave the bitching to the leftists.
Many ignorant people on Free Republic. Repeat often:
“Many ranges are being closed because of people spuriously complaining about the noise of firearms. Suppressors would solve that problem.
Also, there are legitimate game hunting and vermin control applications for suppressors. Hunting feral hog, shooting deer (if you miss, you don’t spook the animal) and more. Additionally, unsuppressed firearms, even if you wear hearing protection *will* cause hearing damage over years of even sporadic use.”
Yes, it was your mistake.
“Congratulations. You have made the most ignorant remark on the thread. GW PUT DOWN A REBELLION. IT WASN’T ABOUT WEAPONS, IT WAS ABOUT NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES!!!! “
Okay, fine, my mistake. I’ll concede defeat regarding that bit. However, I WILL point out that the French Revolution was all for guns, even during the Reign of Terror, allowing lots of people to have them, and yet they still killed each other for fun.
Well regulated as a phrase is meant to put the government as powerless to restrict when it was put in the carefully constructed document it is found in during the 18th century as a document that was meant to restrict government intrusion in private lives.
The meaning puts us as our own regulators. You don’t need a babysitter to tell you to defend yourself or how to defend yourself.
“People can be solidly pro-2A and still draw the line at different places. I’m curious, where do you draw the line? Is there any type of weapon that you would prohibit? Machine guns? Flamethrowers? Bazookas?
That might sound snarky, but it’s not meant to be. I’m genuinely curious.”
The intent of the founding fathers was for the people to have sufficient arms of the types used by soldiers to defend their state from foreign invasion or themselves from a government that has shredded the law and become a tyrant.
I am in favor of possession being unregulated for law abiding citizens for anything that 1) a soldier on foot would carry and use and 2) does not pose a danger by its unattended presence and does not require special knowledge or equipment to store safely.
Just letting you know many of the good reasons to use a suppressor, so that you may pass it on to others and use the info to verbally beat liberals with. :)
Also, liberals complain about how loud guns are - yet they resist or refuse to let us install “gun mufflers” to solve that problem. It is worth noting that the countries in the EU and elsewhere that do allow some level of civilian firearms ownership often do not regulate suppressors much more than they do car mufflers and in many cases civilian sport shooting and hunting in those countries *requires* the use of suppressors for shooters’ health and safety reasons as well as to avoid disturbing the peace. The only place “suppressor” = “bad guy tool” is in the US.
“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.”
Like I said, I’m glad he’s president. 2A stuff is the only significant policy mistake he’s made, but it’s a doozy. If the dems weren’t so hair on fire nuts right now it would’ve already sunk him and he’d deserve it, but he’s getting more leeway than normal because the other side is literally insane.
False.
He also banned bump stocks, an item legally purchased and owned by half a million Americans, who were forced to surrender their property or face the threat of a decade in prison. Adding insult to injury, no compensation was offered for this unjust taking of property. Is that a “2 cent complaint” or an example of defending the 2d Amendment?
If you don’t care about bump stocks, guess what - neither do I - but I do care about the precedent for banning legally purchased and owned items, with or without compensation paid to those owners.
Unjust taking of private property and defense of the 2d Amendment used to be important issues on this forum, just two of many things that were important to FReepers before a cult of personality became more important than actual conservative principles.
Using you rationale, is it right that some people in some States can buy full auto weapons and suppressor a, but not in other States? Do you resolve this by making all States abide by the most restrictive rules?
The liberal diety FDR..
There's so much ignorance in your post it's hard to know where to begin. So, I won't.
Interesting, thank you.
And I too am of course very much against this ongoing nibbling around the edges of the 2A.
“Heck, the Wild West had loads of citizens owning guns, and many times that was reputed to be utter lawlessness.”
This is largely a Hollywood lie. Violent crime on the frontier was relatively low. Skirmishes with Native American tribes was another matter.
“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:”
If the people have degnerated to that level of moral corruption, existence or non-existence of arms in the hands of the people will not stop them from butchering each other, but it might save the few who have not so degenerated by giving them an option to fight back.
“And just as an FYI, I’m pro-second amendment, at least insofar as people have a right to defend themselves.”
This leads me to believe you are, in fact, not pro-2A or you don’t understand what it means. You’re going to have to be more specific though.
You are a subversive loony.
Well, you’ve convinced me it’s actually quite necessary (the only time I’ve seen suppressors used is in games like Metal Gear Solid dealing with black ops, and not necessarily a bad guy tool, since the guy you play and thus technically a good guy is a black ops operative/mercenary).
And quite frankly, I don’t see what the fuss is about Trump claiming that he didn’t like suppressors. That’s not enough to indicate he wanted to ban it. Now, if he said “I don’t like them and want to make sure they’re gone”, THEN you can complain about it. Heck, if someone wanted to use the Second Amendment to encourage people to do something like this, in other words, promote the second amendment specifically to do school shootings constantly for fun, I’d actually be against the Second Amendment in that limited regard, as would most of the Founding Fathers other than MAYBE Thomas Jefferson and/or Thomas Paine based on their love for the Jacobins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFwBhZniiQ
Sadly, no. It is true. Hearing protection slows down the hearing loss but the US military has found that extended exposure to an unsuppressed firearm does cause permanent hearing loss.
I already got it covered. :P
“I agree he doesn’t “get it” about them, but they could be banned and your right to defend yourself has not been altered.”
That is a lie.
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.