To be fair, I’m doubtful the founding fathers necessarily envisioned silencers when they created the second amendment.
And I don’t think Trump ever indicated he WANTED to ban silencers or for that matter firearms. He said he didn’t like silencers, yes, but that’s not the same thing as voicing a desire to ban them. My mom’s wary around guns, for example, yet she has enough respect for the second amendment to allow their existence in spite of said wariness. Until Trump explicitly voices a desire to ban guns outright, he’s as pro-second amendment as one can get.
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.
Many ranges are being closed because of people spuriously complaining about the noise of firearms. Suppressors would solve that problem.
Also, there are legitimate game hunting and vermin control applications for suppressors. Hunting feral hog, shooting deer (if you miss, you don’t spook the animal) and more. Additionally, unsuppressed firearms, even if you wear hearing protection *will* cause hearing damage over years of even sporadic use.
Or, put another way - firearms need suppressors for the same reasons we fit sound suppressors to automobiles, motorcycles, generators, etc.
Who cares what you think they might have envisioned. They deliberately made 2A completely open-ended. It covers any "arms". Don't like it? Get an amendment passed, or learn to live with it.
why would civilians even need a silencer for guns,
I don't see "need" anywhere in the Second Amendment. Do you? Please point it out. The Second Amendment is all about ensuring that We the People are as well armed as our servants in uniform. It's not about killing animals, or killing burglars. It's about killing tyrants.
Silencers are nice as the reduce the noise while target shooting. They don’t really silence gunfire like the movies except maybe on a 22.
You’ve watched too many movies. Silencers don’t even come close to making gunfire “silent”.
You sound like an anti. “But what do you NEED those for?” None of your business. You believe in the 2A or you don’t.
Tell you what. I think maybe gun owners should support your conservative causes as much as you support theirs. I bet that would adjust some attitudes pretty quick.
You are Meryl ignorance. Silencers are silent. They massively reduce the noise signature. I have terrible hearing loss because silencers (and suppressed guns) are unnecessarily expensive in this country. Suppressors (actual name of silencers) are excellent for teaching new shooters. Cuts the noise and felt recoil.
“To be fair, I’m doubtful the founding fathers necessarily envisioned silencers when they created the second amendment.”
They didn’t envision AR-15s to the exact same extent. Your point?
(An aside: “Fairness” is the most abused concept ever. See “socialism”, “social justice”, and “communism”.)
You are merely ignoranct. Silencers are NOT silent. They massively reduce the noise signature. I have terrible hearing loss because silencers (and suppressed guns) are unnecessarily expensive in this country. Suppressors (actual name of silencers) are excellent for teaching new shooters. Cuts the noise and felt recoil.
There is also a home defense case to be made for suppressors.
You are sitting in your bedroom one night reading when you hear noises coming from your front room. Nobody you know should be there; you grab your shotgun or major caliber pistol and go check out what’s going on. You go down the stairs, down the hall and find signs that uninvited guests are around; broken window, muddy trainer prints, bowled-over furniture. Before you can pull back to a more defensible room and call the police, you see an assailant coming at you from your left. You spin, level your weapon and fire.
Your weapon is unsuppressed. You didn’t put on hearing protection because you did actually need to hear if there were unwanted visitors and where they were. You had to fire in self defense - but now you’ve been at least partially deafened by firing your arm in close quarters.
You can’t hear the partner of the guy you just put down, who slips up behind you and cuts your throat.
A suppressor will quieten down the weapon so you will be able to hear Thug Number Two. Scenarios like this is why the US Marine Corps is looking into making all their weapons suppressed for house to house fighting.
There's so much ignorance in your post it's hard to know where to begin. So, I won't.
I'm pretty sure they didn't envision the internet when they created the 1st Amendment, but yet here you are, blindly offering an uninformed opinion to the whole damned world.
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.
We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. But since you asked the question, framed exactly the same way as anti-gunners and FUDDS incrementally seek to eliminate all gun rights (see also: "why does anyone NEED an 'assault weapon'" (sic)) Suppressors are useful for not losing one's hearing while shooting (or preserving the remaining hearing of those of us who lost too much of it in the service of our country), for being able to provide instruction on the range, to minimize noise complaints that make it hard to site shooting facilities, and to hunt herd animals like wild hogs who will bolt at the first report of an un-suppressed firearm.
Your idea of suppressors as a tool for "black ops or assassinations" is clearly based on movie BS, not reality. They're not what you see in the movies, and you owe it to yourself and those of us who actually care about the 2d Amendment to become informed about such topics before you blindly opine on that which you clearly don't understand.
“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.
Best post of the thread. These people sound like the Dems accusing Trump of obstruction of justice because he may have had thoughts about doing something that could lead to something that might be construed as contemplating obstruction of justice. Same here. He made a comment about his distaste for silencers. That’s a far cry from trying to change the law on the matter.