As if we didnt know this was next.... - Page 5 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Firearms General Discussion Rifles, pistols, shotguns, scopes, grips and everything in between.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-10-2019, 12:39 PM
JBryan314's Avatar
JBryan314 JBryan314 is offline
Nationalist, Combat Vet
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Florida Panhandle
Age: 33
Posts: 11,454
Thanks: 16,569
Thanked 44,254 Times in 9,250 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter View Post
Exactly...some of his comments create questions and raised eyebrows. He says and does things that make sense and move us in the right direction, then turns around says and does things that make no sense at all. Like the take them first comment, was he serious or was it sarcasm? Without an explanation we can oly assume it's one or the other.
You don’t really think there is any chance that he was being sarcastic when he said “I like taking guns first”, do you? I mean, he laid out his argument. Said that courts take too long and we could just give due process later.

It wasn’t sarcasm. Neither was it when he said he was considering banning suppressors. He mentioned suppressors in the same sentences where he mentioned that he banned bumpstocks.

He is being serious.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-10-2019, 01:12 PM
Israel Putnam's Avatar
Israel Putnam Israel Putnam is offline
Bunker Hill Patriot
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: W. Central PA
Posts: 6,414
Thanks: 3,432
Thanked 10,030 Times in 4,124 Posts
Default

Since it seems the link I posted wasn’t read by a few people:
SCOTUS, at the behest of Donald J. Trump, refused to hear a case involving suppressors where the claim was being made that suppressors are accessories and NOT firearms.

Bumpstocks were accessories, NOT firearms.

So, this case would have been a double whammy for the grabbers if SCOTUS had agreed.
This would have been that big Checkmate many are already foisting upon Trumps mighty shoulders.

So:
Why did Trump encourage SCOTUS to not hear this case if his entire plan all along was to get accessories out from under the ATF’s thumb?
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-10-2019, 01:19 PM
merlinfire's Avatar
merlinfire merlinfire is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,600
Thanks: 32,058
Thanked 44,219 Times in 12,928 Posts
Default

Just to clarify a point you seem to be making

Just because Trump asked SCOTUS to do or not do something doesn't mean they GAF what he says. It's a seperate, co-equal branch of government that doesn't have to listen.

There are a variety of reasons why the SCOTUS may have punted on this. I would be interested to know the specific reasons, of course, so I could make a better assessment of what happened here.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 01:34 PM
Israel Putnam's Avatar
Israel Putnam Israel Putnam is offline
Bunker Hill Patriot
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: W. Central PA
Posts: 6,414
Thanks: 3,432
Thanked 10,030 Times in 4,124 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlinfire View Post
Just to clarify a point you seem to be making

Just because Trump asked SCOTUS to do or not do something doesn't mean they GAF what he says. It's a seperate, co-equal branch of government that doesn't have to listen.

There are a variety of reasons why the SCOTUS may have punted on this. I would be interested to know the specific reasons, of course, so I could make a better assessment of what happened here.
It's because they agree with him and think silencers are stupid and bumpstocks are machine guns would be my guess.

Since they didn't give an explanation it was the above or they caved to the Executive.

You're also old enough to understand how politics works.
On a firearm issue, nobody wants to be taken up, it's not a hard stretch to believe that SCOTUS would listen to the urging of the Executive branch.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-10-2019, 01:45 PM
merlinfire's Avatar
merlinfire merlinfire is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,600
Thanks: 32,058
Thanked 44,219 Times in 12,928 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Israel Putnam View Post
It's because they agree with him and think silencers are stupid and bumpstocks are machine guns would be my guess.

Since they didn't give an explanation it was the above or they caved to the Executive.

You're also old enough to understand how politics works.
On a firearm issue, nobody wants to be taken up, it's not a hard stretch to believe that SCOTUS would listen to the urging of the Executive branch.
If they wanted to make a ruling, they'd take it up and make a ruling

otherwise it's a status quo

and yes, it is a pretty hard stretch to think the SCOTUS is going to either decline to take up or to take up cases based on what POTUS thinks. that's not how it works.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-10-2019, 07:51 PM
Snyper708 Snyper708 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,038
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,524 Times in 605 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Israel Putnam View Post
It's because they agree with him and think silencers are stupid and bumpstocks are machine guns would be my guess.

Since they didn't give an explanation it was the above or they caved to the Executive.

You're also old enough to understand how politics works.
On a firearm issue, nobody wants to be taken up, it's not a hard stretch to believe that SCOTUS would listen to the urging of the Executive branch.
The case was about someone who manufactured and sold their "silencers" illegally.

What Trump thinks has nothing to do with the decision not to hear the case.
They turn down the majority of requests received.

They likely made the decision long before the shooting event occurred.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Snyper708 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-10-2019, 08:06 PM
Israel Putnam's Avatar
Israel Putnam Israel Putnam is offline
Bunker Hill Patriot
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: W. Central PA
Posts: 6,414
Thanks: 3,432
Thanked 10,030 Times in 4,124 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snyper708 View Post
The case was about someone who manufactured and sold their "silencers" illegally.

What Trump thinks has nothing to do with the decision not to hear the case.
They turn down the majority of requests received.

They likely made the decision long before the shooting event occurred.
The argument of the case was about silencers not being firearms but an accessory.

Funny how a forum that is usually full of tin foil hat wearers suddenly is all about the government being righteous...
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-11-2019, 08:12 AM
merlinfire's Avatar
merlinfire merlinfire is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,600
Thanks: 32,058
Thanked 44,219 Times in 12,928 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Israel Putnam View Post
The argument of the case was about silencers not being firearms but an accessory.

Funny how a forum that is usually full of tin foil hat wearers suddenly is all about the government being righteous...
Nobody here is talking about righteousness. But the explanation to every event is not always deliberate malevolence, either.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to merlinfire For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net