My right to bear arms is under fire right now.

[Nova_C]

I will add that "one" was supposed to be "some" with the muzzle breaks being an example.

Anyway, I am a gun control advocate for the same reason I think only licensed drivers should be on the road. It's a safety thing. But banning guns is ridiculous. There's nothing to be gained from a ban if place controls on automatic weapons and concealable weapons.

 

[Rich Z]

That's why controls on functionality is better. I mean, Canada has an Assault Weapons ban, but it's really weird in some of the stuff. Like, it's illegal for me to put a bullpup mod on my Ruger 10/22.

However, banning all fully automatic weapons is something I get. Banning large capacity magazines is something I get.

But one of the things proposed by some US politicians (And they were Dems, yes) was really silly. Banning muzzle breaks? What?

You know, I've never heard a convincing argument of why making silencers for firearms highly restricted items is logical. Anyone?

 

[Oscarsdad]

You know, I've never heard a convincing argument of why making silencers for firearms highly restricted items is logical. Anyone?

Well muzzle brakes and silencers are two very different things. I can see many reasons to restrict silencers- incuding poaching. But muzzle brakes don't quiet guns they merely redirect the muzzle blast- mainly to reduce recoil and improve accuracy.

 

[Chip]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a gun guy like Rich knows that.

Suppressors are just neighborly, I wish they take them as well as short barreled rifles off of the Class 3 roster. I can have a pistol, I can have a rifle, but I can't put a hand guard on a pistol. Dumb as the muzzle break="assault weapon" rule.

Myself, I see no reason not to let law-abiding civilians own anything the police can. I can think of no other reason to restrict that, unless the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people they serve.

 

[Rich Z]

Well muzzle brakes and silencers are two very different things. I can see many reasons to restrict silencers- incuding poaching. But muzzle brakes don't quiet guns they merely redirect the muzzle blast- mainly to reduce recoil and improve accuracy.

I am well aware of the difference, thank you.

So you are saying that just because something MAY make it easier for someone to break the law, then it in itself should also be illegal, or at least restricted for that reason?

 

[Rich Z]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a gun guy like Rich knows that.

Suppressors are just neighborly, I wish they take them as well as short barreled rifles off of the Class 3 roster. I can have a pistol, I can have a rifle, but I can't put a hand guard on a pistol. Dumb as the muzzle break="assault weapon" rule.

Myself, I see no reason not to let law-abiding civilians own anything the police can. I can think of no other reason to restrict that, unless the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people they serve.

I will take that a step further. It is my opinion that the Second Amendment, taken literally in letter and intent, was designed to keep the arms that could be born by "the people" exactly in parity with any and all arms that could be born by the federal government. Otherwise, the Amendment would have made absolutely no sense whatsoever to the people who authored it and to those people who agreed to it's being included in the Bill of (OUR) Rights.

 

[Oscarsdad]

I am well aware of the difference, thank you.

So you are saying that just because something MAY make it easier for someone to break the law, then it in itself should also be illegal, or at least restricted for that reason?

In a nutshell- yes. Especially when it threatens me or my pursuit of happiness and I don't see the logical need for anyone to own one. I must confess I haven't followed this thread in a while- so what's your argument why people should need one? I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know the difference- but you quoted a post about muzzle brakes and then made a comment about silencers. My point was not to marry the two because I have very different feelings about them just as they are very different devices with very different purposes.

 

[Nanci]

How do silencers threaten you or your pursuit of happiness? Do you feel the same about giant snakes? Why would anyone need one of those?? What about pot? Gay marriage? Christmas trees???

 

[tsst]

That's why controls on functionality is better. I mean, Canada has an Assault Weapons ban, but it's really weird in some of the stuff. Like, it's illegal for me to put a bullpup mod on my Ruger 10/22.

However, banning all fully automatic weapons is something I get. Banning large capacity magazines is something I get.

But one of the things proposed by some US politicians (And they were Dems, yes) was really silly. Banning muzzle breaks? What?

Our last "assault" weapons ban was for things like muzzle brakes, folding or collapsible stocks, pistol grip, bayonet mount, threaded barrel, normal capacity magazines, etc. I don’t get a ban on automatic weapons or magazines for a law abiding citizen.

I will add that "one" was supposed to be "some" with the muzzle breaks being an example.

Anyway, I am a gun control advocate for the same reason I think only licensed drivers should be on the road. It's a safety thing. But banning guns is ridiculous. There's nothing to be gained from a ban if place controls on automatic weapons and concealable weapons.

I am not a fan of the car analogy. I am not firing my weapon on public property around thousands of people multiple times daily. Besides licensing does little to nothing for safety, even in the case of cars. How many people use cars unsafely daily? In my opinion the only controls should be common sense (but not the politician’s idea of it). Things like it should be illegal for me to use a gun to commit murder (already exists), illegal for me to use a gun to rob (already exists), illegal for me to use a gun to threaten or coerce somebody (already exists), etc. It should not be illegal for me to own an automatic weapon or an SBR or SBS or 75 round drum magazine. FYI It is not actually illegal to own a fully automatic firearm. You simply must agree to give up some freedom and consent to paying a federal bribe.

I will take that a step further. It is my opinion that the Second Amendment, taken literally in letter and intent, was designed to keep the arms that could be born by "the people" exactly in parity with any and all arms that could be born by the federal government. Otherwise, the Amendment would have made absolutely no sense whatsoever to the people who authored it and to those people who agreed to it's being included in the Bill of (OUR) Rights.

Exactly!

... I can see many reasons to restrict silencers- incuding poaching. ...

That is like saying somebody may use a fast car to rob a bank so lets make Ferrari illegal.

 

[Outcast]

I would love to have a silencer/threaded barrel for my pistol. That way if some jack-hole decided to break in and I shoot him, the noise will not frighten the neighbors who live less than 15 yards away...

I would also want one for a rifle. I prefer quiet guns over the "loud and proud" ones... But that is also just a preference....

 

[Oscarsdad]

I would love to have a silencer/threaded barrel for my pistol. That way if some jack-hole decided to break in and I shoot him, the noise will not frighten the neighbors who live less than 15 yards away...

I would also want one for a rifle. I prefer quiet guns over the "loud and proud" ones... But that is also just a preference....

And I would want to know if someone was firing a lethal weapon 15 yards away from me.

 

[Rich Z]

In a nutshell- yes. Especially when it threatens me or my pursuit of happiness and I don't see the logical need for anyone to own one. I must confess I haven't followed this thread in a while- so what's your argument why people should need one? I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know the difference- but you quoted a post about muzzle brakes and then made a comment about silencers. My point was not to marry the two because I have very different feelings about them just as they are very different devices with very different purposes.

The purpose of a silencer is to greatly reduce the audible muzzle blast of a firearm. That is it. Nothing else. Muzzle blast can cause damage to anyone's hearing PERMANENTLY who may be standing nearby the shooter not wearing ear protection. So in effect, the government is saying that loud muzzle blast is good (along with the subsequent hearing damage) and muzzle blast reduced by a silencer is bad. The government WANTS all muzzle blasts from a firearm to be loud by reducing the availability of a mechanism that would reduce that noise level? Reducing loud damaging noise should be inhibited by law? You tell me the logic of this. And also how this "threatens you and your pursuit of happiness", much less anyone else.

So you feel that anything that makes it easier for a perpetrator to break the law should be outlawed? Hmm, well, I guess there goes the automobile. I'm sure that having a getaway car is definitely a benefit to a lot of criminals. And how about ski masks? Don't some criminals use nylon stockings over their heads to try to obscure their identifying facial features?

Seriously, where would the line be? Nearly anything can be used by a criminal to make their perpetration of a crime easier.

 

[Rich Z]

And I would want to know if someone was firing a lethal weapon 15 yards away from me.

You would still be able to hear a "silenced" weapon at that distance. A silencer doesn't eliminate ALL noise, just most of the damaging levels.

Perhaps there also needs to be a law that anyone stabbed by a knife MUST scream to alert all bystanders.

 

[Chip]

And I would want to know if someone was firing a lethal weapon 15 yards away from me.

As guy who has shot a ton of suppressed weapons, let me assure you, it's nothing like the movies. You would. Besides, other weapons don't make noise. Knives, bows, crossbows, bats, pretty much anything that doesn't run on gunpowder is silent -unlike a suppressed gun.

 

[Oscarsdad]

Before I respond to any more posts- I would like to know what your position is on how the law should be changed Rich. What levels of restrictions should be placed on silencers? What conditions should have to be met to own one? Knowing your exact position would greatly eliminate unnecessary posting for positions we may already agree on.

I am for the moment conceeding your reason as a need for someone to own a silencer.

 

[Chip]

"Need"? Constitutionally speaking, "need" doesn't play into the equation.

 

[Rich Z]

Some videos showing the difference between suppressed (silenced) and unsuppressed weapon firings is instructive, I suppose.







This one is kind of interesting because it shows a suppressed M16 and what effect the suppressor has on projectiles that are travelling faster than the speed of sound.



As anyone can see, none of those guns are effectively "silenced" they are just "quieter" and less damaging to the ears.

 

[Rich Z]

Before I respond to any more posts- I would like to know what your position is on how the law should be changed Rich. What levels of restrictions should be placed on silencers? What conditions should have to be met to own one? Knowing your exact position would greatly eliminate unnecessary posting for positions we may already agree on.

I am for the moment conceeding your reason as a need for someone to own a silencer.

Easy. NONE. I don't see the logic in why they should be restricted in any way. Why should they be?

 

[Rich Z]

"Need"? Constitutionally speaking, "need" doesn't play into the equation.

Technically there is no constitutional protection for a silencer. I don't believe it is considered as an "arm", it is only an accessory used on a firearm. But regardless, I am still asking WHY it should require special licensing and restrictions. All it does is to make a firearm quieter while firing. What is it about that function that gets some people all worked up into a tizzy?

 

[Chip]

Movies. They are deadly and silent while assassinating people in movies.