Trump Shows True Colors

[capt14k 2,052]

Well now he said it. He is banning bump stocks himself and he doesn't care what Congress has to say about it. Being he said "I am writing it out" I am guessing he is going to sign an Executive Order. So he thinks he is above the law and he is going after firearms. He hasn't rescinded Bush, Clinton, or Obama Unconstitutional EOs that restrict firearms. He is just adding more restrictions and circumventing Congress in the process. If he does he loses my support and many from his base. Hopefully Pence will run against him in the Primary.

 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/26/trump-bump-stocks-424693

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mrs. Peel 7,156]

I saw that televised meetings with governors. He also mentioned NOTHING about raising the age to buy rifles to 21 (which he was mentioning earlier), he emphasized hardening the targets (including by giving teachers an opportunity to carry in school as an added defense), AND (a big one) he addressed the fact that many states have closed psychiatric hospitals and so we have a terrible dearth of psych beds. Oh, and he SLAMMED the bungled response by law enforcement (missed signs, dropped tips, etc.) Overall, he shifted a bit BACK in the 2A direction. 

I'd say... stay calm... see where it all shakes out. But, in the meantime, this is a president who's a bit wishy-washy on things, so call or write the White House and advise everyone you know to do similarly. 

[silverado427 10,675]

I was a little concerned when he said Don't be afraid of the NRA Do what you have to do in your state. 

[Mrs. Peel 7,156]

31 minutes ago, silverado427 said:

I was a little concerned when he said Don't be afraid of the NRA Do what you have to do in your state. 

He's always a little scary when he speaks off the cuff. That's why he needs to be constantly hearing from people who voting for him IMO. I just opened another thread "Contact the White House" - because I really think the momentum is on the anti-gun side, and that needs to be corrected ASAP!

[capt14k 2,052]

He's always a little scary when he speaks off the cuff. That's why he needs to be constantly hearing from people who voting for him IMO. I just opened another thread "Contact the White House" - because I really think the momentum is on the anti-gun side, and that needs to be corrected ASAP!

In this case I think you are correct. Trump has a need to be liked and for people to see him as a success, it's kind of sad. Unfortunately I think he will sell out his base if it means looking like the good guy, but if enough remind him of what his base cares about he will flop back.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[JHZR2 56]

I can't say I see a reason for bump stocks for defense or a well regulated militia or any of the other common angles that we hold dear under 2A.  Freedom at large, sure, but there's lots of stuff we can't buy/do despite freedom.

If there were two things that were common sense, it would be (IMHO) bump stocks and mag capacity.  It's stupid to vilify SA weapons, but it's realistic that going longer before reloading, and rapidly firing in a more convenient/faster manner, might be less than necessary.

At least on mag capacity, im sure some in here would argue that I shouldn't say what they need for defense, and therefore it's held wihin an unrestricted 2A right (or some logic along those lines).  And that's your opinion.  But there are some effectors that may have a more realistic play in causing damage than, say, bayonet lugs...

[voyager9 3,433]

5 hours ago, JHZR2 said:

At least on mag capacity, im sure some in here would argue that I shouldn't say what they need for defense, and therefore it's held wihin an unrestricted 2A right (or some logic along those lines).  And that's your opinion.  But there are some effectors that may have a more realistic play in causing damage than, say, bayonet lugs...

I disagree. Completely. A mag restriction is a complete straw man argument and simply deflects from the real problem. 

It was reported that he FL shooter fired over 150 rounds. Do you think that rampage would be more or less if he had to switch mags 5 times (30 rd mag), 10 times (15rd) or 15 times (10rd)?  There was a video that showed that even with an inexperienced shooter the difference between all three was only 3 seconds total.  

Also, for actual defensive use, another study showed that in the heat of moment even PD miss their shots a significant amount of time.. upwards of 60%.  And even when they hit, most shots are not able to instantly stop an attacker. If I’m ever in a home defense scenario, I want as many rounds as possible. Especially if I may need every round to defend myself. 

[capt14k 2,052]

I can't say I see a reason for bump stocks for defense or a well regulated militia or any of the other common angles that we hold dear under 2A.  Freedom at large, sure, but there's lots of stuff we can't buy/do despite freedom.
If there were two things that were common sense, it would be (IMHO) bump stocks and mag capacity.  It's stupid to vilify SA weapons, but it's realistic that going longer before reloading, and rapidly firing in a more convenient/faster manner, might be less than necessary.
At least on mag capacity, im sure some in here would argue that I shouldn't say what they need for defense, and therefore it's held wihin an unrestricted 2A right (or some logic along those lines).  And that's your opinion.  But there are some effectors that may have a more realistic play in causing damage than, say, bayonet lugs...

I completely disagree and you also don't fully understand the Second Amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state." Is a pre-amble or statement of fact. 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That is the right. It is an individual right. It has nothing to do with the militia. In fact the Second Amendment states A Militia. Meaning any militia and not a militia of the state.


Now as far as bump stocks go. Yes they are a novelty, but since the Hughes Amendment has Unconstitutionally infringed on our Second Amendment Rights they have a place. Their place is to mimic full auto. Full Auto is used in defense as suppression fire. Until the Hughes Amendment is overturned bump stocks should remain.


Lastly magazine capacity helps in the defense of tyranny. They are not 100% necessary, but they help to even the playing field. As stated it takes an extra 3 seconds to change each magazine. In 6 minutes 150 rounds would have been fired with 10 round or 30 round magazines.


In 6 minutes one could get off 150 rounds accurately with a Lee Enfield No4 bolt action rifle using a 10 round magazine and reloading with 5 round stripper clips. That's 25 rounds per minute. The record is 36 rounds in a minute into a 12" target at 300 yds.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[JHZR2 56]

21 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I disagree. Completely. A mag restriction is a complete straw man argument and simply deflects from the real problem. 

It was reported that he FL shooter fired over 150 rounds. Do you think that rampage would be more or less if he had to switch mags 5 times (30 rd mag), 10 times (15rd) or 15 times (10rd)?  There was a video that showed that even with an inexperienced shooter the difference between all three was only 3 seconds total.  

Also, for actual defensive use, another study showed that in the heat of moment even PD miss their shots a significant amount of time.. upwards of 60%.  And even when they hit, most shots are not able to instantly stop an attacker. If I’m ever in a home defense scenario, I want as many rounds as possible. Especially if I may need every round to defend myself. 

As I said, anyone can have a differing opinion,d I asserted that others may not agree with me making claims on what others may need in defense.

But yes, if the kid has a backpack of 5-10 round mags instead of 30, to me it seems that it would be harder/slower to move place to place, fire five rounds, grab another mag from the backpack, swap it, and keep shooting. Ditto in LV, those few seconds mean people getting a few steps further away or under cover. I get it that an AR can fairly easily drop and replace a mag.  But if it has to be retrieved, I'm not necessarily buying the 3s thing.

And if it IS that fast, then you're making the case that the Antis want, to vilify SA rifles that can be replenished quickly.

i know it's a slippery slope to go down to say that the Feds should make it a crime to possess mags of x size or larger, I'm ok with people disagreeing (it's a discussion forum after all).  But inability to get big ones by crossing a state line or something would also shut the pols up here...

[capt14k 2,052]

As I said, anyone can have a differing opinion,d I asserted that others may not agree with me making claims on what others may need in defense.
But yes, if the kid has a backpack of 5-10 round mags instead of 30, to me it seems that it would be harder/slower to move place to place, fire five rounds, grab another mag from the backpack, swap it, and keep shooting. Ditto in LV, those few seconds mean people getting a few steps further away or under cover. I get it that an AR can fairly easily drop and replace a mag.  But if it has to be retrieved, I'm not necessarily buying the 3s thing.
And if it IS that fast, then you're making the case that the Antis want, to vilify SA rifles that can be replenished quickly.
i know it's a slippery slope to go down to say that the Feds should make it a crime to possess mags of x size or larger, I'm ok with people disagreeing (it's a discussion forum after all).  But inability to get big ones by crossing a state line or something would also shut the pols up here...

So the police and military will have 30 round mags but not the people? That sounds exactly like what the Cabal wants. It will make it easier to control any insurrection. Of course they won't stop with magazine size. Just look at what they did in England.


As I said 150 rounds in 6 minutes isn't even close to the Enfield Mad Minute Record. It can be done with a bolt action rifle. Also blaming the tool and not the user is exactly what the left wants. That is how they will get to limiting bolt action Rifles to single rounds.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[SW9racer 262]

7 hours ago, JHZR2 said:

 

If there were two things that were common sense, it would be (IMHO) bump stocks and mag capacity.  It's stupid to vilify SA weapons, but it's realistic that going longer before reloading, and rapidly firing in a more convenient/faster manner, might be less than necessary.

 

You have to stop going to IDPA and enter some USPSA events. Then you will see how fast mag changes are and how worthless restrictions are. 

And you need to review the definition of "common sense ".  It's common sense that since more people are killed by drunk drivers that bars should limit drinks sold, or maybe beers should be limited to 3 ounces 

[JHZR2 56]

Lol, I should have put "common sense" in quotations with some odd smiles or something.  Intent was to try to identify if there were some things that had better logic than vilifying "evil black rifles" or SA guns. 

 

Obviously i I didn't get the point across. Such is life on a discussion forum

[jackandjill 683]

I hope he realizes that Dems (and their "supporters") would stop at nothing but of achieving majority in coming Nov and kicking him out of office.  He can literally kiss their ass and still end up with same fate. He found support of real people who put him in office and if he loses that, its going to be a double whammy. 

[SW9racer 262]

27 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

 

 

Obviously i I didn't get the point across. Such is life on a discussion forum

[1LtCAP 4,262]

7 hours ago, JHZR2 said:

I can't say I see a reason for bump stocks for defense or a well regulated militia or any of the other common angles that we hold dear under 2A.  Freedom at large, sure, but there's lots of stuff we can't buy/do despite freedom.

If there were two things that were common sense, it would be (IMHO) bump stocks and mag capacity.  It's stupid to vilify SA weapons, but it's realistic that going longer before reloading, and rapidly firing in a more convenient/faster manner, might be less than necessary.

At least on mag capacity, im sure some in here would argue that I shouldn't say what they need for defense, and therefore it's held wihin an unrestricted 2A right (or some logic along those lines).  And that's your opinion.  But there are some effectors that may have a more realistic play in causing damage than, say, bayonet lugs...

suppressing fire.

mag capacity.....if we don't need normal capacity mags, then neither do our police forces. if they need it, we need it.

 also.....none of this is about need.

[JHZR2 56]

19 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

I hope he realizes that Dems (and their "supporters") would stop at nothing but of achieving majority in coming Nov and kicking him out of office.  He can literally kiss their ass and still end up with same fate. He found support of real people who put him in office and if he loses that, its going to be a double whammy. 

That is too true.  The people around here are rabid.

[Shane45 807]

I reject banning bump stocks because that ideology accepts that banning an inanimate object has an effect on the problem. With that being said, politics being what they are, I will accept some losses of derp items to gain real ones.

One other consideration. Consider for a moment the executive order for an assault weapons ban that would already be in place if Hillary won.

[JHZR2 56]

1 hour ago, capt14k said:

As I said 150 rounds in 6 minutes isn't even close to the Enfield Mad Minute Record. It can be done with a bolt action rifle. Also blaming the tool and not the user is exactly what the left wants. That is how they will get to limiting bolt action Rifles to single rounds.


 

You're making the case for the Cabal to try to ban other stuff too.  Be careful with your claims of capability.

There are BARs able to run on AR and other mags.  They even have otherwise "evil" features like flash hiders.  Do you want the rabid knee-jerkers to try and ban them? 

In an objective analysis, some things have more or less value.  I'd rather (personally) to keep my bayonet lug (though I can't see ever using it, it's just the idiocy) and removable flash hider (so I have the freedom from a permanently altered/damaged barrel) than have a bump stock.  If it gets to the point where auto-like suppressing fire is necessary to stop tyranny here, folks have bigger gear issues than their 5.56 shooting rifles.

In the back of my mind Im kind of seeing the nationwide ccw compromise being national reciprocity with 8 rounds or less, or something like that.  Just thinking out loud here, not trying to rob anyones' freedoms.  Just thinking it squashes the logic of high capacity bogeymen.

 

6 minutes ago, Shane45 said:

I reject banning bump stocks because that ideology accepts that banning an inanimate object has an effect on the problem. With that being said, politics being what they are, I will accept some losses of derp items to gain real ones.

One other consideration. Consider for a moment the executive order for an assault weapons ban that would already be in place if Hillary won.

I think you said much better the point I was sort of trying to get across. 

Cheers!

[capt14k 2,052]

I think you said much better the point I was sort of trying to get across. 
Cheers!

8 rounds or less? Now you are infringing on my Hakim and Ljungman. I don't own bump stocks. I have an AR-15 and AR-10 both have a layer of dust on them. So the bans would not affect my collecting, but I will fight for the right to own them without restriction, because that is what the Second Amendment says.


I also believe we are better off if the Democrats go for the death blow. Then SCOTUS can overturn everything at once. For instance if the Dems tried to impose 8 round limits I think all limits would be ruled Unconstitutional. I would rather give them ideas than die of a thousand cuts.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[JHZR2 56]

2 hours ago, capt14k said:

8 rounds or less? Now you are infringing on my Hakim and Ljungman. I don't own bump stocks. I have an AR-15 and AR-10 both have a layer of dust on them. So the bans would not affect my collecting, but I will fight for the right to own them without restriction, because that is what the Second Amendment says.


I also believe we are better off if the Democrats go for the death blow. Then SCOTUS can overturn everything at once. For instance if the Dems tried to impose 8 round limits I think all limits would be ruled Unconstitutional. I would rather give them ideas than die of a thousand cuts.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

You misquoted the comments I had aligned to the text I had previously quoted.  If you're going to respond, kindly quote properly and in appropriate alignment to what I am stating, so as to not misrepresent the discussion - which is what you are currently doing. The comment you quoted me on was in response to Shane45.

 

Appropriate reading comprehension would have indicated that I mentioned political nationwide compromise for CCW.  It was noted as in the back of my mind (i.e. fully speculative, I'm not a politician) as to what CCW reciprocity may look like in order to get the votes to ensure it gets over the hump due to the high capacity boogeyman.  

And note I said CCW.  So unless your intended CCW is an AR with 30 round mag, your comment is not salient. Nor did I try to imply that my comment was my fully formed opinion, nor a correct viewpoint to hold.  It would align to CCW with revolvers and 1911s and shields, without those over the top being able to argue capacity.  Politics is, after all, supposedly about compromise  

 

I am, however, in agreement that an overly bold move might set up the opportunity for more to be overturned at once. Though I'm sure the paid schemers have thought of this already on that side of the aisle too...

[capt14k 2,052]

You misquoted the comments I had aligned to the text I had previously quoted.  If you're going to respond, kindly quote properly and in appropriate alignment to what I am stating, so as to not misrepresent the discussion - which is what you are currently doing. The comment you quoted me on was in response to Shane45.

 

Appropriate reading comprehension would have indicated that I mentioned political nationwide compromise for CCW.  It was noted as in the back of my mind (i.e. fully speculative, I'm not a politician) as to what CCW reciprocity may look like in order to get the votes to ensure it gets over the hump due to the high capacity boogeyman.  

And note I said CCW.  So unless your intended CCW is an AR with 30 round mag, your comment is not salient. Nor did I try to imply that my comment was my fully formed opinion, nor a correct viewpoint to hold.  It would align to CCW with revolvers and 1911s and shields, without those over the top being able to argue capacity.  Politics is, after all, supposedly about compromise  

 

I am, however, in agreement that an overly bold move might set up the opportunity for more to be overturned at once. Though I'm sure the paid schemers have thought of this already on that side of the aisle too...

Sorry Tapatalk didn't quote it correctly.  If it did it would show what I believe was an edit to your original post, maybe I am wrong, this site doesn't seem to show edits on Tapatalk.  Either way I now find you to be an annoying. If you think you are smarter than myself or most others on here you are sadly mistaken. Your rationalizing away of Second Amendment Rights still makes you an anti in my book. Just in case it wasn't clear I did not intentionally misquote your quote.

 

Edit: I also just noticed the use of Cheers at the end of the post.  That would imply you are from England or spent time in England?  Typically Cheers is not used by Americans.  Just curious about it. 

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[JHZR2 56]

2 hours ago, capt14k said:

Sorry Tapatalk didn't quote it correctly.  If it did it would show what I believe was an edit to your original post, maybe I am wrong, this site doesn't seem to show edits on Tapatalk.  Either way I now find you to be an annoying. If you think you are smarter than myself or most others on here you are sadly mistaken. Your rationalizing away of Second Amendment Rights still makes you an anti in my book. Just in case it wasn't clear I did not intentionally misquote your quote.

 

Edit: I also just noticed the use of Cheers at the end of the post.  That would imply you are from England or spent time in England?  Typically Cheers is not used by Americans.  Just curious about it. 

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

You can read into my posts and commentary any way you choose.  It doesn't mean that you will have appropriately captured my intent.  In no way do I think I'm smarter than anyone else on here.  But that doesn't mean I'm barred from engaging in discourse, proposing an opinion (which if others disagree, it's fine, it's generally why people are on discussion forums, to discuss topics and learn) and being perturbed if my quotes are misrepresented. 

You question my use of cheers? On other forums, there is an emoticon that is "Cheers" that is two smily faces tapping two mugs of beer.  It doesn't appear this forum has that one. 

[Shane45 807]

[capt14k 2,052]

You can read into my posts and commentary any way you choose.  It doesn't mean that you will have appropriately captured my intent.  In no way do I think I'm smarter than anyone else on here.  But that doesn't mean I'm barred from engaging in discourse, proposing an opinion (which if others disagree, it's fine, it's generally why people are on discussion forums, to discuss topics and learn) and being perturbed if my quotes are misrepresented. 
You question my use of cheers? On other forums, there is an emoticon that is "Cheers" that is two smily faces tapping two mugs of beer.  It doesn't appear this forum has that one. 

Engaging in discourse is fine. Accusing me of intentionally misquoting you and not being able to read not so much.

Thank you for the cheers clarification.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[GunsnFreedom 245]

7 hours ago, JHZR2 said:

In an objective analysis, some things have more or less value.  I'd rather (personally) to keep my bayonet lug (though I can't see ever using it, it's just the idiocy) and removable flash hider (so I have the freedom from a permanently altered/damaged barrel) than have a bump stock.  If it gets to the point where auto-like suppressing fire is necessary to stop tyranny here, folks have bigger gear issues than their 5.56 shooting rifles.

 

If you start the argument looking at what things covered under the 2A have more or less value to you, you have already lost the war.

What is your understanding of the Second Amendment?

[AdamM 42]

I've been using "Cheers" as a signature in my emails for over 10 years. No I'm not British. I just like the sound of it. Born and raised in the U.S.

[JHZR2 56]

15 minutes ago, GunsnFreedom said:

If you start the argument looking at what things covered under the 2A have more or less value to you, you have already lost the war.

What is your understanding of the Second Amendment?

The war has already been lost in the purest sense if you want to look at it that way.  After all, there's a variety of things you can't/can't reasonably own due to regulations at the Federal level. 

I agree fundamentally that it is disgusting and wrong that I'd be restricted from owning anything.  I'm a law abiding citizen, I hold a security clearance, I have no addictions or abnormal behaviors   For better or worse, I'm a realist too, and realize that this has all gone political.  Say what you want about Trump, in the end even if SCOTUS finds very favorably, I'm not sure all regulations would be waived. 

In my personal opinion, which everyone is free to disagree with, I find items like bump stocks to be a more real potential danger than, say, the silly NJ rules for flash hiders and bayonet lugs on Armalite style rifles. Note I said potential, not definite, not that you or anyone owning one poses any danger.  But in an objective analysis, what could cause a greater effect? You may not like that opinion, and the inanimate object argument is weak, but it still exists. And unlike a vehicle or medical malpractice or hammers or anything like that, guns are made to fire projectiles with high energy and speed, with the intention of disabling/damaging/dispatching the entity it is fired at.  Saying such doesn't make me any more an Anti than the pages in a Webster's dictionary are. 

 

 

[GunsnFreedom 245]

3 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

The war has already been lost in the purest sense if you want to look at it that way.  After all, there's a variety of things you can't/can't reasonably own due to regulations at the Federal level. 

I agree fundamentally that it is disgusting and wrong that I'd be restricted from owning anything.  I'm a law abiding citizen, I hold a security clearance, I have no addictions or abnormal behaviors   For better or worse, I'm a realist too, and realize that this has all gone political.  Say what you want about Trump, in the end even if SCOTUS finds very favorably, I'm not sure all regulations would be waived. 

In my personal opinion, which everyone is free to disagree with, I find items like bump stocks to be a more real potential danger than, say, the silly NJ rules for flash hiders and bayonet lugs on Armalite style rifles.note I said potential, not definite, not that you or anyone owning one poses any danger.  But in an objective analysis, what could cause a greater effect? You may not like that opinion, and the inanimate object argument is weak, but it still exists. And unlike a vehicle or medical malpractice or hammers or anything like that, guns are made to fire projectiles with high energy and speed, with the intention of disabling/damaging/dispatching the entity it is fired at.  Saying such doesn't make me any more an Anti than the pages in a Webster's dictionary are. 

 

 

Our rights are being eroded because of that exact mindset.  Giving up this for that because whatever it is that has less value to you is not being fought for by you.  I may not agree with something someone has to say, but I will fight for their right to say it. 

We give Fudds a hard time because they will say nothing when AWB's go up since they get to keep their precious shotguns or bolt actions.  Anti's do not compromise.  Their compromise is taking away less than they initially wanted.  Their deals are made by moving the goal posts.  I think bump stocks are silly and are a novelty.  However, I do not believe they should be banned.  The 2A is not about personal defense.  It is about arming the citizenry to make them the bulwark of liberty.

We need to continue fighting on all fronts.  We fight NJ's AWB, we fight NJ's CCW laws, we fight proposed federal AWB laws.  

We need to stop the slow erosion of rights.

[JHZR2 56]

Just now, GunsnFreedom said:

Our rights are being eroded because of that exact mindset.  Giving up this for that because whatever it is that has less value to you is not being fought for by you.  I may not agree with something someone has to say, but I will fight for their right to say it. 

We give Fudds a hard time because they will say nothing when AWB's go up since they get to keep their precious shotguns or bolt actions.  Anti's do not compromise.  Their compromise is taking away less than they initially wanted.  Their deals are made by moving the goal posts.  I think bump stocks are silly and are a novelty.  However, I do not believe they should be banned.  The 2A is not about personal defense.  It is about arming the citizenry to make them the bulwark of liberty.

We need to continue fighting on all fronts.  We fight NJ's AWB, we fight NJ's CCW laws, we fight proposed federal AWB laws.  

We need to stop the slow erosion of rights.

You are right. I cannot and do not care to argue any points you've made. 

[BobA 1,235]

7 hours ago, capt14k said:

also believe we are better off if the Democrats go for the death blow.

Nah. No with this court. This needs to drag on until Ginsburg croaks.