Trump 'Seriously' Considering Banning Suppressors

you're supposed to send the whole thing back to them and they'll screw on a new oil filter and send it back to you. I wonder how many customers actually do that.
Click to expand...

The company also restamps the S/n on the new filter. Thats the difference
 
A bump stock is now considered nfa. All the bump stocks produced previously were not registered and taxed and there most were destroyed. Due to a couple court cases some folks were offered the option to have the atf hold their bump stock til the court case was settled.

The bump stocks had been looked at twice under obama and were fine then.

Trump wanted em looked at again and they were found bad.

The way it was written, could be interpreted to mean a lot more than a bump stock.
 
biere said:
The way it was written, could be interpreted to mean a lot more than a bump stock.
Click to expand...
So we're looking at $200 shoestrings, eh?

bolt.gif
 
Part of what annoys me about that is that had Obama tried to redefine an accessory as an NFA item after multiple A-OK rulings from ATF, we’d have never heard the end of it. You can certainly make a case that practically that outcome is the best result for NRA given the circumstances. But the blatant hyprocrisy at NRA is getting pretty thick.

At the same time, that’s the “smart” safe move to advance the Second. The problem is if you always follow the smart, safe move you become predictable and easy to control. People who stick to principle over anything are actually not that predictable as they are rare creatures.
 
To discuss the reasoning behind these behaviors wanders into general politics and the psychology of partisanship, I'm afraid.

The Trump analysis of why semi auto rifles are owned for entertainment, ranks in there with DeVos wanting guns in schools for bear attacks

There is a lack of real appreciation of RKBA issues among those who should know better. It's just a slogan for them to defend the RKBA but really not know about or consider the issues.

We've discussed NRA motivations extensively from a marketing and financial demographic selection of their utterances.
 
I would remind everyone that Republican Trump was at one time Democrat Trump.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, I believe Trump will do what he believes is best for Trump.

If that happens to be in line with our belief in RKBA, fine. If not, well, considering the other side's publicly stated platform and goals, we're considered pretty much a "captive audience".
 
44 AMP said:
I would remind everyone that Republican Trump was at one time Democrat Trump.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, I believe Trump will do what he believes is best for Trump.

If that happens to be in line with our belief in RKBA, fine.
Click to expand...

Given that analysis, what does one do to prevent or forestall DJT's re-alignment with congressional opponents of the RTKB?

B. Roberts said:
Part of what annoys me about that is that had Obama tried to redefine an accessory as an NFA item after multiple A-OK rulings from ATF, we’d have never heard the end of it. You can certainly make a case that practically that outcome is the best result for NRA given the circumstances. But the blatant hyprocrisy at NRA is getting pretty thick.
Click to expand...

Certainly, the bumpstock ban (an effective ban if not a complete legal one) lacks coherence with and is contrary to reasoning underlying prior rulings. The context for the action was a very high profile multiple homicide in which bumpstocks were used, and the well known chorus spotted an opportunity for sweeping new legislated restrictions.

In the wake of such a high profile multiple murder, had BHO and a co-operative congress settled for merely a poorly reasoned administrative re-classification of just the bump-stock, we'd likely be celebrating that victory.

BHO arguably benefitted from clashes with the NRA; DJT doesn't (at least currently). In light of 44 AMP's analysis, making it clear to DJT that making words in that interview into policy would not be in his interest, and that fighting that impulse earns support (a lesson he grasped with Leonard Leo) makes sense.
 
The Donald is a typical NYC moderate and a businessman of sorts.
He is only interested in how any policy shakes out to benefit him.
 
I think anyone but a cognitively blind true believer understands Trump's behavior by now. Is there more to say? We are saying the same thing, need we continue.

The problem is preventing another impulse ban or counterproductive blather session.
 
We are talking to each other here. I doubt Trump reads this forum at all, let alone on a regular basis. In the time you take to read this thread and make a post, you can submit a comment directly to the White House. Will President Trump himself read your message? Unlikely -- but his staff will read it, and they will count it, and they will inform him of the direction public opinion is trending.

So, to paraphrase what they say about Chicago politics, "Write early and write often."

I posted the link previously. Here it is again:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

"Just do it!"
 
AB said:
So, to paraphrase what they say about Chicago politics, "Write early and write often."
Click to expand...

That applies to one's representatives and senators too. Even if they seem generally friendly on the issue, people are ordinarily more brave if they believe the wind of public opinion is at their backs.
 
Ya'll can tweet D.J.T.

I tweeted Trump one & only time after he'd won the presidential election. He tweeted back to me --- "I'm watching you!!!" --- along with a rubber stamp portrait of himself.
 
Erno86 said:
Ya'll can tweet D.J.T.
Click to expand...
I wonder how effective tweeting is. And I don't say that to claim that it isn't -- I think it's a question we need to answer.

In years past, politicians used to say that letters counted more than phone calls, because it's easier to pick up the phone than to sit down, write a letter, put it in an envelope, address the envelope, stamp it, and mail it. Staff kept track of numbers of letters and phone calls on each side of all issues. Letters counted for twice the importance of phone calls.

Then we got e-mail, so now the staffers need to track letters, phone calls, and e-mails. And they do that, but I don't know if there's a hierarchy any more. If so, I would assume that the written letter still counts most heavily, followed by the phone call, followed by e-mail.

Tweets? Who monitors Trump's Twitter account? Do we know that the White House staff actually read and tabulate all the tweets that go to the President's account? I'm not going to count on that when it's an issue on which I want my opinion to be known and counted. I'll use e-mail to the official address, and the site www.usa.gov has links to contact not only the President but also your own senators and congressman. You can compose a message in Notepad and copy and paste it into messages to all your elected representatives.

I recommend that rather than relying on Twitter tweets to be counted. And I think we should not be reluctant to send multiple messages on issues about which we care. You can be sure the anti-gun side is flooding Washington with their messages.

The NY Times has weighed in on the subject:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/...u-should-call-not-email-your-legislators.html

Activists of all political stripes recommend calling legislators, not just emailing — and certainly not just venting on social media. Several lawmakers, along with those who work for them, said in interviews that Ms. Waite is right: A phone call from a constituent can, indeed, hold more weight than an email, and far outweighs a Facebook post or a tweet.
Click to expand...
 
You all might want to read this thread: https://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=96102

Charles Cotton is a higher up in the NRA and offers this somewhere in thread:

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pm
You threw bump stock owners under the bus so you could focus on more important issues. Things that really mattered, at least to the NRA board.

Cotton's reply:

Ignoring the facts is necessary in order for you to make this absurd claim. Bump stocks are important to the people who own them, but that number is tiny compared to the number of people that own AR platform rifles and pistol, AK platform rifles, H&K platform rifles/pistols, etc. That is what was at stake. You and your ilk either don't believe or choose to ignore the tidal wave of calls for another assault weapons ban after the Las Vegas slaughter. I cannot and will not give full details for obvious reasons, but the NRA quite literally saved those firearms from being banned. Yet you want to ignore that fact and essentially claim that bump stocks "were thrown under the buss." Apparently, you would have preferred that the NRA do nothing. The result would have been a new and a much farther-reaching assault weapons band and your bump stock poster-child would have also been banned. You are also ignoring the fact that the bump stock issue is far from over. Ironically, the ATF reclassification of bump stocks may actually bring an end to the BATFE's unlawful usurpation of regulatory authority.
Click to expand...

There's a lot going on in this quote. For one, where would have the new AWB be suggested, instituted, put in place? Why is the interaction secret from the members?
 
Posts have been deleted for delving into the President's personal history and for going too far into the weeds of electoral politics. Let's keep this related to firearms and the policies.

I cannot and will not give full details for obvious reasons, but the NRA quite literally saved those firearms from being banned.
Click to expand...

I just can't buy this. The NRA supported an unprecedented (and illegal) gun-control measure. If they did it to save us from something worse, they need to give a more detailed explanation. Members are not happy, to say the least.

The result would have been a new and a much farther-reaching assault weapons band and your bump stock poster-child would have also been banned.
Click to expand...

If they gun-control advocates were going to get another AWB out of the Las Vegas shooting, they'd have pushed it anyway. Aside from Feinstein's yearly attempt, I'm not aware of any new legislation on that front, much less anything that would have passed the Senate. If there was such a thing and the NRA killed it, they'd generate some goodwill with their members by saying so.

The claim they're playing 4D chess in a secret room somewhere isn't enough.
 
If suppressors were to be banned, does anyone have any idea of what such a ban would look like? Would it be confiscatory or simply a ban on making and selling any new suppressors. Or, has this not even been discussed yet?
 
He doesn't have to ban them. He can just reduce staff at the NFA branch or instruct them to impose a moratorium on reviewing new applications. Either would please the gun-control lobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top