-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
No tax stamp and instant BG check for suppressor, YES PLEASE
- Thread starter swatsn1per
- Start date
No much higher up. It looked much cooler 10 years and 20 lbs ago.
Here's another perspective, lol
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/gop-introduces-perhaps-most-absurd-gun-law-yet/
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/gop-introduces-perhaps-most-absurd-gun-law-yet/
"I stand fast by the opinion that since most Americans can’t be trusted to use apostrophes properly, allowing them firearms is a generally bad idea."
Hell..he wants to disarm all the 11B's.....LOL
I'm cool with still paying the $200 tax stamp, but just no wait time with a Background Check or something similar.
I believe he is a she!
Not exactly what I'd call a well reasoned argument. I'd wager that the writer hasn't had any experience with suppressors. This is most evident by these types of comment:
Yes, because they actually SUPPRESS the report of a firearm, they don't silence it by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think she comprehends what a euphemism is.
She's evidently very unaware of just how loud gunfire is. On the range, or outdoors. Anyone nearby is impacted by the loud noise. It's a matter of hearing protection and courtesy to your fellow human beings.
She's focusing on handguns only now? You hear gun shots and "you know you should get the hell out of the way." Waiting to hear gun fire for dodging bullets doesn't traditionally work very well since, you know, bullets usually travel faster than the speed of sound. But its becoming quite obvious she doesn't have a firm grip on the facts at hand. People, in general, need to be more situationally aware of their surroundings, but that's another discussion altogether.
Her writing is very telling of what knowledge and values she doesn't hold. Aside from AAC, who was recently absorbed by a large conglomerate... who are these enormous corporations that are manufacturing or selling suppressors? All the makers I know are fairly small operations. Dangerous equipment? Calling a suppressor "dangerous equipment" just reinforces the evidence of her ignorance (and I mean ignorance in only the strictest sense. Finally, resorting to name calling when trying to persuade anyone of anything, is a sure-fire loser.
Ms.Nanos should make herself more informed on the topic before she opines. Then again, it is an opinion article and everyone is entitled to their opinion as ill-informed as it may be.
I'm tempted to share this article on other boards, but I already regret giving her the click, because that article and its author have already received more than their fair share of attention.
Yes, because they actually SUPPRESS the report of a firearm, they don't silence it by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think she comprehends what a euphemism is.
She's evidently very unaware of just how loud gunfire is. On the range, or outdoors. Anyone nearby is impacted by the loud noise. It's a matter of hearing protection and courtesy to your fellow human beings.
She's focusing on handguns only now? You hear gun shots and "you know you should get the hell out of the way." Waiting to hear gun fire for dodging bullets doesn't traditionally work very well since, you know, bullets usually travel faster than the speed of sound. But its becoming quite obvious she doesn't have a firm grip on the facts at hand. People, in general, need to be more situationally aware of their surroundings, but that's another discussion altogether.
Her writing is very telling of what knowledge and values she doesn't hold. Aside from AAC, who was recently absorbed by a large conglomerate... who are these enormous corporations that are manufacturing or selling suppressors? All the makers I know are fairly small operations. Dangerous equipment? Calling a suppressor "dangerous equipment" just reinforces the evidence of her ignorance (and I mean ignorance in only the strictest sense. Finally, resorting to name calling when trying to persuade anyone of anything, is a sure-fire loser.
Ms.Nanos should make herself more informed on the topic before she opines. Then again, it is an opinion article and everyone is entitled to their opinion as ill-informed as it may be.
I'm tempted to share this article on other boards, but I already regret giving her the click, because that article and its author have already received more than their fair share of attention.
