That kind of pusillanimous compromise is how we have lost so much of the 2A in the first place (see Lawdog's cake analogy).
If we ever had a SCOTUS that could read and follow the Constitution's plain English we could take the NFA and 1968 to court and have them abolished, as well as 99% of the rest of gun legislation Federal, State and Local.
The problem is that gun control propaganda has misrepresented silencers for decades. Watch a TV show. The bad guy screws a device the size of an AR-15 thread protector onto the barrel of a .357 Magnum. The sound of the gunshot is now inaudible to anyone more than a few feet away. Let's say approximately 40 db. Any knowledgeable shooter knows that this is so much bovine excrement.
The key to legalizing silencers is to ban the silencers depicted in the media.
A silencer, as depicted in the media, will be defined as a device that can reduce the noise of a gunshot from greater than 100 db to 40 db or less when measured from 10 feet away from the noise source. Hollywood and gun control propaganda show them all the time. These are banned.
Any device that doesn't meet these standards shall be called suppressors. These can be freely manufactured, sold, possessed, used, etc. These are NOT silencers but they are still very useful indeed.
Big Gun Control cannot admit that their propaganda silencers do not exist. They've been depicted them in their propaganda for decades. Nor can they pass an opportunity to ban something gun-related. Supporters might start wondering about their commitment to the mission. They have to support the ban.
Gun owners can smile as well. Real life suppressors have been deregulated and Big Gun Control had to help us do it.
I expect that Big Gun Control will want to ban more suppressors by increasing the decibel limit. That's why this limit must be set by law. In practical application, any noise limit under 60 db will work.
I used to believe, long ago, that politicians, though bound by a common party bond, should vote their conscience of constituency, realizing not all constituents voted for them. Then the Ds began voting as if they were of monolithic thought; they became an absolutely solid wall. The Rs continued to vote as individuals and the country suffered as a result. Now it is just two walls.
sometimes I think we would be better off if we voted a bunch of monkeys into congress instead of republicans….
the republican party in America is full of patriots and Americans
the republican party in dc is a bunch of whining pussies masquerading as “staunch republican “ while building thier own bank account just like democrats
republicans haven’t had any balls for decades
the appeasement party.
any so called republican rep asks me for money I tell them untill they grow some balls I wont give them a cent
nothing burns worse than rich politicians begging for MY money.
Sen. John Thune overruled the parliamentarian on *this very bill* to get rid of California's EV mandate. So it can be done AND he's willing to do it.
Just not when it benefits the 2A community or gun owners. Last I checked, "American gun owners" is a MUCH larger group than "California residents", let alone "California drivers". And he's from South Dakota anyway; CA's EV mandate is nothing to him or his constituents. So who's he pandering to?
This whole charade should tell you something: He's not our friend.
---------
As an aside, all the "pro-gun influencers" are in a Democrat-media-style coordinated frenzy, declaring removing the $200 tax stamp on suppressors as "the next-best thing" (verbatim). Who gave those talking points?
And no, removing the tax stamp is not "the next-best thing". The tax stamp wasn't even the main point, the registration and additional background check requirements were. But the real problem is, we *could* have had it all. Now, we either have to wait for another term, or fight it out in court over the next decade: the NFA was passed and is "Constitutional" under Congress' power to tax, so are they allowed to continue regulating an item if they remove the tax on it?
Fortune favours the bold
Who Dares Wins
"For example, it could set a precedent that would allow Democrats to ban certain magazines and AR-style rifles when they have the majority again."
As if they won't try that again anyway.
They try every year, at least one bill in each chamber. They'll keep trying until it passes again.
And then they'll be back for more next year.
That kind of pusillanimous compromise is how we have lost so much of the 2A in the first place (see Lawdog's cake analogy).
If we ever had a SCOTUS that could read and follow the Constitution's plain English we could take the NFA and 1968 to court and have them abolished, as well as 99% of the rest of gun legislation Federal, State and Local.
The problem is that gun control propaganda has misrepresented silencers for decades. Watch a TV show. The bad guy screws a device the size of an AR-15 thread protector onto the barrel of a .357 Magnum. The sound of the gunshot is now inaudible to anyone more than a few feet away. Let's say approximately 40 db. Any knowledgeable shooter knows that this is so much bovine excrement.
The key to legalizing silencers is to ban the silencers depicted in the media.
A silencer, as depicted in the media, will be defined as a device that can reduce the noise of a gunshot from greater than 100 db to 40 db or less when measured from 10 feet away from the noise source. Hollywood and gun control propaganda show them all the time. These are banned.
Any device that doesn't meet these standards shall be called suppressors. These can be freely manufactured, sold, possessed, used, etc. These are NOT silencers but they are still very useful indeed.
Big Gun Control cannot admit that their propaganda silencers do not exist. They've been depicted them in their propaganda for decades. Nor can they pass an opportunity to ban something gun-related. Supporters might start wondering about their commitment to the mission. They have to support the ban.
Gun owners can smile as well. Real life suppressors have been deregulated and Big Gun Control had to help us do it.
I expect that Big Gun Control will want to ban more suppressors by increasing the decibel limit. That's why this limit must be set by law. In practical application, any noise limit under 60 db will work.
Being condescending is not being nice.
The anti-gun Democrats and RINO's are not asking for compromise. They are demanding capitulation.
I used to believe, long ago, that politicians, though bound by a common party bond, should vote their conscience of constituency, realizing not all constituents voted for them. Then the Ds began voting as if they were of monolithic thought; they became an absolutely solid wall. The Rs continued to vote as individuals and the country suffered as a result. Now it is just two walls.
With RINOs, it's the same damn wall.
sometimes I think we would be better off if we voted a bunch of monkeys into congress instead of republicans….
the republican party in America is full of patriots and Americans
the republican party in dc is a bunch of whining pussies masquerading as “staunch republican “ while building thier own bank account just like democrats
republicans haven’t had any balls for decades
the appeasement party.
any so called republican rep asks me for money I tell them untill they grow some balls I wont give them a cent
nothing burns worse than rich politicians begging for MY money.
If you ever find someone worth donating to, donate directly to their campaign, individually.
NEVER donate to the GOP at large; they'll use it how THEY want, not how you want. You may as well donate to Democrats.
Sen. John Thune overruled the parliamentarian on *this very bill* to get rid of California's EV mandate. So it can be done AND he's willing to do it.
Just not when it benefits the 2A community or gun owners. Last I checked, "American gun owners" is a MUCH larger group than "California residents", let alone "California drivers". And he's from South Dakota anyway; CA's EV mandate is nothing to him or his constituents. So who's he pandering to?
This whole charade should tell you something: He's not our friend.
---------
As an aside, all the "pro-gun influencers" are in a Democrat-media-style coordinated frenzy, declaring removing the $200 tax stamp on suppressors as "the next-best thing" (verbatim). Who gave those talking points?
And no, removing the tax stamp is not "the next-best thing". The tax stamp wasn't even the main point, the registration and additional background check requirements were. But the real problem is, we *could* have had it all. Now, we either have to wait for another term, or fight it out in court over the next decade: the NFA was passed and is "Constitutional" under Congress' power to tax, so are they allowed to continue regulating an item if they remove the tax on it?