Trump on Silencers

[keystone183]

So, the president has weighed in on 'silencers', now. You can watch the interview with Piers Morgan at the link. I don't get the warm fuzzies when i hear him talk about firearms. His administration has been less (i'll argue much less, actually a disaster) than gun friendly. If you care to let him (some lackey) know how YOU feel about suppressors, I think it would be a great idea!

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1136166290329145345

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[LR1955]

Guys:

If anyone tries to use this post as a forum to rant against Trump, I will ban you for at least a month. It is that simple.

I didn't tolerate it with Obama and won't with Trump.

You can criticize his stance on suppressors and bump stocks but it better remain civil.

LR55

[keystone183]

Wow.

So, perhaps you can give some guidelines to differentiate between rants and criticisms?

[LRRPF52]

This is why we have checks and balances, and suppressor ownership is already legislated.

A President simply does not have the power, no matter who he is, to change any of the legislation on anything.

From what I gather from the interview, he was reacting to loaded questions from Piers, not laying out any kind of policy initiative or priority for his Administration.

I've seen some people try to compare the bumpstock ban saying suppressors are next.

Not even close.

Bumpstocks were "granted" their legal existence by ATF extrajudicial "rulings", which came into the spotlight with Vegas.

Even though I personally see the 1934 NFA as the biggest infringement on the 2A in our Nation's history looking at Federal legislation under the perverse FDR Administration, the powers that be looking at bumpstocks in reference to NFA were focused on whether those devices constituted machine-guns or not. We all know from a technical standpoint, bumpstocks are a workaround that require the trigger to be activated each time for the firearm to discharge, but the end result was still a high rate of fire equivalent to that of a machine-gun.

Suppressors are not work-arounds to the NFA, as they are already covered by NFA.

I would like to see suppressor regulation totally thrown out from the NFA and zero regulations on them, but every time we gain traction with HPA, some perpetrator either shoots up the Congressional Republican baseball team, guns down a bunch of people at a concert, or shoots up a school.

HPA had traction and sailed out of committee if you recall, even with the opposition's star witness, David Chipman, who was ShotSpotter's North American Sales Rep and is a retired ATF anti-2A activist/profiteer.

You can see his twitter feed, which is a shameless front for ShotSpotter. They even comment in his feed (which is probably him commenting with ShotSpotter's account).

But of all the things Trump is focused on, this isn't one of them.

[keystone183]

My worry is that, much like with bumpstocks, trump will just tell the BATF to do something, and they'll gladly do it. There are a litany of ways they could make new purchases incredibly difficult if not a defacto ban. Clearly ATF is the problem, and as you say bumpstocks were "granted" legal status (under an administration that was rhetorically less gun friendly) even though we all know they clearly SHOULDN'T need the blessing of the gov. But, again, i get no warm fuzzies knowing this.

I certainly hope you are right that he isn't focused on this, but given his unpredictability, and track record, i don't know why i should have any confidence in that. It certainly doesn't hurt to let them know anyhow.

[stanc]

This is why we have checks and balances, and suppressor ownership is already legislated.

A President simply does not have the power, no matter who he is, to change any of the legislation on anything.

From what I gather from the interview, he was reacting to loaded questions from Piers, not laying out any kind of policy initiative or priority for his Administration.

The question ("Would you llike to see [silencers] banned?") was no more "loaded" than what he was asked in 2017 ("Should bump stocks be banned?").

In both cases his response was, "I'm going to look into it." It's a matter of historical record that after "looking into it," Trump ordered the bump stock ban.

What he will do in this instance remains to be seen.

[LR1955]

Guys:

So, let me understand this thing.

A reporter asks President Trump a leading question and Trump says he will 'look into it'. And this somehow turns into a threat against someone who wants to go through all the Federal laws in order to buy a suppressor?

This seems like a reporter inventing a story and then presenting it as fact in order to divide those who support President Trump.

LR55

[keystone183]

In the words of president Trump.... Wrong. He didn't like them before he went to gb and talked to that pompous ass morgan.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-46/

[keystone183]

Furthermore, (sorry, can't edit for some reason on phone) what this is about is being concerned by a president who, if you listen to him at all, clearly doesn't understand the 2nd ammendment, and has a track record of being detrimental to gun owners rights........ Suddenly getting suppressors on his radar. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be concerned!

[LR1955]

Furthermore, (sorry, can't edit for some reason on phone) what this is about is being concerned by a president who, if you listen to him at all, clearly doesn't understand the 2nd ammendment, and has a track record of being detrimental to gun owners rights........ Suddenly getting suppressors on his radar. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be concerned!

keystone:

OK -- was the intent of the thread to be your opinion of President Trump or was it to inform us of a potential move against silencers?

I believe LRRP52 pretty much covered the legality of such a move and basically the President needs legislation to ban silencers. And even Stan said he would have to wait and see what happens.

Somehow I don't think Trump cares too much about silencers right now.

LR55

[grayfox]

I didn't like hearing he said it, but I too don't think he's that serious; he has a lot of other, actually important, issues on the plate that he's working.
Somehow even if the house were to pass something I don't think the senate would follow.
The total irony of all this is that silencers per se wouldn't have affected the Va Beach tragedy (which is where this latest ques comes from)... in fact our white-clad Guvnah heah in Vuh-ginnia has a laundry list of 2A infringements in mind, none of which would have done a thing to prevent or minimize the Va Beach, gun-free zone religious fanatic shooter event.

[keystone183]

keystone:

OK -- was the intent of the thread to be your opinion of President Trump or was it to inform us of a potential move against silencers?

I believe LRRP52 pretty much covered the legality of such a move and basically the President needs legislation to ban silencers. And even Stan said he would have to wait and see what happens.

Somehow I don't think Trump cares too much about silencers right now.

LR55

lr:

Its obvious you take personal offense to whatever you deem as slights to the president. Got it. I'm not sure how you can any way confuse the purpose of this thread. A president with a track record of infringing on gun rights now speaks poorly of silencers. WHY WOULD ANYBODY NOT BE CONCERNED???!??!?!?!?!?! Of course this was to inform!!!!!!! And again, LRRP's coverage of the legality was thorough, but when has legality stopped presidents before?? Perhaps you aren't reading all my posts, or do you not acknowledge that legislation isn't needed to seriously impact the acquisition of suppressors, or sbr's, or binary triggers, or hell triggers with a short reset?

Again, i certainly HOPE he doesn't care much about them, but I encourage everyone to use that link i posted to make sure they get the message! Hope is a poor strategy!

[RMiller]

The worst part of the video is that Piers Morgan was simply trolling Trump with the comment about banning suppressors.

"Sound Moderators" are legal in England.

[lazyengineer]

This is why we have checks and balances, and suppressor ownership is already legislated.

A President simply does not have the power, no matter who he is, to change any of the legislation on anything.

From what I gather from the interview, he was reacting to loaded questions from Piers, not laying out any kind of policy initiative or priority for his Administration.

I've seen some people try to compare the bumpstock ban saying suppressors are next.

Not even close.

Bumpstocks were "granted" their legal existence by ATF extrajudicial "rulings", which came into the spotlight with Vegas.

Even though I personally see the 1934 NFA as the biggest infringement on the 2A in our Nation's history looking at Federal legislation under the perverse FDR Administration, the powers that be looking at bumpstocks in reference to NFA were focused on whether those devices constituted machine-guns or not. We all know from a technical standpoint, bumpstocks are a workaround that require the trigger to be activated each time for the firearm to discharge, but the end result was still a high rate of fire equivalent to that of a machine-gun.

Suppressors are not work-arounds to the NFA, as they are already covered by NFA.

I would like to see suppressor regulation totally thrown out from the NFA and zero regulations on them, but every time we gain traction with HPA, some perpetrator either shoots up the Congressional Republican baseball team, guns down a bunch of people at a concert, or shoots up a school.

HPA had traction and sailed out of committee if you recall, even with the opposition's star witness, David Chipman, who was ShotSpotter's North American Sales Rep and is a retired ATF anti-2A activist/profiteer.

You can see his twitter feed, which is a shameless front for ShotSpotter. They even comment in his feed (which is probably him commenting with ShotSpotter's account).

But of all the things Trump is focused on, this isn't one of them.

This. 100% this. Very well stated. Only bummer I have is the potential added delays of a rush; right when I was thinking about getting one.

[LR1955]

lr:

Its obvious you take personal offense to whatever you deem as slights to the president. Got it. I'm not sure how you can any way confuse the purpose of this thread. A president with a track record of infringing on gun rights now speaks poorly of silencers. WHY WOULD ANYBODY NOT BE CONCERNED???!??!?!?!?!?! Of course this was to inform!!!!!!! And again, LRRP's coverage of the legality was thorough, but when has legality stopped presidents before?? Perhaps you aren't reading all my posts, or do you not acknowledge that legislation isn't needed to seriously impact the acquisition of suppressors, or sbr's, or binary triggers, or hell triggers with a short reset?

Again, i certainly HOPE he doesn't care much about them, but I encourage everyone to use that link i posted to make sure they get the message! Hope is a poor strategy!

Keystone:

I did not critique your post where you said you did not believe President Trump understood the 2A. Why didn't I come down on you? Because it was a civil criticism and not a rant.

Once again, I have no problem with civil criticism. Evidence is that I did not comment on your assertion that Trump doesn't know much about the 2A. I do have problems with guys going on rants because they don't like Trump. I did not tolerate insults to Obama and won't to Trump. Civil criticism -- absolutely. Insulting and mostly vulgar rants about Trump or any other President -- negative.

Back to your post. Your original post called the people who work for Trump 'lackeys'. And now you expect those 'lackeys' to respect your opinion?

Yes, you are correct that guys who care about silencers need to pay attention and to get involved. Being forceful and not giving ground usually wins.

My view is that this will die.

LR55