GlockSpock

No. But the obnoxious FIRES WITHOUT MAGAZINE on the side is.

Ok. Did any of you know that the STR-9 FIRES WITHOUT MAGAZINE?

True to that specific instance. I was referring to politicians as a whole, not judges or even Supreme Court Judges in particular. You're not wrong, but they aren't doing it so oh well. I think they are too afraid of rocking the boat or causing everyone to get in a tizzy fit.

At this point, only money and the threat of not being elected again would cause any political to take a Pro 2nd Amendment stance seriously. In my opinion, it's just a talking point for most of them. I too wish things could inch that direction instead of slide the other, but we have what we have.

Merged with my existing thread, @E4 No More. Kept your title and location. Yeah, disappointing but it really doesn't surprise me in the least. If they were going to give Kansas and thus all other states the right to nullify existing federal firearm laws, that would be one of the biggest gun wins the country has seen since the Bill of Rights.

Yeah...the nine of us are a pretty tight group. We'll stand up for your rights even if you don't ours And I think you nailed it. Every single time a "groundbreaking" shooting happens, as long as there is something to point a finger at other than Evil itself (then it was bump stocks, now it seems to be suppressors, at some point it will simply be detachable magazines and semi-automatic functions), it seems Trump is easily persuadable to join anti-gun batter. Seems like a weak president that cannot simply say "Bump stocks were approved under the Obama administration. We will honor that decision. If you don't like it change the law via legislation, but just know I will not sign any bill containing anti-gun material while in office". Again, Republican House and Congress, all he had to do was say "not now, you can try when you're in office". He isn't afraid of saying stupid things regarding anything else (pornstars, Russia, Wikileaks, etc). Why couldn't he just hold strong regarding that? If he had done that, he would have gained my support for 2020. Instead, he single handedly abandoned the one issue I care most about. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT STILL HE DID SOMETHING. It would not surprise me in the least if he encouraged Congress, right now, to put together an anti suppressor bill. Again, I'll reinforce, we DID NOT HAVE TO PLAY THE BUMP STOCK OR AR HEAT, YOU PICK ONE BUT NOT BOTH GAME.

My Wife had them at 18 or 19 when we were dating. Sucks. I feel for you but have no advice.

You are likely 99.9% correct regarding Trump in 2020. It'll be him vs. someone very, very anti-gun. But that doesn't mean the fine folks here at TGO will be spared from hearing me complain about Trump's fallacies. So...no votes were for sale? I guess that's a fact. But surely, surely the "monstrous" NRA that the left seems to be so afraid of could have met with Trump? Surely, surely Wayne could have met with Trump, stated that the NRA supported all gun rights, and that if he pushed the anti gun/anti bump stock agenda, they'd have to lower their support rating of him and write critical articles of him. They could have simply suggested that doing so would cause him to lose the support of some gun owners, which would translate to less votes. What did they do instead? https://home.nra.org/joint-statement And that...is the single reason I refuse to give a dime or even a penny to the worthless, filthy organization known as the NRA. But hey, it's their priority to reverse the Hughes Amendment.

Another tangent coming from me as well. I love this comment, and it inspired me to make the following statement. I love TGO and all of its contributing, fruitful members. I myself and not like some people, let me define "some people" in that regard, can argue all day long with my best friend and not get mad. Some people: Refers to some people I've met over my lifetime. Friends, family, coworkers, etc. "Those guys" that everyone knows at least one of. So. I'm not like "some people" in the sense that I can disagree 100% with someone on basically anything and/or everything. I can still consider that person a good friend. I don't have to agree with someone somewhat or mostly in order to identify or find friendship with them. With many people (such as perhaps members here at TGO), I can find myself in a wonderful debate. I can disagree with someone 100%. As long as that person does not take personal offense as to who I am, I'm perfectly fine in finding friendship with that person. Anti-gun people, vegetarians, pro or anti LGBTQ people, global warming supports or planet coolers, democrats and/or liberals, I can generally call any of them my friend if they personally do not hate me for who I am. I am who I am, but if you respect me I can generally find room to respect you. A lot of what a person believes is shaped by their experiences. In different experiences, it may be possible that I'd hold vastly different values. For an example, if my mother was shot by a drunk guy wearing an NRA shirt, I may not be a gun supporter. I enjoy a good debate. It can be very beneficial. I enjoy debating issues for the fact that it keeps me open minded. It makes me defend my own opinions. Some people (again, read definition of "some people" shown above) only like hanging out with people that are like minded. I have the opinion that doing so is fine, but these people run the danger of confirmation bias and perhaps not challenging their opinions enough. Therefore sometimes I enjoy surrounding myself with people that hold different opinions. My thoughts on general topics in life? Test what you believe. Debate. Defend what you believe. Be open to the possibility that you could, at any point in time, be wrong about something.

Well I'm special. I am one of those 9. I sincerely believe Trump turned his back on gun owners over bump stocks. Are they worthless? Yes. Do I want one? No. Do I care that they are worthless and they are now considered a machine-gun and thus illegal? 100%. Republican House, Republican Senate at the time. Absolutely, 100% nothing had to be done at that time. He could have shown his sadness over Las Vegas and moved on. People said he was just "working the art of the deal, he's probably going to work something to trade bump stocks for the Hearing Protection Act". Well, he played hard, dealt hard, and got bump stocks classified as machine-guns. How? He suggested that the ATF review them to see if they should or should not be legal. What did we get? I'll ask again. What did we get? What...did...we...get? Where was the NRA? I honestly cannot even remember what the NRA was doing at the time. Yes I do, they needed money to fight the Democrats. Now Trump is making comments about not liking suppressors, not one bit. He likes the idea of banning them. So, what sort of awesome deal can he art for us this time? This is going to be great, especially if he wins another turn. He'll artfully negotiate our rights away one at a time, all the while Trump supporters will pretend to agree with it ---- pretend that he's got some long con game ---- pretend he's better than Obama for our rights ---- and then gripe during either the 2020 or 2024 election that Democrats are taking our rights/guns away. To be fair, I never considered Trump a pro-gun candidate. I thought he might be a less anti-gun president than Hilary, and so far I think I was correct. But Trump was not and is not pro-gun, he's Pro Trump and whatever tickles his boat and floats his fancy at the time. If he even has an inkling that he'd receive praise for signing away suppressors, I think he would do it. He doesn't care that they are already heavily regulated and taxed with stiff penalties for infractions. And either way, it's dangerous. If he does it by Executive Order that sets an extremely dangerous precedent and stage for true believers, truly anti-gun people. If he signs a bill passed by both the House and Senate, there is no telling what gets attached to it at the last moment (see Hughes Amendment for example). Yeah, I don't trust Trump with this or any gun related topics. I don't fear him as much as Hilary, but at least with Hilary we would have had gun owners united against her generally speaking. Now we have a lot of pro-gun people that are excusing the actions and words of Trump that would not be excused if it were Hilary in office.

Didn’t you read my previous post? The NRA is working on appealing the Hughes Amendment.

I will try to explain it, as I think about this a lot. Complacency. By us. I think we are much more vocal when someone such as "Obama and the Democrats" are "out to get our guns". But when we are "winning", time goes by and we forget. Since the Republicans are "our guys", we softly accept their answers of "now is not the time!" or "I tried but it didn't work". Us. That's the problem.

Trump...who has pro-gunningly "got more anti-gun stuff" done than Obama the Anti-Gunner.

I'm still waiting on this: Repealing the machine gun ban amendment tacked on to the McClure-Volkmer bill will be a high priority. Guess who! https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-nras-flip-flop-on-mac_b_2741689

Hey! It doesn't! And since someone beforehand mentioned the spirit of the law, don't all firearm restrictions violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment?

Maybe now is a better time, but I'm not very optimistic that the Supreme Court will essentially recognize state's rights on an issue that has been considered federal for so long. I also expect that all of this anti-abortion stuff will be struck down as well.

I personally doubt that the courts will side with Kettler. I think it has generally been shown that federal law supersedes state law when more strict. Marijuana has been something that the feds have largely ignored in the "legalized" states. I doubt machine-guns and/or suppressors would/will be ignored if you started seeings large/any sales without tax stamps. I agree with the spirit of these state laws, but I doubt they will be proven to carry any weight. At best they'll prevent local or state LEO's from making arrests for these federal crimes. I guess Kettler was either really optimistic or decided from the beginning that he wanted to be the test case.

Also, and while I fully admit that he did violate a federal law, where is the NRA in this process?

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/06/supreme-court-to-rule-on-us-army-vets-unconstitutional-gun-suppressor-this-week-after-national-controversy/

Received an email from GOA regarding Jeremy and Kansas. Long story short, he purchased a suppressor from an unlicensed manufacturer. Why? Kansas has a law stating that all firearms, accessories and ammo manufactured and possessed inside the state are exempt from federal law. GOA and several AG from other states are backing the appeals. I guess if the Supreme Court actually makes a ruling, this will affect us and the country for years to come. In wake of the recent shooting suppressors are already a hot topic, but theoretically if you took all the legal, taxed suppressors and developed a crime rate, I imagine it would be inexplicably low.

Although I don't have any personal experience with them, based on research and reviews I would personally purchase these.

Didn't I read some article somewhere stating that Gallatin wasn't proficient enough to produce certain models and they were moving certain lines back to Italy? Between the M9 and 92FS, there is this: https://www.snipercountry.com/beretta-m9-vs-92fs/

Isn't typing 20/20 longer than 2020?

The Swiss are heavily armed...less so in the personal realm and mores in the militia realm, if I recall correctly. It seems most citizens are issued automatic weapons...that are kept at a local depot. Maybe I'm pulling all this out of somewhere worthless.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/british-police-station-mocked-for-tweeting-photo-of-dangerous-knife-collection-that-includes-a-spoon