MNGunTalk.com

jshuberg wrote:Try shooting a pistol in a bedroom without one and without hearing protection, you might just come around

In the extraordinarily unlikely event I would ever need to defend my life with a firearm in my bedroom, I consider any hearing damage incurred by the few shots necessary to resolve the situation to be a price worth paying. My situation. Your bedroom risk might be different.

I would be happy, however, to use that rather tenuous rationale in making a case for legalizing suppressors. It sounds good, even if the practicality isn't quite there for many of us.

jshuberg wrote:Try shooting a pistol in a bedroom without one and without hearing protection, you might just come around

I think it would be foolish to invest much if any political capital into trying to legalize something which most gun owners think is nothing but a toy. Yes, they should be legal, if for no other reason than the loony pants wetting left thinks they're scary, but let's be realistic. How many in this state would pay the tax and go through the hassles to purchase a suppressor? Statistically speaking the percentage would be zero.

Let's instead concentrate on things which are possible and would benefit most gun owners, like the F/U'd carry reciprocity system or SYG.

Great idea! You should ask Gov. Dayton not to veto SYG again next time you hang out with him. Thanks for helping!!

Rip Van Winkle wrote:I think it would be foolish to invest much if any political capital into trying to legalize something which most gun owners think is nothing but a toy. Yes, they should be legal, if for no other reason than the loony pants wetting left thinks they're scary, but let's be realistic. How many in this state would pay the tax and go through the hassles to purchase a suppressor? Statistically speaking the percentage would be zero.

Let's instead concentrate on things which are possible and would benefit most gun owners, like the F/U'd carry reciprocity system or SYG.

I would buy at least five different suppressors. Sign me up to help with this.

jshuberg wrote:Great idea! You should ask Gov. Dayton not to veto SYG again next time you hang out with him. Thanks for helping!!

After vetoing SYG, do you seriously think he'd sign a suppressor bill?

Rip Van Winkle wrote: How many in this state would pay the tax and go through the hassles to purchase a suppressor? Statistically speaking the percentage would be zero.

I would be one to go through the hassle.

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

jshuberg wrote:Great idea! You should ask Gov. Dayton not to veto SYG again next time you hang out with him. Thanks for helping!!

After vetoing SYG, do you seriously think he'd sign a suppressor bill?

Not a chance in hell he'd sign it. I'd also bet that a suppressor bill wouldn't get nearly the broad-based bipartisan support that they got when they sunk the Bloomberg Initiative.

Hmac wrote:

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

jshuberg wrote:Great idea! You should ask Gov. Dayton not to veto SYG again next time you hang out with him. Thanks for helping!!

After vetoing SYG, do you seriously think he'd sign a suppressor bill?

Not a chance in hell he'd sign it. I'd also bet that a suppressor bill wouldn't get nearly the broad-based bipartisan support that they got when they sunk the Bloomberg Initiative.

I believe it's possible that Dayton would sign a suppressor bill if properly positioned.

There is bi-partisan support for suppressor legislation.

I also agree that SYG and fixing Reciprocity need to be priorities - and they are. Keep in mind that SYG is likely to pass the House, but it may not even get a hearing in the Senate - and is likely to be voted down in the Senate, which lets us use that in 2016 as an election issue if it happens. If, by some miracle, SYG passed both houses, I would expect that Dayton would veto it just like he did previously.

Bryan

I just read the posts for the last few days in this thread. people this is Minnesota .... you are talking about getting suppressors and I am worried about keeping what we have. Gov. Goofy and the Senate are never goning to let you pass any pro gun laws .... Goofy's cash for reelection came from his uber -elitist big world government Rockefeller ex-wife... he is bought and paid for by the Bloomberg ultra -control seeking left..... we are lucky to have held them off this long ..... Suppressors would be nice ... i'd like to see stand your ground and castle doctrine..... I don't expect the al capone law to change .... ever

hunting-suppressors-now-legal-florida
http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/hun ... l-florida/

suppressors-enabled-poaching-debunked
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... -debunked/

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

jshuberg wrote:Great idea! You should ask Gov. Dayton not to veto SYG again next time you hang out with him. Thanks for helping!!

After vetoing SYG, do you seriously think he'd sign a suppressor bill?

Doesn't matter if he signs suppressors, SYG or any other bill. After how many years now of being on the defensive side of issues, let's open the legislative session on the offensive side of the whole gun issue. Instead of sitting back and waiting for them to attack our rights, let's get on the offensive side of things and start going after the things we want. The more passive we are and sit back, and not try to go after things we want to see happen, the more we will end up on the defensive side of things in the future.

Push for everything. Suppressors, SYG, machine guns, tanks, grenades, uzi's, you name it! I have 3 silo's that sit empty, even a missle or two just to fill them is fine with me! The more passive we are now, the more defensive we will have to be later. Let's not let waste this opportunity right now.

Rip Van Winkle wrote:I think it would be foolish to invest much if any political capital into trying to legalize something which most gun owners think is nothing but a toy. Yes, they should be legal, if for no other reason than the loony pants wetting left thinks they're scary, but let's be realistic. How many in this state would pay the tax and go through the hassles to purchase a suppressor? Statistically speaking the percentage would be zero.

Let's instead concentrate on things which are possible and would benefit most gun owners, like the F/U'd carry reciprocity system or SYG.

And I have to say, every one of my rifle's, including some pistols would get suppressors. I wouldn't hesitate one bit to order up a dozen of them.

My 10/22 would get one for sure. I use it for critter patrol and I am just in city limits so the quieter the better.

+1