Wouldn’t it be nice if you could buy a suppressor without having to pay a $200 tax on an already expensive item?

That’s exactly what the American Silencer Association and Representative Matt Salmon (AZ) hope to do with the introduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). The bill aims to remove suppressors from the jurisdiction of the National Firearms Act, which would eliminate the current complicated and expensive process associated with acquiring a suppressor.

The reasoning behind the bill is that millions of hunters and shooters are damaging their hearing, and that damage could be lessened by the use of a suppressor. While this bill certainly has an uphill battle, it would be a shooter or hunters dream.

You can read the full press release from the American Suppressor Association (ASA) below.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is pleased to announce the introduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05). This historic piece of legislation will remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), replacing the antiquated federal transfer process with an instantaneous NICS background check. The HPA also includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchase a suppressor after October 22, 2015.

“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “The removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act has been our ultimate goal since day one. For months, we have worked alongside Rep. Salmon’s office and the National Rifle Association to craft this legislation. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working with Rep. Salmon and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common-sense legislation.”

Also known as silencers, suppressors are the hearing protection of the 21st century sportsman. Despite common Hollywood-based misconceptions, the laws of physics dictate that no suppressor will ever be able to render gunfire silent. Suppressors are simply mufflers for firearms, which function by trapping the expanding gasses at the muzzle, allowing them to slowly cool in a controlled environment. On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20 – 35 decibels (dB), roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs. In addition to hearing protection, suppressors also mitigate noise complaints from those who live near shooting ranges and hunting lands.

Unfortunately, suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA regulates the transfer and possession of certain types of firearms and devices, including suppressors. Currently, prospective buyers must send in a Form 4 application to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax per suppressor, undergo the same background check that is required to purchase a machine gun, and wait months for the ATF to process and approve the paperwork. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use.

Rep. Salmon’s Hearing Protection Act will fix the flawed federal treatment of suppressors, making it easier for hunters and sportsmen to protect their hearing in the 41 states where private suppressor ownership is currently legal, and the 37 states where hunting with a suppressor is legal. This legislation will remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.

Image by Matt Korovesis

What's Your Reaction?

Like
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry
11

132 thoughts on “Goodbye $200 Tax Stamp? Bill Introduced to Remove Suppressors from NFA

  1. I would love for this bill to be passed, but the far left would have a cow just reading about the possibility of Ninja assassins wiping out entire buildings full of people without making a sound (aka Hollywood style).

  2. If you do NOT have a suppressor on your vehicle, you get a ticket and a fine.
    If you DO have a suppressor on your rifle, you get felony prison time.
    And this makes sense…how?
    Contact your Congressman and urge his support.

    1. Suppressors on vehicles(mufflers), as with guns, reduce audible decibels. The difference is, is that suppressors on guns do are needed to reduce the constant 24/7 audible decibels created by cars, trucks, tractor-trailers, construction equipment. Ear plugs/muffs can be used during hunting and/or practice shooting. Law Enforcement, to the best of my knowledge, cannot use suppressors on their on-duty firearms due to the fact that they are not exempt from firearm suppressor regulations. All this is moot, at the point where a person decides to kill another person, a firearm is one of many choices to do so.

      1. Numerous LE agencies use suppressors, and mostly for the ergonomic rather than the tactical benefit. And they are also completely exempt from NFA regulations. Look up the increasing militarization of every level of law enforcement with military castoffs (automatic weapons, armored vehicles, aircraft, etc). Clearly the NFA crippled the civilan populace’s ability to keep pace with the government’s might. Better be sure you trust those folks you elect!

  3. Can someone list the full Bill ID and Name so we can get pressure on our Reps and Senators to co-sponsor and pass this?

    My only fear is that this smacks too much of common sense to survive anywhere near DC

    1. “On Thursday, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) introduced H.R. 3799, the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). Joining him were 10 co-sponsors, including Representatives Frank Guinta (R-NH), John Carter (R-TX), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Chris Collins (R-NY), Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Mia Love (R-UT), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), and Chris Stewart (R-UT)….”
      https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151022/pro-gun-representatives-introduce-hearing-protection-act-to-reform-outdated-suppressor-laws

    1. Not much. It isn’t like the movies. Suppressed weapons only muffle sound and throw off the direction of the shot. You can still hear it.

      The sniper would have done the same, and the targets would have done the same.

      Also, what “sniper killers” are you talking about? You give a very vague answer that implies a layman’s grasp at best on the matter.

    2. A gunshot can range from 140-190 decibles depending on caliber. A supressor reduces the sound by 20-35 decibles. Using a quieter caliber, around 140 dB, with the most effective supressor, about 35 dB, you get a report from the firearm of about 105 dB. This is about as loud as a motorcycle. You also have to account for the bullet breaking the speed of sound, the sonic boom of the bullet, which the supressor does not reduce. However; 140 dB is the point that short term exposure can cause permanent damage to ones hearing. Also, the $200 tax stamp is for the request. If the government determines that you do not qualify out have a need for a supressor, they keep the fee.

    3. This is the type of attitude that gets these ridiculous laws passed in the first place. My guess is that this guy failed high school physics. Criminals try use home made silencers all the time. Guess what, they get caught, because even the best suppressor is loud enough to be heard from a long distance away.

  4. This will be very much like the “energy & solar credits & rebates” that were offered. That $200 will be tacked on by the gun shops or manufactures, watch the prices jump if the bill is passed.

  5. A silencer is nothing but a chambered cylinder. Would probably cost a competent machine shop no more than $10 to manufacture with materials, machines, and operators it already has.

    This will just turn into the same trite rehash of every gun argument as of late – those for gun control will argue with melodramatic rhetoric that crime will increase, get worse, blah blah blah, without realizing that criminals who want silencers already have them. Criminals who want guns already have them. Criminals (and otherwise law abiding citizens) who want drugs already have them….oh wait aren’t those substances controlled?

    I would love to shoot without wearing plugs or muffs, then I can hear what’s going on around me. Ever been to a range when someone is trying to get your attention before they walk downrange but you can’t hear them? Or worse, when they just take off downrange without getting your attention?

    I have two handguns in my household, one which I travel with and one which stays in the bedroom. Both stay under a lock. Should anyone break into my house, I would threaten them simply for the risk to my family. My things I could care less about, but I’m not going to take a chance at doing nothing. That is cowardly. Having a silencer would enable me to discharge my weapon indoors without damaging either my or my family’s hearing.

    Again, silencers are cheap and easy to manufacture – those who want them already have them. Those who follow the law are the only ones who….follow the law.

  6. Suppressors on guns, reduce audible decibels of the gun not the bang the projectile makes if it’s supersonic… So to be quiet you need slower subsonic ammo… That isn’t what most people use…

  7. I can just guess at how many more gun massacres would be if this thing is passed, I is strictly a promotion for silencers. I have NEVER, over 50 years met a hunter that suffered from hearing loss, but have me a few fools on ranges with no muffs or ear plugs. The frist round of silencer sales was promoted by silencer mfgs through NRA to increase sales, This is nothing more and can only guess what happens with criminals, mass shooters and gangs when these things get out there. There is no need for silencers by honest folks, and as far as for “hunting”, biggest crock I ever heard, just for use by kiddies wanting to play seal or such, or criminals.. Has anyone ever met a hunter with hearing loss from hunting With all cop shootings I bet they really want this out for the publics use. One more case of MFG’s buying elected for profit purpose and public dangers, we to bad.

    1. You must not know many hunters, or have done much hunting. I have hearing loss from shooting while hunting. I remember exactly where I was, the gun and load I shot that did it. I use hearing protection on the bench, yet in the field need to be able to “hear” in order to hunt effectively. Shooting “hot” loads are painful without hearing protection. If criminal wants a suppressor, they can get one illegally, the same way they get firearms illegally, or can make them (easily manufactured). Personally, I would like to have one on my .22 rifle, (which is not that loud) to be more effective while squirrel hunting, and on my larger caliber rifles for hog hunting, and so I could do away with ear muffs on the bench that are very hot to wear and make communication between shooters difficult. I hope it passes.

      1. Have hunted over fifty years, rifle, shotgun. NEVER ever met a hunter who had hearing loss from hunting of any type, with safe gun handling. So plese enlighten as ot how you had hearing loss while hunitng. Note your “will not need muffs at range is a bit unreal, as you seem to feel everyone will get silencers which is a bit unreal. Note we own property and last thing we want is silenced guns used by trespassers, bad enough now with those that ignore postings. And am sure criminals and poachers will just love these things. No real need for them for real shooters other then big, more profits for mfgs. I note none discuss background check needed to buy them, will that go also?

    2. You dumb ass liberal it will never change a bullet forensic. You can’t get away with murder. So stay off my rights. You don’t like guns so don’t buy one. Always want people to be like you. Well I’m not a will not ever be like you. So pick your flowers and get a life.

      1. Jon that sillist post so far and really amusing that you have muffs and gun next to bed to defend family and worry about hearing loss if you need to use gun. As for others there is plenty of subsonic ammo already out there. As far as not being able to hear at ranges due to muff, mine work fine and I can hear others talking, suggest shooters with that issue spend a few bucks for good muffs, rather then some sort of toilet paper rolls. Am always amused at highly predictable types who must attack anyone that disagrees with their unsubstantiated drivels as a “evil liberal”.
        The latter are the same fools that rush off to buy all the ammo and guns when NRA mention ??? will take guns/ammo or they traditional celebration of yet another gun massacre by cleaning off gun store shelves, hence driving up to record levels, ammo and gun prices, while record high profits and stock prices by MFG’s. They are being highly manipulated by NRA, the GUN/AMMO/Accessory lobby, NOT the shooters lobby as records provide. I hand load and am shocked at the costs there, much less ready made ammo.. Kind of amused as would be any adult with shooting experience as some of the posts, but ole Ron takes prize with worry about family hearing loss when shoot out in the home without a silencer, although other come very close to maxing less then knowledgeable scales. By the way when blither about how other countries allow this and that, you should probably note they nearly all have gun laws that are much much sticter then USA. I shall hope background check remains in place for these things and note for all you wanna be Constitution Lawyers-experts, on 2nd. There is nothing there that prevents government from controlling these things, same a machine guns. So keep up the NRA sponsored rants as the mfgs of silencers want to cash in on the lemming like buyers, same folks who rush down to clean out gun stores when NRA hits it’s Pavlova’s type bell, you are amusing at best, and worry about “Family hearing gloss during shoot out in home” a gem of logic, kind of like ear muffs no longer needed if law passes. Odd that law is to protect hunters buy pistol shown… Would love to see story of facts on hearing loss from hunting, unless of course one held gun backwards?.

    3. 1. Suppressors are and should be legal for
      Civilians to own.
      2. The $200 is absolutely Ridiculous; just one more cash cow that needs to be done away with.
      3. A background check would still be required, so your “criminal” comment doesn’t apply, barring one being stolen.

      How about you take up another sport, say badminton, if you have such a problem with law abiding citizens operating within their legal rights.

      As for hunters having hearing damage, yes, that’s very common: you would have to be around some to know this.

    4. You think if I have to use a firearm to defend myself in my home that I want my family’s and my own hearing to be damaged? I have a pistol and hearing protection next to my bed, just in case I have time for both. Nobody is going to morph into a 007 ninja assassin.

    5. Well, I don’t hunt, but I did suffer a significant loss of hearing from 8 years in the military. The suppressor only muffles the muzzle blast as it cuts the sound wave in half. You still hear the sonic crack of the bullet and then you hear the entire report that bounces back when the sound wave impacts a building or tree in front of you. Shooting across a open field toward a wooded area, makes the report of the weapon sound as if it is coming from in front of you. Strangely enough, dogs hear all of the noise as it leaves the muzzle.

  8. I believe that suppressors should be 100% available to legal gun owners. I am a hunter not a target shooter and I lost 70% of my hearing from 1 shot from a gun when my hearing protection failed. Since then I have shot many guns that are suppressed and now believe the suppressors are the only way to go. Any bullet that shoots above the speed of sound (roughly 1050 fps) is still loud but not loud enough to hurt your hearing. Even if the bullet is sub sonic the shot is still audible from several hundred feet away. This is just my opinion based on my experiences.

  9. Hi from New Zealand, approximately 50 % of all hunters use suppressors in New Zealand. They are readily available from around US 250, no licence or paperwork required, actually anyone can buy one even if you don’t own a rifle. No problems with a suppressor shooting anyone yet….these are possibly problems with people shooting other people?

  10. I am in law enforcement and have no problem at all with removing the 200.00 tax from a supressor. If you can pass background check it means you llay by the rules! It is rather nice to train or simply shooting for the fun of it without the extra noise. I do however agree with the previous post that it will cause th he bleeding heart liberals to go into a seizure! From my view there’s little to no logic or intelligence to be found in Washington. Unfortunately this includes representatives from my home state of Georgia! I’m for any additional freedom from the federal government. God, Bless America Again, Please! I’m ashamed of what she has become but still love her so!

    1. To all,how does this impact range shooting unless ALL are required to have a silencer as the little girly girl types suffer so badly from wearing ear muffs. Please explain how this will be enforced at ranges or find some intelligent way to post real issues. Yep can just see ther folks suffering under the continued use of ear muff when they shoot., those poor souls. A silence to squirrel hunt, probably should not be using a rifle, even 22 if noise upsets folks as rather dangerous to pop off rifle in area within range of such guns. Got lots of land owner friends and fish and game that feel this will lead to more poaching and trespass as cannot hear guns going off. I suspect those “hunters” who lost hearing also put in time on ranges or gravel pits etc with no ear muffs, Again would like some detail as to how purported hearing loss occurred while hunting. have hunted since 1950’s, all over world, family was shooters, uncle a gunsmith and skeet shooter before muffs used, never any hearing loss in family or friends, not one from hunting. Highly amusing posts about “Suppressing car mufflers etc” so why not guns, well guns not fired down streets as far a I know or in neighborhoods, urban areas, roads etc. Amusing that criminals can only get these by stealing them, but then how to they get all the guns they have now which they are not supposed to have? Will it be law if silencer “Stolen” it must be reported immediately, or will it by like “gun stolen (usually sold illegally but to hide it when found used in crime “was stolen year ago officer”) . What will be law on that one. And as for cop who feels OK as burden to use on ranges, what a sorry joke as most law can hardly afford vests, must less silencers to unburden the poor cops that get so exhausted using muffs on ranges.

      And sorry for the fools that feel anyone who serious questions the propaganda being spewed out as outright lies to just sell more stuff and continued raising costs for all shooting stuff with record profits for mfgs-their stocks, never will become so dumbed down and stuck in ways as to question anything going on, more so when “will benefit” etc. Do you research, this is just extension of earlier silencer push by mfgs that paid hard money to NRA to buy more elected. What you should consider in cooler moments, if NRA can buy elected, which they do with Koch millions they got, what happens if someone outbids elected to go other way? So if possible, mentally capable of it, stop and question that fact, elect4ed for sale to highest bidder, this is example of more of it. Wake up, record high prices for even 22 ammo, why, who profits most? Just a suggestion but question those that you support more then those you do not as they are the real dangers as seems now mfgs-elected take you for granted as never questioning what is real motivation, then go look at ammo prices for reply.

      1. I find it highly unlikely you’re an avid hunter; your repeated disdain for the NRA, capitalism, and references to the “Koch millions” would lead anyone in this comment section to question your contrived arguments. I’m more inclined to believe you’re a H.S. or college kid with little real world experience in anything other than spouting off on topics and telling people how they should live their lives.

      2. I felt my IQ dropping as I tried to follow your mind in that post. Your 2nd paragraph failed to express a single cogent thought. The 1st one was just a warmup.

      3. An avid hunter you say???? Doubtful!
        But, how about this. I won’t tell you what flavor Kool-aid you should drink, and you don’t tell me what gun merchandise I spend my dollars on.
        I’ve been a hunter for 50 years myself, and don’t know a hunter that DOESN’T have hearing damage. Now let’s be crystal clear on this, because I am not speculating like I suppose you are. I am a physician, and I see the results of audiology tests very regularly. There is a characteristic loss in the 4 kHz range associated with NIHL related to gunshots that is almost expected to be found among adult males in areas where hunting is prominent. I see it in almost EVERY audiogram of adult hunters that I review. Because, as you well know “as a hunter yourself ” that in many types of hunting, the sense of hearing plays a valuable part of being able to both effectively hunt as well as safely identify fellow hunters moving nearby. Short of very expensive hearing protection ($2000 +) standard range muffs, even electronic , fall far short of providing protection yet not compromising hunting ability and safety. So almost every hunter I know hunts without hearing protection. It’s simply not practical. Most hunters I know simply can’t afford the cost of hearing protection of the quality that can be used in hunting. Yet these same individuals could likely afford a $300 silencer!

        So next time you speak, talk about something you know about, otherwise someone else like me with knowledge of the subject matter might call you out, yet again, so that others can clearly see all the bull manure you’re shoveling. For the time being, just go back to drinking whatever flavor Kool-aid you prefer and let the “rest” of all us hunters decide whether or not we want to buy a product that may hopefully keep our future hunters from suffering from the NIHL we already have.

  11. Hunter 101, do not suppose you asked and of the losing hearing hunters, do or did they shoot at range etc without muffs, how often. What type of hunting did they do, what type of guns, how many shots fired on each hunt. Most of “hearing lost” types must be very poor shots to fire a number to damage hearing, or probably holding gun backwards. Noted not specifics as to details of hearing loss, as maybe other jobs that can impact. See no backup data other then “hearing loss from hunting” which at best , not to well supported.
    Amused at suppressor for all drivel, as doubt it has hunted or shot much. But pretty much standard when incapable of discussing message to attack the messenger by such types. You might now was once member of NRA until they got hijacked by group pressured by mfg;s to better promote sales of guns and related and Koch and others sent them funds to use for right wing candidates, AKA bribes to increase gun sales. But same ole blither and is expected as must not have gotten any NRA talking points on the subject, so cannot respond. You are amusing and good comedy, so keep posting and dodge the facts with less then intelligent claims. And of course dodge the issues. As far as other clowns with the usual “Liberal” blah blah, sorry but am real Independent, voter for and support reality, not those that do bottom fishing for votes via hot button issue. And let;s not forget the guy who wants silencer to protect family hearing if shoot our happens, which of course means intruder must have silencer, Amusing to say least of :”keeps gun and ear protection next to bed” etc as has to be on of dumbest posts going, again great comedy as the image of this clown grabbing gun and fumbling about for ear muffs is great comedy, and reeks of desperation., Noted crique of post by English expert 101, as said, desperate to attack messenger, not the message and does admit to less then comprehensive skills. I will keep you in mind shold I need another Secretary, and to make it easy for you, I will do thinking, you take notes.

    What you all miss, is public is getting fed up with gun violence, which is increasing daily and has since NRA started propaganda for any gun for anyone. So suggest you put out ideas that will be of value to normal folks, as of now 80-90% want background checks an on all guns sales, and suspect most would not silencers in hands of so many. Noted none said much about New Zealand gun rules, when some clown posted about using them there, just to get a gun there is more regulated then USA will ever be, so nicer try to ignroe reality as do most. But thanks all your dodge ball reply;s make my day, great paranoia and comedy.

  12. Careful FW your liberal is showing as you reveal your true intention with your last paragraph. Why are you so quick to blame the gun and unwilling to look at medications these whack jobs are on? With all your vitriol for the NRA and money being used for lobbying D.C. where’s your angst for big Pharma and all the drugs they get fast tracked through the FDA by lobbying the same people? Mental health is the issue here, not the inanimate object, but keep pushing the gun control narrative it’s working out well for you as America continues to buy firearms in record numbers.

  13. Facts, this is where I am at with all of this. A muffler for a firearm should require nothing more that going to a store and buying it. Why you ask? It’s easy. The Firearm that you have purchased(Legally) has already had all things done. Background investigation and so on. Things like optics, and magazines are not regulated(unless you are in the wrong state). Why make it harder? why why why??? We have come a long way since 1934 and it should not be regulated. It is time for change, and what ever reason comes up to make this change is reason enough.

  14. Why I am not at all favoring silencers is they are not needed, no reason and I found out yesterday why. We have a few acres and heard shot on what sounded like very close in our woods. Checked it out and found hunters on our posted land, with dead dear. When I told them they were not only trespassing but illegal use of firearms on private land, they got rather hostile. I simply walked away from was escalating situation, called sheriff. They were arrested. Had they silencers would never have heard shot, same for poachers and other low life, to include criminals. I have a right to protect my land, and feel safe on it and silencers could endanger my rights

    But one big question for the Doc and others claiming all sorts of hearing loss, dangers etc and swear it is true. IF it were true for other then little girly girl hunters and even range shooters or others, then why has no one taken gun stores, gun and ammo mfgs to court for selling a hazardous product with no warning labels, that all you folks claim has caused hearing loss???? For sure as we all know, lots of lawyers who will sue for any reason,, yet no court cases? WHY NOT, unless you folks are a bit of stretching truths as i silencer mfg and NRA. If hearing loss has occurred as Doctor states, why hasn;t he reported this ovbious and somewhat disabling item to the proper authorities and local, state and fed medical agency? Has anyone asked the guy from AZ about this “serious issue”. Cannot have it both ways, now needed to purportedly protect citizens, but now products knowingly sold that endanger and have caused disability of impaired hearing… Well what sort of dodge the issue will you lil darling come up with for this? Hope it is as amusing as your other posts and can top the gun by bed with ear protectors post.

    I am anxiously awaiting the fables or NRA talking points on the above, but do not expect much other then usual uniformed blithers and assigned talking points.

  15. Good reason for no silencers. We own some acres in fields and wood, heavily posted, I heard rifle shot that seemed very close to house. Went out to our woods and hunters on our land, with dead deer. When I told they were trepassing got a real bad case of “to bad, what you going to do about it” from them> SImply walked off and called sheriff, who arrested them for trespass, illegal discharge and use of guns etc. Had they had silencers, would never have known they were there, no any poachers or other low life.
    So now got to ask you lil darling, to include the good Doc and other various “experts” that testify to the horrible hearing loss of in several cases ALL hunters, how come not one person has taken and gun seller-store, gun-ammo mfg to court for the all that hearing loss many of you swear happens to all hunters. Would be pretty much a slam dunk if true as .NRA, the AZ elected and silencer mfg purportedly found. The Doc’s posting alone would be enough evidence for any jury, as well as the other “Experts” knowledge .posted. To sell products the are know to destroy hearing without any warning label for years, seems a good lawsuit target since all seem to know of it. Why has not the Doc, with all hunter hearing damaged not reported such to the proper local, state fed authorities, as well as the other “experts” that allowed such a serious disability to go on and on, or even NRA who purports hearing loss. Seems all these folks are simply targets for some massive class action suits if all they say is true, and perhaps more then few individual incompetency trials for not reporting these massive disabling injury with know source being guns, ammo, all seller’s that posted no hazardous warnings?. I find it impossible to believe that not one lawyer, law firm, has not filed suit about this, and there apparently is no shortage of injured shooters, a massive class action on this scale would leave most lawyer drooling to get some of that action. if such massive injury does exist? We all know lawyers will sue anyone for anything, but no suits here, wonder why?
    Well I await some responses on the above, hope they are as amusing as others. But doubt many will touch it. And no gun and ammo mfgs, sellers, are not protected from such a lawsuit.

  16. I completely agree with the bill and have always wanted a suppressor. No, I don’t have any other reason that I want one, but that’s the point. America used to be a “free” country, but our rights have been chiseled away for many years. This liberal fw that doesn’t want anyone to have them because he can’t police his own property well enough is the perfect example of why our rights have been taken away. He wants everyone else to live as he dictates, but that’s not my idea of living in freedom. And for the record, I’m a 50 year old hunter that is in need of my first set of hearing aids. I don’t know what the guy shoots, but it can’t be any bigger than a 22. And he must be a natural born sharp shooter that doesn’t need any range time to keep his skills perfect enough for the one shot, one kill hunt. I just wish I was that good so I wouldn’t have this constant ringing in my ears.

    1. Well ole Key, should not have to “police my property” as last I read, trespass/hunting on posted land is illegal. Seems your are a bit loose on whose rights get trampled, and way loose on property rights. Well now if you actually lost your hearing hunting, then it would seem you have a good law suit. but sure you are just good ole boy who does not want to do such things, trespass is OK, illegal hunt is OK as I am not “policing my land”. You seem to have a really great idea of “Freedom”,
      Did notice you and other hot air balloon refueling stations did not touch anything about the legal issue of “hunter hearing loss” in court….as if it were true then there would be huge numbers of law suits about the use of hazardous guns, ammo etc with no warning labels. Lawyers, true to their nature would swarm and huge class action suits would be going on. Yep not one of you touched that reality. I have, over 60 years, shot competitive handguns for years, trap and skeet and EVERY time at any range or such, EVERY TIME wore ear muffs, even at muzzle loading shoots. I generally shoot 375 and 45/70 and 16gauge/410 as well as 44mag I have owned for years. I have probably hand loaded more then you have ever shot. Same with shooting buds. We always wore ear muffs, but not when hunting as if we fired four shots with rifles in one day somethihng was wrong. Same for bird shooting, limits were two and four in possession, how many shots does that take. I have seen a lot of folks on ranges with just ear plugs or nothing. Such is just plain stupid and that cause of “shooter” (NOT hunter) hearing loss. I cannot even consider how many shoots one must use up in a day “hunting” to get hear loss. So if most to dumb or lazy to wear ear protection on ranges etc, to bad, maybe some day someone will make up a pill or shot for dumb, but for now do not bore me, while at same time big time ignoring the fact, in a nation the runs on “sue for ////” that if hunter hearing loss was real, caused by guns.ammo, that our courts would not be loaded with greedy lawyers.
      Sorry for your purported hearing loss, but your lack of ear protection and common sense is your issue. Save th cheap insults and self pity for someone who cared Respond ot no law suits if possible, as you dodged it.

  17. FW, just stop. Someone already implied that you are only a liberal anti-gun coming here to troll, and i agree.
    If you don’t like guns, go to Calfornia. They make it repressivly difficult to be a gun owner.
    If you want a gun ban, go live in Mexico. They prohibit guns.

    1. Weill ole SJ, seems you like the rest of the blowhards cannot respond to the legal side of your collective blither, best to be a shill for silencer/NRA then to respond to questions on legal side of the thing. Always amused when you kiddies cry “liberal” but dodge the issues. Sorry but am real independent voter as do not want NRA or such I issue voter items telling me how to vote. Your kind is amusing in your simplicity and inability to respond to the core issues at to legal side of Making us deaf” and why none have not sued gun/ammo mfgs, but you do amuse, makes up for not having a cartoon section with your childish response and lack of post response.

  18. FW, maybe you should simply take a step back and look at what our country was founded on, and what it is supposed to be.

    What you need, is none of my buisness. And what I need is none of your business. Even if I don’t need it and just want it, it’s none of your business, and vise versa.

    It’s called Liberty. Look it up.

    1. Sorry but when your actions can influence anything in my life it is my business. But you as have the rest, dodged the issue I brought up. IF gunfire hunting is damaging hunters ears as is claim, why over decades has no one ever sued gun/ammo folks for selling dangerous disabling products? Not one of you touched it and all appear to be a bunch of fools for standing behind such claim. I note NONE ever asked the Silence Lobby about this, none asked NRA about it and in all truth I never, over decades ever, met a hunter whose hearing suffered from hunting. Want to see the fools who loose hearing, just check out utube shooters, even little kids with no ear protections. None of your business, liberty blah blah, well then why were machines guns prohibited, unless silenced. Care to guess what a “bad guy” with a silencer could do in mass shootings, or just the common every day murders in most gun violent nation? Sorry but no real need for these things, and amused at “how it would help at ranges” etc as if such childishly dangerous toys were 100% mandated at ranges-etc. No need for them unless it is criminal in real world, as said we own fields and woods, had trespass hunter arrested, would not know they were there except I heard shots. So my “liberty” was violated, and can only grow wore when used to trespass or by poachers. Hunters do not need silencers and since more shots fired by bird hunters, silencers there? This is just another NRA sponsored rip off to increase mfgs profits. Fed up with fools rushing out like lemmings every time NRA or such makes some fools gambit to “get guns/ammo now as //// will take away”. The fools drove up prices for ammo to horrible levels, and record profits/stock values for guns/relat4d. Your “liberty” to buy any gun etc is subject to restrictions, and let’s hope it stays that way. Dare anyone to write the flake from AZ, ask him if hearing is in danger, why has no one ever sued for hearing loss due to disabling dangerous products that carry no warning. Anyone care to write the good Rep/AZ and publish response???? Doubt any will as the lemming never question. Lots of talk but little moral courage on the reality of such stuff.

  19. If your worried about poachers they can leagley own one now just cost 200.00 and a background check. I like background checks we should have them to exercise all our rights then maybe we wouldn’t have to listen to people bad mouth the NRA. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness after you pay for your tax stamp. “Shall not be infringed” I should be able to carry a gun any gun any place as easy as I breath.

    1. Mark, no you should NOT be able to carry a gun where ever you want, more so a handgun, which now days includes AK/M16’s that are extremely dangerous as to power, clips and control. I have no issue for well qualified to carry to satisfy their paranoia’s, but ONLY fully qualified, as to a very high qualify of marksmanship as well as well educated in safety and gun laws. Now days, via NRA push to sell guns (their clients are the gun/related mfgs, NOT citizens) is behind the any gun for any one. The NRA also collects millions from Koch and the right wing to operate as a political arm of the extreme right. This is not the NRA I was once a member, and now a no compromise propaganda mill that is extremely effective in creating fear and panic among the more paranoid gun owners. Proof of such, well they have started, based on no facts, repeated lemming like “buy gun/ammo now as gubernment gunna take thum away”, a practice their minions follow and rush off to clean gun/related shelves at astounding rates. Worse and it is nearly a traditional NRA type celebration, after every mass killing, the same rush down to celebrate, no better term for it, and again clear the shelves ahead of ‘thum taking ur guns”. etc. Noe of the minions ever dare question “hey how come no laws passed and how come NRA clients, guns and ammo prices, to say nothing of stock values, are at record high levels yet no one has taken guns/ammo?” I hand load and even prices there at record highs, why? Never ever seen any of the posters ever question prices, astounding what brick of 22rf cost, and noted “shrink” in ammo, where 25/50rd box now down to 20/40 at extemely high prices. None ever question who is making huge profits, why?

      The same with the silencer AKA NRA politically correct term “suppressor”, yes even NRA use PO terms, as on record silencer mfg’s came to NRA, gave them lots of money to promote theme of “to protect hunters hearing”, as sorry joke at best. As said makes shooters look like bunch of NRA lock step fools as never met a “Hunter” that had hearing loss from hunting. The latter does not include those fools, all to often at ranges, quarry etc, with NO hearing protections, check Utube shooters who use no protection,, worse yet have kids with no protections. Early posts here loaded with Doc, “Experts in db’s” etc, all harping away at “massive hearing loss by hunters, all hunters suffer hearing loss etc, blah blah” Yet when I brought up the logic of if really true, hearing loss from hunting, how come over the hundred years of hunting, and propensity of “USA sues for anything by greedy lawyers” not one case file about sellers of hazardous products with no warning labels (guns-Ammo-ranges permitting shooters with no ear protections-etc) not one case filed. So seems NRA-lobbyists-bought and paid for elected (happens on both sides that is why I vote independent as both parties corrupted by money) came up with another fable for the lemmings to march with, and hardly a “Coincidence” that gun mfgs now selling threaded barrels on many guns, more profits for all maybe at shooters expense?

      Well am amused at most posters as they never address the law suit reality, rather would prefer to be lemmings, again lead down the “spend money here” path which is actually based on a big lie, kind of like “get guns/ammo now” (again). propaganda by gun/ammo mfgs, (again). Amused by posters who remind me of a few militia types I met, paranoid about ever thing, as are extreme right, not very into actually knowing issues, but quick to assume I must be “liberal, anti-gun, never owned a tgun, :Calif, and various other childish blither based on their own lack of intelligence as they ALL dodged suit issue as probably cannot make a case there. I might suggest if Congress gets into this one, if “needed to protect hearing”, someone might contemplate law suit, lots of hungry lawyers out there and gun/ammo /lobby(NRA)mfgs might find self in between hard-spot and a rock. Ther core issue with the hardliners and NRA propaganda is public is shifting away from :”any gun for any one”, 80-90% want 100% background checks, most fed up with daily gun violence. Oddly NONE o9f extremes EVER discuss where criminals and gangs get their guns, as just might expose the horrible loopholes in gun sales with no check, will not ever support a law requiring immediate report of stolen gun, The silencer issue is going to be a mess, as will be nr1 target for gangs and criminals, and the reality is gangs/criminals have nearly unlimited access to guns (“Liberal-Right wing” Media/cops NEVER ever discusses the gun sources, used in daily shooting etc, one can only guess what will happen when silencers come available “Other then tired and worn out blither of “Well criminals cannot legally get them (Guns silencers etc). So in closing this nearly novel sized posting, I am and have been gun owner/shooter of all types of guns for decades, and yes ALWAYS wore muffs on ranges-competitive shooting(handgun-muzzle landing), skeet and even at gravel pit plinking. Remember time when at 14 local kids would load up bikes-my Marlin 39a and we’d ride to dunes for a day of shooting, none stopped us for “guns”, nor was there “Reports of kids with guns”. I learned to shoot/hunt (also with bow) for father who hunted the world, an Uncle who was gunsmith who considered it a bad day if he only broke 23 of 25 birds. I was taught, first shot counts, others for unqualified shooters, never take a shot unless you are sure to hit, sportsmen are just that, “harvesters” are not sportsman and best day of hunting might be if you watched the game, did not take the shot. Contrary to some of the fools, I am well qualified with most guns, but do find 100yds seem further then used to be as eyes age. So silencers, they are of no practical use, other then to screen what might be illegal activity and will probably further upset a public increasingly upset with guns, real purpose is simply more profits, again for NRA-lobbyists-pols campaign funds, not the shooters. I am sorry to see how NRA nearly militarize what was a great and respected items,m gun ownership and various type of guns/ammo uses. Now days if one mentions they own a few guns, yo get the look from increasing numbers of citizens and they ask, are you one of NRA or such. Amused by these ‘sunshine patriots, their my right, constitution saws etc blither, but they seem to miss the fact they probably should be supporting sane guns laws, not gun/ammo mfgs as public increasingly fed up with gun violence, and one of these days might come down hard on guns-related. Even hunting licenses down, kids prefer to not hunt of kill, more guns sold to fewer people who own many. Reality is most carry requirement are hoax at best as far as educated-qualified shooters, NRA blocked collecting data on crimes/accidents of latter… Will silencers drop $200 costs, I say keep it as is, as forfeit $200 if not passing BC seems to be working. But then I favor sane gun laws across the whole gun thing, when sane folks of both sides sit down and make them, our gun ownership will be safe, for now see extremes on both sides, not sanity, and end result will be what, the winner being the one with most lobby money, do we really want that result?

  20. I am amazed at the abject stupidity of the left wingers on this site. First, every single longtime shotgun hunter I know has hearling issues. Rifles and handguns are significantly worse on the ears but we tend to shoot them less in the field. Suppressors would take care of the constant sound of gunfire out in the country on weekends. I’ve been at the range when guys are using their suppressors, and they sound like gun shots without the earsplitting component… would we very nice if they were readily available to anyone who could pass a background check. If we get a good person in the White House along with a majority of good people in both the Senate and the House then I bet this type of logical common sense bill will pass and be signed. Let’s hope and pray we get some real Americans back in charge of America.

  21. fw, your clinging to a topic that is entirely unrelated to the bill. Along with your gramatical failures, you fail to see that all you are using to support your views are “WHAT IF” scenarios. We don’t need to provide YOU with proof of hearing loss because there is already proof in public record, regardless if it happened at the range or hunting. And your thought that if they shoot enough rounds to cause hearing loss means they shouldn’t be shooting at all then your more clueless than anyone I’ve EVER encountered. Practice makes a better shooter, everyone who has shot a firearm knows this. Your constant “gun turned around backwards” and “little girly girl shooters” comments are not only childish/pointless, but make you sound like you have no clue what your talking about. Multiple people have called you out with valid points, you bring NO value to this page. Everything you have said points to the fact you are a coward afraid of a non-existent situation. No matter your reply to this, it will simply be disregarded due to your inability to comprehend the actuality of the topic. As previously said by the physician, before you climb into the ring you should know what kind of excrement you are stepping into. In light of the topic, i think it is a brilliant bill. My thoughts also jumped to the possibility that manufacturers with bump up their prices, simple fix though. Draw up your own design or get a dimensional drawing and have a machine shop build one!

    1. Same ole thing, seems you are looking for secretarial work, and the boring ole kill the messenger not the message, you are a bore as are most that avoid discussions, instead attack not on issue. Amusing at best Amused as once read where by a progun any gun for anyone (planted lobbyists to post on sites) that if you cannot get around the legitimacy of post, the facts, then attack the messenger, in same manner as you do since your minnions will support as they fear facts. Keep up the spin, it is amusing at best, but expected as that is what lemmings do

    2. Once again nra 101 pin. IF hard proof exist on hearing loss by hunters, none I know, then post it. I am sure lawyers would go after the guns/ammo folks for building, selling/ a item that knowingly disabled hearing, long term disability, etc hearing loss blah blah. As said most of posts are great sources for hot air balloons refueling stations. You must know some very poor shots if these quasi-hunters, shoot so often as to have a hearing loss, suggest marksmanship course and of course there is also potential to sue shooting ranges of all types for hearing loss due to no mandatory hearing protections rules.so kiddies, be careful for what you wish for, Note you might look up basic grammar-abv’s-etc for latest rules on posting on forums, etc, have someone read for you. You kids do amuse and are so open minded of others opinions as to me major players in nra lemming society.

      1. “A study by the University of Wisconsin found that men aged 48 to 92 who hunted regularly were more likely to experience high-frequency hearing loss, a risk that increased seven percent for every five years a man had been hunting.” (Sarah Baker)

        Your ineptitude inspired me to actually get off my lazy ass and use google.

        GOOGLE!

        Seriously, do you know how hard ti is to use google? It might just be the most difficult thing in the world to master.

  22. fw, One more thing. The reason nobody has sued the ammo companies is because they did their due diligence to post a warning on the boxes notifying users of the dangers and suggesting the use of hearing protection as do firearm manufacturers along with eye protection. Thus giving themselves immunity to such attacks. Any other stupid questions?

    1. weppie. well now how long has this been on ALL ammo boxes, and then what about the guns, those as shows, etc. You might do some fact checks before looking less then informed. NOTHING on guns about this disabling item, good try but would never hold up in court. This thing where it is admitted by elected and silencer mfgs that shooting caused hearing loss, will open up a whole new list of litigation targets, even why doctors who attributed loss to shooting did not report hazard, note nothing on hand loads materials, no mandatory use of hearing protection on ranges, even on shooting on utube, children and adults with no hearing protection. What next mandate silencers only on ranges? But you and others are amusing in how they dodge my posts facts or questions and in usual way, must not be shooter,hunter, liberal etc, aka nra spin 101, but best post yet was guy who kept hearing protection next to be in case someone broke in, and worried about family haring damaged if shoot out,… kind of makes a standard the rest of you follow.

  23. I support the people right to own the same wepons as the arm forcse
    I beleave, if we are ever attack the states should be push in to training the people to know what to do
    how to do it, throws own guns alow them support police as needed it is clear that we do not have the training to handle any kind of anything gose wrong my question why arnt we train, in school where go what do train some as first responders
    adults who have meens to have gun reg them and train them so they can support the state not the fed government
    people need be train people need know what to do, people lost and u all alow it why to force a police state
    its not needed we can proteak our selfs, something happen me you all judge
    across street some one was shotting killed a person one bulltet went throw my window
    I could stop him in first 5 mins, but frist 5 mins was on ph taken police total 10 mins to send first car 20 mins to block street off
    and 45 mins to get swat, I got a ar 15 night vision scope I taken him out in first 5 mins law says I cant, law say I cant do anything, law say I would been arrested even If I save that persons life ? what make sence I left gun lock up
    I don’t agree that laws are right I was not judgeing a man I would been saveing mans life police told me to do anything I would been arrested, to note our house getting shot at never got in there report that they never taken a report
    that as far I know made it disappear what is right, dose some one known pushing drugs by police above all laws
    or because he black by him some points I meen I don’t know tell me I do know we need laws make sence
    and laws and training must go hand and hand

      1. Seriously! I have a hard time trusting military-grade assault weapons in the hands of someone who is clearly still struggling with a fourth-grade education.

      2. I have a hard time trusting words and phrases that seem to hurt progressives’ feelings to someone such as yourself who doesn’t trust our Bill of Rights.

      3. “such as yourself who doesn’t trust our Bill of Rights.”

        If you want the right to keep and bear arms, join the militia like it says in the Second Amendment.

        And since the militia was subsumed into the National Guard in 1903, go ahead and sign up and get yourself “well-regulated”.

      4. Militia is two forms. Not just one… Organized and unorganized.
        Not all the NATIONAL guard are the whole militia.

      5. -ahem- The words to look for are “WELL REGULATED”, idiot.

        Take your disorganized band of fat drunken rednecks and go to Mexico.

      6. So tired of trying to educate the masses. PF, well-regulated does not mean fettered and controlled by a bunch of ‘regulations’ as commonly used. It means well-equipped. The concept is that a well-equipped populace can form a well-equipped militia in a heartbeat. Otherwise, you’d be scrambling to group up somewhere, and then wait for someone else (the government?) to equip (arm) you. It was simply the language of the times.

      7. “well-regulated does not mean fettered and controlled by a bunch of ‘regulations'”

        As a matter of fact, “regulated” DOES IN FACT MEAN “controlled by regulations”. That’s literally what the word means.

      8. Not according to SCOTUS Heller v. DC. p. 23. “Well-regulated” just means well-trained and well-armed. That’s only a minor detail of the 1st clause, the primary element of which is “the security of a free state”, i.e., the condition of ‘freedom’ being predicated upon the de-facto “security” that a well-armed Citizenry (the standing “militia”) provides. Further, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd clause was not limited literally or directly by the 1st clause, ergo, the meaning of “well-regulated” is still irrelevant and does not open the door to mitigate or limit “shall not be infringed” in any way.

      9. No actually a roasting is exactly what your doing to everyone here who the hell mentioned violence? Assclown. Ever heard of the comedy roast? Or are you completely unintelligent when it’s in your interest? Wow can’t believe you turned “roasting” into violence… you are a pathetic human being.

      10. Normally I ignore these types of comments, but Poker Face’s attempt at appearing to have some sort of intellectual superiority while simultaneously being completely wrong about the legal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment particularly annoyed me. As a bit of background, I have received some of the finest military and classical education available, including obtaining my JD and currently being a licensed and practicing attorney. The point is not to brag, but to qualify my statements as being exceedingly well informed. The simplest retort to your misunderstandings about the 2nd Amendment would be to have you read the holding in the Heller case. The Court clearly discusses how your stance regarding the militia is historically and presently incorrect and invalid. The entire purpose of the statement regarding the militia is solely for the purpose of being a “prefatory phrase”. If you read further writings of those directly responsible for penning this amendment the intent was unmistakably clear. They intended that every military aged male in the country to have the unfettered right to the basic small arms of the common infantryman. Of course there is a bit of grey area that the NFA falls into, but access to the modern semi-automatic rifle even including all the “scary” accouterments associated with “military-style” weapons was well contemplated within the meaning of the Right discussed in the 2nd Amendment.

      11. “including obtaining my JD and currently being a licensed and practicing attorney.”

        What? An attorney in the comment section? Never seen that one before.

        ” They intended that every military aged male in the country to have the
        unfettered right to the basic small arms of the common infantryman.”

        But not the ammunition. They were meant to keep and maintain the weapons IN SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY, not to shoot the paperboy for wanting a Xmas tip. They were issued ammunition when the militia assembled. Know your history, idiot.

      12. Were you trying to actually make a valid point? Why would issuance of ammunition have any bearing on this discussion. Yes they were issued ammo during times of conscription, but they also had their own personal ammo when not. I was also a Legal Studies and Military History major at the Air Force Academy prior to law school…I’m, familiar with my history. I still don’t think you have a good grasp on the word “militia” in the context being used. Again, please just read the holding in the Heller Case. It settled the issue regarding possession of firearms as being an individual right not limited to being a member in the formalized militia. It’s embarrassing to watch someone think they know what they’re talking about and really have no clue…

      13. ” I was also a Legal Studies and Military History major at the Air Force Academy prior to law school.”

        And a six foot six kickboxer, world champion ninja, Navy SEAL and porn superstar, just like everyone else on the internet.

      14. Haha, You know you’ve lost an argument when you resort to ad hominem attacks. At least I think that was the attempt. I guess I should actually be flattered that you’d consider my background that impressive to equate it with a “ninja, Navy SEAL, porn star”. I’m actually barely 6 foot and played football, not kickboxing at the academy. Can’t waste any more billable hours, so I’m sure you’ll get in the last word as a response…good luck with that!

      15. YOU know you’ve lost the argument when you have nothing to fall back on but empty claims of grand titles and alleged achievements. Run along now Chief Justice, your Second Life courtroom is waiting for you.

      16. The right to bear arms was a protection not only against foreign entities but domestic as well. That includes our own government. The supreme court has agreed that the right to bear arms includes a personal right to have a firearm accessible. I’m sorry, but your interpretation of the bill of rights happens to not be inline with the supreme court nor the founding fathers.

      17. History shows some of the most mature patriots were lacking in formal education. George Washington is a prime example. Isaac Shelby is another. It’s the over educated you need not to trust. I’m medically retired Navy. Want me to tell you who I do and don’t not trust.

      18. “History shows some of the most mature patriots were lacking in formal education.”

        History also shows that some of the most insane criminals were lacking in formal education. Patriotism isn’t related to education, and judging someone’s moral fiber in reverse proportion to how stupid they are isn’t going to guarantee you a race of Aryan Supermen like you think.

        Education, regardless of your objections, is inherently a good thing. Knowing more is always preferable to knowing less. It’s people like *you* who have turned stupidity into a virtue that are ruining this country.

      19. Education huh… Reading writing and math.. that about wraps it up… History is false no a days and most formal education you get in USA public schools are propaganda not formal education. I grew up in America school I was taught how to read and write. A lot of math.. in most of the world today that in itself is a very high form of education. Go to 3rd world’s. County. And tell someone else they need formal education.. u most need the mother government to hold your hand in life huh.

      20. “Military-grade assault weapons lmao.”

        Yes, those were his exact words. “I support the people right to own the same wepons as the arm forcse”

        Maybe you can’t translate Retard to English, but that’s exactly what he wanted to carry – military-grade assault weapons. Maybe you should have read what he wrote before shooting your mouth in the foot.

      21. Civilians do not need military grade firearms. (A lot of the time it is just seem “cool”. If that’s the goal, get an airsoft.) However, civilian versions seem perfectly fine with the right training. You don’t need a fully auto AR-15 with a 50 round drum mag for home defense or for sporting.

      22. I’m guessing your a swillery supporter? I do have a need to own what you deem as military grade firearms, it’s my constitutional right (tyrannical government-remember?). Who are you to dictate what I am allowed to own or what is considered sporting? FYI, I currently own several legal machineguns and enjoy using them on the range. I understand if you can’t afford them or maybe can’t legally own them, but don’t make yourself look like a liberal by suggesting “airsoft” guns to me.

      23. I support being able to own and operate a firearm legally, suppressor or not. A suppressor does not automatically mean it’s for a mercenary or assassin. There are legitimate reasons to run a suppressor. However, most people don’t need an automatic rifle to shoot 600+ rounds a minute. One pull / one round is fine for most. (Hell, even a 2-3 round burst.)

        Tyrannical government? Yes, the US government is not perfect, but it’s far from “tyrannical”. If you don’t like it so much, perhaps you could do better in Canada, Mexico, or other.

        You have to admit many buy military grade arms for the “coolness” factor. And if you have ample training to operate said weapon, no problem. However, there are many in the US that have more dollars than sense. As I said, one pull / one bullet should be fine for most.

      24. I’d trust you about the same as James. How can he be trusted to read the owners manual, and how can you be trusted to use common sense? He’s ignorant and youre both ignorant and belligerent

      25. The AR15 is basically the Barbie Doll of guns – gunfags* just love to collect all the accessories and show them off to their little friends.

        *term for those who use the Second Amendment as a statement to exercise their freedom of speech, earning the label First Amendment Gunman.

      26. Yeah, I’ve see some videos of non-gun channel YouTubers that think they’re fly because they bought a tricked out AR-15. The AR-15 is a good rifle, but far from modern as it was developed in the late 1950’s. I guess because it’s relatively cheap they are popular. If I were in the rifle market, I’d get a civilian version of a SCAR. In actuality, I’m waiting for the Crye Precision six12 in bullpup. (It think the DP12 is overrated.)

      27. It’s fun for plinking though, which is the most action these gunfags are ever going to see. Most of them just freeze up in an actual crisis.

      28. Most of the fruitbaskets who even WANT military-grade assault weapons are just redneck clowns who want to show off and compensate for the tiny equipment they were born with.

        As the only person IN this discussion who’s actually used real military hardware, I can safely say that it is 100% not appropriate for home use, and is more likely to be a danger to your family and your neighbors than it is to be any kind of defense against Greg the Crackhead sneaking around your driveway.

      29. Just so you understand “or for sporting” the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, sporting, etc.

        Its meant as a last resort for the citizenry to KILL, if necessary, tyrannic elements of the government.

        It puts great power in the hands of the everyday citizen so that they can be a threat to any and all enemies of the United States.

    1. OMG James, you are worried that you would have been arrested for solving that entire situation you laid out there, much quicker than all of those officers you listed. You should worry that the only thing you spelled right was, “ar” when you were babbling about your “wepon”. So I’m thinking that if illiteracy was against the law you would be on death row.
      GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!

      1. Right? Why should anyone worry about someone with a fourth-grade education making life-and-death decisions under pressure? What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

      2. So being uneducated he’s not entitled to his own opinion or are you talking about the average Obama voter? even worse the people that voted for that clown twice . The person you are ridiculing is entitled to his own opinion is I make him a lesser man.

      3. ‘So being uneducated he’s not entitled to his own opinion”

        Well, no. Not when it conflicts with people who actually know what they’re talking about. We’re not talking about “just an opinion” either. We’re talking about a barely sentient lifeform wanting to carry MILITARY GRADE ASSAULT WEAPONS, when he can barely work a computer or compose a coherent sentence.

        “entitled to his own opinion is I make him a lesser man.”

        Yeah, speaking of illiterate….

      4. Actually a iPhone with a 4.3 inch screen and bad eyes are responsible for my typo smart ass. But if being a spellchecker makes you feel like you’re the better man you’re doing a great job sport .Regardless of his ability to put together a coherent sentence I understood more or less what he was trying to say.

      5. “4.3 inch screen and bad eyes are responsible for my typo smart ass.”

        It wasn’t a typo, retard. You spelled all the words right, you just used stupid words in an order that made no sense.

      6. Is your life that pathetic that you think you are the better man worrying about my sentence structure when I said I had bad eyes? Go back to your mothers basement and troll someone else loser.

      7. “you are the better man”

        There you go. Was that so hard?

        “Go back to your mothers basement”

        Certainly better than the time I spent in your mother’s basement.

      1. It’s impossible to keep a gun discussion on topic, it always seems to deteriorate into some stupid political argument about who’s more ‘merican who loves the Constitution the most. Screw politics, I just enjoy shootin’ inanimate objects.

    2. I think you really need to go back to kindergarten and spend the next 20 years in school before you decide to express your opinion. In the meantime stick to drawing pictures you’ll appear more intelligent!!!

    3. I think you really need to go back to kindergarten and spend the next 20 years in school before you decide to express your opinion. In the meantime stick to drawing pictures you’ll appear more intelligent!!!

    4. I think you really need to go back to kindergarten and spend the next 20 years in school before you decide to express your opinion. In the meantime stick to drawing pictures you’ll appear more intelligent!!!

    5. I think you really need to go back to kindergarten and spend the next 20 years in school before you decide to express your opinion. In the meantime stick to drawing pictures you’ll appear more intelligent!!!

    6. Wow – that was long….I wonder if there was any useful information in that post. Too bad it isn’t in English!

      What language is that if you don’t mind sharing?

      Thanks in advance for any help in translating what was said. Sincerely!!!

      1. i think any one makes fun of them disabled becuase lead in drinking water says more about u then dose me, dose it not, seams u have probem not i

  24. This bill is long overdue. Suppressors serve a vital function, they save your hearing. It’s not like the spy movies where the gun suddenly is reduced to a little “pew-pew” sound. They don’t make guns silent, the just knock off enough decibels so you don’t give everyone within 20 yards hearing damage.

    It’s stupid to charge a $200 fee just so you can spend another $500 to not go deaf. Suppressors should be an option on every gun purchase.

    1. Have you ever tried subsonic ammo? I have it is silent when you use subsonic ammo. Took a friends MP-5 out with subsonic all you could hear was the clicking of hammer and bolt moving.

      1. Are you using a suppressor too? The only subsonic ammo I own is some heavy pellets for my air rifle, it’s still a bit loud. When I use the light weight supersonic pellets it’s as loud as a .22.

      2. Yes suppressor with subsonic ammo it is silent only hear the clicking it was a full-auto MP-5 with an AWC suppressor on it. I have seen Mark 4 suppressed barrel .22LR guns with subsonic which have no noise at all just small clicking sound and little smoke but even that can be done away with if you clean the oil out.

  25. I work on my churches security team we train once a month to better to protect our members. I feel that safety for a person hearing is very important and having a suppressor can help that. I do hope nothing ever happen in our church to need to use weapons, but if it did suppressor could make innocent bystanders hearing to better protected. Most will not think of it till after it’s all safe then the question my arise to sue for damages from hearingredients. thanks

    1. U train at church with members?.. is it a Sabbath keeping church?. I would love to join if it is Sabbath day keeping and no pagan holiday .. do u observe any of the feasts? r do u just stick with the mass of the ppl go on sunday and worship God through pagan practices?. Please enlighten me. I would love to get my church up and trained. Never know where God might put you .

      1. The Gentiles were not asked to keep the Sabbath. We do not worship on a pagan day. It is the Lord’s day, the day Jesus rose from the grave. Jesus said we find our rest in Him. He fulfilled the Sabbath.

  26. So what is the updated status. We know if Hillary gets in she will fight hard to keep anything positive happening having to do with guns.

  27. If you use subsonic ammunition it is almost silent. I have shot an MP-5 with a suppressor using 9mm subsonic all you can hear is the hammer clicking and the gas moving the bolt. 22LR subsonic is silent.

    1. SOOOO, what’s your point????? What in the hell are you going to do with a 22lr when the guys(s) outside have assault rifles?

      The point of this legislation is that those of us who who use big boy guns we can protect our hearing if we need to discharge our weapons WITHOUT hearing protection.

      1. I’m just saying people making these claims that a sound suppressor is not silent is incorrect when using subsonic ammunition I have done it. 22LR is very deadly up close used for assassinations since the round was invented. Good luck getting any legislation passed like that both sides are so far apart on any changes to gun laws never going to happen. Most likely the white house will go to Clinton and the Senate to the DEMS so another 8 years to go.

      2. That helps a lot he has majority, but it takes 60 votes in the senate which the GOP doesn’t have to pass a law without DEM support. Unless they give something to the DEMS to allow it I doubt anything is going to change but I do think other gun laws may change.

      3. “but it takes 60 votes in the senate”. I guess you didn’t take into consideration the possibility of the nuclear option.

      4. He didn’t win by a landslide he barely won against Clinton who was running the worst campaign in history. I voted for Trump but he acts like a fool when he says stuff. I never heard someone who really can’t talk in front people. He repeats himself like he has dementia.

      5. I consider it a landslide when since the beginning of the election he was a laughing stock, ALL the political powers on both side were against him, most heads of state were against him, the media was against him, hollywood was against him.

        He beat Bush who started with a war chest of over $100 million. He faced 15 Republican candidates in the primary that he wasn’t supposed to beat and beat them all.

        Clinton WAS the favorite to win the election. EVERY mainstream and some not so mainstream prognosticator had Clinton winning by a large margin.

        Say what you want about Trump but I refuse to let you rewrite history. Clinton was supposed to win and she got beat 306 to 232. That is a landslide when you take into consideration all of the points I made above. FYI I could give a rats ass about the popular vote when you consider that it comes from heavily concentrated Liberal city states on both the coasts. Thank God for the electoral college. If we didn’t have it then the only the cities would matter.

        I am a 2nd amendment supporter and the fact the we won the Supreme Court is thanks enough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *