• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support the hearing protection act of 2015

Do you support removing suppressors from the 1934 NFA

  • Yes, the current requirements are silly

    Votes: 28 93.3%

  • Yes, but only removing the 200 dollar fee-not the lengthy investigation

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, the current law makes sense

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    30
jet57 said:
Why have one at all? To sneak up on a deer?
Click to expand...

Generally one does not randomly discharge their gun while in the act of sneaking up on deer
 
jet57 said:
You're kidding; you're not? After you've missed, do you want the deer on the other side of the hill to have heard your shot?
Click to expand...

Not kidding. There's no shooting during the stalk. I haven't missed any animal I've shot at, and since a suppressor on a .300 WSM is only going to reduce the sound of the report to about 130dB, it still will be noticeable to any wildlife in the vicinity.

You've still not built any case for why these devices should be restricted.
 
THE HEARING PROTECTION ACT. WOW!!!!!!! Somebody should get a years salary in Christmas bonus for coming with that name. Because after all, the whole point of this issue has always been the heath of ones ears.

Protect Your Right to Hear Arms.

Well - its only off by a single letter of the alphabet.
 
haymarket said:
THE HEARING PROTECTION ACT. WOW!!!!!!! Somebody should get a years salary in Christmas bonus for coming with that name. Because after all, the whole point of this issue has always been the heath of ones ears.
Click to expand...

What is the whole point of the issue?
 
jet57 said:
If you're shooting at bad guys are you sure you need a silencer?
Click to expand...

It's not a "silencer". And yes, permanently damaging your hearing while defending yourself is unnecessary. If you aren't concerned about the innocent law abiding citizen, at least think of the criminals. We wouldn't want them to be unable to hear their dying gasps and gurgling sounds. ;)
 
NonoBadDog said:
Ahh, wait, I know that one. Shoot through the door at unidentified persons on the other side.
Click to expand...

Nah--when you hear an intruder breaking into your home, you run to the balcony and discharge BOTH the shells in your double barrel shotgun into the air to scare him off


or guarantee you are defenseless when he realizes what you have done
 
Beaudreaux said:
In a home invasion, where you're asleep when the intruder comes in, you will not have time to put your hearing protection on. Then they are either ignorant or trying market to ignorant people because although the movie name is a silencer, it is not a silencer. Nope. Totally different thing. Go to Google Images and search for flash suppressor. That's the correct term. It's a slang term that is used by the movies and TV, but it isn't correct. It's like calling a muffler on a car a silencer. Not if it's going to happen to me as well, that would be stupid of me to do if I had an alternative that would prevent that such as a suppressor. That's like saying that it's okay to shoot myself since that's what I want to do to the intruder.

By what thought process did you possibly get to that conclusion? They work. Why would you think that they do not work? A number of people, including me, on here have explained to you pretty well in-depth as to how and why they work. Why in the world would you suddenly make a statement like this that is so disjointed from the actual conversation and so far afield from what has been stated so far?
Click to expand...

Your attempt to be pedantic is helping your argument. You're arguing silliness really in an attempt to be right.

"Silencer" IS slang and just an easy label to describe an object. "It's Used for this and can be used for that" says nothing really. They are illegal in some states for a reason.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Hey, it was you that asked the idiotic question. I found the one about the shootout with the bad guys pretty amusing. I know one thing. I never want to go hunting with you.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't know sarcasm when you read it.

That's good to know.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Generally one does not randomly discharge their gun while in the act of sneaking up on deer
Click to expand...

:roll:

What about the deer on the other side of the hill? Do you want THEM to know what you're doing?
 
jet57 said:
:roll:

What about the deer on the other side of the hill? Do you want THEM to know what you're doing?
Click to expand...

Deer in areas where hunting is allowed are fairly alert because they have a fear of humans, they can hear far better then us and the noise you make while going out to dress your kill will likely clear them out of the area. I think they would hear even a suppressed gunshot, and maybe it will make hunting easier at first if deer don't percieve a suppressed gunshot as a threat, but that'll last three seasons tops and then they'll know suppressed shot means get the hell out of dodge if they aren't hit by it.

The skyrocketing cougar population brought on by the ban of hound hunting is a bigger threat to deer then a suppressed rifle

Plus even if suppressors are legalized federally most states still regulate them for hunting, for the benefit of game wardens and not the wildlife
 
jet57 said:
Why have one at all? To sneak up on a deer?
Click to expand...

For the same reason they are freely available in the UK, to protect my hearing and to be polite. If you own a firearm to hunt there, they prefer you use a suppressor. That is where I discovered how useful they are.
 
Rucker61 said:
Not kidding. There's no shooting during the stalk. I haven't missed any animal I've shot at, and since a suppressor on a .300 WSM is only going to reduce the sound of the report to about 130dB, it still will be noticeable to any wildlife in the vicinity.

You've still not built any case for why these devices should be restricted.
Click to expand...

What if the deer shoots at you first?

And as for a case against silencers; ask them:

California Silencer Laws
It is illegal to possess a silencer in the state of California. The state legislature defines a silencer as any device meant to silence, diminish or muffle a firearm. This device can be officially manufactured as a silencer or created by the gun owner. Possession of a silencer is a felony in California and can lead to imprisonment, a $10,000 fine or both.
Click to expand...

http://legalbeagle.com/7436341-california-silencer-laws.html
 
countryboy said:
It's not a "silencer". And yes, permanently damaging your hearing while defending yourself is unnecessary. If you aren't concerned about the innocent law abiding citizen, at least think of the criminals. We wouldn't want them to be unable to hear their dying gasps and gurgling sounds. ;)
Click to expand...

So, I guess you have one on your pistol and carry it around with you.
 
BretJ said:
Most states realize how stupid laws such as that are. Suppressors can be used for hunting in the majority of states now.
Click to expand...

There's a brilliant save.
 
jet57 said:
What if the deer shoots at you first?

And as for a case against silencers; ask them:



http://legalbeagle.com/7436341-california-silencer-laws.html
Click to expand...

They provided a "what", not a "why". Interesting exception:

"Peace officers in California are allowed to own and carry silencers. A peace officer is defined as any military or naval officer, a sheriff, undersheriff, deputy sheriff, chief of police, chief executive officer of consolidated municipal public safety agencies that perform police activities, police officers, marshals, deputy marshals, port wardens, port police, inspectors and investigators in the district attorney's office. This list comes from Section 830.1 of the California Penal Code. These peace officer must be regular, salaried, full-time officers and can use silencers when on duty or during the course of duty."

Why one earth would peace officers need suppressors use "when on duty or during the course of duty"?
 
Rucker61 said:
They provided a "what", not a "why". Interesting exception:

"Peace officers in California are allowed to own and carry silencers. A peace officer is defined as any military or naval officer, a sheriff, undersheriff, deputy sheriff, chief of police, chief executive officer of consolidated municipal public safety agencies that perform police activities, police officers, marshals, deputy marshals, port wardens, port police, inspectors and investigators in the district attorney's office. This list comes from Section 830.1 of the California Penal Code. These peace officer must be regular, salaried, full-time officers and can use silencers when on duty or during the course of duty."

Why one earth would peace officers need suppressors use "when on duty or during the course of duty"?
Click to expand...

Those things serve no purpose in the over all. They could and probably have been used by special forces. It's kind of like carrying a knife with a blade over 7 inches. It's good for - what exactly...

People don't really need them for anything, they just want them. So why they're illegal doesn't really matter.
 
Suppressors make sense.

They certainly help in hunting situations.. like hog hunting where there will be multiple hunting opportunities where you do not want to spook game.
They certainly help preserve the hearing of individuals using them
And they help promote good neighbors.. by reducing noise pollution when folks are shooting or hunting near residential areas.

Restrictions against them make no sense.
 
jet57 said:
Those things serve no purpose in the over all. They could and probably have been used by special forces. It's kind of like carrying a knife with a blade over 7 inches. It's good for - what exactly...

People don't really need them for anything, they just want them. So why they're illegal doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... so you are saying that the government should be able to make anything illegal and the why its illegal doesn't really matter....

That explains a lot about you Jet57.
 
jaeger19 said:
Hmmm... so you are saying that the government should be able to make anything illegal and the why its illegal doesn't really matter....

That explains a lot about you Jet57.
Click to expand...

Nice try.

Your ceding of the argument is noted.
 
jet57 said:
Those things serve no purpose in the over all. They could and probably have been used by special forces. It's kind of like carrying a knife with a blade over 7 inches. It's good for - what exactly...

People don't really need them for anything, they just want them. So why they're illegal doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all those sheriffs, undersheriffs, deputy sheriffs, chiefs of police, chief executive officers of consolidated municipal public safety agencies that perform police activities, police officers, marshals, deputy marshals, port wardens, port police, inspectors and investigators in the district attorney's office have a need to use them, which is why the State of California grants an exception to these people.

The UK, which is as anti-gun as you can get, allows their citizens to buy them off the shelf. Unless you believe that the entire population of the UK are in special forces, your reasoning is pitifully poor. Several Nordic countries allow them for hunting, so evidently hunting is a legitimate use for a suppressor.
 
jet57 said:
Nice try.

Your ceding of the argument is noted.
Click to expand...

Ceding what argument?

Please explain a logical argument in that the government should be able make anything illegal without considering why its should be illegal.
 
jet57 said:
So, I guess you have one on your pistol and carry it around with you.
Click to expand...

Just when you think you've heard the stupidest thing jet has ever said, BAM!

Thanks for the irrelevant, idiotic, yet highly entertaining posts. Keep 'em coming, LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom