Selling the Anti-Gun People on Silencer Deregulation

The heroes in the movies and on tv never go deaf, or suffer any trouble from firing their guns (including rifle caliber carbines - and there is NOTHING louder:eek:) inside a closed room.

Always amazed me how they can have a gunfight in a building especially, and still hear each other whisper just moments after, or even during the fight.

Most folks are going to look at the generations of TV & movie silencers, and think that's the way they really work. And this conditioning is strong. Like machineguns, the only people shown with these things are the bad guys.

Big Lie theory. Doesn't matter how obviously wrong it is, keep repeating it long enough, and you will get people to believe it. its the entire basis for gun control, as well.

I agree with you Chris, govt cannot use enforcement of hunting regs as an excuse to regulate (or sieze) arms. My point simply was that govt refusing to allow the importation of a Chinese made AK class shotgun as "not suitable for sporting purposes" (for example) isn't a violation of our natural rights.

Lots of the gun control laws are, but this particular area (imports) isn't.
 
Dragline45 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And once the groundwork is laid, I think something like the above will be the foundation for the court case which wins the right to get suppressors in the home, at the range, and perhaps eventually everywhere.

We have Heller, so we have the right to KBA. I think the abortion rulings, like Stenberg, give us the rest of the path to having suppressors via the health / safety angle. There's a lot of verbiage that, in my completely ignorant opinion, might be very helpful, such as:

Ginsburg saying that a state could not force physicians to use procedures other than what they felt in their own judgment to be the safest. Well, using a suppressor is definitely safer for my hearing if I'm forced to defend myself, esp in my home where the right is most acute.
Stevens saying that the government had no right to force doctors to perform any procedure other than what they felt would be the safest. Well, how can the state have the right to force me to defend myself in a manner which is clearly less safe (unsuppressed)?
O'Connor saying that any such law would have to include an exception for the health of the woman -- so we have to have a health exception for suppressors, too, since our hearing is at risk if we must defend ourselves suddenly.
 
O'Connor saying that any such law would have to include an exception for the health of the woman -- so we have to have a health exception for suppressors, too, since our hearing is at risk if we must defend ourselves suddenly.
Click to expand...
That's a heck of a stretch to make in arguments before the Supreme Court. I can easily see them rejecting it from a lack of equivalency.

Bear in mind, any change in the NFA involves OMGmachineguns. There will be significant rhetorical pressure applied.
 
Bear in mind, any change in the NFA involves OMGmachineguns. There will be significant rhetorical pressure applied.
Click to expand...

Can you explain to me why this must be? Can't the NFA just be amended wrt suppressors, and OMGmachines be left alone?
 
The Supreme Court is not bound to any sort of ruling-to-ruling logical consistency, even if the above be it (it is not). It isn't even required to follow precedent (though generally does, unless it feels like setting its own new precedent - see Brown v. Board of Education, for example).

Fact is, SCOTUS holds itself to no particular standard other than what a majority of the seated justices feel like holding themselves to.
 
speedrrracer said:
Can't the NFA just be amended wrt suppressors, and OMGmachines be left alone?
Click to expand...
Yes, but first we must convince the general public that "silencers" aren't Evil Tools Used Only For Crime. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, but first we must convince the general public that "silencers" aren't Evil Tools Used Only For Crime.
Click to expand...

I think I've made it pretty clear above that I agree with that statement, I was referring to Tom Servo's statement that any change to the NFA involves machineguns. I don't understand why that would be the case. I believe parts of various federal acts are amended regularly without touching the rest of those acts, but maybe I'm way off on that.
 
As much as I'd like to see silencers deregulated, I just don't believe that the anti-gun crowd could possibly be sold on anything that makes gun ownership or use easier, cheaper, or better in any way. The fence-sitters? Maybe, but even that would take a whole lot of rinsing decades of Hollywood movies out of their brains.
 
if the anti’s claim “these are military weapons of war” then my response has been often to reply “if nearly every police department in the US is civilian enforcement agent and they now are stocking and using suppressors and fully automatic weapons are these departments carrying items that are in common use, or are these departments a military force?” I then usually follow up that at “one time the military had single shot rifles and civilians had lever action rifles, where those lever action rifles of their time assault rifles in the hands of civilians” the response is usually :eek:


at one time the court and legislative debate will have to occur as suppressors, SBS’s and even FA weapons are being used more and more when the NFA was passed time didn’t stop moving, technology didn’t freeze and weapons around the world and for the military and police have continued to advance hence they can’t stop the clock in 1930 and expect that to suppress every development or advancement. we’ll see i suspect it will be debated in our lifetimes
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top