Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

Don't carry than.

 

No ... I wasn't saying I'd use them in the once in a life time chance I'd have to shoot in my own house.

... besides, if some intruder gets past my Nosey Neighbors, 6 Cameras, Motions Sensors, Alarm Systems ... and my Hungry Lab-Pit and Wife ... then my 12 gauge will help out, because I'm a real bitch if someone wakes me you.

 

There is no end to your silly talk.

Tell Police Officers everywhere not to carry
Than ( then) lol....
Because You sure did not carry in Vietnam !!!- lol
You used your brain in RECON !!!
Never an M-16A1 !!

Any more good jokes ?

 

While I'm deaf in the left ear from an explosion that punctured that eardrum, the hearing in my right ear is fine after thousands of rounds with no hearing protection at all. So, do you need a silencer? No you do not. Unlike me when I shot, when you train you can use ear protection, and the very, very, very, few times you fire in the real world won't hurt you.

 

Luckily NEED is not the metric on which our 2nd amendment is based on.

 

A silencer isn't protected under the 2nd amendment.

 

Extending snipping range with a suppressor.

 

Put down your firearm, pick up a hatchet, no suppressor required.

 

Then why did law enforcement officers at the scene claim a machine gun was utilized, when no such firearm was even present at the scene?

False. The rate of fire is controlled by the weight of both the buffer and the recoil spring.

 

They thought one was.

It is controlled by the sear.

 

It is however rigidly federally regulated. Actually there is no such thing as a silencer, that is a TV phenomenon. It is a sound suppressor that reduces sound by several decibels. Why do you think this issue has surfaced after so many other active shooter situations did not elicit the suppressor subject? Do you know of any mass shooting that a suppressor was used?

 

Gee... you gave away the answer to mr.knows all about full auto.

 

I have a 5% hearing loss in one ear due to firing a single round out of a large-caliber revolver after accidentally forgetting to put my muffs back on after speaking to a friend. Even with hearing protection on, firing a carbine in an enclosed range during training classes can be intense. Suppressors are perfectly valid for law-abiding citizens for improving the utility of personal defense firearms, the claims of the brain-dead weapons' haters notwithstanding.

Anyone who claims you can fire thousands of rounds without hearing protection without doing permanent damage to themselves is either insane or devoid of experience.

 

Yes.

 

Please elaborate how a sear controls the rate of fire.

 

Oh no, 5% in one ear!?! What are we going to do? And that was admittedly your fault.

Yet I have known hundreds of combat Marine 0311s, and Army 11B10s, who've never complained out loud about their hearing, and that includes machine gunners. Oh they may have a tiny, little, insignificant, ridiculous, 5% loss, but nothing a real man would bother mentioning.

 

I'll take that as an "I cannot intelligently refute your post that I replied to".

Do you know of any mass shooting that a suppressor was used?

 

You'll take that as no one has said they want to ban silencers to stop mass shootings except you.

 

The why did this become public discussion within hours of this tragedy?

 

Then if trained law enforcement personnel, who are supposed to be experts with firearms, were able to mistake a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a slide fire stock as being a machine gun, then it is indeed possible to discharge a semi-automatic firearm with the same rate of fire as a fully-automatic firearm. Therefore that point that has continually bee made by yourself is false.

It is either that, or trained law enforcement officers have no knowledge pertaining to firearms.

How does the sear dictate and determine how many rounds of ammunition can be discharged in a single second? How does such work?

 

Note: this thread was started in July.

 

Why did this become widely talked about in the main stream media within hours of this mass shooting?

 

Ask them. I'm retired. My last job was as a division manager for Exxon, not an anchor on CNN.

 

Let me enlighten you then. Many mass shootings have occurred and there has never been any attention in the media to suppressors until now.
Suppressors have never been used in a mass shooting therefore there has never been a reason to discuss them immediately after the tragedy.
This time it is different. Even though there was no suppressor anywhere in sight of the Mandalay Bay, there is a suppressor bill scheduled hit the floor of congress. This is a blatant politicization of a horrible event to further a democratic agenda, and the media is complicit.
Consider yourself educated.

 

I couldn't care less.