Thank you so much for your responses Rich. You have helped me out a lot.Everybody grab some popcorn (or a cold one) and settle in......
Let's get Outcast's post out of the way first- you can still hear it 15 yards away.So the neighbors are still going to be scared- so no reasonable need presented. I could kill that argument either way in short order anyway.
Are you proposing that my rights be dictated by the fears of others? Even when a majority? Well, I believe that is why we are a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy. Our forefathers recognized the dangers of a country controlled by a fluid simple majority. They made changing the US Constitutional intentionally difficult to do for a darn good reason, I believe. They neither trusted the government they were creating, nor the gullibility of the people they were trying to protect from that government.
Now let's take your automobile analogy. Again- more than enough ammunition to support my position. Thank you. Suggesting we consider the removal of automobiles even closely related to the debate makes you come off like a moron. Without the automobile we become a third world country.Automobiles kill way more people than guns. But the benefits to society that they provide far outweighs the negatives. So- staying with the analogy you decided to offer and equating it to suppressors and guns in general- you feel it's your God given inalienable right to own a gun, use a gun- anywhere, anytime and you should control that decision- not the government. There should be no restrictions on guns-no gun control? So the counter is this- there should be no restrictions on automobiles. No pollution controls- speed limits, drivers licences, tags or inspections ? We shouldn't have laws that infringe on your freedom to do whatever you want with your car because you might pollute the air or kill somebody with it? Sounds a little silly now- doesn't it.
Moronic or not, the argument all boils down to our Constitutional rights. Quite simply our forefathers decided that the issue of gun ownership was so important that they insisted that it be included in a Bill of Rights that was an addendum to, and clarification of, the US Constitution. Not so with any means of transportation, though, now is it? This is an important distinction that you are ignoring in your argument. There is nothing Constitutionally to protect any aspect of our ownership and operation of automobiles. But yes, there is in respect to our having firearms. Regardless of the benefits of us having automobiles, we have them ONLY because the government has no compelling reason to not allow us them. And quite honestly, I think a seriously intent debate COULD be made as to whether the benefits of the automobile actually do outweigh the negatives concerning all the damage they cause. And trust me, I am a bonafide car nut. But I would have a lot of trouble defending the fact that a LOT of quasi-qualified people are driving two tons of metal at high speeds on public highways. How many people's lungs have been damaged over the decades just from brake dust that was composed of asbestos? What does ingesting minute particles of eroded tires do to the lungs? How many animals are killed daily by automobiles, much less people? Can we even make a head to head comparison to the damages that automobiles take on society in relation to guns? Personally, I think it would be no contest. The automobiles would come out WAY ahead in the slaughter tally, I believe.
So, moronic? I don't think so. Used in the argument that silencers should be restricted or outlawed because they simply assist someone in firing a gun illegally by reducing the noise output is surely no less moronic than including automobiles as also being of substantial assistance to criminal elements, and therefor considered in a similar light.
A quick deviation from the relevant debate- I'm currently acting as a consultant and prop builder in an upcoming TV series. I've been involved in several productions- so I know Hollywood artistic liscence when I see it and never for a moment believed a "silencer" was as portrayed. To be clear though- I appreciated the post pointing that fact out very much.
So- what it boils down to at this point is this- your freedoms end when the detriment to society resulting from allowing you to pursue it is greater than the NEED you can present to possess it and the benefit to the majority. Need I quote the Stones here-" You can't always get what you want. ..."
If this was a pure Democracy, that statement
might be true. But under a Constitutional Republic, no, not exactly. Whether said freedom is a detriment to society or not, it first must pass the litmus test of whether the government has the Constitutional AUTHORITY to regulate said freedom. If it does not, then the point is moot as to what society thinks about that freedom. Until a Constitutional amendment is created and appended to the US Constitution, the government has absolutely no legal authority whatsoever over the issue.
So no, my feedoms are, and have always been there. And they SHOULD always remain there. That is what the US Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees. In theory anyway. I admit that the government has become quite wayward in staying with the boundaries demanded by those documents.
So all this started because I made some comments about blurring the lines between suppressors and muzzle brakes. I used the term silencers because that was what what used. So pretty much- the whole debate about legalizing suppressors is a non issue to me, but an excellent opportunity to demonstrate what is.
Realistically, and legally, yes the government CAN regular both muzzle brakes and silencers separately from firearms. Can they regulate that guns that have such items are illegal? Ah, that is a much heated topic for debate. The center of that debate would have to be what EXACTLY is the definition of "infringed" as placed in the Second Amendment. Not today's definition, but the definition by letter and intent of the people who authored and voted into law that amendment.
As a standalone argument I still have yet to see a compelling argument of why a silencer (suppressor) SHOULD be restricted from public use based on what it does for a firearm. Nothing to do with Constitutional issues, but just WHY it is logical at all to restrict a device that makes a firearm be less damaging to my ears when it is fired.
I guess you could say I'm very much a gun control advocate. But then, you could also say I'm very much a pro gun ownership fanatic. I think most of the regulations regarding firearms ownership are good ones. I think regulations regarding fully automatic weapons are just about right. I do not however think the restrictions against felons owning guns is. It should be more refined- I don't think an account imprisoned for imbezzlement ever considered his right to bear arms as a deterrent to his crime beforehand nor do I foresee him being a serious threat to society owning one aferward. A person who commits a serious crime with a firearm however- be fine with me if they were put away for life for touching one.
OK, I'll bite. Why do you think laws restricting fully automatic weapons are "just right"? They have basically been restricted OUT of public ownership little by little until the supply of them is so small that prices are astronomical and pretty much out of reach of most citizens of this country. Again, we come to that nasty little term "infringed". When does that apply? How infringing do laws have to be before they are actually Constitutionally INFRINGING?
As for the issue concerning felons and gun ownership, a sleight of hand took place on that one. When such laws were passed, it actually seemed logical and prudent to restrict gun ownership from felons. Why? Because felony convictions USED to be restricted to the most serious of violent criminal activity. No one really wants murders, rapists, arsonists, muggers, etc. to have access to weapons that assist them in their dastardly deeds. But unfortunately, the back door was left open by not strictly defining what exactly a "felony" is. So now you can become a felon for all sorts of silly transgressions. Taking a short cut through a construction site, for instance. Grabbing a fire extinguisher out of a motel. If you own your own business, there is an excellent change that you are a "felon-in-waiting" by not strictly adhering to many federal laws governing your business that you are not even aware of. Any of which, could be used to cancel your "right" to own a firearm. Which, of course, is just silly to even state, because any "right" that can be taken away under any pretext is not really a "right" at all. And push come to shove, a STRICT reading of the Second Amendment does not in any way infer, much less state in actuality, and the federal government can restrict the ownership of firearms by any member of "the people" in any way. Even violent felons. Uncomfortable conclusion? Yes, it is. But that's freedom for you. It gives other people all sorts of freedom to do things that YOU don't particularly like them doing.
Ok-so.....Really it comes down to politics. There are gun nuts who think anything goes and there are misguided starry eyed idiots who think we would all live happily ever after if we could just get rid of guns. There are people who are die hard Democrats and people who are die hard Republicans. Trying to convert anyone of these is a futile waste of time. However the majority are neither and these are the people that can be swayed one way or another. They also very much decide the outcome of the debate.
Actually, even being a bonafide gun nut, I would be open to persuasion by any compelling argument stating why gun ownership is generally bad. Yeah, it is bad for some people, without a doubt. It is bad for people who are on the wrong end of a murder or robbery that spills blood that way. And bad for kids who find dad's .357 and play cops and robbers with it until the gun gets the trigger pulled. They are certainly bad for a segment of the population that does not have guns when they are used against them in wholesale slaughter. Pretty much they are bad whenever they are used in an illegal means to cause pain and death, or even coercion from the threat of pain and death. And certainly they are very bad when in the hands of a populace that a rogue government wants to run roughshod over. At least to the government, anyway.
But on the other hand, there are notably GOOD reasons for the populace to have firearms at hand. Pretty much just take the above examples and reverse the roles. Should the positive aspects be negated by the negative aspects? And if so, what are the chances that the negative aspects will suddenly vanish? Any chance that they might actually get WORSE? Honestly?
So- I guess opposites really do attract. ... Nanci gave the perfect example of the absolute worst way to debate the issue and Rich the absolute best.
Rich- Those were awesome videos and a perfect example of how we should fight the very real threat of losing our freedoms- not only with guns but everything else. Emotional ramblings and spouting Constitutional mumbo jumbo do nothing for me....Present your case in a factual manner based on indisputable real world facts in a more dignified manner than you adversaries and heightened your chance for success.
Some talk of the Constitution can be just "mumbo jumbo", but realistically it is our shield that HAS to be used whenever possible. If it were not for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then the erosion of our rights would have no brakes for us to apply. Yes, that erosion is happening, and seemingly at an ever quickening pace, but I think there is little doubt that without having those documents to at least slow down the onslaught, that we would likely already be little tax cows in our little stalls obediently doing our jobs as has been dictated with perhaps our only freedom being the hourly breaks we are allowed to go to the bathroom. Silly to think that the government would want this sort of future for us? Perhaps it is simply naive to think not.
Rich hasn't changed my position- but he has made me doubt it a little. I know need real world experience to be certain of my position. I knew suppressors weren't silent. You can't make a gun silent. I have very nearly that very thing. And many times in the videos I heard what I hear when I shoot mine- the impact sound was louder than the discharge. But it's still Hollywood to me- not saying it's doctored- just that it's not the same as real life, the microphone can distort reality. PGA golf swings- nuff said. BTW-my gun is so quiet (quieter than air rifle) without a suppressor because of the balance of the charge, barrel length, and projectile.
So- Thanks again Rich. - and Nanci... nothing but love...babe
As for the rest of you..........nevermind!
Heck, my .22 Ruger 10/22 is already very quiet with subsonic ammo, so I would imagine with having a suppressor on it, the sound of the bolt slamming back to load the next round would be a lot louder than the muzzle blast. Put a suppressor on a .22 bolt action and I suspect that the hammer falling would be all that you would hear. But those are all special circumstances whereby by design of the firearm and ammunition used the muzzle blast is made as quiet as possible. With a TYPICAL firearm that the average person would want to use, that simply will not be the case. A revolver is nearly impossible to adequately suppress because of the blast that comes out from between the cylinder and the forcing cone. And semi-auto is going to allow some muzzle blast to exit the back of the barrel when the action is forced back to load in the next round. MOST people will not choose a single shot bolt action handgun for ANYTHING in typical use. Which would be the optimum choice if absolute quiet was your goal. And any gun that shoots a projectile that travels faster than around 1200 fps is going to have that projectile make a sonic crack that is going to be notably loud enough to make a suppressor pretty much useless if stealth is your goal.
Oh yeah, there is another benefit of silencers that I just remembered. Reducing the loud muzzle blast will GREATLY reduce the flinch reflex when you shoot. You will be surprised to note that you will actually be able to SEE a .45 caliber projectile leave the barrel and travel towards the target because your eyes are open rather than closed during that involuntary flinch. As most people know who habitually shoot guns, taming flinch goes a LONG way to improving your shooting capabilities.
