Avatar feed
Responses: 3
Lt Col Charlie Brown
8
8
0
Edited >1 y ago
I think we have to wait and see on this.
(8)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Maj Robert Thornton
4
4
0
As with bump stocks, suppressors are not necessary for defensive purposes, thus I see why the supremes are not taking the case. Please don't misunderstand, I would love to see suppressors legalized, to help with combating hearing loss. Unfortunately, the non shooting public see suppressors used by Hollywood as almost noiseless, which in reality is not accurate.
(4)
Comment
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
CPT Jack Durish
>1 y
You beat me to it. Yes, public opinion is based too often on who shouts the loudest and not knowledge
(2)
Reply
(0)
TSgt George Rodriguez
TSgt George Rodriguez
>1 y
CPT Jack Durish - The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Steve McFarland
2
2
0
Not too surprised, because there are still a couple of rank-liberals and some of the other Justices are only pseudo-moderates. If the Supreme Court considered every 2nd Amendment case that comes before it, they wouldn't get anything else done.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close