Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

It's a health and safety device and thus more essential than a fiddly bits sight imho

 

I'm talking about in the eyes of the law. A red dot helps you aim better. Some anti gun nut can argue to ban it because it helps mass shooters take better shots at their victims. Whatever the benefit of a certain accessory, it shouldn't be treated differently and any other accessory.

 

No it isn't. Full autos are not carried by most military members anymore. But that's irrelevant. They carry grenades as part of their equipment, and they should be and are also restricted.

 

Interesting claim.

From 2016:

"The new M4A1 standard addresses these issues and others. Where the original M4 was capable of semi-automatic and three-round burst fire, the M4A1 trades burst fire for fully automatic. The carbine is fitted with a heavier barrel that can better withstand prolonged, full automatic firing."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21739/us-army-m4-carbine-m4a1/

 

Not sure how you think this refuted my statement? Lol

 

Your claim that fully automatic weapons aren't the primary issue small arm isn't supported. Even the 3 round burst variants of the Army M4 and the USMC M16 fall under the restrictions of NFA 1934. Are you claiming that the military issues only semiautomatic weapons, which would be exempt from NFA 1934?

 

The ban on Civilian transferable selectfire guns only increased the price on those firearms raising the price on a Colt M-16 from $1,500
to over $ 30,000 and creating a monopoly and illegal interference with intrastate commerce under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, therefore putting the lie to State power & authority v Federal authority v laws relating to powers of State not relegated to Federal authority.

 

If you stop feeding the troll, he will go away.

 

You do realize that, by law, any weapon that discharges more than one round with a single pull of the trigger are seen as "full automatic"? Legally there is no difference between a weapon firing a 3-round burst and one that fires continuously until the magazine is depleted.

 

Burst is still restricted and full auto is still issued. Glad you mentioned grenades, they're also standard issue and should be included. The regulations you see are violations.

 

no they aren't.

 

correcting you guys on the nonsense you routinely post, isn't trolling.

I am a gun owner and gun rights supporter. I am also a sane, rational human being.

 

Have you ever fired the two weapon systems head-to-head? Like, say, an M4 with 3 round burst next to one with normal full-auto capability?

In the hands of a properly trained person there is no functional difference between them.

 

There's also no legal difference.
In fact, some M14 rifles had their selector removed and are only capable of semi-auto fire; under the law, such a rifle remains a machinegun.

 

Yeah, they are, in that the 2a protects ordinary military equipment, those things ARE ordinary military equipment, and you mostly cannot own them (any made after may 16 1986 are de facto illegal to own and many made before as well if they were not registered.) and even the ones you can own have serious infringements on exercising the right. You're simply wrong.

 

A quick reading of Miller will tell you exactly that,

By choice. Don't feed the troll.

 

Hell NO to the tax stamp. Why do you want to give $200 to the ATF for nothing good? Let people buy and sell suppressors just like people buy and sell muzzle brakes or any other add-on.

 

But i'm bored and want to flog someone!

 

sorry, but the supreme court disagrees.

 

correcting you guys isn't trolling, lol.

 

but you are factually incorrect, and the supreme court agrees with me. So the only one being flogged here is you.

 

Having the Supremes agree with you doesn't impress me. They have proven to be nothing but political sycophants who will almost inevitably rule in favor of governmental control over Constitutional precedent and stated intent.

 

lol, scalia was a political sycophant in favor of governmental control?

 

Frankly, yes. In the Heller decision he twisted himself in knots trying to find a way to say the 2nd Amendment was a Constitutional right... but you could still put "reasonable" restrictions on it without defining what "reasonable" was. He was part of the court that voted not to hear some subsequent lower courts upholding laws that were clearly unconstitutional infringements... but they refused to hear the cases, letting the restrictions stand despite both the Heller and McDonald rulings, rationalizing that bans and draconian laws were somehow "reasonable". Heller said the 2nd Amendment protects weapons "in common use" but even though the most popular rifle in the nation is the AR-15 they let stand laws that specifically banned it.

The only thing the courts have been "consistent" on is upholding governmental power over the people.