Hearing Protection Act reintroduced

[bwframe]

... When is this Republican, right-wing, conservative, 2A-loving administration and congress going to really do what they promised in order to get votes?

It's looking like, after we win again in 2018.

 

[Que]

It's looking like, after we win again in 2018.

That's cool since they didn't lie to me. I guess a bigger majority is needed. The others can be used to find the balls of those already in office.

 

[bwframe]

That's cool since they didn't lie to me. I guess a bigger majority is needed. The others can be used to find the balls of those already in office.

Guess I missed where you were a supporter? Did who you voted for lie to you?

A bigger "majority" is certainly needed. Our supposed "majority" is has enough RINO/NeverTrumpers that it is no majority. Hopefully we'll be able to primary some of these problems away also.

 

[Que]

Guess I missed where you were a supporter? Did who you vote for lie to you?

A bigger "majority" is certainly needed. Our supposed "majority" is has enough RINO/NeverTrumpers that it is no majority. Hopefully we'll be able to primary some of these problems away also.

I'm not a supporter.

 

[Twangbanger]

It's frustrating! We get on this site and the majority of our discussions and disagreements are about politics. It appears the majority of our members staunchly support anyone who appears to even remotely support 2A rights, no matter what is included in the rest of their portfolio....

Introducing a bill is just one part of a five step process....When is this Republican, right-wing, conservative, 2A-loving administration and congress going to really do what they promised in order to get votes?

I'm not a supporter.

We've finally gotten down to what all this guffing is about. Que (I am surmising) doesn't like Right-Wing Republicans, on a host of other issues. Which is cool. But this discussion is about liberalization of Suppressor laws & regulation. And I have pointed out that there has been more progress on this point in 5 months of Trump's presidency, than in the entire remainder of recorded American history going back to the beginning of the NFA. An unfortunate, but true, observation. You had a "medium-ish" good piece of legislation, which garnered ~150 co-sponsors, an unfortunate distracting event on the day it was supposed to be debated, and then an even better piece of legislation got introduced just days ago. That's progress, in the eyes of any reasonable observer who doesn't have some other kind of axe to grind.

I have also pointed out, in light of the above, that there are types of Republicans we need more of...and types we need less of. In my opinion, the latter very unfortunately outnumbers the former. Now, if Que and the other more critical observers here are in agreement on the need to elect a stronger majority of that (what I'm calling) "good group" of Republicans, then great. We've found something we agree on.

But I don't really think that's the case. I think the "kind of Republicans" most of us 2A types agree we need more of (ie, Freedom Caucus), are not agreeable to you, Que, on a whole host of other issues. At least that's the sense I'm getting. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I think you've left a pretty strong signal on that. And you feel the "trade-off" is not worth it, for you, based on those politicians' stands on other issues.

And again, if true, that's cool. We all have "other" issues that are important to us, which we have to balance against the 2A positions and actions of specific candidates.

But if all this guffing is not _really_ just about Suppressor laws...and other "generalized political disagreements" are getting drawn into this (see bold, above)...then I really believe that rather than trying to be "coy" and deny what I said in the second sentence of this posting, perhaps a better course of action would be for this portion of the discussion to be moved to the "Political" forum, which is where it apparently belongs.

 

[Que]

We've finally gotten down to what all this guffing is about. Que (I am surmising) doesn't like Right-Wing Republicans, on a host of other issues. Which is cool. But this discussion is about liberalization of Suppressor laws & regulation. And I have pointed out that there has been more progress on this point in 5 months of Trump's presidency, than in the entire remainder of recorded American history going back to the beginning of the NFA. An unfortunate, but true, observation. You had a "medium-ish" good piece of legislation, which garnered ~150 co-sponsors, an unfortunate distracting event on the day it was supposed to be debated, and then an even better piece of legislation got introduced just days ago. That's progress, in the eyes of any reasonable observer who doesn't have some other kind of axe to grind.

I have also pointed out, in light of the above, that there are types of Republicans we need more of...and types we need less of. In my opinion, the latter very unfortunately outnumbers the former. Now, if Que and the other more critical observers here are in agreement on the need to elect a stronger majority of that (what I'm calling) "good group" of Republicans, then great. We've found something we agree on.

But I don't really think that's the case. I think the "kind of Republicans" most of us 2A types agree we need more of (ie, Freedom Caucus), are not agreeable to you, Que, on a whole host of other issues. At least that's the sense I'm getting. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I think you've left a pretty strong signal on that. And you feel the "trade-off" is not worth it, for you, based on those politicians' stands on other issues.

And again, if true, that's cool. We all have "other" issues that are important to us, which we have to balance against the 2A positions and actions of specific candidates.

But if all this guffing is not _really_ just about Suppressor laws...and other "generalized political disagreements" are getting drawn into this (see bold, above)...then I really believe that rather than trying to be "coy" and deny what I said in the second sentence of this posting, perhaps a better course of action would be for this portion of the discussion to be moved to the "Political" forum, which is where it apparently belongs.

No, I think what you surmise is wrong! Ask a number of people who know me outside of these typed messages and you will learn where I stand. What you define as progress is nothing more that the signing of one document that, as I pointed out, was even backed by liberals. It was something the Obama administration got completely wrong and it should not have ever existed. My issue with this entire thing is, I was talked down for months about how this administration and Republican majority congress was going to do great things for gun rights. The candidate, president-elect, and sitting president, all said the same thing. There is nothing standing in their way, but now we only have excuses. Now it's, "Yeah, we have a Republican majority in congress, but they are not the 'right' Republicans."

As for the the Freedom Caucus, I don't know much about them, except they are part of the group of Republicans who have done nothing for gun rights. There are politicians, ideals, and beliefs embraced by all political structures that I don't particularly like or agree with. What I don't like is people who, with a straight face, tell me their system is always 100% right and cannot even bear to simply admit their system is wrong in any area. I have never hidden my dislike for Trump's brand of Republicanism and never will. However, I will give him credit where and when it is due, which I have done in the past. But, on THIS issue, they have not provided what they promised and that is concerning to me, especially since people I know supported him.

I have no expectation out of this administration other than 2A and veteran/military issues, because the Republican party has traditionally done a much better job in these areas. My assumption was they would continue this tradition and even push past baby-step improvements. I believed he would place these matters among his top priorities, but nothing is being done in either area. I'm not sure how you believe my input was not directed toward the topic, but this is my issue. Anything else you choose to infer from my "guffing" is totally up to you.

 

[Twangbanger]

...But, on THIS issue, they have not provided what they promised and that is concerning to me, especially since people I know supported him....

So for my benefit, since I had not been following this closely...which politicians promised you passage of the HPA, or similar legislation?

 

[moose97]

So for my benefit, since I had not been following this closely...which politicians promised you passage of the HPA, or similar legislation?

I think this is a great point. Every gun website out there promised the HPA was a slam dunk with a Republican Congress & President (see such articles as "top gun bills Trump will pass in the first 100 days"), but I don't remember any politicians actually saying it was a priority...

 

[Twangbanger]

I think this is a great point. Every gun website out there promised the HPA was a slam dunk with a Republican Congress & President (see such articles as "top gun bills Trump will pass in the first 100 days"), but I don't remember any politicians actually saying it was a priority...

It doesn't even sound like something they would promise. I mean, I can see somebody promising to vote in favor of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty "down" on Republicans, with all their stupid promises about Obamacare, etc., etc. But I really want to know "who" promised passage of this (and not, "Uh, all kinds of people, Google it...").

 

[Beowulf]

So for my benefit, since I had not been following this closely...which politicians promised you passage of the HPA, or similar legislation?

I get that you are twitting Que for perhaps engaging in a little hyperbole (since he is, justifiably, upset about this), but really to what end? Why are you working so hard to defend the Republicans who consistently campaign on how Pro-2nd Amendment they are, but continually fail to really do anything. Need I remind you of the '94 Crime Bill and AWB? It sunsetted because a single Republican committee chairman refused to let it out of committee, not because the entire GOP was adamant that it be removed (in fact, George Bush had indicated that if a renewal had crossed his desk, he would have signed it). Going further back, what about his father, GHWB, using executive authority to ban the importation of firearms deemed "assault weapons". Then of course, Reagan let the poison pill of the Hughes Amendment get into the Firearm Owners Protection Act (and no matter how hard they try to spin it, it wasn't worth it).

Republicans have been consistently untrustworthy when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues, doing all they can to paint themselves as 2nd Amendment Patriots to get gun owner votes, but once they are in office, they just fade away. At best, most of our "victories" in the last few decades have been from stalling Democrat pushed gun control or from Supreme Court decisions, not from Republican backed legislation to roll back restrictions on our fundamental rights.

So, again, I ask, what's the point of defending them? Why does Trump need an even bigger majority in 2018 to do anything? What assurances are they offering?

 

[Beowulf]

To be clear, Republicans aren't "my team". I take zero personal pleasure in having them win. My only interest is in seeing my rights and interests protected by my elected officials. Cheering over which authoritarian group gets to put their boot on my neck for the next 2/4 years seems like an act in sheer idiocy.

 

[KLB]

Guess I missed where you were a supporter? Did who you voted for lie to you?

A bigger "majority" is certainly needed. Our supposed "majority" is has enough RINO/NeverTrumpers that it is no majority. Hopefully we'll be able to primary some of these problems away also.

Why do we have to have Trump drones in Congress to get a pro 2A bill passed? Does the Republican party not claim to be pro 2A?

 

[KLB]

It doesn't even sound like something they would promise. I mean, I can see somebody promising to vote in favor of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty "down" on Republicans, with all their stupid promises about Obamacare, etc., etc. But I really want to know "who" promised passage of this (and not, "Uh, all kinds of people, Google it...").

What about reciprocity then? That was part of the party platform last year. You'd think they could get something up for a vote on that one, right?

Here is their platform https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
and their section on the 2A

The Second Amendment:
Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms
We uphold the right of individuals to keep
and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that
predates the Constitution and is secured by the
Second Amendment. Lawful gun ownership enables
Americans to exercise their God-given right of selfdefense
for the safety of their homes, their loved
ones, and their communities.
We salute the Republican Congress for
defending the right to keep and bear arms by
preventing the President from installing a new liberal
majority on the Supreme Court. The confirmation
to the Court of additional anti-gun justices would
eviscerate the Second Amendment’s fundamental
protections. Already, local officials in the nation’s
capital and elsewhere are defying the Court’s
decisions upholding an individual right to bear
arms as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller
and McDonald. We support firearm reciprocity
legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding
Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves
and their families in all 50 states. We support
constitutional carry statutes and salute the states
that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived
laws that would restrict magazine capacity or
ban the sale of the most popular and common
modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive
individuals of their right to keep and bear arms
without due process of law.
We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun
manufacturers and the current Administration’s
illegal harassment of firearm dealers. We oppose
federal licensing or registration of law-abiding
gun owners, registration of ammunition, and
restoration of the ill-fated Clinton gun ban. We call
for a thorough investigation — by a new Republican
administration — of the deadly “Fast and Furious”
operation perpetrated by Department of Justice
officials who approved and allowed illegal sales of
guns to known violent criminals.

 

[Twangbanger]

I get that you are twitting Que for perhaps engaging in a little hyperbole (since he is, justifiably, upset about this), but really to what end? Why are you working so hard to defend the Republicans who consistently campaign on how Pro-2nd Amendment they are, but continually fail to really do anything. Need I remind you of the '94 Crime Bill and AWB? It sunsetted because a single Republican committee chairman refused to let it out of committee, not because the entire GOP was adamant that it be removed (in fact, George Bush had indicated that if a renewal had crossed his desk, he would have signed it). Going further back, what about his father, GHWB, using executive authority to ban the importation of firearms deemed "assault weapons". Then of course, Reagan let the poison pill of the Hughes Amendment get into the Firearm Owners Protection Act (and no matter how hard they try to spin it, it wasn't worth it).

Republicans have been consistently untrustworthy when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues, doing all they can to paint themselves as 2nd Amendment Patriots to get gun owner votes, but once they are in office, they just fade away. At best, most of our "victories" in the last few decades have been from stalling Democrat pushed gun control or from Supreme Court decisions, not from Republican backed legislation to roll back restrictions on our fundamental rights.

So, again, I ask, what's the point of defending them? Why does Trump need an even bigger majority in 2018 to do anything? What assurances are they offering?

I'm not defending them, in the aggregate. Those examples enrage me the same as you, and I've maintained from the start there are types of Republicans we need more of...and kinds we need less of. What I am doing, is addressing people who can't seem to find _any_ kind of Republican they approve of, and try to figure out why; or at least stand up for some accuracy and perspective in discourse.

And still, not one of you has shown "who" promised rollback of an almost century-old federal regulation. If it was just some "gun guys," needling Que about his voting...does that really justify declaring true pro-2A legislators as no different than the rest? Because I don't think that's accurate, I don't think it helps passage of the bill, and I don't think it's merited based solely on consideration of the issue at hand.

So, either answer the question, get some rational perspective in the discourse...or, admit this huffing is at least partially based on feelings about unrelated issues. (In which case, take that stuff to "General Politics" where it belongs).

 

[Beowulf]

I'm not defending them, in the aggregate. Those examples enrage me the same as you, and I've maintained from the start there are types of Republicans we need more of...and kinds we need less of. What I am doing, is addressing people who can't seem to find _any_ kind of Republican they approve of, and try to figure out why; or at least stand up for some accuracy and perspective in discourse.

And still, not one of you has shown "who" promised rollback of an almost century-old federal regulation. If it was just some "gun guys," needling Que about his voting...does that really justify declaring true pro-2A legislators as no different than the rest? Because I don't think that's accurate, I don't think it helps passage of the bill, and I don't think it's merited based solely on consideration of the issue at hand.

So, either answer the question, get some rational perspective in the discourse...or, admit this huffing is at least partially based on feelings about unrelated issues. (In which case, take that stuff to "General Politics" where it belongs).

What about the 154 Reps and 2 Senators who signed on to the HPA in the House and Senate respectively? Yet, it keeps getting stuck in committee... the leadership of which is controlled by the GOP. So, something is very off about that. If anything, it would seem that the bulk of the House Republicans support it, but the GOP leadership is quashing it... actively. Otherwise, with that amount of co-sponsorship in the House, it should have at least made it to the floor for a vote.

Now of course, you could counter that all of those committee chairpeople and GOP leadership folks are part of the "never Trump" crowd, but is that really true? All of them? Or is this really endemic of a much bigger problem in the GOP itself, where, much like the DNC, the leadership has been manipulating and maneuvering in order to maintain their positions of power, completely ignoring the actual will of the party membership? If the latter, then the problem isn't never Trumpers... it's Republicans themselves. They've attached themselves to an inherently corrupt group and sold out their own principles just so they could sit in their chair in the Capitol building.

 

[Twangbanger]

Why do we have to have Trump drones in Congress to get a pro 2A bill passed? Does the Republican party not claim to be pro 2A?

So: you are in essence positing that, for example, Massachusetts, New York, and California Republicans will vote the same way as Alabama, Alaska, and Indiana ones? And by that reasoning, the NRA should not even need a rating system?

Seriously?

What party - that has actually gotten elected to Congress - demonstrates that kind of purity?

(Well - I will let someone else here fill in that answer...)

 

[Twangbanger]

What about the 154 Reps and 2 Senators who signed on to the HPA in the House and Senate respectively? Yet, it keeps getting stuck in committee... the leadership of which is controlled by the GOP. So, something is very off about that. If anything, it would seem that the bulk of the House Republicans support it, but the GOP leadership is quashing it... actively. Otherwise, with that amount of co-sponsorship in the House, it should have at least made it to the floor for a vote.

Now of course, you could counter that all of those committee chairpeople and GOP leadership folks are part of the "never Trump" crowd, but is that really true? All of them? Or is this really endemic of a much bigger problem in the GOP itself, where, much like the DNC, the leadership has been manipulating and maneuvering in order to maintain their positions of power, completely ignoring the actual will of the party membership? If the latter, then the problem isn't never Trumpers... it's Republicans themselves. They've attached themselves to an inherently corrupt group and sold out their own principles just so they could sit in their chair in the Capitol building.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Most Republicans are sellouts, on many, many issues.

I'm just trying to get some here to realize that bath-pan contains an actual baby, and it's something we can potentially build on.

 

[Que]

So for my benefit, since I had not been following this closely...which politicians promised you passage of the HPA, or similar legislation?

Reading what I posted I stand corrected, but please let me clarify. Trump spent a great deal of time pandering to the gun community. He offered words that would cause anyone looking for the support of this bill and others like it, to believe he would be there. I was told (and I never doubted this point) that Clinton would do everything she could to abolish the Second Amendment. I was also told by people on this forum, along with many calls from the NRA, that Trump and a Reliblical-led congress would get this done. I even posted about getting a new suppressor and was told to be patient, because this bill was going to become law. I just assumed knowing how democrats come together, despite insignificant differences, to get things done, the non-politician and those in his party would do the same.

I'm not suggesting people on here can be held accountable for congress and the president not doing anything. I am more upset about them using fancy words to gain the support of the gun community and then not doing anything with a bill that's been floating around for years. This just seemed like an easy win! Trump was never a gun guy and then all of a sudden he's talking about his license to carry and his sons being hunters. He even recently spoke at the NRA convention about the assault on gun rights coming to a "screaching halt." Many seem to have bought into his implications, but you are right, he's never promised anything. I believed what I read and heard coming from many Trump-friendly sources, but I guess it was just fake news.

 

[KJQ6945]

Just a reminder, we have a political section, and this ain't it.

 

[bwframe]

Just a reminder, we have a political section, and this ain't it.

Correct! This thread is beginning to sound like the politics section. NeverTrumpers hoping to pick and choose what they want from an administration they have done nothing but trash. That and the continual quest for "told you so."

Wondering why the Republicans can't get anything done when they are infiltrated with this same mentality?