A New Deadly Weapon - The Silencer
Jun 4, 2019 10:12:07 #
Frank T wrote:
Thanks for the lesson on semantics but the problem remains. There is no legitimate reason to own and use a suppressor.
Sure there is...because you don't want a loud report when you fire your weapon...but hey..thanks for telling others what their freedoms should be...
Jun 4, 2019 10:17:26 #
Vietnam Vet wrote:
I know a young woman who would like to go to the gun range and shoot. However she has a medical issue and cannot tolerate loud noises like fireworks or a siren. A silencer would allow her to have fun at the gun range with her friends and family. So there is a legitimate reason for some people to own a suppressor.
And lest we forget, the silencer was not the problem, the one using it was.
And lest we forget, the silencer was not the problem, the one using it was.
That's the crux of it.
Lefties always want to attack the wrong problem. The problem isn't what the tool is, it's the person using the tool.
Here in WV guns are EVERYWHERE....kids adults, grandkids...all have and use multiple weapons. Every 10 year old can fire a weapon but guess what....nobody goes around shooting each other.
We do our best to remove absolute morality from our society; we redefine morality to mean "whatever makes you happy" and then wonder why folks shooting each other happens.
t's a heart problem, not a gun problem.
Jun 4, 2019 10:29:29 #
rpavich wrote:
Sure there is...because you don't want a loud report when you fire your weapon...but hey..thanks for telling others what their freedoms should be...
Checked the 2nd amendment and there's no mention of suppressors.
As Justice Alito would say. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution.
Jun 4, 2019 12:13:44 #
wrangler5
Loc: Missouri
Frank T wrote:
Checked the 2nd amendment and there's no mention of suppressors.
As Justice Alito would say. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution.
As Justice Alito would say. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution.
This is the argument some have used in the past that the Second Amendment only applies to the kind of weapons in use at the time it was adopted - i.e., muzzle loading flintlocks. Of course those same folks' heads explode when you suggest that the First Amendment then only applies to hand-operated printing presses, not those run by the NY Times and their ilk.
Jun 4, 2019 13:45:08 #
Frank T wrote:
Checked the 2nd amendment and there's no mention of suppressors.
As Justice Alito would say. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution.
As Justice Alito would say. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution.
Neither is abortion or a lot of other liberal/progressive favorites.
Jun 4, 2019 14:48:42 #
He could only shoot one at a time. If a dozen, or a hundred, potential victims all ran TOWARDS a shooter, and attacked him, most would live. A dozen unarmed people-acting together-can easily beat a lone gunman to death. One, or more, may get shot, but it is better to go down fighting. Actually, if a dozen people rushed the gunman, he would probably freeze, in panic, and shoot no one in the few moments he had to do so. I have been unarmed, and gone up against knife wielders, and even gunmen, and I am still here. If you fight, you have a chance of living. If you wimp out, flee, beg, etc, you are almost certain to die. Suppressors can be home made in a home workshop. They don't even need to be made. Tape a plastic pop bottle over the muzzle. That will suppress the sound of the shot. If you want to kill silently, you can skip the gun,and suppressor, and garrote people. If you really want to kill people, you will find a way, regardless of what is, or is not, legal.
Jun 4, 2019 15:13:10 #
wrangler5
Loc: Missouri
Maybe we should just, you know, PASS A LAW AGAINST KILLING PEOPLE. That would cover all those other nasty ways of doing it. Wouldn't that just solve the problem in a single stroke? Why hasn't anybody thought of this before? [snark mode off]
Jun 4, 2019 19:09:41 #
Frank T wrote:
Checked the 2nd amendment and there's no mention of suppressors.
As Justice Alito would say. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution.
As Justice Alito would say. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Constitution.
Exactly! There's no limits on the 1st or 2nd amendments. It doesn't say to prevent speech that you hate, or to bear arms that you feel is adequate and the government must confiscate what you feel is unnecessary or dangerous.
It's a dangerous world, moral and wise men with divine guidance gave us this country and constitution which limits government for the first time in history. Teaching children to be grateful and responsible for this blessing is all we had to do.
We all know the common denominator of murder isn't guns. The common denominator is fatherless boys, especially our heavenly Father. The left destroyed the patriarchy as well as masculinity. Humans are incurably inclined to worship, and we imitate what we worship. What does the left worship? The weaker the citizen, the stronger the government. We must take the power back from government not give it more.
Jun 4, 2019 19:13:00 #
Jun 4, 2019 19:28:50 #
All you guys are missing the problem in this case. Where and how did he get the suppressor. Federal law requires both a permit to own one, and a background check to purchase one. So, where did he get his, and how.
I own several firearms: pistols, rifles and a shotgun. I do not need, nor desire, to have a suppressor on any of my weapons. If I have to shoot some idiot who breaks into my house he is not going to hear my Glock anyway, as the bullet will get there before the sound from my 9mm.
When I shoot at the range, I wear electronic noise suppressing ear protection that works great, and Lexan eye protection. I do not buy the need for a noise suppressor for a hunting weapon, and I have hunted for well over 50 years. If you fear that the report of your first shot will scare off your game before you get off a second shot, then learn how to hit with your first shot! Its that simple.
I own several firearms: pistols, rifles and a shotgun. I do not need, nor desire, to have a suppressor on any of my weapons. If I have to shoot some idiot who breaks into my house he is not going to hear my Glock anyway, as the bullet will get there before the sound from my 9mm.
When I shoot at the range, I wear electronic noise suppressing ear protection that works great, and Lexan eye protection. I do not buy the need for a noise suppressor for a hunting weapon, and I have hunted for well over 50 years. If you fear that the report of your first shot will scare off your game before you get off a second shot, then learn how to hit with your first shot! Its that simple.
Jun 4, 2019 19:34:17 #
DavidPhares wrote:
Yeah, it was!
No! It was not. If you don't understand, I probably can't explain it to you. Maybe read what I just said a couple of comments previous to this. These problems are all happening because of the seeds the left planted in the past to justify this enormous unsustainable bureaucracy that is slowly destroying our constitution and country. "Country", as in "We the People" not "we the government"!
Jun 4, 2019 19:54:30 #
DavidPhares wrote:
All you guys are missing the problem in this case.... (show quote)
What about the other hunters in the area still hunting?
Jun 4, 2019 20:50:15 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
DavidPhares wrote:
All you guys are missing the problem in this case.... (show quote)
I don’t really disagree with any of your points, but ... the libertarian in me can’t see banning a glorified soda can that in and of itself adds no lethality to the weapon.
I don’t own one, I don’t want one, I don’t really get the thrill of having one ... other than the false imagery portrayed by Hollywood.
That being said, I own things other people don’t really get. A DSLR can certainly be a deadly weapon.
I own what some would call a small arsenal, and so long as they are used peacefully it is not the concern of the state.
Jun 4, 2019 21:26:33 #
DavidPhares wrote:
All you guys are missing the problem in this case.... (show quote)
If you mean that there's already way too many government restrictions on it's people and the problem is only getting worse then you are correct.
If you are saying where and how he got his tools is the problem, you are wrong.
Murder is the problem, crime is the problem, when justice is not blind and we punish or justify crime depending on the person not the crime, or reward people for their identity and not their excellence or character, it's no longer eye for an eye, now, who gets to judge who's eye has more value, today it is whoever is the most intersectional, according to the left.
The problem is why is criminal behavior so acceptable and our society is producing so many worthless, destructive people? One thing we know from history is that government was always the problem not the solution.
Jun 5, 2019 08:53:45 #
MauiMoto wrote:
Exactly! There's no limits on the 1st or 2nd amend... (show quote)
Actually, there are limits on both. The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech but yelling fire in a crowded theater is not covered. Nor are slander or lible.
The 2nd Amendment under the current interpretation guarantees the right to bear arms. But you can't mount guns on a private plane or even a drone. You can't carry a concealed weapon in most states without a license to do so.
There are limits on everything and the 1st and 2nd Amendments are no exception.
As to the left worshipping weakness, that's just pure bs.
The right worships Trump and he's such a snowflake that he can't see John McCain's name on a Destroyer without getting sideways about it.
The right is so weak that they're terrified of anyone not exactly like them.
Please. Take a reality check on this one and understand that more than half the country is progressive so if you want to hate them, you might want to relocate to Saudi Arabia where the laws will be more to your liking.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.