Corcaigh Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, Bang said: A silencer is a murder tool only. Any other reason given is just someone trying to justify a tool that's sole purpose is to facilitate murder. Not defense. Murder. ~Bang Police chiefs are strongly against it. But those liberals can't be trusted on public safety. The real rationale is that with Obummer no longer in power and ready to ban new gun sales at any moment, gun sales have plummeted. Buy a silencer and you probably need a new gun too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, Bang said: A silencer is a murder tool only. Any other reason given is just someone trying to justify a tool that's sole purpose is to facilitate murder. Not defense. Murder. ~Bang As the resident gun nut, and tye one who is usually leary of gun regulations, I completely agree there isnt a good reason why someone needs a silencer. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: As the resident gun nut, and tye one who is usually leary of gun regulations, I completely agree there isnt a good reason why someone needs a silencer. The argument put forward by some is that guns are noisy. Seriously. Maybe wearing appropriate hearing protection is an unconstitutional restriction on the right to bear arms. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Worth a re-read. http://es.redskins.com/topic/393762-the-gun-control-debate-thread-say-hello-to-my-little-thread/?do=findComment&comment=10372605 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 27 minutes ago, Corcaigh said: Police chiefs are strongly against it. But those liberals can't be trusted on public safety. Thats a real mind **** right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 2nd amendment is outdated and needs repealing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 I mean is anything going to really change? The people who have deluded themselves into believing a law passed in the 18th century should be applied the same way in a modern society didn't want change after two dozen children were killed so I'm sure they'll use the same idiotic excuses. Also, for how much they tout "good guy with a gun", they always seem to be missing in these situations no matter the setting, and GASP, law enforcement has to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) Edited October 2, 2017 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Bang said: A silencer is a murder tool only. Any other reason given is just someone trying to justify a tool that's sole purpose is to facilitate murder. Not defense. Murder. ~Bang My Wife's cousin works as one of the top guys in the state dept. and handles weapons import/export. Right now silencers are in his jurisdiction but there has been serious push to legalize them for general consumption and take them away from his purview. Who is one of the main people pushing for this to happen? Donald Trump Jr Why? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.beccf9f73736http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-jr-son-gun-silencer-control-laws-restrictions-campaign-remove-mass-shootings-fears-a7767586.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 2 hours ago, visionary said: I consider myself a gun enthusiast and I own several "long gun" rifles. That said, why the **** would any law abiding gun owner need a suppressor/silencer? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Well, based on their complaints, you need a silencer to protect your eardrums.. which noise cancelling headsets obviously can't do. So by this logic, when my neighbor is playing his car stereo at a zillion decibels, i should shoot him. You know, for the kids sake. ~Bang oh wait,, let me put on my silencer ~Bang 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Ending freedom of the press would be a far, far more effective method of ending mass shootings. Turn it over to the state and let them craft the message, will end copy cat killers and attention seeking, which is 99.99 percent Since weve established that the bill of rights is a meaningless document, lets aim for effectiveness. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 12 minutes ago, zoony said: Ending freedom of the press would be a far, far more effective method of ending mass shootings. Turn it over to the state and let them craft the message, will end copy cat killers and attention seeking, which is 99.99 percent Since weve established that the bill of rights is a meaningless document, lets aim for effectiveness. That doesn't seem to correlate with the notion that the individual right to own firearms wasn't guaranteed by the courts until the 1970s (and not by SCOTUS until the 2000s). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) I'm a gun owner and I see absolutely no reason why I would ever need a suppressor. They're easy enough to get already in many places but now they want to make them even easier? ****ING BRILLIANT IDEA. Easy access to suppressors will made all kinds of crime, including mass shootings, much more difficult to deal with. There's actually no such thing as a "silencer" as it is impossible to completely silence a gun, even with a subsonic round, because of the mechanical noise and a supersonic (rifle) round because of the sonic boom the bullet makes. But a good one can significantly lower the sound and, more importantly in the case of mass shootings, make it far far harder to determine where the shots are coming from. So people would have no way to know where to run and many might just run closer to the shooter and be more likely to die. If a mass shooter were to use a suppressed subsonic automatic gun like an uzi at a rock concert, NOBODY would hear it as I've heard a suppressed uzi and it basically sounds like a somewhat loud sewing machine. 58+ people died in this latest tragedy. In that case, 58+ people could easily die before anyone even knew what was happening. Edited October 2, 2017 by mistertim 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 1 hour ago, youngchew said: I consider myself a gun enthusiast and I own several "long gun" rifles. That said, why the **** would any law abiding gun owner need a suppressor/silencer? "Need" is never really in the equation to begin with. Nobody needs a gun, silencer, or anything else, they want one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 1 hour ago, visionary said: This is what I was talking about @TheGreatBuzz I havent read this link yet btw so i have no idea whats in it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 I just read that article. That former law was common sensical, and the Republicans now allow people who shouldn't have guns to have them. We don't know if the former law would have prevented this shooting, it might have prevented others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Im still waiting for military to be allowed to have a firearm on base. That was a campaign promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 It's ironic though how the higher the body count, the less you're supposed to mention gun control. One random shooting somewhere, talk about it all day long. Shoot a couple hundred, it's outrageous to bring it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 This is American now, mass shootings every other month. Like the monthly terror attack elsewhere people just learn to live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/amp12764429/las-vegas-shooting-result/ Just another blood sacrifice to preserve our right to blow children into smithereens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said: That doesn't seem to correlate with the notion that the individual right to own firearms wasn't guaranteed by the courts until the 1970s (and not by SCOTUS until the 2000s). This. The idea that the 2nd Amendment mean unlimited individual access to guns was not the majority view historically. That is a modern reinterpretation of the law. Republican Chief Justice Warren Burger didn't believe it. 'Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia... From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. " http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 However, the gun nuts were smart and careful. They knew that if they kept trying to bring their argument of extreme individual gun access to the Supreme Court, they not only would lose, but the Court might issue a decision that definitively closed off the argument for good. So they waited. They waited for decades, while the NRA funded articles and papers from conservative think tanks to promote this view. It was only after the Supreme Court was nicely packed with Federalist society judges that they finally pushed forward a case, and got Scalia's 5-4 majority decision in Heller reversed history and gave them what they wanted. America got hoodwinked. Oh well. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Slippery slope since many other things considered rights today were not recognized by the court years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts