What's the deal with silencers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The comment I made about no legitimate reason for a suppressors on a semi-auto is an opinion, you are entiled to yours and I mine. That does not automatically mean I feel they should not be available to everyone, just that I see no legitimate need, no more or less. If I wanted to say they should not have them I would have said so, I certainly have no problem with expressing facts and views [ opinions ].

Exactly, it's a "feeling" [ which is what?, an opinion ]. Sopme want in the worst way, apparently to take my opnion and extrapolate that to I think they should not be possessed. Wrong on that part, as if thats what I thought I would have said so , and no one has shown me the words of any of my posts where I stated that [ because I haven't said it, others have extrapolated it into their thinking and posted it themselves [ their assumptions, like yours ].

If I feel civilians don't need full auto and suppressotrs on the streets, does that automatically mean I think they shouldn't own them? Apparently thats your assumption based on no substance of my writings here. You folks apparently can't keep the two subjects apart as different thought processes [ which they are ].

I take, and have not ever taken, the stance we should not be allowed their possession. The stance I have is that I feel they are unnecessary to carry concealed on the streets. If they are allowed to be carried on the streets, there should be some form of proficency test. Not before they are allowed to own them but before they carry on the streets.

voilsb states: "and just like you need to demonstrate proficiency to drive (not to possess or to use for other purposes) in public, so you need to demonstrate proficiency to shoot your firearm/NFA item (but not to posses or transport) in public."

I'm not sure if that is your idea or you are restating mine but I agree with that assessment. Others are having a real hard time with it though.

Justin: I didn't say ownership was predicated on a "need" either.
I said I didn't see the need. Isn't that an opinion? I'm not the one arguing about need, others here are. Of course they are also stating opinion when doing so which is their perogative, just like I have the same perogative to believe there is no need. Where is the dictatorialism others and yourself speak in that opinion?

Since when is a belief insight into anything. You made that statement, not I.

I don't believe I have taken a stand for or against how the gov't has structured the NFA rules or the reasoning behind their actions [ yes, they have made it cost prohibitive, no I don't agree with it or their reason for doing so ] which is to further restrict access in my opnion as well as others.

I see no legitimate reason for civilians to carry them in public, that has nothing to do with ownership.

Now lets see how many can still find a way to claim I want to deny ownership of firearms. I still haven't seen anyone reiterate one of my posts where I claim posssesion should be restricted.

Please feel free to find such a statement in this thread, and keep your accusations to facts with documentation I spoke those words somewhere here or anywhere else that for that matter. If you can't do that to back the accusations flying here that I have made such statements about posssession of class3 or any other weapons system I guess your statement of "facts" is flawed.

It's almost getting comical, the people crawling out of the woodwork with accusations that they can't substantiate about statements I have made.

Brownie
 
Brownie: I was building a scenario from what I'd read that I thought agreed with your views. I was trying to re-state your views to make it succinct and clear, at least to me, so I would better understand what was being said here.

Everyone else: Obviously, bantering back and forth with "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" is pretty useless here.
 
Google Image Search for "beating a dead horse"

deadhorse_thumb.jpg


Yeah.
 
voilsb : I wasn't sure initially if that was your views or mine you were clarifying but you did a good job of clarifying mine as far as I'm concerned.

And of course you are right, nothing is resolved by bantering which one may be right or wrong as the views stated are opinions.

Everyone has their own opinions and has every right to post theirs as well. The general consensus was that because I stated I did not see a need to own them, people assumed I was anti-gun and leaning too far portside in an attempt to take them away or deny access to them.

Once I clarified that point, several people chimed in continuing the theme another posted attempting to state I was anti- or dictating what they need or don't need [ as in whether they should be allowed ownership at all.] whic hwas not the case.

Then I clarified again several more times for thsoe who may have missed it the first 1/2 dozen times or so.

Here's what I believe is happening which is very interesting indeed if true.

Some posters have continued on an incorrect theme brought forth as supposition by another poster as true relative my views on ownership based on their assumptions. Though no one has ever shown [ nor will be able to at this thread ] that I posted I thought guns should be restricted from ownership, some here continue to attack me in various ways with continued assumptions and theories which have been debunked/denied by me [ and still have not been shown in writing by anyone here to date ].

I am getting this little feeling in the back of my head that some here are so far to starboard they have lost all objectivity, common sense, prudence in their thinking, which is causing the problem with their actually understanding what was written and expressed.

It seems they want a whipping boy to be able to espouse their views in an open forum [ which are their opinions ] yet want someone with a different view than theirs to not give their opinions [ my opinions may or may bewrong but theirs are definately right ].

That may not be the case but thats the impression one gets when supposedly educated men become so emotional over an issue they continue to spread falsehoods relative statements made and then when corrected continue on that theme as it just is too emotional for them to do otherwise.

If that is what is ocurring here, and it may not be, how do any of them expect to be considered a viable debator for their causes and look intelligent in doing so.

I prefer to stay somewhere off the extremes of starboard or port, as doing so shows an open mind to the issues. When you go to extremes you have lost your objectivity and consequently your credibility to hold an intelligent conversation as grown men would normally do.

It seems you read the thread in it's entirety and came to the correct and logical conclusion of my views based on the actual content, while others have real issues with being able to think in any direction but the one they want to travel, to the exclusion of actually reading the content and determining what is being said instead of assuming one thought must mean another when the two are totally different subjects [ the need for them vs the right to own them ].

It certainly an emotional subject [ self protection ] but men would be better served by intelligent conversation than name calling and harping on a theme that wasn't stated.

It doesn't even make good reading at this point. I know hard to starboard types, they, like the hard to porters, need to come a little more to center before any intelligent, meaningfull dialogue can begin.

Hardliners, both left and right sided will never give up their positions and consequently never will come to terms that are acceptable to both [ as in compromise ]. Until that happens the debates will continue with no one actually making any real headway on the subject for either side.

It isn't too much of a leap to bring what happened here to a higher level natioanally and see why resolutions will be forthcoming one day but not anytime soon.

Brownie
 
I'd just like to point out that firearms are not a good revenue stream, and the BATF knows this. Their revenue from all taxes (A, T, &F) is on the order of $10+ billion. Their revenues from firearms stuff is a bit over $100m for stamps and some portion of the $200m they get from SOTpayers (which includes A & T businesses as well). So they're probably looking at something less than $200m in revenue, which is less than 2% of their total revenue. Their budget is between $800m and $1bn now if I'm not mistaken, and as everyone here knows they put more than 25% of their resources into firearms and explosives, so such activities don't even pay for themselves. They're using Alcohol and Tobacco revenues to go after us evil gun-owners.

(I should clarify; they don't actually use their revenue directly. All their revenue goes to the main branch of the Treasury. Congress and the Treasury determine and allocate BATFE funding. So they don't get money in from Joe FFL and immediately cash the check into a BATFE account, then turn around and write a check drawn on that account to a school "violence prevention" program. The point is only in the relative amounts received and spent, but I don't think that makes the numbers any less relevant.)
 
It's been a while, I'll jump back in.

Brownie said
Some posters have continued on an incorrect theme brought forth as supposition by another poster as true relative my views on ownership based on their assumptions. Though no one has ever shown [ nor will be able to at this thread ] that I posted I thought guns should be restricted from ownership, some here continue to attack me in various ways with continued assumptions and theories which have been debunked/denied by me [ and still have not been shown in writing by anyone here to date ].
Click to expand...

I'll give it a go. You've stated repeatedly that you are happy with the existing NFA rules. Well, in my state (which I've talked about a number of times) you cannot own full-autos and can own but not use suppressors. Basically, they are banned.

So when you say you are fine with the NFA regulations, I think you need to be more clear. When you say that, I think of my own state's ban of NFA weapons and that is why I come across as hostile to this idea. Basically your saying "I'm okay with the system as is" equals "you don't deserve to buy or possess or use these firearms". So, when you come out in favor of the current system, can you see why I would be irate?

I don't believe there should be any restriction on fully-automatic (or any other kind, for that matter) firearms. I believe that you should be able to carry them concealed or use them as home defense systems. It might be idiotic to do so, but that should be left up the end-user to decide. If you mis-use firearms, you should be punished after the fact, NOT BEFORE.

-Pytron
 
I know I wouldn't be 100% appeased, but I do know I'd be overall much much happier if state gun laws were identical to federal gun laws and if the only NFA laws involved the $200 tax and registration.

basically, if they removed the import and domestic registration bans, and allowed people to register all new NFA items just like we can with supressors, I'd be appeased. that's where I'd compromise at. essentially, with the gun laws as in effect in 1935.
 
pytron: Good post and I understand your dilemma and frustration. I suffer the same thing with suppressors in my state as well.

I'm not against owning them or others owning them as stated before.

As I feel the NFA regs will never be changed in the gunowners favor, to say I support the proposition neither for or against more regs applied to NFA types is basically saying I want no further restrictions. It has been made cost prohibitve for some by the bureaus but thats another topic.

Knowing the chances of getting them rescinded is probably out of the question, but I see your point and it is noted accordingly.

Brownie
 
You have a right to own and use whatever you want inless it infringes on someone elses right, end of topic. If you disagree, you're wrong, I'm right, so deal with it. :p
 
Once you get it, give me one leegitimate reason you want one. And that reason isn't because "I should be able to have one if I want one", there are plenty of other restrictions we abide by under the same rulings.
Click to expand...

Huh? I couldn't hear you. Could you talk louder?

Besides, they make it so that you don't have to wear the darn muffs while you shoot - There was about 15-20 minutes of suppressor-only time (that I saw - maybe more...) at the Oklahoma Full Auto shoot this past weekend, and except for a few folks who seemed to think that a .223 with supersonic rounds was "suppressed," it was pretty cool.
 
http://www.oz.net/~cyu/internment/timeline.html
[blockquote]March 2, 1942
General DeWitt issued Public Proclamation No. 1, creating military areas in Washington, Oregon, California, and parts of Arizona and declaring the right to remove German, Italian, and Japanese aliens and anyone of "Japanese Ancestry" living in Military Areas No. 1 and 2 should it become necessary.

March 16, 1942
DeWitt issued Public Proclamation No. 2, creating Military Areas 3 to 6 in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Utah, respectively.

May 13, 1942
Ichiro Shimoda shot and killed for trying to escape from Fort Sill

June 7, 1942
General DeWitt announced completion of the removal of 100,000 Japanese Americans from Military Area No. 1.

June 29, 1942
1600 inmates sent from assembly and relocation centers to fill sugar beet labor shortage in Oregon, Utah, Idaho, and Montana.

July 27, 1942
Two ill prisoners shot to death in the early morning at Lordsburg, New Mexico.

August 7, 1942
Removal of all Japanese Americans (over 110,000) completed in Military Areas No. 1 and 2.2

April 11, 1943
Elderly man shot to death at Topaz.

July 31, 1943
WRA designated Tule Lake as a "segregation camp."2

May 24, 1944
Shoichi James Okamoto shot by camp soldier.[/blockquote]
 
tyme:

Time--marches on, the countries attitudes change and that could not happen in todays society, the liberals would see to that.

Time--to come into the 21st century sir.

Time--to realize that it was a different era, different circumstances and different actions based on beliefs that no longer exist in the politically correct world the liberals have so kindly brought forth therby destroying any chance of actually staying a strong nation until things like 9-11 occur, they they look up with a blank surprised stare in their eyes.

You do realize that there are many people out there after 9-11 who did not think we shoud have gone to Afhganistan to kill our enemies but wait fir them to return?

Brownie
 
Brownie says-
I have stated no issues relative possession. I have stated the existing laws re: suppressors and autos should be left in tact as is, with no more or less than presently.
Click to expand...
Then he agrees that the NFA rules are indeed unfair in that they are discriminatory via market over-regulation and taxation:
As I feel the NFA regs will never be changed in the gunowners favor, to say I support the proposition neither for or against more regs applied to NFA types is basically saying I want no further restrictions. It has been made cost prohibitve for some by the bureaus but thats another topic.
Click to expand...

So which is it? Should the rules be left on the books because they are good and fair, or should they be changed because they are discriminatory?
 
Though I believe and agree with most they have been restrictive in nature [ who could say differently being educated ] , I also believe they should be left intact.

Both have been stated before.

I can't believe they are unfair and at the same time feel they should be left intact with no more or less restrictions placed on them?

Brownie
 
brownie, I come late to this discussion, but from reading your "time" comments to tyme, along with other comments, I fear you're an incurable optimist about the infinite wisdom of Government.

My observations of the behavior and of the statements by governmental people in high places has led me to believe their first priority is that of preservation of Government. This transcends all other considerations, including personal liberties and the Constitution. These observations are fairly consistent, and are over the 44-year period since I got out of the Army.

We've had our Tiannemen Square; we've had the internments of the Japanese during WW II. To say it could never happen again is to go against human nature in times of stress, and against governmental priorities. Of course, in our oh-so-kind Brave New World, any such actions would be taken gently and with compassion and for our own good.

The GCA '34 was passed as a direct result of the Veterans' March of 1932. The Congress was in abject fear of a true revolt by men who were quite experienced in the use of all weapons. Silencers had never been any real-world problem, but were included within the line of reasoning of "sporting purposes" firearms of more recent natterings.

The thing to do when discussions of this sort arise is to stop and reconsider the purpose of the Bill of Rights: It is a package of restrictions on government. It is not a granting of rights, but a listing os some; it is not in any way a set of restrictions on individuals.

For our system to function, the citizenry must behave in a responsible manner. Misbehavior is worthy of punishment, but only after the fact. Denial of possession of any item before there is misuse is against the fundamental concepts of all our basic documents. Doesn't matter if it's guns, drugs, paraphenalia or the various accoutrements of "illicit" activities. Act against person or property and then be punished. That one harms one's own person is not the business of government.

I grant that in today's world that there are many who see government as wiser and more knowing than the citizenry at large. Obviously, I am not on of those...

:), Art
 
Another factor driving passage of the NFA was the repeal of Prohibition. The Treasury Department had to find something for all its alcohol agents to do.

There were many new laws passed by Congress in 1934 criminalizing things that had never been crimes before that date. These things hadn't been problems either.

It is quite informative just how many of these laws slapped a tax on this and that thus placing it in Treasury's bailiwick.


1934...the year Congress saved the jobs of hundreds of Treasury agents-and saddled us with this unmitigated crap.
 
Art Eatman :

I base the proposition that what happened to the japanese in this country would not/could not happen again due to what we saw happening after 9-11.

We did not see the gov types rounding up all the turbans and interning them, actually we saw just the opposite where the gov and state gov's would not even let us profile these people after at the same aiport that started it all.

Big wakeup call of course, but the political flavor in this country about not being profiled is out of control, if anything is.

I profile all I want, it has saved my a$$ on too many ocassions on the streets. Though I do it, I have to be very careful how it shows.

With the way this country is going, it will never be like that again.

Brownie
 
Please stop calling brownie a “leftist.†He is most likely an easygoing “right-wing†statist (i.e., a petty fascist), as he has shown no interest in having the means of production owned by the state (socialism) or by the community (communism). But I digress by explaining political and economic ideologies …

Brownie questions the need for civilians to own suppressors and automatic or select-fire weapons. Bearing in mind that police officers are also civilians, I will describe that need—actually reiterate it, as several posters have already explained the matter well enough. Maybe he will understand this time.

Automatic and Select-Fire Weapons: Civilians would need these weapons to lay down covering fire while performing militia service, either in training or in actual combat. This is the very same reason the armed services need automatic weapons. Personally, I would like to have at least one select-fire rifle for this purpose, but federal and state statutes have made it impossible for me to do so “legally.â€

Suppressors: Like automatic weapons, suppressors would be needed during militia service, where stealthy operations would sometimes be required. Furthermore, they are the best means to minimize potential hearing damage during home-defense shootings. A suppressed gun can be more quickly and effectively deployed than an unsuppressed gun and, say, earmuffs.

So, brownie, there are legitimate needs for these things. I suspect, though, that this still isn’t enough for you. I also got the feeling from one of your posts that you don’t really approve of “legal†concealed carry either.

In the Perfect World, I would accept the Benevolent Government granting Worthy Citizens permission to own and use cars, guns, votes, etc. Of course, in this world, firearms proficiency would be taught in the schools, and carry permits with international reciprocity would be shall-issue.

But my hope for anything approaching a perfect world died on September 11, A.D. 2001. Governments are not benevolent. People are neither good nor particularly wise. History has proven this time and time again.

~G. Fink
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry folks, but I didn`t go trough all 8 pages, so I will just jump in now.

My need for a suppressor, is to keep peace in the neighborhood. Because I`m, fixen to kill my neighbors dog. Totally legal, the county police says it is, but I need something that will reach out to 100yds, with a one shot kill. That would be my .06 or M14, both make one he!! of a noise, and the neighbor would hear it for sure, and know I shot his damn dog, when it didn`t show up. He said I killed one of his cats once, didn`t.

The M14 has a threaded barrel, so that is my choice.

So! Do I have a NEED for a suppressor? Or should I just kill it, and throw his dead pouch on his pourch? Then let the fude begin.

What do you think brownie0486?

PS: The neighbor is 80. How about a heart attack to go with the dog. Don`t say there is no need for something, i`ve known the wonderful man for yeras.
 
Second amendment restrictions.

As there are restrictions on the First amendment, shouldn't there be restrictions on the Second?

I mean you can't threaten someone and tell the cops you were just using free speech. Likewise lying under oath is not free speech. Same thing with religion. Human sacrifice is not allowed. Poligamy (sp) is not allowed. When you think about it there are quite a few things that actually are restricted.

I'm not talking about banning military and assault weapons, but why is everyone against having some restraints on things like silencers? I really don't think if we were ever invaded, something like silencers would really make that much of a difference in the outcome of the war, at least not in the hands of civilians.
 
Scyvthe,

I think you're off a little in your logic. Your analogies:

Freedom of Speech - threatening someone = illegal
Freedom of Religion - human sacrifice = illegal
Keep and Bear Arms - silencers=illegal

Do you see anything wrong in the patterns? In your first two examples, you discuss actions, not things, in your third you discuss a thing. Different characteristics. To more closely approximate your analogies:

Freedom of Speech - threatening someone = illegal
Freedom of Religion - human sacrifice = illegal
Keep and Bear Arms - shooting someone=illegal

To more correctly compare the three in a perspective that more closely approximates our view:

Freedom of Speech - press pass= illegal
Freedom of Religion - crucifixes= illegal
Keep and Bear Arms - silencers=illegal

Now you're looking at an apples to apples arrangement...

I mean, look at the curcifixes, it's not like you're going to be assaulted by vampires and have to defend yourself by pressing it against Drac's forehead.

;)
 
Good Point...

Very good point, along with a good argument, however I still have to disagree.

While the examples may be actions you have to look at what the right itself secures.
The first amendment secures the right of free speech, which speech is of course an action. Same with religion, practicing a religion is an action.
The second amendment deals with keeping and bearing arms. So keeping and bearing a silencer would I guess kind of be an action.
You do have some good points even though I might not agree.

Hmmm, this thread is getting kind of long, think I should make a new one?
 
Scyvthe,

The reason is that in regards to firearms, it's everything or nothing. A firearm is a firearm. Handguns, rifles, machineguns, shotguns, etc are merely different types of firearms.

Once you agree that placing a restriction on a firearm is ok, you have now opened the door and all that is left is to determine the level of the restrictions the government wants to impose.

You wind up with the mess we currently have. In '68, handguns under a certain size were deemed "Saturday Night Specials" and banned from importation. In '86, machineguns were determined to be bad, so the government froze the number in the civilian market. Over time, this number will dwindle down to zero. In '89, they decided that only firearms "judged" to be sporting firearms could be imported. In '94, an entire class of firearms were banned simply because they looked like their fully automatic military counterparts. The politicians decided that civilians were safe with magazines holding 10 rounds, but if it holds 11 or more, the civilian won't be able to resist going into a school yard and having target practice on children.

If they keep this pace, it will not be too long before there is some "reasonable gun control" excuse to ban every category of firearm in existance. It is a variation of "divide and conquer." As long as they are not talking about a specific category of firearms you are interested in, you have no problem with "reasonable gun control."

The only reasonable gun control is to severely punish the small minority of people that commit crimes with guns.

Hmmm, this thread is getting kind of long, think I should make a new one?
Click to expand...

Nah, I think we have a record going. I must say I am amazed, especially given the topic, that everyone has remained civil to this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Silencers and suppressors
Replies
7
Views
1K
danez71
danez71
B
  • Locked
List of States with AOW/SBR/Silencers
Replies
7
Views
1K
emazingli
E
L
  • Locked
Airgun silencers
Replies
17
Views
925
solareclipse
S
F
  • Locked
Silencers
Replies
19
Views
1K
PapaG
P
C
  • Locked
Fopa?
Replies
2
Views
300
Kharn
K
Back
Top