So if suppressors do NOT fall under the Second Amendment, then does it necessarily mean that the ATF has no jurisdiction on them in the first place? Asking for a fren...
What gets me is the fact that suppressors are a safety tool. They save a shooter's hearing, reducing harmful decibel levels. They can also improve accuracy depending on variables such as the model of gun, ammo type and suppressor used. Suppressor use should be encouraged if we are talking from a safety standpoint in my opinion.
Exactly. I suspect that had early pistols and rifles included an integral sound-suppression system, that today they would be more socially acceptable. Every damned cop show on TV, if you have a suppressor, you are automatically an evil dude out to do nefarious things. Subtext: Only evil people use suppressors.
What they will probably do, if this sticks (it really had better not stick) is to "leave it up to the States", eventually. So that would mean that those who live in Free States will probably have more freedom (e.g. no Form 4 anal probes, etc.), but those who do not live in Free States are going to get fully fucked.
Far more pernicious will be that it will be established that a part that is not involved in the pew-pew "is not a firearm". So then any State that wants to be a cunt about it will start "regulating" any accessory they like. Binary or Fast Reset trigger? Muzzle Brake? Flash Hider? Optic? Folding Stock? There is no end to it. One might respond "Yes but these States already do this." To which I would reply "Yes, but we need the courts to tell them to knock it the fuck off."
The amount of faffing around the USA does with something for which there Shall Not Be (an) Infringe(ment) is fucking breathtaking.
So how can we reconcile with her past statements, behavior and current status? Has she turned a new leaf or is she the same Bondi that many were warning about before she got confirmed?
The 2A is under attack across the country. We need hard-lined defenders of the second and have no room for "compromise". Compromise is just a slow-whittling of one's rights as an American citizen which are enshrined within the Constitution.
“So how can we reconcile with her past statements, behavior and current status?”
Actions, or lack there of, speak louder than words. Trump does what he says he will do. Promises made, promises kept. Will his appointees follow through on his promises? That is the question. It might be too soon to say for sure.
How do you reconcile with trumps? He was a democrat, gave money to Hillary, knew epstein? What about musk? Bondi will alig with trump. If she pushes this then trump is who you better question espescially if he allows her. The libs couldn't get our guns, i doubt the conservatives will succeed either v
So if suppressors do NOT fall under the Second Amendment, then does it necessarily mean that the ATF has no jurisdiction on them in the first place? Asking for a fren...
What gets me is the fact that suppressors are a safety tool. They save a shooter's hearing, reducing harmful decibel levels. They can also improve accuracy depending on variables such as the model of gun, ammo type and suppressor used. Suppressor use should be encouraged if we are talking from a safety standpoint in my opinion.
Exactly. I suspect that had early pistols and rifles included an integral sound-suppression system, that today they would be more socially acceptable. Every damned cop show on TV, if you have a suppressor, you are automatically an evil dude out to do nefarious things. Subtext: Only evil people use suppressors.
Woah!
"Fun with lawyers".
What they will probably do, if this sticks (it really had better not stick) is to "leave it up to the States", eventually. So that would mean that those who live in Free States will probably have more freedom (e.g. no Form 4 anal probes, etc.), but those who do not live in Free States are going to get fully fucked.
Far more pernicious will be that it will be established that a part that is not involved in the pew-pew "is not a firearm". So then any State that wants to be a cunt about it will start "regulating" any accessory they like. Binary or Fast Reset trigger? Muzzle Brake? Flash Hider? Optic? Folding Stock? There is no end to it. One might respond "Yes but these States already do this." To which I would reply "Yes, but we need the courts to tell them to knock it the fuck off."
The amount of faffing around the USA does with something for which there Shall Not Be (an) Infringe(ment) is fucking breathtaking.
Pam Bondi doubles down on red flag laws during her confirmation hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NytW9TaZfcE&pp=ygUXcGFtIGJvbmRpIHJlZCBmbGFnIGxhd3M%3D
2018 press conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5tP3OLhmA0
"Let law enforcement come in and take the guns"
Pam Bondi's anti-gun history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOVJbDgMibc
Much a do about nothing, Bondi is a Stud!
So how can we reconcile with her past statements, behavior and current status? Has she turned a new leaf or is she the same Bondi that many were warning about before she got confirmed?
The 2A is under attack across the country. We need hard-lined defenders of the second and have no room for "compromise". Compromise is just a slow-whittling of one's rights as an American citizen which are enshrined within the Constitution.
“So how can we reconcile with her past statements, behavior and current status?”
Actions, or lack there of, speak louder than words. Trump does what he says he will do. Promises made, promises kept. Will his appointees follow through on his promises? That is the question. It might be too soon to say for sure.
How do you reconcile with trumps? He was a democrat, gave money to Hillary, knew epstein? What about musk? Bondi will alig with trump. If she pushes this then trump is who you better question espescially if he allows her. The libs couldn't get our guns, i doubt the conservatives will succeed either v