Trump "doesn't like" silencers

[avvidclif]

Let your voice be heard.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

 

[birddog]

 

[oldag]

Let your voice be heard.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Done.

If enough people do this, politely, it might get Trump's attention.

 

[BRD@66]

Done. ....

Ditto. It's kind of scary that all my contact info (name, addy, etc) was already there at the WH check-in page & all I had to do was confirm the info.

 

[TheMailMan]

Ditto. It's kind of scary that all my contact info (name, addy, etc) was already there at the WH check-in page & all I had to do was confirm the info.

That was most likely your browser filling in the fields.

 

[BRD@66]

That was most likely your browser filling in the fields.

Whew!

 

[oldag]

Whew!

The ATF would like a word with you, however...

 

[Sam7sf]

And your dog

 

[easy rider]

Sent!


(What was the disclaimer at the bottom of the page mean: "You can run, but you can't hide"?)

 

[diesel1959]

You saying that makes me wonder if you're even reading what I wrote. I have only addressed Presidential candidates, though nowhere in this thread has it been stated that this discussion is limited ONLY to presidential candidates. The issue is present in all elected positions and is no less relevant. Maybe the dust you are throwing up is clouding your own vision.



I have answered your question with the only answer you are going to get. I find it a bit hypocritical though that you called me out for initially ignoring your question, but then you have done just done the same thing. I believe I asked you if you can say with certainty that a worthy third party candidate won't run in the future.



It's only worthless to those that don't understand the statement. Your mindset is the reason more worthy candidates don't run. It is so cancerous and so common that many won't try to run as a third party because they know their chances of winning are basically zero. Until that mindset changes, that won't change. It's not that there aren't good people running as third party candidates. That is not what this discussion is about and it never was. This discussion is about the mindset that prevents these candidates from ever having a chance.



Then why bother even typing out a response to me if that is how you feel?

There is no election(s) in the US similar to the election for President. Very little of what you have espoused is applicable to our Presidential election cycle and the realities of primaries, conventions, and the electoral college. What you have espoused is fit and noble for local, county, and state election cycles and candidate selection.

 

[Maverick44]

There is no election(s) in the US similar to the election for President. Very little of what you have espoused is applicable to our Presidential election cycle and the realities of primaries, conventions, and the electoral college. What you have espoused is fit and noble for local, county, and state election cycles and candidate selection.

You have the right to be wrong.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[RoadRunner]

Let your voice be heard.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Thanks for posting that. Maybe a few other folks will use it to send a message to Trump.

I have the link in my bookmarks so that it is easy to get to. I use it on a regular basis.

 

[JeepFiend]

Wow 22 pages and not once did I see anyone upset about the way he banned bump stocks.

I wasn't happy about the bump stock ban, and I'm not happy he's talking about banning suppressors. But what really gets me off the handle, and is a reason for which I would withhold my vote for Trump, is the manner in which he banned them. He circumvented congress to create a law by changing a definition.

My guess is, if he doesn't get his way in the senate, he'll do the same thing with suppressors. Send a memo to the DoJ and tell them to restructure the definition to include suppressors. That's pretty freakin' scary!

Going forward, think of the precedence that sets. Any sitting president can randomly and at will redefine illegal contraband and have them stripped from the American people without compensation. The potentiality of this action could be extremely far reaching. And if he does it with suppressors as well as bumpstocks and isn't put in check by the Supreme Court, then as Kavanaugh said about Roe v Wade, there is now precedence on precedence. Just wait until the next dem president gets in office....because there will be one. Maybe not this election, maybe not the next, but eventually, they will be back in the house, and if not even the congress can stop them, heaven help us.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

 

[Younggun]

Wow 22 pages and not once did I see anyone upset about the way he banned bump stocks.

I guess you skipped a few posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sam7sf]

I was gonna say it...I removed my post. As for looking for those post about bumpstocks.

 

[benenglish]

Wow 22 pages and not once did I see anyone upset about the way he banned bump stocks.

Really? See post 135.

I really got fired up about the re-definition/ban.

 

[Low_Speed]

Wow 22 pages and not once did I see anyone upset about the way he banned bump stocks.

I wasn't happy about the bump stock ban, and I'm not happy he's talking about banning suppressors. But what really gets me off the handle, and is a reason for which I would withhold my vote for Trump, is the manner in which he banned them. He circumvented congress to create a law by changing a definition.

My guess is, if he doesn't get his way in the senate, he'll do the same thing with suppressors. Send a memo to the DoJ and tell them to restructure the definition to include suppressors. That's pretty freakin' scary!

Going forward, think of the precedence that sets. Any sitting president can randomly and at will redefine illegal contraband and have them stripped from the American people without compensation. The potentiality of this action could be extremely far reaching. And if he does it with suppressors as well as bumpstocks and isn't put in check by the Supreme Court, then as Kavanaugh said about Roe v Wade, there is now precedence on precedence. Just wait until the next dem president gets in office....because there will be one. Maybe not this election, maybe not the next, but eventually, they will be back in the house, and if not even the congress can stop them, heaven help us.

I’ve brought up the bump stock situation twice here. I agree with you. It was bad and what’s worse is that I’ve heard gun owners saying that the bump stock ban fight should be let go because they didn’t like them and there are other things to focus on. Especially, from gun celebrities (I’m talking about you Michael Bane!) It’s sad that some gun owners could see what was coming but veterans gun owners couldn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Low_Speed]

Let your voice be heard.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JeepFiend]

I guess you skipped a few posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, I read em all...better of an hour going through, wanting to reply but figured I was a day late and a dollar short.

I saw a lot of posts talking about not liking the ban, what I didn't see was a anyone talking about the method of the ban as much as the end result.

Perhaps I read the intent wrong. It's definitely possible.