Trump on Suppressors: “I don’t like them at all.”

[Dead Duck]

Maybe he just doesn't like their color.

We should make a Trump suppressor that's got a patriotic flag theme. I bet he'd like that one.

 

[Ggreen]

What is there to like? They're expensive and a pain in the ass to get, pretty much useless for carry and I wouldn't use them even on long guns in a life or death situation because of potential issues with feeding and reliability

More useful than a bump stock, but they only drop the ambient 10 to 15 db, quite often at the cost of a face full of gas. Still a range toy in my book, though I think those who wish to have them should be able to blow their money on them (just like Cadillacs and Rolexes)

Is this post a joke?


Money on it this runs as good with a can as any ar you have without. And it won't hurt my families hearing if it has to get used. Stop making excuses for your fuhrer to chip away our rights

 

[Ziggidy]

Maybe he just doesn't like their color.

We should make a Trump suppressor that's got a patriotic flag theme. I bet he'd like that one.

Crazy, I know, but I bought a MAGA-zine at the NRA show. Just had to.

 

[Ggreen]

Crazy, I know, but I bought a MAGA-zine at the NRA show. Just had to.

It'll be ironic when he decides to take those...

 

[Gabriel]

What is there to like? They're expensive and a pain in the ass to get, pretty much useless for carry and I wouldn't use them even on long guns in a life or death situation because of potential issues with feeding and reliability

More useful than a bump stock, but they only drop the ambient 10 to 15 db, quite often at the cost of a face full of gas. Still a range toy in my book, though I think those who wish to have them should be able to blow their money on them (just like Cadillacs and Rolexes)

 

[MCgrease08]

Ok, for everyone who feels betrayed by Trump, is angry and doesn't want to take it anymore:

There is something you can do, right now, tonight, to make your voice heard and send a message that we don't appreciate Trump's stance on 2A.

Call Senator Braun - (202) 224-4814

Call Senator Young - (202) 224-5623

Tell them you oppose the president's nominee to head up BATFE, Chuck Canterbury. Tell them you won't support anyone but a staunch gun rights supporter, and you will oppose any nominee that supports gun control.

[video=youtube_share;wxUOGR4TH4U]http://youtu.be/wxUOGR4TH4U[/video]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What is there to like?

 

[Trigger Time]

Wow President Tump really stepped on it this time!
It’s worse than when he was booed out of the NRA convention for making anti 2A comments.
If only one of the Democrats would get elected President and then if the Democrats take back the senate we could really advance the 2A!

You and I see the same way on this.
I just hear idiots ideas out of most people talking negative about Trump, on both sides.
Ill proudly be voting for him again and if anyone don't like it they can suck my (insert GI Jane quote here)

 

[Kutnupe14]

See even some gun owners are willing to throw us under the bus in their loyalty. That was a wow for me too.

 

[KG1]

What is there to like? They're expensive and a pain in the ass to get, pretty much useless for carry and I wouldn't use them even on long guns in a life or death situation because of potential issues with feeding and reliability

More useful than a bump stock, but they only drop the ambient 10 to 15 db, quite often at the cost of a face full of gas. Still a range toy in my book, though I think those who wish to have them should be able to blow their money on them (just like Cadillacs and Rolexes)

Yeah and i'm sure those are all the reasons that Trump would give for not liking them at all. Perhaps I should've phrased it differently and said that it's pretty much the answer one would give that doesn't really know anything about them other than the bad rap they are given as the tools deployed by assassins and hitmen in the movies and don't reflect realty in real life factual data.

 

[Expat]

Perhaps we need a list of things he doesn’t like.... just so we know.

unlike bump stocks, silencers are already named in various legislation, so I would assume he will have to get the Congress to enact legislation.

 

[Ziggidy]

Perhaps we need a list of things he doesn’t like.... just so we know.

unlike bump stocks, silencers are already named in various legislation, so I would assume he will have to get the Congress to enact legislation.

Abortion
Open borders
Illegal immigrants
The DC Swamp
Hillary
Socialism
The UN
Self serving judges

Just for starters.....anyone want to add?

 

[Trigger Time]

Abortion
Open borders
Illegal immigrants
The DC Swamp
Hillary
Socialism
The UN
Self serving judges

Just for starters.....anyone want to add?

Hookers with loose lips

 

[Ziggidy]

Hookers with loose lips

Maybe you mean hookers who talk too much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KG1]

Pretty sure he’s not liking rat fink personal attorneys.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Another article on the Piers Morgan interview, this from the Free Beacon

Trump Considers Banning Silencers

In an interview on British television with longtime gun-control activist Piers Morgan, Trump was asked about his view on silencers.

"I don't like it. I don't like it," Trump said of the devices, which reduce the sound of gunshots but don't actually silence them.

"Would you like to see those banned?" Morgan asked.

"Well, I'd like to think about it," Trump said. "Nobody's talked about silencers very much. They 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. I don't like the idea. What's happening is crazy, okay? It's crazy."

In 2017, Trump directed the Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to unilaterally redefine bump stocks as illegal unregistered machineguns. His policy made it effectively illegal to possess the devices even if they had been legally purchased and provided no compensation for the destruction of the devices. The ban and confiscation effort garnered little praise or satisfaction from gun-control advocates. And while the National Rifle Association supported the effort to reclassify the devices with caveats about its enforcement, it was met with legal challenges from gun-rights advocates that are still pending.

Silencers, often called suppressors by those in the industry, can reduce the sound of gunshots from levels instantly damaging without hearing protection to levels closer to that of a jackhammer or jet engine. Despite depictions in movies and other entertainment media, the devices do not make the gunshots inaudible.

Noteworthy:

Still, records from the ATF show 1,489,791 silencers have been registered in the United States as of 2018. The ATF has reported few crimes connected to the nearly 1.5 million silencers in the country. In 2017, the agency told the Washington Free Beacon it only recommended prosecutions for 44 silencer-related crimes per year over the course of the previous 10 years. Those numbers mean roughly .003 percent of silencers were used in crimes each year. The agency said only 6 of those 44 crimes involved defendants with prior felony convictions.

And thankfully, the NRA-ILA opposes a ban.

Gun control groups did not immediately respond to the president's statement. "We're going to decline to comment for now," Max Samis, a spokesperson for the gun-control group Brady United, told the Free Beacon. The groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords did not reply to requests for comment.

Gun rights groups signaled opposition to a ban on the devices.

"The NRA opposes a suppressor ban," Jennifer Baker, a spokesperson for the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, told the Free Beacon. "Contrary to the misinformation being spread by the mainstream media, suppressors do not "silence" the sound of a firearm. Not only do suppressors reduce hearing damage for the shooter, they reduce the noise of ranges located near residential areas."

 

[two70]

I understand and to a large extent agree with the "not another inch" philosophy but if you are going to play an all or nothing game, then you have to be prepared to accept the nothing. Few are so willing, rightfully so, and many of those that are have a completely different agenda. I, for one, hate the NFA, hate that suppressors, short barrels and full autos are included in it. At the same time, I'm damn glad that handguns weren't included as intended. I also hate the 86' prohibition on new machine guns but am glad that prohibitions on and obstacles to the ownership of other firearms were removed.

There is a time and place for all or nothing but not when the odds are in the favor of nothing. Conservatives really need to take a page from the Liberal play book here instead of being all or nothing all the time, we need to learn to take what we can get each time, then keep coming back over and over for more just like the Liberals have historically done. That's why they win so often and why they have been able to push their agendas so far. Liberals remind me of a skilled pack of wolves trying to kill and eat a bull moose, while Conservatives remind of a very dysfunctional wolf pack trying to accomplish the same goal. The Liberal wolf pack is perfectly willing to take a bite at a time until they eventually weaken it enough to bring down and consume the whole moose. The Conservative wolf pack just keeps futilely trying over and over to send one wolf out at a time to try to kill the moose in one bite. When each wolf in this pack fails to bring down the moose, it is replaced with another doomed to failure. Instead of building off what each one accomplishes, they start anew from scratch each time.

As silly as some of the tantrums being thrown here on both sides are, I think it is important to separate those who are just frustrated and letting off a little of that frustration from those that are merely opportunists seeking yet another opportunity to promote an agenda. The frustration and reactions by both sides are understandable even if the methods of dealing with it are questionable. Knee jerk reactions are rarely good ideas nor are they conducive to long term success, though they may be initially satisfying. An errant shot from the hip may be forgiven, regular encouragements of Ready! Fire! Aim! should not be.

 

[BugI02]

What is there to like? They're expensive and a pain in the ass to get, pretty much useless for carry and I wouldn't use them even on long guns in a life or death situation because of potential issues with feeding and reliability

More useful than a bump stock, but they only drop the ambient 10 to 15 db, quite often at the cost of a face full of gas. Still a range toy in my book, though I think those who wish to have them should be able to blow their money on them (just like Cadillacs and Rolexes)

Came on INGO today to read how all the people that thought I was wrong, to be less than enthusiastic about suppressors personally, had corrected my - I believe it was 'doesn't really know anything about them', wasn't it KG. I've quoted myself in order to do away with the attempt at a kutting canard that I support a ban

I made what I consider an informed decision that I cannot justify the price for a device that costs as much as a very good optic in order to drop the ambient noise from immediately damaging unprotected hearing (140db and up) to a level that is still damaging in less than one minute of exposure (so obviously, good ear protection still necessary). Nor can I imagine a scenario where I am forced to use a firearm in self defense that having it suppressed will make any more than the slightest, most tangential favorable difference to the event - all at the cost of adding 5 to 9 inches to overall length of the firearm and 1 to 2 pounds way out at the nose

So perhaps y'all would consent to educate me about the real world benefits of suppressed firearms, because I wasn't kidding - to me they just seem like more 'operator' toys

View attachment 77597 OK, Go!

 

[JettaKnight]

Seems Trump can do no wrong is some folks eyes.
[video=youtube;Cy8w8-hjMjM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy8w8-hjMjM[/video]


Hi, Bug.

 

[rvb]

when people talk about restricting silencers, this scene comes to mind.

We're already pulled over, we can't pull over any farther!

tax stamps, long weights, fingerprints, background checks, registered items, no interstate sales w/o going through a sot, etc etc . an outright ban is the only "incrementalism" remaining!

-rvb