Suppressors may be next on Trump’s list

[Chucktshoes]

The president decided to expound further on his thoughts regarding suppressors with none other than our good old buddy, Piers Morgan. 

"I'd like to think about it. I mean nobody's talking about silencers very much. I did talk about the bump stock and we had it banned and we're looking at that. I'm going to seriously look at it. I don't love the idea of it," the president told Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-banning-gun-silencers/story?id=63502902

 

[Garufa]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

The president decided to expound further on his thoughts regarding suppressors with none other than our good old buddy, Piers Morgan. 

 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-banning-gun-silencers/story?id=63502902

 

Was he wearing his “Churchill hat” while discussing domestic issues with that pompous British ass?

[DaveTN]

Quote

 

“Piers in London you have stabbings all over where everyone is being stabbed,” the president said adding that he heard London hospitals described were described as “a sea of blood all over the floor.”

“It's a sea of blood. And they don't have a gun,” the president said. When asked by Morgan what he could do to change his mindset about gun violence, the president stated, “talk about it.”

“It's a very tough subject," he said. "But the bad guys are not getting rid of their guns pretty much everybody agrees with that."

 

He has to walk a fine line. He can’t tell the background check folks to piss up a rope and the gun folks can’t elect him on their own. We will see how he works the art of the deal.

Bump stocks don’t mean zip; there aren’t 9 people out there that give a rip or believe Trump turned his back on gun owners over them. Suppressors are another story. They are already illegal for everyone other than those willing to pay the tax. I doubt he is thinking about banning them for everyone; but who knows. Since he isn’t running his mouth a lot, I don’t think he is up to speed on these issues.

[beebee233]

7 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Sure I can, I can argue it either way. You won’t agree with me if I make a case on why they banned; so I won’t try. Money can't bring bump stocks back; so it matters not what either of us think.

I don’t agree with the way he did it. I’m just saying the ban was inevitable and he seized the opportunity.

During the Vegas shooting all the so call “gun experts” were saying “That’s automatic weapon fire!” including myself.

So when I heard it was bump stocks, common sense told me they were gone; regardless of what I thought about it.

Kamila Harris or whatever Dem gets in is already going to try an executive order outlawing private sales without a background check. They have already said that and it has nothing to do with what Trump does. They will then try an AR ban; turning all of us that refuse to comply into criminals. I suspect states will step in and that will quickly go to the SCOTUS. I guess how fast could depend on who they appoint AG.

I know you think he a tyrant. But he is the elected President. I said the same thing right here when people called for the impeachment of Obama. He was elected not once, but twice. You can’t impeach a President because you don’t like him. I hated him and I think he did more to hurt this country than any President I have ever seen; and I believe it was intentional. The voters disagreed with me.

However, beyond that, to compare Trump to Obama on gun control is laughable; it can’t be discussed seriously.

I don't think they disagreed. I think they got what they wanted. They just haven't gotten enough yet.

[GlockSpock]

5 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

He has to walk a fine line. He can’t tell the background check folks to piss up a rope and the gun folks can’t elect him on their own. We will see how he works the art of the deal.

Bump stocks don’t mean zip; there aren’t 9 people out there that give a rip or believe Trump turned his back on gun owners over them. Suppressors are another story. They are already illegal for everyone other than those willing to pay the tax. I doubt he is thinking about banning them for everyone; but who knows. Since he isn’t running his mouth a lot, I don’t think he is up to speed on these issues.

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.

[GlockSpock]

5 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

That process is in the works as we speak by folks at GOA and others. It’s a shame the NRA isn’t doing a damn thing to help  

*Tangent* While we agree on almost nothing, Dave, I have to say I really do enjoy our discussions. You help me to not be a lazy debator.

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.

[DaveTN]

29 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

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.

Why the distress over the NRA? They couldn’t do anything; no votes were for sale. NRA, GOA, fill in your favorite gun rights group…. they either buy votes or they pay for legal action. No one was voting and the legal action went as far as it could go…..twice.

I can’t believe I’m saying this…. money would not have helped. Dang man, that comes from someone that believes money can buy happiness and if it can’t; it sure can rent it. It hurt me to say that.

The 2020 election is a long way off and a lot could change by then. But if you care anything about gun rights or privileges, especially being able to keep your AR’s, I’ll bet you don’t have anyone other than Trump to vote for.

[GlockSpock]

16 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Why the distress over the NRA? They couldn’t do anything; no votes were for sale. NRA, GOA, fill in your favorite gun rights group…. they either buy votes or they pay for legal action. No one was voting and the legal action went as far as it could go…..twice.

I can’t believe I’m saying this…. money would not have helped. Dang man, that comes from someone that believes money can buy happiness and if it can’t; it sure can rent it. It hurt me to say that.

The 2020 election is a long way off and a lot could change by then. But if you care anything about gun rights or privileges, especially being able to keep your AR’s, I’ll bet you don’t have anyone other than Trump to vote for.

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.

Edited June 5, 2019 by GlockSpock

[DaveTN]

20 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

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.

Because even the all powerful NRA could not promise Trump anything if he stayed out of the Bump Stock fray. A lot of Americans wanted something for Vegas. The guy that did it was dead; so it was Bump Stocks or go through the AR heat again. The choice was simple.

 Sorry that you and 8 of your friends  didn’t make the cut. But sometimes that’s just how it works out.

 

[GlockSpock]

7 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Because even the all powerful NRA could not promise Trump anything if he stayed out of the Bump Stock fray. A lot of Americans wanted something for Vegas. The guy that did it was dead; so it was Bump Stocks or go through the AR heat again. The choice was simple.

 Sorry that you and 8 of your friends  didn’t make the cut. But sometimes that’s just how it works out.

 

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.

[Capbyrd]

On 6/5/2019 at 6:21 PM, DaveTN said:

The 2020 election is a long way off and a lot could change by then. But if you care anything about gun rights or privileges, especially being able to keep your AR’s, I’ll bet you don’t have anyone other than Trump to vote for.

Modern history has shown the GOP to be the party to take away gun rights.   The only thing that the Democrats have done in my lifetime was the 94 AWB and that was temporary.   In that same amount of time, every time a Republican has been in power, the changes have been permanent.    

[Chucktshoes]

4 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

Modern history has shown the GOP to be the party to take away gun rights.   The only thing that the Democrats have done in my lifetime was the 94 AWB and that was temporary.   In that same amount of time, every time a Republican has been in power, the changes have been permanent.    

This isn’t an exhortation to vote for Democrats, but one to stop believing and trusting Republican politicians when they say they support your 2A rights. They don’t. They just want your votes and have no qualms about lying to you to get them. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Chucktshoes

[Capbyrd]

3 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

This isn’t an exhortation to vote for Democrats, but one to stop believing and trusting Republican politicians when they say they support your 2A rights. They don’t. They just want your votes and have no qualms about lying to you to get them. 

Correct!  


Also, I just realized that the 94 AWB, or Brady Bill, was championed by a lifelong Republican.   Only more reason not to trust them. 

[GlockSpock]

Who was president during 1988?

[Capbyrd]

1 minute ago, GlockSpock said:

Who was president during 1988?

Reagan but what happened in 88? 

[GlockSpock]

5 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

Reagan but what happened in 88? 

My bad. 1986. 

But my point still stands. 

[Capbyrd]

24 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

My bad. 1986. 

But my point still stands. 

What point?  You didn't make a point.   Do you mean the affirmation of my point?  Or were you trying to contradict me and accidentally agreed with my point?  I'm confused.  

[GlockSpock]

24 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

What point?  You didn't make a point.   Do you mean the affirmation of my point?  Or were you trying to contradict me and accidentally agreed with my point?  I'm confused.  

Hughes Amendment. Signed by Reagan. 

Wasn’t a point to or against you, but rather the “Republicans are the only ones that protect the 2nd Amendment” people. 

[GlockSpock]

And to be fair, the Gun Owners Protection Act did offer some good things, but the Hughes Amendment was dirty politics. Reagan could have sent it back and demanded that the Hughes Amendment be removed but didn’t. 

[DaveTN]

Good. Maybe we can get one of those pro-gun democrats elected. And maybe they will change the minds of a bunch of democrats in congress.

Maybe we can get that gun-hating Trump out and replace him with a gun loving President that will get 2nd amendment rights recognized for all.

 

 

[GlockSpock]

4 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Good. Maybe we can get one of those pro-gun democrats elected. And maybe they will change the minds of a bunch of democrats in congress.

Maybe we can get that gun-hating Trump out and replace him with a gun loving President that will get 2nd amendment rights recognized for all.

 

 

I'm on board with everything you just said

In all seriousness, my only thought was that there are indeed Pro Gun Democrats and history shows there are plenty of anti gun Republicans.

[Capbyrd]

58 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Good. Maybe we can get one of those pro-gun democrats elected. And maybe they will change the minds of a bunch of democrats in congress.

Maybe we can get that gun-hating Trump out and replace him with a gun loving President that will get 2nd amendment rights recognized for all.

 

 

 

 

No-one said that.   You are inferring something which was not implied. 

[btq96r]

On 6/13/2019 at 6:21 AM, DaveTN said:

Good. Maybe we can get one of those pro-gun democrats elected. And maybe they will change the minds of a bunch of democrats in congress.

They won't change the minds of Democrats in Congress, but I have a feeling they'd change the Republicans back into rabid 2A supporters again.  Seems we only have a defense of gun rights when the "other side" is leading the charge against.

[Chucktshoes]

41 minutes ago, btq96r said:

They won't change the minds of Democrats in Congress, but I have a feeling they'd change the Republicans back into rabid 2A supporters again.  Seems we only have a defense of gun rights when the "other side" is leading the charge against.

Bingo.