Trigger Accesories. Where do you stand?

[duckman88]

I will pose this question somewhat as devils advocate because I think it is a valid question from anti-gun crowd.

Why should a suppressor be covered under your second amendment rights? It is not an 'arm'.

This question could really apply to any 'accessory' IMO. Could it also include magazines?

[Stripa Swipa]

Having a safe full of em wouldn't help if the govt comes after you.

There's a little reality that never gets murmured in the echo chamber.

[Two Barrels]

Why should a suppressor be covered under your second amendment rights? It is not an 'arm'.

Let's agree that a suppressor is not an arm. Then why should it be regulated as an arm under current NFA laws? Why should it be regulated at all?

[Palmetto Bug]

A trigger, magazine, barrel, handguard, stock, or bullet isn't an arm. They are parts of an arm.

Suppressors should have never been made illegal in the first place. A better question is, "Why are they illegal?"

[duckman88]

I agree with the logic of both of those posts and going back to duck cutter's question, maybe that is the best way to defend it, make the anti person defend thier position. Thier main response is going to be 'because you don't need it.' If they say that, the door is wide open for rebuttal.

[pstro]

WE NEED TO STOP FALLING INTO THE TRAP OF ALLOWING THE LEFT TO CONTROL THE CONVERSATION!!!

This debate is simple.
1. Murder is illegal.

There is a law against it. Yet murder being against the law did not stop Stephen Paddock from killing anyone. Or stop any other murderer before him. Whether it was committed with a gun, a knife, or a plastic bag.

Laws do not stop people from breaking them they merely set a guide for morality and an outlet for punishment when they are broken. If you think that any form of gun law will stop someone from obtaining a gun illegally just ask your self since drugs are illegal can people still get drugs?

2. Second amendment.

It is the next right guaranteed after free speech. I really don't need to prove to you or anyone else why I need something. We don't have to prove to anyone why we need free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swamp Rat]

I find it ironic that in England, with it's draconian gun control laws, you are ENCOURAGED to buy and use a suppressor to avoid excessive disturbance of your neighbors. Very little difficulty in getting them.

[Coastal Woodie]

No wonder our deer tag system is so screwed up, half of yall can't agree on what to do with suppressors. It's a muffler for a gun and nothing more, there is absolutely no logical reason to regulate them.

[smitch320]

What difference does it make it it goes BANG or bang?

[fuzzy]

What difference does it make it it goes BANG or bang?

It thought it was PEW or pew.

[smitch320]

It thought it was PEW or pew.

That works too

[marsh chicken]

So here is an argument for you boys to chew on...

My neighbor and I were discussing this the other night.

The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. Where do we draw the line? Do we allow a us citizen to own a TOW missile? How about a surface to air missile? MK19 Grenade launcher? How about a nuke? I mean if you can afford it and you have the right to bear arms...does the government have the ability to restrict what we can own?

[Coastal Woodie]

I would like a grenade launcher, sure would make killing beavers easier.

[Moonlight Hunter]

righttobeararms.jpg

[pstro]

So here is an argument for you boys to chew on...

My neighbor and I were discussing this the other night.

The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. Where do we draw the line? Do we allow a us citizen to own a TOW missile? How about a surface to air missile? MK19 Grenade launcher? How about a nuke? I mean if you can afford it and you have the right to bear arms...does the government have the ability to restrict what we can own?

Short answer. Yes, buy a tank rocket launcher whatever. I would rather American citizens have them than all of these crazy countries we sell or give them to. Also I believe second amendment is to stop a tyrannical government. And to that point I think that each state should have a well armed militia. Not the national guard.

The argument against people having these things is that they could blow up a bunch of people. But they can do that with pressure cookers or fertilizer




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USMCsilver]

Man...that MK19 would get expensive QUICK!



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[pstro]

And to this point we do often knee jerk and agree to things because it sounds good or is an emotional response. Point in case. If you are a felon you are stripped of your second amendment right. So (like him or not) thomas ravenel can't go shoot skeet with his great grandfathers over/under because he liked the way cocaine smelled.

The lefts arguments don't make sense. If they wanted to treat a crime committed with a gun with longer or more strict sentences (as they did with 'hate crimes') I could see their argument. Their entire platform is in direct opposition to personal responsibility. From welfare to abortion to gun control


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sportin' Woodies]

If police can have it, civilians should too. That's a fair enough line.
I can't afford to shoot full auto, but if I wanted to blow my paycheck on ammo that's my business.
Y'all remember when discussing freedom that we are now required to shoot deer based on what a tag says on it. People have become complacent in being told what to do by a bunch of lying spineless politicians and govt paid enforcers that carry out their orders. Over the counter suppressors was always a dream

[marsh chicken]

Anyone that doesn't believe a man needs a automatic rifle...I invite to come down and hang out after a hurricane. The looters are out and abundant. And I don't just want a pistol or a double barrel shotgun.

[Kioti]

I'll take my chances with people choosing a type of firearm instead of forcing them to use bombs.