Trump says he still considering "silencer "ban on Piers Morgan

[:-)]

Fudd don't need suppressors to hunt wabbits.

[thebearpack]

No one has a better option, it's just TDS.

There's no reason for him to give any ground on suppressors. None.

I've submitted all my personal info and required bribe to the ATF for the privilege of owning one and am still waiting 320 days later. If I didn't care about the law, I could make one in my garage in an hour. I'm tired of losing rights - regardless how trivial - every time one nut does something bad and I shouldn't have to worry about that with an R in the White House, but here we are again.

Maybe with a D POTUS, the Republicans would find their balls and say no just to oppose him or her. Don't know, but it's getting harder to support DJT when he keeps spouting off and opening the door to more restrictions.

[ray h]

I predict a huge win for DJT. I also predict a hell of a lot more voter fraud from the left.
The deep state/swamp will be all in on this one. This may be the "its time" if he loses.

If he loses the election I can accept that, that's on the voters.
For me "it's time" if he gets kicked out of office (impeachment) based on fraudulent evidence. Impeachment is not a voter decision, it's an overthrow of an elected official by a opposing party. That I am not good with. I really, really hope that doesn't happen because that would be my "it's time" moment because that's when we've lost our democracy.

[Aggies Coach]

Wanna bet some ammo on it. Bahhahaha
Some people can't get enough of being wrong.

I am always up for a friendly wager. But I would prefer that the loser must post a photo of themselves wearing a hat of the winner. Deal ???

[ray h]

I am always up for a friendly wager. But I would prefer that the loser must post a photo of themselves wearing a hat of the winner. Deal ???

Ahhh, I won't get on my knees for anyone, and I won't wear a Democrat hat. That would be a bet I'm not willing to follow through on if I lose.

[:-)]

He didn't say ban, he said didn't like them and looking into it. He is talking to an anti gun libtard that gets triggered and starts yelling over you if you disagree with him.

[eagleclaw]

He didn't say ban, he said didn't like them and looking into it. He is talking to an anti gun libtard that gets triggered and starts yelling over you if you disagree with him.

I noticed that too. When compared to the LV aftermath, I recalled he affirmatively said he was going to ban bump stocks. I hope it is all just a play with words and an attempt to pacify the left.

If he is serious about banning the possession of suppressors ( not the just sale ) NFA owned machine guns/ select fire are quickly going to be the next item banned. With suppressors one can argue a reason to own could be to reduce the chance of hearing damage and not disturb surrounding residents when shooting /hunting. Outside a 2A argument ,not much can be said about select fire ownership except they are entertaining and fun.

[Yoder]

In other shit countries like England you are required to use a suppressor to hunt.

[eagleclaw]

In other shit countries like England you are required to use a suppressor to hunt.

Hollywood and action movies gave Sound suppressors a bad reputation here.

[ShooterInPA1]

NFA items are already solidly codified into law, whereas bump stocks were not. This would take more than an EO to change, even if he wanted to.