Selling the Anti-Gun People on Silencer Deregulation

[jimbob86]

Silencers were somewhat expensive at the time. The idea was that anyone who could afford a luxury item like that could afford a $200 tax.

The high tax kept the unwashed masses from having them.

Establish a legitimate sporting purpose

NO.

The 2nd Amendment is not about sports, neither shooting ducks, bucks or paper. The idea that we "need" a "Sporting Purpose" to justify any of the weapons protected by the 2nd is surrendering the very idea of the 2nd Amendment.

Must we lose our principles to win an argument? If so, the argument is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

 

[speedrrracer]

The 2nd Amendment is not about sports, neither shooting ducks, bucks or paper. The idea that we "need" a "Sporting Purpose" to justify any of the weapons protected by the 2nd is surrendering the very idea of the 2nd Amendment.

Must we lose our principles to win an argument? If so, the argument is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

That whooshing sound is the point zooming over your head. You're totally missing the point. First of all, we don't know if suppressors are protected by the 2A. Even if you agree that the 2A is so that the average citizen can be as well armed as a soldier of the time period (and the Supreme Court does NOT agree with that)...well, the average soldier is not issued a suppressed weapon.

How many court cases have been won by "that guy" who claims to the court that the 2A is his carry permit? Yells, "Shall not be infringed, beeyotch! I can haz a nuke if I want!" ? Zero. Say it again....does.not.work.in.reality.

Until we vote in a majority of politicians who will overturn all the crappy anti-2A laws from the NFA all the way up to microstamping and the SAFE act, we have to have the courage to be honest about the neck-deep crap we are stuck in, so that we can deal with the neck-deep crap.

Our "principles" are not being lost here. The system was manipulated by people who were out of touch with America's principles. They elected a majority of politicians who are similarly out of touch, and those politicians appointed Justices who are out of touch. Those Justices allowed the judicial branch of the government to shirk it's responsibilities, and here we are, neck-deep in crap.

We didn't vote for those politicians nor appoint those Justices, so again, our principles are wholly intact. We will continue to follow our principles, and that includes taking minor victories as well as major ones. Getting a hunting exception might be an excellent idea. Knowledge counters fear. Very few have seen suppressors, so all they "know" about suppressors is the crap they see in Hollywood. Once more are exposed, there will be less fear, and less resistance. Less resistance means a greater chance of victory, and that's a Good Thing.

 

[jimbob86]

How many court cases have been won by "that guy" who claims to the court that the 2A is his carry permit? Yells, "Shall not be infringed, beeyotch! I can haz a nuke if I want!" ? Zero. Say it again....does.not.work.in.reality.

People that yell "beyotch" won't convince anybody of anything, except that they lack good manners.

People that will advocate adopting the other side's demands (which are alledgedly based upon the other side's supposed principles*) "because it works" have lost their own principles, and are as doomed in the long run as a ship without a rudder..... they'll keep compromising until they are out of cake, in the mistaken belief that they might get some crumbs back ..... it's not as if the other side wants to sit down and enjoy some cake with you: They are convinced that cake is fattening, and as such is BAD for society, and you should not have it.


*I do not believe for a minute that the dedicated Anti's really believe in that "sporting purpose" claptrap: It's a tactic to divide gun owners, and to help obscure the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which was to prevent the Government having a monopoly or even a level of superiority, of Force over The People. The latter is the case now, and the Founders would be appalled.

 

[gyvel]

The irony of the NFA Acts of 34 and 35 is that some members of Congress who were somewhat knowledgeable about the 2nd Amendment made statements to the effect that they felt automatic weapons were particularly suitable for militia use.

 

[JimDandy]

You might as well try telling Devil Anse Hatfield the McCoy's aren't bad folks, just a bit misunderstood. The fanatics (on both sides) are willing to swallow any rhetoric without bothering with the facts.

I saw a guy talking about Manchin-Toomey from our side. I forget who he was.. but the example he used was pretty much the ONE thing Manchin-Toomey's exemptions DID make ok. The guy from their side was no better. Then you have shoulder things that go up, magazines that you toss when they're empty, and on and on.

 

[carguychris]

The 2nd Amendment is not about sports, neither shooting ducks, bucks or paper. The idea that we "need" a "Sporting Purpose" to justify any of the weapons protected by the 2nd is surrendering the very idea of the 2nd Amendment.

I disagree. According to the Founding Fathers and 2-1/2 centuries of legal precedent, the 2A is intended to protect the RKBA for the militia AND personal self-defense AND sporting use.

I agree that so-called "sporting purposes" have been used to divide gun owners, and I despise the way they were written into the 68 GCA to justify import restrictions; however, in this case, IMHO they're the path of least resistance.

I agree with speedrrracer; establishing a legitimate militia use is an uphill battle, and although there are appropriate times for moralistic 2A absolutism, this isn't one of them. Due to the whole machine gun thing, direct frontal assaults on the NFA are not only unlikely to succeed- they're likely to backfire in ways that could make things worse. IMHO this is one case where the incremental approach is preferable.

 

[Chris_B]

I disagree. According to the Founding Fathers and 2-1/2 centuries of legal precedent, the 2A is intended to protect the RKBA for the militia AND personal self-defense AND sporting use.

Can you explain the rationale for the things I have boldfaced? I ask because it is my belief that the 2A is about a concept, not a pastime. I do not believe that the bill of rights concerns itself with outlining the scope of rights re: leisure pursuits. While my comment may seem a little whimsical at first glance, I am serious. The bill of rights isn't concerned about why you need the right mentioned in the 2A. It's concerned about saying you have it and why you have it.

 

[jimbob86]

I agree that so-called "sporting purposes" have been used to divide gun owners, and I despise the way they were written into the 68 GCA to justify import restrictions; however, in this case, IMHO they're the path of least resistance.

Taking the path of least resistance, because it is easiest, will never get you to the top of the hill.

We are right, and "compromising" with the other side has not given us anything. Adopting the "sporting purpose" language gives legitimacy to the GCA of 1968, which is an abomination.

Can you explain the rationale for the things I have boldfaced? I ask because it is my belief that the 2A is about a concept, not a pastime. I do not believe that the bill of rights concerns itself with outlining the scope of rights re: leisure pursuits. While my comment may seem a little whimsical at first glance, I am serious. The bill of rights isn't concerned about why you need the right mentioned in the 2A. It's concerned about saying you have it and why you have it.

+1.

The Founders did not write the 2nd Amendment into the BoR to protect anything except the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

[speedrrracer]

People that will advocate adopting the other side's demands (which are alledgedly based upon the other side's supposed principles*) "because it works" have lost their own principles, and are as doomed in the long run as a ship without a rudder..... they'll keep compromising until they are out of cake, in the mistaken belief that they might get some crumbs back ..... it's not as if the other side wants to sit down and enjoy some cake with you: They are convinced that cake is fattening, and as such is BAD for society, and you should not have it.


*I do not believe for a minute that the dedicated Anti's really believe in that "sporting purpose" claptrap: It's a tactic to divide gun owners, and to help obscure the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which was to prevent the Government having a monopoly or even a level of superiority, of Force over The People. The latter is the case now, and the Founders would be appalled.

I cannot understand this. Nobody in this forum is advocating that we adopt the other side's principles. You're all lathered about a problem that does not exist (at least in this forum; I'm sure there are such idiots in the world, maybe you're just venting about them?).

Nobody is advocating compromise. You need to understand the difference between compromise and following a plan to victory. Think about WW2. Did we tell the Japanese they could keep Wake Island? Did we storm Tokyo on the first day? No, we did not compromise, nor did we make stupid, rash attacks with no hope of success. We made a plan to WIN and we followed the plan.
We fought our way across the Pacific, island by island, so that when we were ready to attack mainland Japan, our supply lines would be stable & safe, we'd have only one front, etc, etc. Same applies here. Do you really believe we can just attack the NFA in court today and win?

Taking the path of least resistance, because it is easiest, will never get you to the top of the hill.

Your logic is greatly flawed. Even your simple attempt at a platitude is wrong. Taking the easiest path, simply because it is the easiest, may or may not get you to the top. The ease of the solution has no bearing on the accuracy of the solution. In any event, your nonsense statement has no relationship to what's being discussed...which is a complex, long-term plan which takes incremental, logical steps to eventually achieve victory.

We are right, and "compromising" with the other side has not given us anything. Adopting the "sporting purpose" language gives legitimacy to the GCA of 1968, which is an abomination.

Yes, we are right, but we are not compromising. I don't know where you get this from. We are not giving legitimacy to the GCA of 1968. we are using their own crap against them. It's an excellent tactic.

 

[jimbob86]

I cannot understand this. Nobody in this forum is advocating that we adopt the other side's principles.

???

First step is to legalize use for hunting in most states. That will provide a "sporting use."

as it's readily demonstrable that suppressors are (a) useful to the military and (b) readily adaptable to legitimate sporting purposes,

The Antis maintain you don't need to have "gun X" because "gun X" has no "sporting purpose".

Making any argument that whatever it is that you want has a sporting purpose validates their argument that "gun y" can be kosher and "gun x" not kosher, based on their "sporting purpose" BS.

No.

By the way, my state (Nebraska) has no law against hunting with suppressors ..... and it has not caused any great deal of support for suppressors....

I want one, just don't have the cash on hand..... guess I'm in the "unwashed masses" set .....

 

[speedrrracer]

Making any argument that whatever it is that you want has a sporting purpose validates their argument that "gun y" can be kosher and "gun x" not kosher, based on their "sporting purpose" BS.

Again, not seeing your logic. Using their sporting use BS does not validate it.

Using someone's verbiage against them, when possible and appropriate, is just a Good Idea, not validation. Think judo -- someone charges at you, you don't have to charge back at them, you can take their momentum and use it against them. When you throw them into a wall using their momentum, does that make their attack look like a valid idea?

By the way, my state (Nebraska) has no law against hunting with suppressors ..... and it has not caused any great deal of support for suppressors....

This supports my claim. I say those who are exposed to suppressors will not fear them. You are in a state more friendly to suppressors than many, ergo you have that exposure. You therefore lack fear of them, as evidenced by the fact that you want one.

I did not claim Nebraska could act as some Pied Piper for the antis in New York City and Boston. It will take a lot more exposure, and that probably will require a Federal exception, so it reaches all states. If the only way to get a toe-hold in an anti state like CT or NY is by using the antis BS against them, then that's what we do.

Of course, if you have a better idea -- we're all ears!

 

[carguychris]

Can you explain the rationale for the things I have boldfaced? ...it is my belief that the 2A is about a concept, not a pastime. I do not believe that the bill of rights concerns itself with outlining the scope of rights re: leisure pursuits.

[emphasis mine]

Hunting and target shooting aren't mere leisure pursuits. Hunting puts food on the table and teaches outdoorsmanship, and both hunting and target shooting help maintain proficiency with firearms. The pastime and the concept are interrelated, if not inseparable.

Let me emphasize that the idea that the 2A applies only to hunting and sport shooting is WRONG- just as the idea that it applies only to the militia is wrong. The use of a specious "sporting purposes" test to justify import restrictions is even more wrong. [This is a pet peeve of mine, and IMHO it deserves, and is vulnerable to, a full-frontal assault.] However, the fact that some people who shoot at furry or feathered animals don't like ugly black assault gats with high-capacity magazine clips doesn't justify declaring that the 2A doesn't apply to them.

The 2A applies to ALL OF THE ABOVE.

The idea is to get "those people" who "don't get it" to OUR side.

Nobody is advocating compromise. You need to understand the difference between compromise and following a plan to victory. Think about WW2... we did not compromise, nor did we make stupid, rash attacks with no hope of success.

Thank you. Sometimes a flanking attack or a strategy of divide-and-conquer is more appropriate than a full frontal assault.

 

[Chris_B]

I'm glad you agree that terming it for example 'for sporting use' is wrong. However I think that this highlights a critical need for great clarity when we talk about how we will combat the strategy of people that wish to limit our right.

When some of those people see "sporting" used this way they won't do as I did and ask for clarity, they will make up their minds that we agree that the 2A is for sporting purposes- that's what they will read and that's what will benefit their agenda and they will hear and quote what they want to hear and quote. We can be our own worst enemies.

 

[jimbob86]

Again, not seeing your logic. Using their sporting use BS does not validate it.

???

It's bull squeeze. You picking it up and using gives the impression it is OK to pick it up and use it: "It's perfectly normal to handle fresh bovine fecal matter- everybody says so, even our opponents."

How can you not understand that?

Of course, if you have a better idea -- we're all ears!

Sure: Reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government. Allow states to regulate whatever they want, however they want, and people will, if the issues are important enough, vote with their feet. States allowing more things that people want to be allowed to have will gain population. States that prohibit things that people want will lose ..... states that do things that promote success (lower taxes, less intrusive regulation) will succeed, and those that do things to subsidize failure (runaway welfare programs, punitive tax rates) will fail.

It's already happening- Texas is succeeding, California (to the detriment of Colorado) is failing.....

If it is important enough to you, go to a suppressor friendly state. Nebraska is nice ..... economy is great, too ..... though the taxes are a bit high..... nothing is perfect this side of heaven.

Don't wish to move? Then work for what you want at at your local level, and in your Statehouse. Don't "take a page from the other guys' playbook" and use the Federal courts as a weapon against something you don't like ..... the people of your state voted for that stuff, right? If it is really that bad, leave them to lie in their mess ..... if it's not that terrible, work on cleaning it up.

 

[ChuckS]

FWIW, the states are evenly split; 25 allow suppression during hunting and 25 prohibit. PA is among those that allow the use of suppressors during hunting.

Source (2012):
cdsarms


I too believe using incremental steps to get the common usage of supressors would be the way to go.

 

[Tom Servo]

It's already happening- Texas is succeeding, California (to the detriment of Colorado) is failing...

Let's avoid broad politics. It's outside the scope of this forum.

 

[44 AMP]

A couple of points that I think are being overlooked...

First, The Bill of Rights, grants no rights. The habit of referring to "constitutional rights" and our 2nd Amendment rights is so deeply ingrained that I doubt it is ever going to change, but the fact of the matter is, that no matter how we refer to them in conversation, our rights do not come from that, (or any other) piece of paper.

The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the government, not rights. It spells out what the government may not do, in regard to certain of our rights. And it includes the fact that the rights referenced are not our only rights, and that other rights exist other than, what is listed.

Second, I beg you to remember, if you are old enough, or to learn, if you are not, that the "sporting purposes" clause in the GCA 68 was not actually about gun control. IT is about trade protectionism.

It was supported by US gunmakers (at the time). It was not supported by importers, but that was never expected.

I don't doubt some people are not going to like hearing this, but the fact is that restrictions on what products are allowed for import and sale in the US is NOT a question of infringement of our rights. Any of them.

yes, it's inconvenient. Yes, its a pain in the butt. No, we shouldn't have it, BUT it has NOTHING to do with our rights.

Also, like it or not sport hunting and "sporting purposes" are, essentially games. And the other side considers them trivial, and disgusting games. "Blood sports", etc. Sport = game.

Ever hear anyone make a case that fish & game laws (that regulate seasons, bag limits, equipment allowable for use, etc.,) are an infringement on our rights?

Argue that this one or that one is unfair, or wrong, shouldn't be applied, foolish, etc., one or more of these, or something else, we hear often, but never a peep about our rights. Why? because its "sport", and not a matter of rights.

I believe the government has the moral authority to regulate what firearms are allowed for import into the US. After all, we did give the power to do that to them.

The fact that they chose to use "sporting purposes" as the justification (and framework for their selection process) was simply used as the path to getting the most popular support possible for the actions.

I also believe that just as the govt has the authority to regulate imports, the govt DOES NOT have the moral authority to regulate arms produced in the US in the same manner.

Yes, I know they do regulate them, at many levels, but they shouldn't, under the Constitution. After all, isn't doing that the very definition of infringement?

Still the reality is that we have had about a century's worth of gun control, in ever increasing degrees, and the problems used as the justification for it have yet to be cured, or even significantly impacted.

 

[carguychris]

A few responses, notes, etc. re: 44 AMP's post...

The Bill of Rights, grants no rights... the fact of the matter is, that no matter how we refer to them in conversation, our rights do not come from that, (or any other) piece of paper.... The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the government, not rights.

+1; this is the reason why my first post states that the 2A protects the RKBA; the 2A did not, and does not, create the RKBA.

Second... the "sporting purposes" clause in the GCA 68 was not actually about gun control. IT is about trade protectionism... I don't doubt some people are not going to like hearing this, but the fact is that restrictions on what products are allowed for import and sale in the US is NOT a question of infringement of our rights... Yes, its a pain in the butt. No, we shouldn't have it, BUT it has NOTHING to do with our rights.

I realize that the "sporting purposes" clause was/is a trade protection measure that essentially isn't related to the 2A and the RKBA. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

The Commerce Clause- despite that fact that it's arguably been greatly overused in modern times- clearly gives Congress the power to set trade policy.

I just adamantly dislike this particular trade policy.

Also, like it or not sport hunting and "sporting purposes" are, essentially games. And the other side considers them trivial, and disgusting games. "Blood sports", etc. Sport = game.

Ever hear anyone make a case that fish & game laws (that regulate seasons, bag limits, equipment allowable for use, etc.,) are an infringement on our rights?

Very true, but I think it's important to look at this from another angle.

The power of the government to regulate the taking of game is a long-standing and fundamental part of common law. However, this power had been abused by the Crown in pre-colonial times, having been used as an excuse to confiscate arms. I believe that part of the impetus for the 2A was to make it clear that the government may NOT enforce game laws via wholesale confiscation of personally-owned arms.

IOW, the RKBA overrides game regulations to some degree; the gov't can prescribe how arms are used to lawfully take game, but it can't do this by simply taking everyone's guns away. In this manner, the 2A protects sporting uses.

 

[Jay24bal]

FWIW, the states are evenly split; 25 allow suppression during hunting and 25 prohibit. PA is among those that allow the use of suppressors during hunting.

And OH is in the process of trying to do the same. We have a bill that has passed the OH House and is on the way to the Senate. CLICK HERE to see a story on the bill.

 

[Dragline45]

There is just no reasoning with anti-gunners in my experience, some of the most ignorant and stubborn people you will come across.

Suppressors should be a staple on all home defense guns, unfortunately I cannot own them in my state. I suffer from tinnitus (constant ringing of the ear) in my left ear due to noise induced hearing loss and I will tell you it is not fun. While I for the most part have become accustomed to it, there are times where it does decrease your quality of life, especially when trying to sleep. I feel for those who have it worse than I do, as it truly does suck to say the least.