I just want to remind gun supporters of Trumps Stance on guns

you miss the scholarship that the NRA has funded. At one time the Democrat presidential candidates (Kennedy and Humphrey) were more pro gun than Nixon. Things change

 

You are saying that any restriction of our firearm liberty is gun grabbing. Do you want everyone to have access to fully auto firearms, grenade launchers, SAM's, and nuclear weapons? If not, does that make you a gun grabber?

 

Deal with reality, Reality. we have two flawed candidates who are going to be the nominees. You only have two choices. Third party is a cowardly cop out and a wasted vote.

 

Deal with Reality Turtledude: Your political party is going to put up a **** candidate who is past the "unacceptable" line, and so will the other dominant political party.
However: I don't have to vote for either of those choices, or even any of the 3rd party candidates on the ballot. I can write in Mickey ****ing Mouse if I so choose.
Don't want me to do that? Want me to vote for your party? Quit standing up candidates who are unacceptable.

Think of it this way: My generation has never gotten our choice of things. Your generation has from its inception. You've been catered to and thought of in all things.
Now you're faced with a conundrum: You're aging out. There simply aren't more of you than everyone else now. Which means you'll have to start considering others if you want them to join with you.
I can deal with not getting my way this time, or next time, or the time after that, etc., as I've never gotten my way. I don't think the reverse is true for you. I think it pains you far more than it does me, and I think I can hold out longer than you can. Let's find out.

 

Full auto, conventional explosives? Sure.
Weapons with uncontrollable fallout? No.
See Bruen for the rationale.

 

I don't miss the money its leadership embezzles. I didn't name any political party, please try that bullshit on someone who cares.
Things do change: The NRA went from something with marginal utility, to an outright liability whose only useful purpose is to distract karens who don't know what google is.

 

He doesn't embezzle money, so he's automatically better than Lil Wayne.

His org also does far better work than the NRA.

Scoreboard, as the children say.

 

Your candidate won't win, won't appoint judges and you can pretend that is useful. I laugh at purists. they don't understand politics, they don't understand winning and they don't understand why we laugh at them. .

 

He probably understands that no major court is going to hold that the second amendment protects mortar shells or claymore mines or anti aircraft missiles.

 

O but to hear you tell it, if'n I doesn't votes for ya suh, the devil gon win. Which means your candidate won't win, and won't appoint judges, and you can pretend that is useful.

So I'll be sure to remind you of how much you enjoy laughing at people that demand you enforce the actual rule announced in Bruen, when you're calling it the end of days post election.

 

Every weapon has uncontrollable aspects. That makes you a gun grabber by your own measure. So you have to go thru the same door as the NRA to get your spanking.

 

No major court is going to view the NRA as a threat to the second amendment either. If anything, the NRA is more likely to be viewed as a threat to human life for its defense of the second amendment.

 

No, a bullet goes where you pointed the gun. Nukes 1) have continuing effects (radiation) that effect entire areas and 2) spread in ways you cannot control.
You don't have a right to aggress against the public in an area generally for the next century or two, and you don't have a right to have that effect spread to anything that wanders through said area. Under any conception.
You COULD have a right to stop an invading mob on your ranch with a well placed grenade, mortar shell, or anti personnel rocket. Likewise you have a right to be able to defend yourself from aggression on the high seas with armor piercing conventional munitions, as they ACTUALLY did during the founding era.
These things are easily distinguishable.

 

Courts don't view things as threats to the 2nd amendment dude. You need a major civics lesson.

 

Sure they do, ruling thusly all the time when the NRA takes over regulation to task.

 

No, they don't. Things aren't categorized as a "threat" to anything. Something either violates the constitution or it doesn't, there is not a **** list of orgs kept by a court ffs.

Let's not forget: This little aside started because you have a hollywood conception of suppressors, and think that something being quiet would make it not protected by the 2a.

 

You've already proven yourself to be a gun grabber. And once the firing pin hits the primer, there's no telling exactly where the bullet will wind up or what the terminal ballistics will be. Variations between cartridges by manufacturer, barrel pressure variations from residue build up, flinches, bumped sights, bumped scope, warped stock, wind, obstacles, range miscalculation, pass thru, ricochet, etc. Even with a skilled marksman, there are no guarantees of total control over the bullet. Besides, who are you to say who should and shouldn't die. There are plenty of people who'd have no qualms about killing everyone with a nuke, or taking out a jetliner. If you don't support this, you aren't a purist. You're just a garden variety gun grabber. Seriously, what it all boils down to is moderation. That's where the NRA and sensible legislation comes in. They have fought tooth and nail for a hundred years securing the second amendment. What you advance is that the GP be on a military footing. But the GP is too corrupt for that. So we strive for the basics.

 

That's not how guns work. Ballistics are incredibly predictable. Certainly compared to biologic vectors, the ****ing wind carrying it off or surface residues, or nuclear fallout.

I'm not telling you who should and shouldn't die o wise and learned one, I'm describing the limits of the text history and tradition surrounding the right to keep and bear arms.
You can get some nice references in Bruen, why don't you go read and learn something?

Calls me a grabber, then claims its all about sensible legislation. Claims the NRA aren't grabbers, points out the endorse said legislation.
Thanks for playing dude, but I'm starting to feel a little bad for you.

 

Okey dokey.

 

"Besides, who are you to say who should and shouldn't die. There are plenty of people who'd have no qualms about killing everyone with a nuke, or taking out a jetliner. If you don't support this, you aren't a purist. You're just a garden variety gun grabber."
^ You are literally saying people can down passenger jet liners or "kill everyone" as if that's covered under the 2a.

Its silly.

 

This conversation is silly. You think Trump and the NRA want your guns. I don't. End of story.

 

What was silly was you thinking suppressors made anything so quiet as to not still be obnoxiously loud

 

depends on the suppressor. The British De Lisle Carbine (from wiki) The suppressor reduced the sound of the firearm discharging to such a degree that working the bolt (to chamber the next round) produced a louder noise than firing a cartridge.[11] Now this carbine used a subsonic 45 ACP cartridge

I have been next to 300 Blackout suppressed AR carbines and those run around 112-115 decibels with subsonic ammo

 

Depends on the silencer and the cartridge. They make a huge difference in that a gun without a silencer sounds like a gun. With a silencer, it doesn't sound like a gun. But you know all this. You're just zeroed in on what you want. And anything outside that is an interference. It's called tunnel vision or a pipe dream. Trump said he'd look into the issue raised by some about silencers. You say this makes him a gun grabber. Because you sense that your conclusion is questionable, you quickly add that Trump banned bump stocks as if to seal the deal on your conclusion. But again, your conclusion is distorted. Banning bump stocks is in keeping with the restrictions on fully auto firearms. Banning bump stocks isn't a creep into the camp of firearm liberty as much as their invention is a creep beyond the bounds of the law. Neither does it make looking into the silencer issue an attempt at snatching our liberty. Your conclusions and logic are faulty because you can only see what you want, and everything else is out of focus. So much so that you deem the NRA to be gun grabbers even though they've spent the past hundred years fighting in the courts and Congress defending our firearm liberty. I'm beginning to wonder if you are even an American or care about our Constitution because you seem more intent on making a mockery of it. But that's just my opinion. If that makes me silly in your estimation, then it doesn't surprise me as it is in keeping with your faulty reasoning.

 

the bump stock is a silly device that was spawned by the even far sillier (and blatantly unconstitutional and spiteful bullshit) the Hughes Amendment. However changing the definition of a machine gun was dishonest but we have to look at the environment at the time-the Vegas Massacre was causing the anti gun hysterics to have a feeding frenzy. anyone, I repeat ANYONE, who thinks a president clinton would have done LESS than what Trump did in terms of pandering to those anti gun bangasm advocates is sadly ignorant. And because of Trump, we had three votes in the majority of BRUEN which may well help strike down lots of the FDR era unconstitutional idiocy