SilencerCo Interview Video with Donald Trump Jr

[alamo5000]

I have been watching some gun videos and recently I've ran across some of the recent Silencerco videos. Wow. I think they are pretty good.

Here is one that is pertinent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vlu2G5UkXk

The link is to the full interview of Donald Trump Jr when he visited Silencerco.

If you want to see the condensed version click the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_LOxq6j4FM

[alamo5000]

Boiler up... I encourage you to watch the whole video. It's long but very good.

[alamo5000]

Basically he talks a lot about the 2A and how he got involved with it from early on and a bunch of other topics. Then at the end he says that if the hearing protection act gets through congress DJT will sign it because it makes no sense to regulate silencers at all.

[BoilerUp]

Good video. Thanks for posting. Junior has a career in politics in front of him, I suspect.

[GOST]

Jr. is also the Co-Chairman of Trump's Second Amendment Coalition:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/03/trump-2nd-amendment-coalition/amp/?client=safari

[alamo5000]

Good video. Thanks for posting. Junior has a career in politics in front of him, I suspect.

I suspect so also. His sister is a pretty good speaker herself. That said it says a lot that DJT's kids are well versed and respectful. That says a lot about dad right there.

As for guns it seems kind of nice that someone who seems to 'get it' has access to the POTUS any time he wants. This is a luxury that we've never had before.

[alamo5000]

Jr. is also the Co-Chairman of Trump's Second Amendment Coalition:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/03/trump-2nd-amendment-coalition/amp/?client=safari

Again, it's nice to know that someone on our side has the ear of the POTUS. Let's hope that they can discuss this stuff over dinner one night and actually do something about it that is logical and makes sense.

I have no problem with preventing criminals from getting guns, but there is a whole lot that doesn't do any of that. Its just 'there' to make people run in circles.

[fledge]

Got to hear the back half of the interview. I appreciate his awareness. As an aside to a point he made, any gun arguments made to compare to Europe, for or against, is bad reasoning. Europe does not set the bar. That line of reasoning toward mythical "progress" contributes to the mess we are in. The real argument is about Rights and Reason, not about what other nations do.

[alamo5000]

Got to hear the back half of the interview. I appreciate his awareness. As an aside to a point he made, any gun arguments made to compare to Europe, for or against, is bad reasoning. Europe does not set the bar. That line of reasoning toward mythical "progress" contributes to the mess we are in. The real argument is about Rights and Reason, not about what other nations do.

That's true but in context of talking to liberal weenies who have never held a gun, one can clearly point out that Australia, New Zealand, Europe, etc do not have the same fear of reduced decibel levels.

[fledge]

I get it. But it's a faulty argument. At best it simply says "others aren't afraid of it so why are we!" But he didn't use it that way. He used it as a "we need to catch up" argument which is wrong headed. There is nothing to catch up to.

[Joelski]

How? With respect to suppressors alone, we are behind other parts of the world.

[GOST]

I agree with Fledge, comparing us to other countries sets a precedent that can be used in later arguments. This mindset of having to catch up with the rest of the world is the root cause for lots of our current problems; problems like gun control, Obamacare and so on. Our forefathers gave a lot to separate us from the rest of the world, they believed we set the benchmark. Arguing the benefits of suppressors rather than comparing us to other countries will serve us better in the future. The mindset of thinking we need to catch up no matter what it is, is what leads to the deconstruction of patriotism.

[BoilerUp]

valid points on both sides. I think pointing to several European countries as examples of generally anti-gun societies that are OK with, or even require, suppressors is a useful fact for debate since you need to bring in perspectives that align to how the opponent thinks, but we should be careful in how we choose our words.

[GOST]

Remember when using the European countries that allow suppressors into a debate that you also will introduce their firearm regulations into the debate also.

[Joelski]

My hope is that hte 2A coalition will achieve something previously unheard of in congress; an intelligent, bi-partisan conversation about firearms and exactly who uses them.

The term Assault Weapon and all it's forms and connotations should be struck from the legal lexicon, as the justices should understand that it's the Assaulter, not the tool that causes the end result. Attaching the term to anything other than military weapons was probably cooked up by that toad Feinstein among all her other made-up, hocus-pocus crap about evil black rifles. Fix that fallacy and everything else can fall neatly into place for enthusiasts and hunters alike.

30 bullet clips, flash adapters, and handgun stocks FTW! This twat waffle actually said this stuff

"We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines."

Ummmmm maybe in a war. The Wal-Mart here doesn't sell human tags for hunting licenses. [crazy]

[alamo5000]

valid points on both sides. I think pointing to several European countries as examples of generally anti-gun societies that are OK with, or even require, suppressors is a useful fact for debate since you need to bring in perspectives that align to how the opponent thinks, but we should be careful in how we choose our words.

^^^ THIS.

[SINNER]

You could pay off the debt by auctioning human tags.

[fledge]

valid points on both sides. I think pointing to several European countries as examples of generally anti-gun societies that are OK with, or even require, suppressors is a useful fact for debate since you need to bring in perspectives that align to how the opponent thinks, but we should be careful in how we choose our words.

Yes that's my point. Use Europe as an example as a modern group who are okay with with suppressors. That is an appeal to today's progressives as long as the point is limited to that.

But Europe is neither ahead nor behind the USA. They are what they are based on the philosophies they value. Those philosophies can be true or false or a mix. But it has nothing to do with "progress." Europe simply isn't an example of greater advancement or enlightenment. They can be progress-oriented fancy pants all day and live life in denial. Europe lives a lot in denial.

To base an argument on the assumption that whatever is "up to date" or "trendy" or "okay with the majority" or "into the 21st century" is just the rhetoric of moral relativism to condescend to those who disagree. Rights and relativism are not compatible. Progressivism is rule by mob expecting the universe to fix everything as the mob goes. Whatever is "next" is assumed to be right. "Make America Great Again" sounds to them like going "backwards" rather than fixing a timeless foundation. Generally speaking, progressives think linearly; conservatives structurally. Progressives live in the future: conservatives are more timeless (generally). Examples abound.

[BoilerUp]

I get you and am with you, fledge