UPDATE 3/30/2012: Movement to repeal silencer ban

[mrokern]

Okay, at the risk of getting flamed I have to ask. What is the need/use of a silencer?

Al

If someone breaks into my house and I have to defend my family by use of deadly force, I'd prefer not going deaf in the process.

GS

[LarryFlew]

Gyr you walked right smack into that one

[gyrfalcon]

Gyr you walked right smack into that one

Yeah, I was just going to delete my post but plbark beat me to the punch.

[plblark]

Hey, at least _I_ politely left the obvious unsaid man

[Snowgun]

I got a chance to try out one once with a 22, and it was wonderful. Imagine yourself at the pistol range hanging out with no hearing protection because the sound is a little louder than a cap gun (they don't make the shoosh should like in the movies). Anyway, I'm all for them making these suckers legal and for sale at every 7-11.

[miked]

having and using them regularly i could only wish they were legal here - its a JOKE that they are not.

[FJ540]

As someone with new designs for these in my head and cannot even draw them up for fear of prosecution (constructive intent) - I gotta say I'm all for repealing the ban. The $200 tax stamp would be a new source of much needed revenue (albeit obscene and unjustified), and it would present new opportunities for our manufacturing base (jobs, income tax, sales tax, etc).

Right now you can poach with a crossbow for a whole bunch less than buying a suppressor. It's even quieter.

[Dave Pendleton]

Okay, at the risk of getting flamed I have to ask. What is the need/use of a silencer?

Al

If someone breaks into my house and I have to defend my family by use of deadly force, I'd prefer not going deaf in the process.

GS

I'm hoping this is sarcasm, because this is the lamest excuse I've seen yet.

[tim]

I don't feel a suppressor is necessary at all and all of the reasons so far in this thread to justify the need for one are pretty weak.

With that said, if it was a matter of another background check and a $200 stamp I would certainly own one. I just don't see it happening in this state.

[Dave Pendleton]

I don't feel a suppressor is necessary at all and all of the reasons so far in this thread to justify the need for one are pretty weak.

With that said, if it was a matter of another background check and a $200 stamp I would certainly own one. I just don't see it happening in this state.

Well Tim, you're nothing but a ******** hippy liberal pinko communist cock sucker.

There. That was easy.

[FJ540]

As has been mentioned, over in the pinko commie EUROPE: these are legal, expected, and found for less than $75 in just about every corner hardware store.

Being able to shoot without irritating the neighbors (at the lake) would save me a lot of grief right now.

[lenny7]

I don't feel a suppressor is necessary at all and all of the reasons so far in this thread to justify the need for one are pretty weak.

I'd wager that most of the things you own are not "necessary".

It's not about need, and it's surely not about feelings.

[Norsesmithy]

I'm hoping this is sarcasm, because this is the lamest excuse I've seen yet.

If "they are a safety measure" isn't enough of a justification in your eyes, you've got a pretty twisted view of the world.

I don't feel a suppressor is necessary at all and all of the reasons so far in this thread to justify the need for one are pretty weak.

I am sure my horses would disagree with you, and my neighbors would disagree with you, as would people living by organized gun ranges. A little bit of sound abatement goes a long way towards increasing quality of life for everyone.

And why the **** do I need to "justify" something like this? YOU (inclusive and in general), as the person who is arguing that the status quo (IE Ban) is the correct course of action, are the person who needs to "justify" their position, as our philosophical tenants hold the state accountable to the citizen and not visa-versa.

Suppressors are used in crime so seldom that the set may as well be null, even where they are readily available. Suppressors are not part of the preferred tool set of poachers, even when they are readily available. Suppressors have no history of being used in political assassination, despite their ease of construction and their ready availability in areas where such occurrences are more common place than they are in the US.

You cannot give me a statistically or logically valid argument as to why I should be prevented from being able to own one, and under the logical and philosophical rules/precepts our legal system was founded on, the burden of proof falls on the banner, not the person who wishes to use the item in question, or partake of the behavior, in question.

[Cadet]

tim your not going to fit in here talking like that so I suggest you go the bradycampaign.com if youd like to talk liberal.
also, pendleton why should that be sarcastic, a silencer for home defense is completley a good reason.

[Dave Pendleton]

I'm sorry guys, I don't know what I was thinking last night.

Although I never actually said I supported a silencer ban, I was way out of line criticizing a fellow gunnies right to blast bad guys in the privacy of his own home while protecting his hearing.

Norsesmithy, please apologize to your horses for me.