Trump is now considering suppressor ban

AlexanderA said:

Our mistake, as gun people, was in hoping that something positive, such as the Hearing Protection Act or national reciprocity, could have been accomplished with all parts of the government under one party. We were bitterly disappointed in that, since the pro-gun agenda wasn't even taken up, when the Republicans had the chance.

Click to expand...

Goes to show there are "Republican" law makers who are RINO (Republican In Name Only) and why pro-gun/2A bills/laws were not passed.

That's why we need to vote anti-gun/2A law makers out and pro-gun/2A law makers in.

We were fooled this time but won't be next time. We know who the RINOs are.

Thank goodness Paul Ryan is gone.

kidneyboy said:

more and more conservative pro 2a judges across the board and you guys are complaining.....

Click to expand...

Believe me, things could be way way worse right now.

We dodged a bullet in 2016.

Just because the Democrats are against us does not mean the Republicans are for us. It has been a case of voting for the lesser evil for a long time. But the lesser evil is still evil.

bds said:

So who are you going to vote for that will be more pro-gun/2A?

Click to expand...

The Libertarian presidential candidates throughout the years have consistently been more pro-gun than the Republicans. The Libertarian Party is solidly pro-2A.

SharpDog said:

Does your candidate have a chance to win ? Because, without winning, they can have no impact. Only take vote from others that may be able to act.

Click to expand...

That’s a very defeatist way to look at things. It’s also incorrect; they can still have an impact, and sometimes that impact is rather large. Me, I won’t vote for someone who is blatantly anti-Constitution and I also want my vote to mean something, so that’s why I voted Libertarian in the last election. Voting for a third party candidate (even if they have almost zero chance of winning) does several things:

-It often influences the political platforms of either (or both) of the two main political parties, especially when that third party pulls enough votes from those main parties. Look at how the Green Party has influenced the Democrats and the Tea Party has influenced the Republicans. People like Ralph Nader didn’t stand a chance of being elected, but the people voting for him still made a difference: The Democratic Party took notice of how many votes he was pulling from them, and they incorporated some of his politics into their platform in order to woo back his voters.

-If a third party gets just 5% of the popular vote in a presidential election, it gets federal election funding in the next election which will help them a lot. The Libertarian Party came within just over one percentage point of getting to that 5% threshold in 2016.

-Because of our electoral vote system, in many states voting for either a Democrat or a Republican is throwing your vote away since the outcome in that state is a foregone conclusion. But voting for a third party can help that party get to that 5% funding threshold and increase their performance (and also their major-party influence) in the next election. Last election I lived in a solidly blue state, so it didn’t matter which major party I voted for, Clinton was still going to win my state. But by voting Libertarian I helped the Libertarian Party towards that 5% threshold, which they narrowly missed by just 1.72%.

If we want this to continue, rehashing Donald vs Hillary is off topic. Discuss how one can keep Donald from going off the rails again.

Otherwise it’s close.

SharpDog said:

Well, you're right, we'd be a lot better off with Hillary <-- that's sarcasm

Bonus question, who was the author of the:

Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994

Click to expand...

True She wouldn't have to think about she would just say give me a pen to sign it. Same with most Democrats in the spotlight. I'm not defending Trump but the alternative is much worse.

The 2020 election is not going to be decided on the gun issue. There are just not enough single-issue gun voters. Trump knows this, and that's why he's trying to "triangulate" on things such as bump stocks and suppressors.

On the other hand, guns could have a marginal effect in certain Rust Belt and Sun Belt states. That's why you're going to hear nothing but silence on guns from the Democrats as the general election approaches.

Theohazard said:

The Libertarian presidential candidates throughout the years have consistently been more pro-gun than the Republicans. The Libertarian Party is solidly pro-2A.

Click to expand...

But the candidate must make it to the White House to have an impact.

So for gun rights/2A, we must support the candidate who will make it to the White House. And for 2020, that's Trump.

AlexanderA said:

The 2020 election is not going to be decided on the gun issue. There are just not enough single-issue gun voters. Trump knows this, and that's why he's trying to "triangulate" on things such as bump stocks and suppressors.

On the other hand, guns could have a marginal effect in certain Rust Belt and Sun Belt states. That's why you're going to hear nothing but silence on guns from the Democrats as the general election approaches.

Click to expand...

Really?

Read this - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...lated-information.849620/page-5#post-11118838

New Study of gun owners' trend - Gun owners' intensity turns "minority in American politics" into outsized force - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/4/gun-owners-intensity-turns-minority-american-polit/

• New study done by University of Kansas shows growing political force by gun owners influencing slowed advancement for stiffer gun laws over the past four decades.

• Study showed higher participation rates by gun owners for political action (contacting elected officials, signing petitions, contributing to campaigns, etc.) compared to non-gun owners.

• Increasing number of gun owners voted in presidential elections from 1972 to 2016 while decreasing for non-gun owners.

• Gun control advocates claim this trend is changing but even in light of mass shootings, their claim failed to be the case.

• Study found high rate of activism was due to gun owners increasingly associating gun ownership with defending the core constitutional right to self defense.

• Since 1980s, increasing majority of gun owners said they owned guns for protection because it's their right or because of the Second Amendment.

• For many gun owners, owning a gun because they think it's an essential right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is core part of their political identity.

• Director of GOA stated study confirms gun owners have higher level of political intensity than gun control activists which helped elect Trump in 2016 and picked up votes from pro-gun Democrats.

The POTUS was obviously not the best pick “we” had as gun owners. That said we are not an important group any longer.

Kind of weird thinking about it but transgendered people have more impact on what you will see (positivity) on TV or in print than us folks that have been here all along.

I guess that’s just, “the hinge that squeaks, gets the oil.”, and “progressive” agendas, in general.

Trump does what he actually thinks is right and does not conform to ideology or party standards.

This upsets everyone.
He was not a career politician.
I think he tries to do good in this position.
He considers each thing as an isolated question and tries to make the best decision. While more experienced people think many steps ahead and know what ideologies lead to what conclusions if you go down a route.
Being attacked by other career politicians and attorneys like he has been since taking office is something most career politicians would not have had to deal with, and quite honestly he has to be twice as good as most presidents to accomplish as much as a result. He has practically had himself and everyone he works with under investigation for his entire term in office with Democrats doing all they can to keep him from accomplishing anything. They even admit it, they try to keep him from accomplishing even things they agree with simply to reduce what he can count as accomplishments.
It shows the weakness of not being a career politician and taking on the system by entering into the most powerful position from nowhere. They are slower to go after the guy with presidential protection, but they nail down everyone around him.
They can and will find many people you work with criminals for saying or doing normal or routine things that many politicians say and do, because if you don't know how to play the game, don't have a lot of favors owed in your back pocket, you get railroaded.
Want to see legal minds that know the game trying to communicate in front of the public watch Kamala Harris question Kavanaugh. She is dangerous, and he knew it.
She was not really trying to get answers, she was trying to get him to say something she could declare was a lie and perjury and not after a real answer.
She had a card, and tried to play it.
They try to trip you up, they play a constant game and without being an experienced attorney you can make the wrong step quite easily.


As for suppressors, he would need legislation. Bump stocks were interpreted the way they were I believe due to some information that is not in the public interest to present, and will probably come out many years from now.
Unregistered machineguns are unlawful, and registered silencers are lawful.
This means you cannot simply interpret silencers to be unlawful, they are clearly lawful and take legislation to make unlawful.
Without adhering to an ideology lets consider the issue from Trumps view:
Guns in good hands are good because they let good guys counter bad guys with guns. Bad guys are not going to give up their guns. Trump has stated both positions.
If silencers let people kill people without people realizing that people are being killed, does that then make it harder for good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns? Yes.
Considering a ban.

coloradokevin said:

Yeah, Trump got to put judges and justices in place who will likely be more conservative than Clinton's choices would have been (time will tell - justices don't always perform as expected, and recent decisions have already proven that point).

Click to expand...

You don't have to wait. Effects of Trump's nominations are already taking place. "The Damage of Trump's Judicial Appointments Is Already Done" - https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-damage-of-trumps-judicial-appointments-is-already-done/

bds said:

But the candidate must make it to the White House to have an impact.

Click to expand...

It appears you didn’t read the rest of my post where I pointed out the ways that voting for third party candidates can have an impact. And it can often have more of an impact than voting for a major party candidate.

Theohazard said:

It appears you didn’t read the rest of my post where I pointed out the ways that voting for third party candidates can have an impact. And it can often have more of an impact than voting for a major party candidate.

Click to expand...

With Democrat candidates professing "gun ban", I think 2020 election is going to be a significant election for gun rights/2A.

Question is which is more important to you, pursuing other agendas like healthcare and immigration or keeping your guns?

Trump's comment on suppressors WILL generate a response from the gun community, and perhaps that was the intent. Time will tell but I expect a strong push back.

I guess reading comprehension is difficult. The issue was a’silencer’ ban and not general politics.

Close