PDA

View Full Version : Holy Molle - from a Democrat?


Artful
March 20, 2016, 12:29
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/5/405370/-

best part

Why should Democrats like me support making firearm suppressors "Title I"?

The simple answer is that Democrats have a strong record of promoting health and environmental regulation.

Widespread use of suppressors would be a health benefit.
Even exposure to 85dBA of noise causes hearing loss over time. Though target shooters seldom are without earplugs, hunters often do not wear ear protection because they need to hear the sounds of the environment around them. Deregulating suppressors would be a net health benefit to shooters and hunters.

Widespread use of suppressors would be an environmental benefit.
Shooting ranges, even those situated out in the country, often are a source of noise pollution. Though some people would advocate "just close the damn shooting range!", such an action would create stress and conflict in the community. Instead, we Democrats should stand behind our environmental principles and make it easier for these target sports enthusiasts to be good community members by reducing noise pollution.

Widespread use of suppressors would not result in increased crime.
Because suppressors would be subject to the same background checks as an ordinary pistol, they wouldn't be sold over the counter. Additionally, suppressors for pistols are several inches long. The primary reason that criminals use handguns is concealability. Having a suppressor on a handgun makes it virtually impossible to conceal. What about suppressed rifles? (Shotgun suppressors are almost useless, providing only 5-6dBA of noise reduction) Murders with rifles in this country are so rare anyway (less than 3% of firearm murders are with a rifle of any type), that any additional danger posed by "suppressed sniper rifles" is non-existent. Lastly, the historical record shows that legal suppressors aren't misused. There are already 125,000 suppressors in civilian hands, and zero of them have been used in any crime since 1934.

Lastly, it will cause the Republican Party to have a stroke.
The Republicans count on having the gun owner vote, and to have Democrats take a stand to make suppressors easier to obtain would absolutely make the NRA and the GOP shake in their boots - "Holy crap. Aren't we the party of gun owners? Where will our votes go?!?"

Because of the health and environmental benefits of making firearm suppressors easier to obtain, I urge us Democrats to consider legislation making suppressors Title I firearms.

Ghost
March 20, 2016, 13:24
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/5/405370/-

best part

I'm all in favor of deregulating suppressors. BUT I really feel that our recent efforts are really going the wrong way. With the arguments being made, just imagine now that you are REQUIRED to utilize a suppressor. You know for the environment, and the good of the community.
We keep using those arguments when writing our representatives and that's what we'll get. Unintended consequences and all.
I'd rather justify them on the grounds that they fall under 2A, and "shall not be infringed", and that it's a pretty ridiculous thing to be regulating.

hedp
March 20, 2016, 18:52
I'm all in favor of deregulating suppressors. BUT I really feel that our recent efforts are really going the wrong way. With the arguments being made, just imagine now that you are REQUIRED to utilize a suppressor. You know for the environment, and the good of the community.
We keep using those arguments when writing our representatives and that's what we'll get. Unintended consequences and all.
I'd rather justify them on the grounds that they fall under 2A, and "shall not be infringed", and that it's a pretty ridiculous thing to be regulating.

Agreed. I'm not a fan of the recent attempts to use so called health reasons to "legitimize" suppressors. We might find we don't like where it ends up.

CG&L
March 20, 2016, 19:13
Nothing would happen if suppressors became a Title 1

More people would get them and the magic would wear off quickly. People would wonder why they were a Class III to begin with.

I have a number of suppressors, they make a pistol difficult to holster. And they make a rifle longer and front heavy.

I use them so I don't aggravate neighbors and it's nice not to worry about hearing protection

357ross
March 20, 2016, 20:31
Democraps would gladly sign on with this legislation if they could slip an amendment into it in the middle of the night outlawing firearms or something.... same effect as the Hughes amendment in '86... Just sayin..

Ghost
March 20, 2016, 22:44
Nothing would happen if suppressors became a Title 1

More people would get them and the magic would wear off quickly. People would wonder why they were a Class III to begin with.

I have a number of suppressors, they make a pistol difficult to holster. And they make a rifle longer and front heavy.

I use them so I don't aggravate neighbors and it's nice not to worry about hearing protection

^^^This is the intended out come, but lets not forget we are talking about the government. Putting ideas in their heads. Kind of like pestering the ATF until you get a response.
This approach on suppressors is setting us up. Start telling the government, "it's for the environment, the children, public health". That gets you, emissions requirements. Possibly even a tax to not suppress. Now think think of concealed carry with a awkward suppressed handgun.
I'm all for the NFA being repealed out right, or bit by bit. But I think we really need to be careful about the wording we are using.

ALL FAL
March 21, 2016, 00:49
England will practically Buy a suppressor for hunters, hope your Idea and angle gets a look. :smile:

lew
March 21, 2016, 21:56
Democraps would gladly sign on with this legislation if they could slip an amendment into it in the middle of the night outlawing firearms or something.... same effect as the Hughes amendment in '86... Just sayin..

Most of the Republicans would gladly do the same. Liberty has few friends in government.

nopec
March 23, 2016, 17:31
Suppressors also allow lead particles to be contained. Ever see a 22 can's baffles after a couple of bricks?

BigBoy1
March 25, 2016, 03:58
Just think what would happen if suppressor were decontrolled? I'm sure the law would be perverted so that every firearm must have a suppressor and if a gun was fired without one, fines and prison time would result. How many of you would like to have the barrels threaded on your favorite M1911A1, Colt Single Action, L.C. Smith shotgun, pre-64 Remington rifle, or any other favorite, expensive firearm?

Deregulation should be the issue but once the camel's nose is under the tent, I'm sure all kinds of hurtful rules and regulations would result.

Lee Carpentieri
March 25, 2016, 13:48
In allot of Europe, Suppressors are almost a requirement and AREN'T restricted or regulated. Go to a Indoor Firearms range in Germany and you might get thrown out for NOT having a suppressor on your rifle or Pistol. But the USA, I doubt VERY SERIOUSLY it would become un-restrict even as a title 1 weapon or device. Could you picture some nut case HELL bent on killing or maiming people like the Sandy hook asswipe because his mom went out and bought one and was in her room or closet. Too many nut jobs or mentally warped people getting access to suppressors would cause more problems than we already have in this country.

Then the other issue is, It's NOT up to BATFE to regulate what is sold, That's up to the Congress and Senate to pass legislation and then have the president sign it into Law and if you think this president or any other would do what you want, I want to know what your smoking as I want some too.:rofl::whistling: