Posted on 06/03/2019 5:25:40 AM PDT by JamesP81
“Q The suspect in the Virginia Beach shooting used a silencer on his weapon. Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t like them at all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
Nonsense.
What got so many banned was their inability to sway Trump supporters away from him; they ratcheted up their rhetoric against those supporters until they got banned.
Slavish devotion to Trump is the contrivance of those who lost to assuage their own intemperate conceit.
Go away, troll....we believe President Trump is pro-2A way more than we believe FReeloading leeches are useful assets to the Conservative agenda...how about hitting the donate button 3-5 times as penance and then you can go away...
No on any of the above. The Constitution obviously envisioned people having access to large, even crew-served weapons. If not Letters of Marque wouldn't have been included in it. A cannon that would be standard armament aboard a privateer is a crew served weapon. The founders obviously envisioned people having access to them. A cannon firing canister was devastating to the infantry of the day.
No need to patronize.
The problem with silencer bans as they are just as unenforceable as bans on so called “trigger mechanisms” like bump stocks when the same function can be done with a heavy duty rubber. An effective silencer can ben made with a motorcycle muffler and some heat tape or a dozen other ways (their are videos for home made silencers all over the internet). True, your average law abiding gun owner may be deterred by such bans, but a criminal hell bent on shooting up their workplace is not going to slowed down by such bans in the least.
“I don’t know about owns one, but my cousin-in-law does go to a firing range, and he took my mom there once, so I suppose I could do so in the near future.”
You’ve posted about 10000 words on this thread and that’s your experience with firearms? Seriously?
telling someone to get educated on a topic is equivalent to a death threat? wow you really do worship trump
Maybe he carries for self defense. It’s a lot easier to carry a pistol without a big can stuck to the end of the barrel. He was simply quoted as saying he does’t like them (suppressors). So what? Being POTUS, Trump could have his choice of any shooting experience known to man. Maybe he does or maybe he doesn’t. He’s certainly not going to show the public any of his shooting skills. Seeing how he hits golf shots, I have to assume he knows his way around firearms. This is a whole lot of to do over a nothing burger.
‘So I don’t get to criticize Trump when he does wrong then? Is that what I’m hearing here?’
Pretty much, on this site. If you need to BASH TRUMP in the way did there are PLENTY of sites for that, and they’ll welcome you with open arms.
So bump stocks and silencers are necessary for stopping tyrants.
Wow, who knew?
I guess AR-15s, and hundreds of other weapons are pointless to own then.
Maybe you need a nap already.
Decibels measure sound pressure and are logarithmic. That means that only a 3db increase almost doubles sound pressure, a 6db increase quadruples sound pressure, etc.
Gradual hearing loss may occur after prolonged exposure to 90 decibels or above.
Exposure to 100 decibels for more than 15 minutes can cause hearing loss.
Exposure to 110 decibels for more than a minute can cause permanent hearing loss.
At 140 dBA noise causes immediate injury to almost any unprotected ear.
There is also the more extreme ‘acoustic trauma’, which is an immediate loss of hearing after a sudden, exceptionally loud noise such as an explosion.
Excerpts from a related article: “When someone goes to a concert, cuts grass or runs a power saw, they can suffer from NIHL,” said Dr. George Hashisaki, assistant professor of otolaryngology at the University of Virginia Health System. “Afterwards, if their hearing is muffled or their ears are ringing, they have suffered NIHL. Even if their hearing comes back to what they perceive as normal, a small part of that hearing loss is permanent."
"People who are most in jeopardy of losing their hearing are those who use firearms regularly without ear protection or who are in the military and unable to wear hearing protection, such as those on the frontlines, Hashisaki said. The noise level of gunshots can reach 170 dB and is capable of immediate damage. Hashisaki recommends wearing both earplugs and earmuffs to protect hearing while target shooting."
Comparative noise levels and corresponding damage:
12 gauge shotgun 165 dB Instant damage
Jet engine taking off 140 dB Instant damage
Thunder/Ambulance siren 119 dB 3 minutes
Hammer drill 113 dB 15 minutes
Chain saw/Earphones/Concert 110 dB 30 minutes
Bull Dozer 105 dB 1 hour
Tractor/Power tools 96 dB 4 hour
Hairdryer/lawnmower 90 dB 8 hours
Here are noise levels of firearms:
.22 caliber rifle 130dB
.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18" barrel 155.5dB
.243 in 22" barrel 155.9dB
.30-30 in 20" barrel 156.0dB.
7mm Magnum in 20" barrel 157.5dB.
.308 in 24" barrel 156.2dB.
.30-06 in 24" barrel 158.5dB. In 18" barrel 163.2dB.
.375 18" barrel with muzzle brake 170 dB.
.410 Bore 28" barrel 150dB. 26" barrel 150.25dB. 18" barrel 156.30dB.
20 Gauge 28" barrel 152.50dB. 22" barrel 154.75dB.
12 Gauge 28" barrel 151.50dB. 26" barrel 156.10dB. 18" barrel 161.50dB.
.25 ACP 155.0 dB.
.32 LONG 152.4 dB.
.32 ACP 153.5 dB.
.380 157.7 dB.
9mm 159.8 dB.
.38 S&W 153.5 dB.
.38 Spl 156.3 dB.
.357 Magnum 164.3 dB.
.41 Magnum 163.2 dB.
.44 Spl 155.9 dB.
.45 ACP 157.0 dB.
.45 COLT 154.7 dB.
Protective measures:
Properly fitted earplugs or muffs reduce noise 15 to 30 dB. The better earplugs and muffs are approximately equal in sound reductions, although earplugs are better for low frequency noise and earmuffs for high frequency noise.
Using muffs and plugs together: Take the higher of the two and add 5 dB. 30 plug with 20 muff gives an effective NRR of 35.
If you are shooting by yourself, roughly 100 rounds of 140 dB instantaneous noise in a day should not produce hearing damage. Put your plugs and muffs on and you get to shoot up to a thousand rounds without damage (louder ammo/gun and the allowable drops by a factor of 5). Shoot with other people and you have to add all the rounds shot cumulatively (10 people shoot 100 rounds and everybody's done for the day; toss a handcannon or 30 cal rifle in and you're back down to 200 rounds cumulative). If you shoot on an indoor range then all the rounds fired while you are on the range go into your total. So you can see that it doesn't take very long on a range to have a thousand rounds popped off around you.
If you want to know what the noise level you are exposed to is you can rent noise dosimeters that you can wear. They will record the total noise exposure and present the information to you as dB. You can then subtract the adjusted combined NRR of your hearing protection to determine if you're getting too much exposure.
But, I'm sure your mind is already made up and refuse to be confused by facts.
Two further comments.
1) Every day, common criminals abuse their RKBA to commit murder, rape, and robbery. Their misuse of arms doesn't negate our RKBA any more than the misconduct of the French revolutionaries does. Both do, however, underscore that our RKBA and natural right to self defense applies against private sector criminals as well as oppressive governments.
2) I'm always wary of folks who want to start a revolution. Revolution almost always turns out badly.
Why? Am I recommending you support and defend our Constitution as the supreme law and principle of our country, in moderation?
In a word: yes.
I do not think you have sufficiently considered the fact that in this age of identity politics, as a group, a majority of the voting public got absolutely no say in the formation and adoption of our Constitution. Consequently, as a group, they have little in the way of commitment to that Constitution beyond its ability to provide for their PERSONAL security.
Of course, I am speaking of women. And like it or not, they have and will legitimately change the Constitution by organic means not provided for in the Constitution. And frankly, they have every moral right to do so.
So take care to defend your rights in a way so as not to offend the sensibilities of the majority, or you may lose them for the sake of nothing more than your own self-indulgence.
Please read the text of the Second Amendment. Seriously … your argument is silly. You mention AR-15s … they’re not strictly necessary for defense against criminals or tyrants, either. Is it OK to ban them? No? Didn’t think so. Same applies to suppressors and machineguns.
Why are you making death threats?
“And besides, why would civilians even need a silencer for guns, anyways? Last I checked, silencers would be needed in order to avoid detection if you shoot a gun, such as during black ops or assassinations, and I really don’t see the need for a silencer when, say, trying to ward off burglars inside your house (if anything, keeping it unsilenced would ward the burglars off just from shooting.). Now, if they’re trying to ward off someone actively trying to kill you, that might be a good reason to have a silencer.”
First of all, these devises are NOT silencers. They are suppressors - and that is not a semantic argument. They suppress, or reduce, the noise of a round of ammunition as it is fired. Reduce, as in “you can still hear it, quite well.” The main purpose of having a suppressor is to preserve your hearing (if you’re the shooter), to preserve the hearing of those around you and, if you’re shooting outside, to not annoy people nearby who are not on the range.
Can hitmen use them? Yes, just the same as they can use a firearm without a suppressor to commit murder. Being equipped to commit a crime doesn’t mean that you will do so - witness the 100 million adult males who don’t commit rape, ever, despite being equipped to do so.
This isn’t about need, it isn’t about what anyone likes, it is simply about the 2nd Amendment protection (from government infringement) of our right to keep and bear “arms.” “Arms” is everything that can be used on a battlefield other than (IMHO) weapons that cannot discriminate between one combatant and another, or between combatants and civilians (i.e. WMDs). If the government can own a rifle, then so can civilians. If the government can own suppressors, then so can civilians. If the government can own artillery, THEN SO CAN CIVILIANS (and it is THAT, precisely, to which the Article 1, Section 8 power of the Congress to issue “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” refers. These are Congressional authorization for civilians to take on foreign military or maritime forces...and necessarily implies that civilians would own ships capable of carrying cannon (many of them) and the cannon themselves. These were issued by the Continental Congress, so those who wrote this clause into the Constitution knew of it very well - and obviously approved - and Letters were issued in large numbers during the War of 1812.
If you can own cannon according to the Constitution, then sound suppressors are an EASY reach, even if the Founders never knew of them.
Funny...that's a libtard talking point about the second amendment. Stop stealing their talking points or else someone will think you are one of them.
The founding fathers didn't envision the internet...the TV...or DVD's...or AR-15's. Guess what - doesn't matter. Stop talking like a liberal.
“We don’t really appreciate the historical unlikelihood of the American Revolution. It’s so incredibly against the historical norm that if you don’t believe in God, you have to wonder how it happened. As I do believe in God, I know the answer already.”
That’s partly why I refuse to call our event a revolution. I prefer to call it the “American War of Independence.”
Of course, after reading Liberty: The God that Failed by Christopher A. Ferrara, and how the founding fathers neglected to list God in the Constitution, let alone dedicate it to God and Christ (they didn’t need to have it be Catholic), I’m a bit cynical about our founding, though even there, I’d be more likely to serve America than a Communist country or Islamic country.
“Most revolutions have no goal or endpoint. They may have a short term goal, which usually amounts to “mess up those guys who have been oppressing me” which is as good a reason as there ever was, but it’s the second bit, the lack of an endpoint or long term goal, that sends them off the rails. You either get a blood bath as with the French, or you get neverending revolution, as with the Bolsheviks, where there is never enough revolution (and, coincidentally, never enough death and destruction to satisfy the machine).”
Heck, I wouldn’t even say either/or in this case, as the French Revolutionaries intended to export their revolution abroad (even trying to put their crap onto us, causing Citizen Genet, France’s ambassador, to be exiled by Washington), and aside from that, the whole gun confiscation aside, pretty much everything from the Bolsheviks’ actions were derived directly from the French. They even had planned monumental propaganda statues of various figures from the French Revolution. And heck, Thomas Jefferson of all people advocated for permanent revolution or something similar (I think he mentioned wanting a revolution a decade or something).
“This is the large, cosmic question of human morality. The idea that legal possession of weapons does not exist in this environment is a detail so minor as to not be worthy of note. The bloodthirsty will shed blood, all laws of God and man be damned as far as they are concerned.”
I agree, and that’s what makes the French Revolution bit even WORSE, as there WASN’T an outlawing of weapons and if anything there was an implicit approval of people bearing arms and their STILL causing carnage for nihilistic joy.
“The American Revolution began with an end state and goal in mind. The proper civil rights of the colonists had been removed. Their grievances were not being redressed, and their religious liberty was being taken. The revolution had the goal of restoring these things. The colonists were not interested in hurting or destroying people, they were interested in restoring that which had been wrongfully taken, and when that goal was accomplished the revolt stopped.”
Fully agreed there, though that being said, I do find it somewhat ironic that one of the citations of tyranny that Thomas Jefferson listed King George III of implementing in the Declaration of Independence was his literally allowing Quebec to retain their practice of Catholicism while under British rule, which last I checked would have supported the amendment of Free Practice of Religion. If anything, forcibly converting them to Anglicanism by gunpoint from Catholicism would have better matched tyranny. Of course, given how Thomas Jefferson sang praises about them, even after witnessing them carrying body parts in a parade during what would become Bastille Day, and continued backing them up to and including the Reign of Terror, I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up trying to engineer something similar here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.