What's the deal with silencers?

[brownie0486]

Gordon Fink:
Nah, I didn't say there wasn't a need, I said I don't see the need, and I still don't.

Suppresive fire by militia? Ever laid down suppressive fire before? Whose going to have the tactics among civilians [ maybe a few militia groups who are operating in the country, but certainly not every tom, dick and harry will know what to do and how to make the suppressive fire work ]. That would take training and tactics which most civilians won't have at their disposal.

Hell, if it was that easy the military would not have to train as hard as they do for the tactics to work. Your neighbor know how to shoot and scoot while another lays down that suppresssive fire? How about the guy up the street?

Even if the neighbor has tactics, he may be at work, away for whatever reason. Some of you folks really think military tactics will just appear on everyones door step and you'll all be in step with each other. Thats hardly realistic, and if it isn't realistic to think civilians untrained in such manuevers won't know what to do, are you thinking maybe you'll be able to show them, if you knew yourself in an hour? a day?

Ever seen the cluster created by combat? thats what you are talking here. I guess the military just spends their time training for something to do as the tactics come naturally. It's all so easy from the armchairs though.

And this IF the country was invaded or the gov types started door to door. Thats a big if to my thinking. There will be utter confusion on civilians parts with very few [ relatively speaking ] who actually understand what is required. You thought process would have every civilian with autos and suppressors automatically be able to perform these functions. If you believe that I can't help you.

B9mmHP: I see, there just is no way to keep the piece in your neighborhood without suppressors. Very interesting theory there. How about you leave the dog alone or better yet call the police/animal control officers. These are potential avenues for you to take besides killing a dog, which probably breaks some law, hence the suppressor needs. Maybe thats why you want to be so quiet about it. You have premeditated [ here on the forum ]to kill a domestic animal, you need the suppressor so you don't get in trouble. I see now why everyone wants one, and exactly why I don't think you need one. You make my case very well there sir, thank you. You are about to break the law and need a silencer to make it easier to get away with it. Geesh, thats a good reason to let you have one right?

Yep, everyone should have a suppressor like Gordon. He's already got a plan to break the law with his. Real strong cases are being made here, can everyone see that people come up with all kinds of dasterdly things to do with one.

The home defense theory doesn't hold with me, it apparently does with you. People have been getting by defending their homes just fine without them, but we need them now. Can't defend your home without one, theres a need if I ever heard one. Right.

You got the wrong feeling there about carry issues with me. If you had read the posts you would have caught my posting about being an NRA member, my money going to the same place as yours I presume, to defend the rights to carry. Thats different than needing full auto and suppressors though to my thinking.

Art Eatman: I'm not an optimist where they are concerned, I'm more apt to worry about guys like Gordon above using one to break the law cause he can be quiet about his killing an 80 yr old mans dog, theres just no other way around it, he has got to have a suppressor to do the deed or get caught. No one believes he would be the only one to think of ways to circumvent the law with one do they?

Brownie

 

[KMKeller]

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.

If you want to knuckle it down to those terms, then you're looking at the following:

Speaking,
Praying,
Holding...

Which one seems the most innocuous?

 

[Scyvthe]

MP5ksd: I understand that some people are definately trying to ban all guns of all categories on the civilian market. I don't agree at all with them. I don't agree with the '94 ban. If I knew the details of other bans chances are I wouldn't agree with them either.
However I'm not in the belief that you should have anything you want just because the military owns it. I think ultimately we do have to draw the line as to what the military can have and what civilians can have. As far as somethings go, like guns, sure I have no problem with civilians having AR 15s (with or without bayonettes), but tanks, stinger missiles, rpgs, even hand grenades, I’m against. As a matter of fact I think a lot of y'all at least partially agree with me. I've heard (I think it was on a thread about what firearm laws you would impose if you were supreme ruler or something) a lot of people on here say they don't want civilians to possess WMD's. So essentially it is just drawing the line. How can you say that the second amendment covers everything else but not WMD’s. I think the disagreement with me and most others here is where to draw the line.

Also, I think one of the main themes of your post was that if we give them (antis) any ground, then we will lose it all. I agree that this is certainly possible, however I don’t think that should be an excuse not to allow reasonable gun laws (and when I say reasonable I mean reasonable not absurd). If we just concentrate on not letting any more absurd gun laws pass I think we can do fine, or at least as well as we can at all.

Everyone else: As far as the idea that it is a right and therefore its none of my business if you own one or not, I think that whole idea is flawed. Some things are regulated to protect society so that criminals will have a harder time obtaining them. I’ve heard that saying by Ben Franklin (I think that’s who it was) about how trading freedom for security will lead to the absence of both. I do agree somewhat but if you think about it, all government really is, is a system of restraint. By having the government at all we are trading freedom for security so once again I think you just have to figure out what level of freedom you want to trade for security.

 

[Scyvthe]

KMKeller

If you want to knuckle it down to those terms, then you're looking at the following:

Speaking,
Praying,
Holding...

Which one seems the most innocuous?

Hmmm... To be honest with you I really don't understand your argument.
The point of what I said earlier about restrictions was merely to say that there are other rights that have restrictions to them, so why is everyone against restrictions to the second amendment. (which me and mp5ksd are debating, feel free to jump in).

 

[Spark]

Suppressors should be legalized for public health reasons alone, let alone 2nd A reasons. The fact that we're required to wear all sorts of gobbledygook to preserve our hearing despite 70 years of technical innovations in sound reduction technology is a crime. Think about it - we could have pistols right now that sounds like a conventional nail gun - and a gun culture that has many more shooters because the "BANG BANG BANG" of firearms wouldn't be as intimidating.

The internet can be used for all sorts of malfeasance - that doesn't mean we should register each and every user who buys a PC.

Sorry brownie, but you've yet to come up with a reason that isn't already covered by other laws.

 

[Telperion]

Scyvthe, the mere ownership of a suppressor does not grant you any right to use it in a manner inconsistent with the law. The same is true of guns, cars, tree branches, etc. If you are squeamish with the prospect of your fellow citizens owning suppressors, you may want to reevaluate your general attitude toward their gun ownership concordantly.

I take umbrage with the term "reasonable gun control", often enacted through "common-sense gun laws". These terms are a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack. The insinuation is that anybody who disagrees is unreasonable and lacks common sense. Ultimately, it is a losing position to take because there will always be somebody whose working definition of "reasonable" is more narrowly-tailored then yours.

For some of us, the issue is not just about freedom but real utility. I have other hobbies (music) that depend on my ability to hear well. I should be able to protect my hearing by the most effective means possible: reducing the muzzle report with a suppressor in addition to the passive protection of muffs.

 

[Byron Quick]

The point of what I said earlier about restrictions was merely to say that there are other rights that have restrictions to them, so why is everyone against restrictions to the second amendment

Why? Consider the text of the amendment itself...which part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?

It appears to be that the intent of the folks who both wrote and ratified the second amendment was that there were to be no restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is why they specifically included the very blunt, as well as very difficult to "interpret" phrase: shall not be infringed followed by a period.

It does not say that it can restricted for the public welfare or to make some blissninnies feel safer. The amendment says "shall not be infringed."

Restrictions are synonymous with infringements in my thesaurus. How about yours?

It appears that the author(s) of the amendment looked into the nature of man as well as the history of government and realized that a specific prohibition of restrictions was necessary in the linchpin of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Scyvthe]

What about nuclear arms?

Pipsqueak: Yes I know the mere ownership of a supressor does not make it "right" by the law to commit a crime. However what I am saying is that if we sold supressors at Walmart to anyone and everyone, it would be easier for criminals to acquire them.
Ok maybe I don't think I made myself clear on the reasonable gun control part. What I am saying is that if there is a measure that you know will reduce crime (or at least have a good idea that it will) involving guns, I don't think it is always right just to use the excuse "if we let them have one area they then they will use it as a foothold" to just blatantly oppose that legislation.
As for your hearing, I suppose its just one of the risks you take shooting guns. I am not excusing states like California banning all class 3 items such as silencers. In some states you can get them, in others you cannot.

Byron Quick: Do you think the authors of the Constitution really thought there was a difference in the words abridge and infringe?
"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Or as far as religion is concerned "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
But if you threaten someone, can you tell the police that you were using free speech and expect to come off the hook. The same with lying under oath. What about libel and slander?
What if I want ten wives instead of one? It doesn't really affect anyone else does it? Plus look at the Constitution "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Does that mean it is my Constitutional right to have more than one wife?
As far as weapons are concerned, I think its pretty much drawing a line. Most do it. Do you think civilians should own nuclear weapons? Why or why not? What about stinger missiles or rpgs? Do you think civilians should be able to own those? Ok, as for supressors, aren't they usually accessories anyways? I mean I know there are guns that have them integrated into them, but for the most part isn't a silencer an accessory not an arm?

 

[Tamara]

Scyvthe,

But if you threaten someone, can you tell the police that you were using free speech and expect to come off the hook. The same with lying under oath. What about libel and slander?

All those are invalid points as they all involve another person, which simple ownership of an object doesn't.

What if I want ten wives instead of one?

Weird, but if they're all consenting adults, well... y'all have fun.

It doesn't really affect anyone else does it? Plus look at the Constitution "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Does that mean it is my Constitutional right to have more than one wife?

Truthfully, show me in the Constitution where the government has any business regulating the number and/or gender of spouses a person has.

As far as weapons are concerned, I think its pretty much drawing a line. Most do it. Do you think civilians should own nuclear weapons?

Do you think the .gov has the right to own nukes? If so, where do you think it derives this right? (Hint: "...of the ______, by the ______, for the ______.") How can you delegate to the .gov a right that is not yours to delegate?

 

[Justin]

Say wha?

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?

I never said you couldn't. But I find it curious that you are blatantly cognizant of your hypocrisy. After all, how can you honestly support a law that is so obviously based on concepts that you yourself admit are unjust?

 

[Justin]

As far as weapons are concerned, I think its pretty much drawing a line. Most do it. Do you think civilians should own nuclear weapons? Why or why not? What about stinger missiles or rpgs? Do you think civilians should be able to own those? Ok, as for supressors, aren't they usually accessories anyways?

The 2nd Amendment is only a very minor subset of a larger, all encompassing individual human right; the right to own property. Just because suppressors aren't mentioned verbatim in the US Constitution does not mean you have no right to own them.

As far as equating owning NFA stuff with owning nukes and RPG's, I'll tell you what, why don't we debate the wisdom of such ideas after we've repealed the laws that will get you thrown in the federal klink for 5 years for owning a piece of stamped sheet metal that was made after a certain date.

Talking about private ownership of RPG's, nukes, etc. now is akin to talking about rocket powered cars when all you've access to is a stage coach. It's nothing more than mental masturbation.

 

[KMKeller]

The point of what I said earlier about restrictions was merely to say that there are other rights that have restrictions to them, so why is everyone against restrictions to the second amendment. (which me and mp5ksd are debating, feel free to jump in).

My point is that you were and still are referring to restrictions on actions related to each of the amendments. There are plenty of restrictions on the actions related to the second amendment. You can't use a gun to kill someone without just cause, you can't point one at someone, you can't pull one out and fire shots in the air, etc. For Freedom of Speech and Religion, the tools used are not criminalized, only the misuse of them. The same is not currently true for the 2nd amendment. There are thousands of restrictions on how the tool can be used. Illegalizing harmless components of a firearm is the equivalent of illegalizing multi color ribbons on a typewriter or crucifixes or statues of Jesus.

For the purposes of this conversation, for the Freedoms of Speech and Religion, please name one tool used in each that has been made illegal by the federal government.

Then it'll be my turn.

That's about as clear as I can make it.

 

[brownie0486]

KMKeller:

That might make sense but a gun is not a tool, it's a dangerous weapon [ by statute ].

You buy tools at the hardware store or home depot. There are no tool laws on the books that I know of, please show me one if you are aware of any and the jurisdiction which lists firearms under their "tool" laws.

One of the problems with the ultra pro crowd has always been to call a gun a tool. It's all semantics by that group, guns are listed under most states "dangerous weapons" laws. We go throug the same debate on the knife forum where they are also listed under dangerous weapons laws and not some tool law.

You say tomato, I say tomaato, tell it to the judge and jury that you weren't carrying a weapon, it was a tool. See judge, I've found that instead of a hammer to pound nails I can get away with this here gun butt, ya right.

Of course I'm aware of the hypocrisy. It's a catch 22 where I don't have to agree with being restricted but understand that in the grander scheme of things certain objects should be restricted to some degree as it is prudent to do so. Don't have to like it but we do need to be objective in determining what may be prudent to reduce the risk to the general population.

Hypocrisy cuts both ways my friend. Mental masterbation? I thought thats what all the people here with anarchistic sentiment were about. See how you can be right and wrong at the same time. I know I can be and am quite often, the oppostion in this thread, for the most part seem to have the belief they ARE right with no chance of being wrong.

Reality,
you have to have your eyes open to see it. Some of the people posting here have legitimate complaints and speak with an educated tongue. What I have a problem with is their attitude that it's their way only or it's somehow a wrong to them. Not being able to compromise where compromise is the order of the day leaves one beating their head against the wall unnecessarily when they don't get what they feel is 'their right".

Change the system or live with it and make the best of the situation at hand. I thought that was always the way the system worked, two parties with different ideologies and we have a choice as to which we feel is better for us based on our views and beliefs.

Whining about the injustices placed upon you by your govt doesn't solve the peceived problem, getting elected and changing the system just may. Pick up the slack and state your case to the people.

The libertarians do and they get 2% of the vote. Guess not many agree with their ideology. They have some good ideas and some bad ones like every other entity in the political arean. I suppose it is their bad ones that keep people away from voting them into power. If they learned to compromise, more people may take them seriously. Too many people do not like extremes, myself included.

Brownie

 

[Tamara]

The problem with the concept of compromise is what you're compromising on.

The grocer wants to get $1,000,000 for a gallon of milk. You would like to get it for $0. You can reach a compromise between those two figures.

The mugger wants all the money in your wallet, you want to give him none. What do you think is a fair compromise there?





There can be no compromise on basic principles or on fundamental issues. What would you regard as a "compromise" between life and death? Or between truth and falsehood? Or between reason and irrationality? --Ayn Rand

 

[KMKeller]

I've seen both sides of guns brownie, I lost my father to suicide when I was 18. He used a Charter Arms Bulldog in .44 Special and shot himself in the head. I know full well, that if he had not had a gun (he in fact had hundreds), he would've found another way to do it.

The fact that a gun, by statute, is a dangerous weapon is part of the problem. The problem of making it something it's not. Demonization of an inanimate object for the purposes of regulation.

And I am not one of those "Ultra-pro" people. I was raised around guns and have seen both the good and the bad. People assume that guns are made to kill, I say that guns are made to feed and protect. Semantics yes, but perception of intended use is to me what defines it as something else. You can kill just as easily with a brick or a rock or a hammer or a screwdriver as you can with a gun. The intentions of the person behind it are what's important, and you'll never be able to judge that for each individual person.

Is my gun capable of taking a life? Sure, and so is just about everything else in my house. Have I ever taken a life? Nope. Do I ever intend to? Nope. Will I ever? Only if someone is trying to take mine or my family members. At that point, I will use whatever I have to, rock, brick, hammer, screwdriver or gun and I will use it until said person stops their attack.

Now, to the point of this whole exercise, tell me how a silencer kills a person and how it makes a weapon more or less lethal. Show me one instance where a person was bludgeoned to death with a silencer. Show me one case where a silencer was a murder weapon.

Oh, and brownie, where I grew up you buy your guns at the True Value Hardware Store on Main Street. They're in the tools section, right next to the hammers.

 

[brownie0486]

KMKeller:

I've seen both sides of the gun myself. I have been on the receiving end and the operator end.

you state "I say that guns are made to feed ". Do you hit them critters over the head with it and knock them out? No, probably you see it for what it is, an object that was designed to kill, consequently "dangerous weapon".

Protect, as in kill? Or do you only expect to beat them over the head like you would use the hammer? Lets see, you don''t see the gun as something used to kill/injure someone? How would you be using that gun there sir when you want to feed that family? Ask that little bunny rabbit to stop and hop up into the frying pan? No, more likely you would be using it with your intended purpose, to kill [ consequently feed ] and protect [ kill ] if necessary. Seems you have a dilemma there to me and are being quite semantical but unable to escape your own words when they are broken down.

Did you show a license to buy that gun? Fill out any forms? Do you show a license to buy the hammer next to it? Two different objects which are recognized for what they are. One is a tool, the other is a weapon. One can be used to kill and the other is used to kill.

Were the hammers locked up on the wall? Did you have to ask the clerk to see the hammer? Bet the kept the guns locked up or behind a counter out of reach from the publics general control though didn't they.

The analogy is not valid as you have stated it. You are certainly welcome to try again though. You have not made your case here.

Brownie

 

[Tamara]

brownie0486,

How many legs would a cow have if there was a legal statute that called the tail a leg?

Did you show a license to buy that gun? Fill out any forms? Do you show a license to buy the hammer next to it?

You are confusing "what is the law" with "what is right" again. Once upon a time, you could own legal title to a black person. It was legal. The Supreme court said so. Did that make it right?

Two different objects which are recognized for what they are. One is a tool, the other is a weapon. One can be used to kill and the other is used to kill.

Wrong again. Change it to: "One can be used to kill, the other can be used to kill."
Did you shoot a gun yesterday? I did. It didn't kill anything. Is it broken?

Were the hammers locked up on the wall? Did you have to ask the clerk to see the hammer? Bet the kept the guns locked up or behind a counter out of reach from the publics general control though didn't they.

Most of the gun stores I go to have plenty of guns out where you can handle them.

 

[brownie0486]

Tamara, On a mountain top in Tenn. is a great place to be.

Change it to:

One is recognized as a killer, the other is recognized as a tool that can be used to kill.

Brownie

 

[Tamara]

brownie0486,

"One is recognized as a killer, the other is recognized as a tool that can be used to kill."
--brownie0486, circa 2003 AD

"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
--Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD

So guns are killers? Shouldn't we ban them?

Why did Ruger make my Bearcat such an inadequate killer, then? Teeny fixed sights, wimpy caliber, single action, eject and load one at a time through a loading gate... not much of a fearsome killing machine, neh? Yet it's a weapon, right?

 

[brownie0486]

1958 years later is plenty of time for the rules of society to change due to many reasons, as well as perceptions based on dfferent sets of circumstances faced by society, which there wasn't much off back when old Lucius Annaeus Seneca made his comments.

Should we ban them?
You trying to get a response from me in the negative with that one?
You know well I am a martial person, into as many weapons systems as possible. How could there be a negative response relative that subject.

Baiting me will get you nowhere on this matter.

Brownie

 

[KMKeller]

What Tam said...

 

[KMKeller]

Protect, as in kill? Or do you only expect to beat them over the head like you would use the hammer? Lets see, you don''t see the gun as something used to kill/injure someone? How would you be using that gun there sir when you want to feed that family? Ask that little bunny rabbit to stop and hop up into the frying pan? No, more likely you would be using it with your intended purpose, to kill [ consequently feed ] and protect [ kill ] if necessary. Seems you have a dilemma there to me and are being quite semantical but unable to escape your own words when they are broken down.

And if I had no gun, I'd use a snare to trap the rabbit and a stick or rock to kill it... what's your point? And I'd much rather the weapon scared the perp away rather than me having to shoot him, but if I didn't have a gun, again, I'd use something else. My point, that you seem incapable of grasping, is that all can be used to accomplish the end goal. Demonizing one is ludicrous. You seem to be the one arguing the semantics by pointing to the method of killing rather than the final act. Dead is dead, how it got there is pretty much irrelevant.

Lets see, you don''t see the gun as something used to kill/injure someone?

No, I see it as something used to prevent someone/something from killing/injuring me or my family when all else has failed. Your view however is becoming all too clear.

Your condescending attitude sucks.

 

[Meowhead]

What we have here is failure to communicate.

Tamara and Brownie, you might as well be speaking two different languages here. Brownie insists on anthropomorphising weapons, which is something I have a problem with..see this statement, 'one is classified as a killer.' Killer, meaning a thing that kills. When last I checked, killing was considered an action - an act of will. Hopefully we can all agree that an act of will requires..well..a will, which is something inanimate objects tend to lack, no matter how society changes over hundreds of years.

 

[KMKeller]

Scyvthe

Hmmm... To be honest with you I really don't understand your argument.
The point of what I said earlier about restrictions was merely to say that there are other rights that have restrictions to them, so why is everyone against restrictions to the second amendment. (which me and mp5ksd are debating, feel free to jump in).

Sorry if that convoluted things. My point is that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are not regulated, the path of action chosen by those exercising those rights is. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is already similarly restricted with laws governing what you can and cannot do with guns. The difference in the restrictions are that the tools used in the exercise of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are not, while those used in the Right to Keep and Bear arms are.

 

[brownie0486]

KMKeller: Your opinion of my attitude is your opnion.

No better or worse than my opinions. We all have them don't we?

Last I checked the fed stats on crimes, the guns seem to be the big "killers" in society as a percentage of weapons used, particularly where police officers are concerned.

They didn't list hammers specifically for some reason but they do have a category for "all other", which could have included the hammer on ocassion.

Brownie