Explain why it is completely rational. Bonus points for explaining why the UK, France and Scandinavia allow their sale to anyone who can own a gun.
Does a shift in point of impact imply less accurate to you?
Did you vote for Trump? Yes. Did Trump put Devos in to head Education and Sessions to head the AG slot? Yes. All three are pushing parts of the agenda I mentioned.
I rest my case.
I've never needed an abortion or to get married to a man. I guess since I never experienced those needs, no one has. Why the big push nationally for problems I've never had?
Why are you changing the subject? You said this was about noise pollution. What evidence do you have that such a national problem exists and demands national action?
Your use of terms like statist and fascist seem like attempts to wave a red flag at a perceived bull and distract from your lack of evidence about your initial claim of noise pollution.
Why should I care what the UK, France and Scandinavia do or do not do? Do you support universal healthcare because those countries do? wtf?
As for why restrictions on suppressors is rational: loud guns are good. I very much appreciate hearing a gunshot from far away. It's a huge heads up.
That would be less precision. However, if the shift is not consistent, then it is less accurate as well.
Placing restrictions on silencers is completely rational. That's why it is a good law.
No, there is no implication of less precision. A friend has offered to send me photos of his last range trip with a suppressor equipped rifle where the 5 shot 100 yard group can be covered with a nickel. The accuracy results are consistent - it shifts POI, it doesn't randomize it. If it did no one would use a suppressor on precision rifles.
what a pathetic and stupid reason to support a stupid law (and who knows if you really support it-tomorrow you might sound like Wayne LaPierre or Larry Pratt on steroids)
https://www.google.com/search?q=gun...e.1.69i57j0.5365j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
More like a laser pointer at a little kitty cat.....
That would be less precision. However, if the shift is not consistent, then it is less accurate as well.
Why should I care what the UK, France and Scandinavia do or do not do? Do you support universal healthcare because those countries do? wtf?
As for why restrictions on suppressors is rational: loud guns are good. I very much appreciate hearing a gunshot from far away. It's a huge heads up.
Is that what they mean by exhibiting fear. Then produce a rational reason and not one based on your fear.
Why do you worry if you hear gun shots a mile away? Have you figured how far away you can hear a suppressed firearm yet? Give us your best guess.
No you believing your own nonsense is what has you thinking you know what you are talking about. Which you clearly don't.Staying at a Holiday Inn Express will do that.
He doesn't even care-he already admitting he is posting this crap to bait gun owners whom he accuses of supporting laws that vex him-like ICE deporting illegal aliens or Sessions wanting to prosecute weed smokers. He doesn't have any rational arguments. Its all about political payback
Laws that restrict access to firearms, and their accessories from people who are neither inclined or determined to use them unlawfully accomplishes absolutely nothing! The argument that the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 is mostly about preserving hearing is amusing to me. I personally think it was more of a creative way of packaging the bill making it easier for people to swallow. Silencers or suppressors are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 which imposed strict oversite, and a $200 transfer tax. Contrary to popular belief silencers were not added to the NFA because of rampant use by would be assassins. Poaching during the great depression was more of a concern, and adding silencers to the NFA was though to prevent "quiet" poaching. Hollywood can be blamed for the miss representation of what silencers really sound like, as well as their use only by assassins. Federally silencers have never been illegal to own. However some states still to this day have banned ownership of them. I can see no rational reason why silencers should remain regulated under the NFA. After purchasing a silencer from a gun shop, ATF form 4 is filled out, finger prints are taken, the forms are mail out, and the waiting begins. My first silencer purchase in 2006, under the current process took 28 days to get an approval back. The current waiting time for approvals are reportedly taken 8 - 14 months, due to the increased popularity, and the lack of ATF examiners. The Hearing Protection Act merely updates and 83 year old way of doing a background check, and transfer it to the FBI NICS background check system. Silencers would be treated the same as any other firearm purchase from a gun shop.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?