suppressor ban!? (April 2021)

[Jackomason]

This is the only things Ive seen on this topic so far, what do you guys think? is it coming?

Im still learning the system here in the states but from what I can tell the senate isnt going to be much of a help. I need comforting mostly because my first can is in jail right now and its a Tbac Dominus.

edit to add: "Gun silencers are dangerous devices with one purpose and one purpose only – to muffle the sound of gunfire from unsuspecting victims," Menendez said in a Thursday statement. " -Bob Menedez

 

[JMGlasgow]

There are at least 3 other threads about this.

 

[THEIS]

Coming For Your Cans/Solvent Traps

They Really Are Drunk With Power.😡 https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/15/democrat-suppressor-gun-control/

www.snipershide.com

Suppressor Ban Legislation

The 2021 Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act, which Menendez first introduced in 2019 after the Virginia Beach mass shooting that killed 12 people, bans the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer and possession of gun silencers. Saw it on fox app

www.snipershide.com

 

[roostercogburn98]

Maybe need two or three more so everyone sees it.

 

[Jackomason]

Maybe need two or three more so everyone sees it.

Im guilty of using Google for a search engine rather than the built in sniper hide one.. still couldnt find the other theads before posting. If my title gives better odds to others looking for info then so be it! ill go read the other threads as well as talk to my sheriff to see what '2A sanctuary' really means...

 

[Solid7]

The first thing we need to ban, is comprehensive legislation. If these fuckwits have to focus on quality over quantity, they won't be able to increase bullshit legislation at an exponential rate.

Clearly, at the point that it comes to even discussing a ban on suppressors, it's WAY too easy to "get stuff done". Not exactly a pressing issue!

 

[E. Bryant]

Does one need to use a search engine before making a post... or would it perhaps be sufficient to spend 30 second skimming the first two pages of a subforum?

 

[Jackomason]

Does one need to use a search engine before making a post... or would it perhaps be sufficient to spend 30 second skimming the first two pages of a subforum?

to each his own... is the crime really that grave?

 

[Gommer]

to each his own... is the crime really that grave?

When there's 170k members on a forum... it can be. Everyone posts random shit when it spurs a burr without checking to see if the topic already exists and you'll quickly find the forum in an unreadable state as the conversations are split up so much they can't be tracked.

Me, if I were in this position, I'd just delete my duplicate thread and move on with life.

 

[HeavyAssault]

So suppressors/guns will be banned.....then we will have states individually legalize weapons/arms/ammo/accessories....just like Mary Jane.
We will reap the rewards.

 

[Solid7]

So suppressors/guns will be banned.....then we will have states individually legalize weapons/arms/ammo/accessories....just like Mary Jane.
We will reap the rewards.

Nope. Opiates and Cannabinoids keep people placated. Those are key cogs in the machine. (even though I tend to view cannabis at the same level as alcohol, point remains)

If that ever happens, you can bet your ass it will be enforced, unlike immigration, drug abuse, or sexual predation.

 

[Jackomason]

living in a state like colorado isnt too comforting when it comes to state legalization of anything fun. unless of corse it actually causes real life problems. but thats nothing another tax wont fix.

 

[Solid7]

living in a state like colorado isnt too comforting when it comes to state legalization of anything fun. unless of corse it actually causes real life problems. but thats nothing another tax wont fix.

To that point - it's true that any state that becomes a haven, is going to inherit every undesirable that seeks sanctuary.

If weed were legal in all 50, of course, Colorado wouldn't have attracted every stoner on both sides of the Rockies. So it's actually a very valid point.

 

[HeavyAssault]

To that point - it's true that any state that becomes a haven, is going to inherit every undesirable that seeks sanctuary.

So when states use their laws to provide protections for gun owners they will be considered undesirables???

BTW No need to reply....I found the Ignore button.

 

[Solid7]

So when states use their laws to provide protections for gun owners they will be considered undesirables???

BTW No need to reply....I found the Ignore button.

Prime example of dumbfuckery, right there ( ^^^^^). Misunderstand the premise, then jump straight off a conclusion cliff.

For everyone who isn't dumb - no, gun owners aren't automatically considered undesirables. But any portion, of any group of people, is going to contain some undesirables. If you (hypothetically) live in the only state in the Union that allows gun ownership, I don't think one has to think too hard about how that might be problematic. And, even if the people who flock to the sanctuary, are not undesirable, themselves, any influx of people to a given area, that happens suddenly, isn't exactly going to foster harmony. Sudden, unplanned growth, never really benefits an area, in the short or long term. It creates problems with infrastructure, laws, taxation, etc, etc, etc.

Am I really the only person who doesn't have a hard time understanding this concept?

 

[HeavyAssault]

But any portion, of any group of people, is going to contain some undesirables.

Okay...so you agree with me.

Cause:

If you (hypothetically) live in the only state in the Union that allows gun ownership, I don't think one has to think too hard about how that might be problematic. And, even if the people who flock to the sanctuary, are not undesirable, themselves, any influx of people to a given area, that happens suddenly, isn't exactly going to foster harmony. Sudden, unplanned growth, never really benefits an area, in the short or long term. It creates problems with infrastructure, laws, taxation, etc, etc, etc.

So those people could be undesirable gun owners.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[HeavyAssault]

To that point - it's true that any state that becomes a haven, is going to inherit every undesirable that seeks sanctuary.

This is what you said.

 

[Solid7]

Okay...so you agree with me.

Cause:

So those people could be undesirable gun owners.

Thank you for proving my point.

Don't try to strong arm me with faulty logic. The issue is the movement of people, based on the sanctuary status.

I have zero problem with any state wanting to provide protections for gun owners. I am a gun owner, and I support (to the death) legal firearm ownership.

I am realistic, and know that any sanctuary event is going to cause problems for the state or locale offering the sanctuary.

The problem isn't with gun ownership. The problem isn't that gun owners carry a default label. The problem is, that people are always people. You are not unified in solidarity, on every point, with every gun owner on planet earth. Being in proximity with people that you may not get along with, and being frustrated that there's so many "new people" problems at once, is the heart of the matter.

If that's not clear, then you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Solid7]

This is what you said.

No shit, Sherlock. And it's not incorrect.

"Gun owner" and "undesirable" are not inseparable terms. Every "undesirable gun owner" will seek refuge with those who are "not undesirable gun owners". Or if those words are too hard for your decipher, then let's try this - YOU WILL GET THE GOOD WITH THE BAD (or bad with good, if that makes it simpler)

 

[HeavyAssault]

If weed were legal in all 50, of course, Colorado wouldn't have attracted every stoner on both sides of the Rockies. So it's actually a very valid point.

Cause if you think the above is a correct statement/valid point then the inverse has to be correct as well.

I.E.>> If guns were only legal in Colorado, Colorado would have attracted every gun owner on both side of the Rockies.

 

[HeavyAssault]

The issue is the movement of people, based on the sanctuary status.

Who made this an issue???? You did.

 

[JMGlasgow]

What is an "undesirable gun owner", and "legal gun owner"?

Are you one who thinks that background checks and registration aren't infringements? Do you believe felons who served their time and completed parole should not own guns?

 

[HeavyAssault]

The problem isn't with gun ownership. The problem isn't that gun owners carry a default label. The problem is, that people are always people. You are not unified in solidarity, on every point, with every gun owner on planet earth. Being in proximity with people that you may not get along with, and being frustrated that there's so many "new people" problems at once, is the heart of the matter.

The thread is about banning suppressors.....why did you decide to attack me over my reply to the topic??? Who died and allowed you take over the thread?????????????

 

[Solid7]

Who made this an issue???? You did.

Yes, but if I explain myself, and you still insist on not believing what I say, because it's not what you want to believe that I said, then you can't be helped.

I'm sorry that you can't digest logic that isn't the equivalent of pre-chewed food. But I have no beef with gun owners (I said that, too, but you didn't cherry pick that). I have lived in several cities, and I know what happens when places grow too fast because of hot button issues, and bad apples in the bunch always float to the top of the barrel.

The ideal outcome is to NEVER be reduce to a single sanctuary for 2A rights.

 

[Solid7]

The thread is about banning suppressors.....why did you decide to attack me over my reply to the topic??? Who died and allowed you take over the thread?????????????

I didn't attack. I offered a different perspective.

I forgot that some people don't know how to have a conversation, but get "offended" when somebody doesn't absolutely agree with them. The error was totally mine.

 

[HeavyAssault]

"Gun owner" and "undesirable" are not inseparable terms.

Ummmmm....I think you need to rethink how that is stated.

Definition of INSEPARABLE

incapable of being separated or disjoined; seemingly always together : very intimate… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[HeavyAssault]

I didn't attack. I offered a different perspective.

I don't care about your perspective. I could careless. Your opinion on the whole matter weights ZERO on my mind.

Get my drift????

 

[HeavyAssault]

I'm sorry that you can't digest logic that isn't the equivalent of pre-chewed food

Well you already agreed with me so ........

 

[Solid7]

Ummmmm....I think you need to rethink how that is stated.

Definition of INSEPARABLE

incapable of being separated or disjoined; seemingly always together : very intimate… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Hopefully somebody will politely DM you, and inform you that you posted something really fucking stupid right there. Cause it's a really big Derp!

 

[HeavyAssault]

"Gun owner" and "undesirable" are not inseparable terms. Every "undesirable gun owner" will seek refuge with those who are "not undesirable gun owners". Or if those words are too hard for your decipher, then let's try this - YOU WILL GET THE GOOD WITH THE BAD (or bad with good, if that makes it simpler)

Cause you said it.....

 

[HeavyAssault]

are not inseparable terms.

Which seems to say the terms are separable. While in Grammar your statement somehow checks out.

But you keep on digging to say:

Every "undesirable gun owner" will seek refuge with those who are "not undesirable gun owners". Or if those words are too hard for your decipher, then let's try this - YOU WILL GET THE GOOD WITH THE BAD (or bad with good, if that makes it simpler)

Please just stop. Your ignorance is showing how strong you are committed to proving just how you can't think straight.

 

[HeavyAssault]

Still typing a response????

Make sure you proof read it.

It will be marked up for correction.

Still waiting.......

This better be good.....

At some point you will realize you are arguing your point......LMAO

Only to realize every post you make shows us what you are really doing.....

Still waiting....

Grammarly: Free Writing AI Assistance

Millions trust Grammarly’s AI writing assistance to communicate with confidence and make writing faster and more delightful. Getting started is simple — download the app today.

www.grammarly.com

I'm out.....TTFN

 

[Ruskie74]

Back to the topic, I think this is mostly political theater, banning something in common use and already heavily regulated will not pass.

 

[Solid7]

Back to the topic, I think this is mostly political theater, banning something in common use and already heavily regulated will not pass.

I find it odd, given that Joe's initial stance was that he wanted to make any gun that was black and scary, an NFA item - and his campaign even mentioned, "just like supressors". Political theater is one possibility, moving goalposts is another. Aiming for this, but knowing that you'll get much less. Like overcharging a crime. (hopefully didn't confuse anyone with my logic or analogies)

 

[Jackomason]

I like to think its theater too but part of me cant help but think its proof of concept..

non regulated item > NFA item > complete ban..

now I can't see an actual "assault weapon ban" in the next 10-15 years but the next generation could.

I hope that the senate sees that the original authors of the NFA didnt ban suppressors because they couldnt. now, they may be able to adjust the price of the tax stamp..... just some thoughts of the day.

 

[roostercogburn98]

Damn I missed a good interweb brawl. I must have been reading the news when the shit hit the fan

 

[Powder_Burns]