Would you support a suppressor compromise...?

[Arkansas Paul]

You are wrong.

Warp, the statement that you made bold may indeed be wrong, but the statement he made just previous to it is 100% spot on.

 

[wally]

Man 1 in 5 willing to accept this "compromise", now I understand how we got shafted by the "Gun Owners Protection Act" compromise.

 

[Godsgunman]

Akita1,
As you said it is definitely a luxury and I do understand their purpose for hunters and such. Again though why are people willing to exchange a Constitutional Right for a convenience. We all know what any form of registration leads to, just look at history. As Franklin said, "Those willing to give up a little freedom (liberty) for a little security (luxury) deserve neither and will lose both." If anyone believes differently then I have ocean front property here in Kansas I would love to sell you.

 

[madFive]

I'd be willing to make a compromise on this issue: we toss out all of the NFA statutes since 1934, and in exchange we don't impeach any of the top supporters of recent gun-regulation agendas. But honestly I am wary of making even a compromise on this level.

Seriously, the American people have compromised on the 2A to such an extent we can't really afford to give another inch without it going away all-together. It's time to start taking the ground back.

 

[hso]

I do understand their purpose for hunters and such

That's easy to explain if you understand that firearms produce noise levels that can injure your hearing and that sound suppressors or moderators reduce the noise levels significantly. With the right combination of firearm, ammunition, and suppressor you can even safely forego ear plugs and muffs and not annoy any annoying neighbors that don't find the sound of target practice to be music to their ears.

Nice Surefire video on why you should listen to people advocating suppressor use. Replace soldier/officer with shooter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3_jyCnuG0

Also, there's a nice explanation in Wiki (yes, I know it isn't a citable source).

There are many advantages in using a suppressor that are not related to the sound.
Hunters using centerfire rifles find suppressors bring various important benefits that outweigh the extra weight and resulting change in the firearm's center of gravity. The most important advantage of a suppressor is the hearing protection for the shooter as well as his/her companions. There are many hunters who have suffered permanent hearing damage due to someone else firing a high-caliber gun too closely without a warning. By reducing noise, recoil and muzzle-blast, it also enables the firer to follow through calmly on his first shot and fire a further carefully aimed shot without delay if necessary. Wildlife of all kinds are often confused as to the direction of the source of a well-suppressed shot. In the field, however, the comparatively large size of a centerfire rifle suppressor can cause unwanted noise if it bumps or rubs against vegetation or rocks, and many users cover them with neoprene sleeves.
Suppressors reduce firing recoil significantly, primarily by diverting and trapping the propellant gas. Propellant gas is generally a fraction of the projectile mass, but it exits the muzzle at multiples of the projectile velocity, and since recoil energy is a function of mass times velocity squared the elimination of the propellant recoil can be significant. Paulson et al., discussing low-velocity pistol calibers, suggest the recoil reduction is around 15%.[1] With high-velocity calibers recoil reduction runs in the range of 20–30%.[21] The added weight of the suppressor—normally 300 to 500 grams—also contributes to the reduction of the recoil. Further, the pressure against the face of each baffle is higher than the pressure on its reverse side, making each baffle a miniature "pneumatic ram" which pulls the suppressor forward on the weapon, contributing a counter recoil force.
A suppressor also cools the hot gases coming out of the barrel enough that most of the lead-laced vapor that leaves the barrel condenses inside the suppressor, reducing the amount of lead that might be inhaled by the shooter and others around them. However, in auto-loading actions this might be offset by increased back pressure which results in propellant gas blowing back into a shooter's face through the chamber during case ejection.

One of the easiest ways to do it is to point to a Finnish ad pointing out the benefits of a suppressor. http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/Reflex.html

 

[Godsgunman]

A good video hso. If a compromise would be along the lines of removing the taxation and wait period for suppressors in exchange for anti gunners not being prosecuted for treason then I am all for it. If its at the cost of registration or the slightest bit of further infringement then no thanks.

 

[Akita1]

Akita1,
As you said it is definitely a luxury and I do understand their purpose for hunters and such. Again though why are people willing to exchange a Constitutional Right for a convenience. We all know what any form of registration leads to, just look at history. As Franklin said, "Those willing to give up a little freedom (liberty) for a little security (luxury) deserve neither and will lose both." If anyone believes differently then I have ocean front property here in Kansas I would love to sell you.

GG - the idealist in me is with you 100%. Not sure I'm exchanging a right because I have to either get CLEO signoff or use an NFA trust to own one anyway, so why the heck do I have to wait a year? None of this is acceptable or reasonable at all, but this is the prevailing law of the land so not much of a choice. Would prefer to carry Uriel's flaming sword, but guns with suppressors will do for now.

And they're all registered; every suppressor or SBR I own has passed through BATFE - that's registration.

Franklin is one of my favorites, btw.

 

[Akita1]

Not sure why many of us think this is a compromise (yes, I know the word is used in the thread title and the OP). The OP is suggesting something that's better than what we have now. In my small mind, that's called progress.

 

[Sam1911]

The OP is suggesting something that's better than what we have now. In my small mind, that's called progress.

The OP is suggesting one thing that's a small benefit for a few shooters and a LARGE harm to ALL Americans.

I don't think it's a compromise, either. At least not a good one.

 

[W.E.G.]

I used to have a suppressor for the AR.

After the novelty of it wore off, I had no use for it whatsoever.

Everybody else at the range shoots without suppressors - so I still have to wear ear protection, even if I have a suppressor. In fact, I shot a few rounds with the suppressor, and without ear protection when I was the only one at the range. It was still too loud to tolerate.

Plus the suppressor got so hot that I had to let the gun sit for 15-20 minutes before I could put it back in the gun case - which was not at all convenient.

Then there was the whole added mess (quite a lot of it) issue.

A suppressor seems like probably a good idea if you are part of an "entry team."
I have no use for one otherwise.

 

[AKElroy]

The OP is suggesting one thing that's a small benefit for a few shooters and a LARGE harm to ALL Americans.

I don't think it's a compromise, either. At least not a good one.

Amen! I am not going to sacrifice ANY freedom in order to purchase a simple SAFETY DEVICE. Regulating a device that saves hearing is ludicrous on its face. Instituting additional restrictions on gun ownership will not change that fact. This is a stupid restriction. More stupidity does not mitigate current stupidity.

 

[Warp]

I used to have a suppressor for the AR.

After the novelty of it wore off, I had no use for it whatsoever.

Everybody else at the range shoots without suppressors - so I still have to wear ear protection, even if I have a suppressor. In fact, I shot a few rounds with the suppressor, and without ear protection when I was the only one at the range. It was still too loud to tolerate.

Plus the suppressor got so hot that I had to let the gun sit for 15-20 minutes before I could put it back in the gun case - which was not at all convenient.

Then there was the whole added mess (quite a lot of it) issue.

A suppressor seems like probably a good idea if you are part of an "entry team."
I have no use for one otherwise.

I take it your AR is not something you would use for defense (home or otherwise).

 

[AlexanderA]

I think a large part of the appeal of suppressors -- in fact, of all items regulated by the NFA -- is the "forbidden fruit" factor. That is, people want these items precisely because they're so highly regulated. This gives their owners "bragging rights" among their friends. I'll bet that if the NFA were repealed tomorrow, demand for suppressors, SBR's, MG's, etc., wouldn't be as great as you would expect.

Furthermore, suppressors and SBR's are the relatively inexpensive way to get into the NFA game, since they're not affected by the Hughes Amendment MG freeze.

The growing interest in suppressors and SBR's, which has occurred because of the above factors, in tandem with the growing use of trusts, has caused the processing backlog at the ATF. In turn, the processing backlog (we're fast approaching 1-year waits), along with stratospheric prices, is killing the machine gun market. Nobody in his right mind is going to want to tie up $20,000 or $30,000 for a year with no ultimate assurance that he'll eventually get his gun (sellers or buyers die, people abscond with the money, etc., etc.).

This chain of events has caused a spike in interest in semiautomatic clones of FA weapons. For example, who would have imagined that people would be paying north of $4,000 for a semiautomatic BAR? Yet Ohio Ordnance Works is selling as many as they can make. Semiautomatic beltfeds (which otherwise would make no sense) are in the same category. Even nonfiring replicas of Thompsons (built on 80%-completed receivers with Russian Lend-Lease parts kits) can fetch $2,000 or more.

This crazy state of affairs cries out for sane people in Congress to take a look at reforming and streamlining the NFA. This is a law that has long outlived its usefulness (if it ever had one in the first place).

 

[barnbwt]

Careful, if suppressors get common/accepted, they will become mandatory as a public health issue. Then BAM, all gun ownership is under the purview of NFA.

Think hard about what you wish for. This is why NFA/GCA needs to be uprooted before we try to reconfigure the gun laws of the country.

And we probably have no "right" to suppressors in the first place, at least compared to open-bolt guns

TCB

 

[Armed 24/7]

Dang fumble fingers! I meant to hit No, but missed on my phone screen. I wish there was a way to re vote.
On topic, I wish that suppressors could be sold over the counter. Either with or without a NICS check.

 

[FenderTK421]

No. Suppressors need to be recognized as the safety devices they are and decriminalized as is. No compromise.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

No and NO!

They would take the good faith compromise and still return to the original suppressor regulations or worse yet - outlaw them all-together the next time the option came up based upon a crime or suspect ownership. Once any fluidity or discussion is begun, it only ever stops after they get part of what they want and several parts is often all it takes.


No compromises... ever... AT ALL!

I, you and that guy over there have had far more compromises perpetrated upon our original second amendment than we should already stand.

A right is a right is a right.

Or - it's not!