PDA

View Full Version : Federal court rules state firearm laws invalid




Matt Collins
10-16-2018, 06:09 PM
Once again the feds trample individual rights and ignore the Constitution:




WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the firearms convictions against two Kansas men who mistakenly believed that a Kansas law can shield from federal prosecution anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state.


The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler’s challenges to their federal convictions under the National Firearms Act.


The three-judge panel did not address the constitutionality of the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act, which Kansas defended when intervening in the criminal case. The state gun law says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept within Kansas borders are exempt from federal gun control.


Cox was convicted of making and marketing unregistered firearms, and Kettler was convicted for possessing an unregistered gun silencer.


The men challenged the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, alleging it is an invalid exercise of congressional power and an invasion of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They also challenged the lower court’s ruling that their reliance on the state law provided no defense to the federal charges.


Separately, Kettler argued further that his prosecution resulted from the dispute between Kansas and the federal government over the Kansas law.


The appeals court panel rejected all the defense arguments in a 47-page decision. It concluded the federal gun law falls within Congress’ power to tax. The court also noted that the men’s reliance on the state mitigated their sentences, if not their guilt. It noted the district court took their mistaken reliance on the state law into consideration when it sentenced them to probation.


The appellate panel also rejected Kettler’s request for relief for what he described as being “ensnared in a constitutional dispute” between Kansas and the federal government.


When Cox began selling his homemade firearms and silencers out of his military surplus store, he stamped “Made in Kansas” on them to assure buyers that a Kansas law would prevent federal prosecution of anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state.


Cox, a Chanute resident, also gave customers copies of the Second Amendment Protection Act, which was passed by the Kansas Legislature in 2013 and signed by then-Gov. Sam Brownback. Cox even collected sales taxes. His biggest-selling items were unregistered gun silencers, prosecutors have said. Kettler, who was one of Cox’s customers, was so enthusiastic about the silencer that he posted a video on Facebook.






SOURCE:


https://www.apnews.com/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461?fbclid=IwAR2RjiCA 3RMGcndlSVpVonHEol0PoA7XmLtFxA54EL3yDf0g-Z7N03qRq6Q

phill4paul
10-16-2018, 06:14 PM
Unless state authorities protect their citizens through force of arms then this is what you get. These individuals are still being kept in the state. Wherever they are being detained the State Troopers, local Sheriff and as many as can be deputized should walk in and turn them free.
But, that won't happen. And we know it.

Bern
10-16-2018, 07:24 PM
"It concluded the federal gun law falls within Congress' powe to tax."

Interesting. They did not decide on the issue of federalism vis a vis the commerce clause. I take that as tacit acknowledgement that the states right argument is correct.

I wonder what tortured logic they used to justify a tax as not being an infringement on the second amendment.

enhanced_deficit
10-16-2018, 11:05 PM
Well we are living in MAGA times.
Courts are often highly political institutions. And courts are finally in the mood to do something.



https://i.redd.it/5gzk1ak057j01.jpg

https://memestatic.fjcdn.com/pictures/Trump+on+gun+control_fc7229_6526507.png

Origanalist
02-19-2019, 05:37 AM
Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court

Written by Gun Owners of America Published: 15 January 2019

(January 14, 2019) — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its litigating arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), today continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, against a conviction for violating the National Firearms Act.

Read GOA’s petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Jeremy for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor under the authority of the Kansas “Second Amendment Protection Act.”

https://gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Jeremy-Kettler.PNG

The Kansas statute declares that any suppressor manufactured, possessed, and used within the borders of Kansas is exempt from federal law. Relying on that Kansas law, in 2014 Jeremy purchased a suppressor from a local military surplus store, but did not register it with ATF pursuant to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Believing he was following the law, Jeremy posted a video about his new suppressor on Facebook, and ATF swooped in. Rather than simply requiring Jeremy to register his suppressor, the feds instead chose felony prosecution — to make an example of Jeremy, and to intimidate all who resist federal power over guns. Jeremy was indicted, and convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer, and now this veteran is a federal felon.

GOA and GOF have stood with Jeremy, both in his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and now in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today GOA and GOF lawyers, representing Jeremy, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Jeremy’s case. The petition challenges the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which rejected Jeremy’s appeal from the district court.

Jeremy’s petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called “tax.”

In fact, each of the reasons the Supreme Court gave in 1937, finding it to be a tax, no longer apply today, 82 years later. Rather, the NFA has become what Justice Frankfurter once described as regulation “wrapped … in the verbal cellophane of a revenue measure” — an unabashed gun control regulatory scheme, designed not to raise revenue for the federal government, but instead to keep NFA items out of the hands of Americans.

Next, Jeremy’s petition challenges the Tenth Circuit’s absurd holding that the Second Amendment applies only to “bearable arms” — but not firearm accessories, such as suppressors. The petition points out that the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment extends beyond actual firearms to ammunition, magazines, the ability to purchase firearms in gun stores, and the right to practice at shooting ranges.

Finally, Jeremy’s petition argues that, if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the NFA as a “tax,” then it is allowing Congress to impose a tax on a constitutionally-protected right — something which the Supreme Court has long said to be unconstitutional.

Prior to the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh in October of last year, the Supreme Court had refused to hear numerous firearms cases, leading some members of the Court to comment on the “distressing trend” — “the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

While some do not seem to mind ATF’s regulation of weapons covered by the National Firearms Act, GOA and GOF have stood for the right to own “bearable arms” of all types, and firearms accessories as well — including suppressors and machineguns.

Continues, you can read GOA’s petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court and donate to the case at https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-america-funds-challenge-to-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/

Swordsmyth
02-19-2019, 06:48 PM
Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court

Written by Gun Owners of America Published: 15 January 2019

(January 14, 2019) — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its litigating arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), today continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, against a conviction for violating the National Firearms Act.

Read GOA’s petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Jeremy for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor under the authority of the Kansas “Second Amendment Protection Act.”

https://gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Jeremy-Kettler.PNG

The Kansas statute declares that any suppressor manufactured, possessed, and used within the borders of Kansas is exempt from federal law. Relying on that Kansas law, in 2014 Jeremy purchased a suppressor from a local military surplus store, but did not register it with ATF pursuant to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Believing he was following the law, Jeremy posted a video about his new suppressor on Facebook, and ATF swooped in. Rather than simply requiring Jeremy to register his suppressor, the feds instead chose felony prosecution — to make an example of Jeremy, and to intimidate all who resist federal power over guns. Jeremy was indicted, and convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer, and now this veteran is a federal felon.

GOA and GOF have stood with Jeremy, both in his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and now in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today GOA and GOF lawyers, representing Jeremy, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Jeremy’s case. The petition challenges the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which rejected Jeremy’s appeal from the district court.

Jeremy’s petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called “tax.”

In fact, each of the reasons the Supreme Court gave in 1937, finding it to be a tax, no longer apply today, 82 years later. Rather, the NFA has become what Justice Frankfurter once described as regulation “wrapped … in the verbal cellophane of a revenue measure” — an unabashed gun control regulatory scheme, designed not to raise revenue for the federal government, but instead to keep NFA items out of the hands of Americans.

Next, Jeremy’s petition challenges the Tenth Circuit’s absurd holding that the Second Amendment applies only to “bearable arms” — but not firearm accessories, such as suppressors. The petition points out that the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment extends beyond actual firearms to ammunition, magazines, the ability to purchase firearms in gun stores, and the right to practice at shooting ranges.

Finally, Jeremy’s petition argues that, if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the NFA as a “tax,” then it is allowing Congress to impose a tax on a constitutionally-protected right — something which the Supreme Court has long said to be unconstitutional.

Prior to the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh in October of last year, the Supreme Court had refused to hear numerous firearms cases, leading some members of the Court to comment on the “distressing trend” — “the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

While some do not seem to mind ATF’s regulation of weapons covered by the National Firearms Act, GOA and GOF have stood for the right to own “bearable arms” of all types, and firearms accessories as well — including suppressors and machineguns.

Continues, you can read GOA’s petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court and donate to the case at https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-america-funds-challenge-to-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/

:up:

Stratovarious
02-19-2019, 06:56 PM
I oppose silencers 100% , but I resent the feds under 'color of law' pretending to have
jurisdiction or authority over State's rights.

Swordsmyth
02-19-2019, 07:04 PM
I oppose silencers 100%

What?

There is no logical reason to oppose silencers.

phill4paul
02-19-2019, 07:19 PM
I oppose silencers 100% , but I resent the feds under 'color of law' pretending to have
jurisdiction or authority over State's rights.


The correct term is suppressor. Nothing makes a gun silent except 2nd Amendment violations.

If you lived where I do you would not feel this way. We are rural, but not spread out so much in our community. Most everyone here has guns and practice on our property. The sound carries. So much so that with about 80% accuracy I can tell which neighbor is shooting and which gun he is shooting with. Firearms fire scares livestock and pets.

There is nothing wrong with suppressors.

Stratovarious
02-19-2019, 07:21 PM
What?

There is no logical reason to oppose silencers.

I love weapons and I love silencers, but in the wrong hands , which
would be many and varied, they are licenses to anonymously murder.
When someone is killed with a firearm, I appreciate a loud noise,
I don't see it as a lot to ask.
There are ways of deadening the noise without a 'silencer' but most
thugs aren't that smart, if they could buy silencers the
intelligence barrier is broken.
Ear protection is one of the arguments proponents use for the justification
of silencers, I get it, but, well I've got ear plugs, a small price to pay.

Point two;
This imv has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and opponents will
use this 'effectively' to disarm us, that opens us up to a much more
important issue ; genocide , agenda 21, Globalism.

We are building a Trojan Horse here, much bigger fry to catch.

phill4paul
02-19-2019, 07:23 PM
I love weapons and I love silencers, but in the wrong hands , which
would be many and varied, they are licenses to anonymously murder.
When someone is killed with a firearm, I appreciate a loud noise,
I don't see it as a lot to ask.
There are ways of deadening the noise without a 'silencer' but most
thugs aren't that smart, if they could buy silencers the
intelligence barrier is broken.
Ear protection is one of the arguments proponents use for the justification
of silencers, I get it, but, well I've got ear plugs, a small price to pay.

Point two;
This imv has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and opponents will
use this 'effectively' to disarm us, that opens us up to a much more
important issue ; genocide , agenda 21, Globalism.

We are building a Trojan Horse here, much bigger fry to catch.

Thus ever the call for more gun control laws of every statist that wishes to abridge the 2nd Amendment.

Swordsmyth
02-19-2019, 07:25 PM
I love weapons and I love silencers, but in the wrong hands , which
would be many and varied, they are licenses to anonymously murder.
When someone is killed with a firearm, I appreciate a loud noise,
I don't see it as a lot to ask.
There are ways of deadening the noise without a 'silencer' but most
thugs aren't that smart, if they could buy silencers the
intelligence barrier is broken.
Ear protection is one of the arguments proponents use for the justification
of silencers, I get it, but, well I've got ear plugs, a small price to pay.

Point two;
This imv has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and opponents will
use this 'effectively' to disarm us, that opens us up to a much more
important issue ; genocide , agenda 21, Globalism.

We are building a Trojan Horse here, much bigger fry to catch.
You could make the same argument about guns as you make about silencers and there are many ways to silently murder someone, if you just don't like suppressors they we don't really have a problem but if you would ever under any circumstance want any level of government to outlaw them then we do.

Stratovarious
02-19-2019, 07:30 PM
The correct term is suppressor. Nothing makes a gun silent except 2nd Amendment violations.

If you lived where I do you would not feel this way. We are rural, but not spread out so much in our community. Most everyone here has guns and practice on our property. The sound carries. So much so that with about 80% accuracy I can tell which neighbor is shooting and which gun he is shooting with. Firearms fire scares livestock and pets.

There is nothing wrong with suppressors.

Thank you for the correct 'term' the article used the term silencer, I fully understand what today's 'term' is,
and if you go back before 1990 or so you will see the term silencer, right or wrong today, that's
what they were called, semantics, revisionism, euphemisms.
I'm rural.

phill4paul
02-19-2019, 07:39 PM
Thank you for the correct 'term' the article used the term silencer, I fully understand what today's 'term' is,
and if you go back before 1990 or so you will see the term silencer, right or wrong today, that's
what they were called, semantics, revisionism, euphemisms.
I'm rural.

You only play at semantics without addressing my points.

Stratovarious
02-19-2019, 07:46 PM
Thus ever the call for more gun control laws of every statist that wishes to abridge the 2nd Amendment.

lol
I had a hunch you would use this against my argument when I wrote it but wasn't
convinced that you would go there.:frog:
The big picture hasn't sht to do with Silencers, it has to do with the right to bear arms , we have
never been allowed to have silencers, this is the red herring the gun grabbers have all
been waiting for , a huge distraction and tool they will use to round up our weapons.
And as for swordsmyth , yes I stated that there are ways to kill without noise.

I find it very disturbing that either of you would latch on to this micro issue and equate it with the
right to bear arms, as a key point in the 'Grave importance' of our right to keep rogue government
at bay, because my friends that is the big picture.

Stratovarious
02-19-2019, 07:48 PM
You only play at semantics without addressing my points.
No Phil , it was you that made the 'semantic' argument, I just corrected you.

phill4paul
02-19-2019, 07:55 PM
No Phil , it was you that made the 'semantic' argument, I just corrected you.

Still haven't addressed the core of the post.

Edit: Didn't see the post above. Will address the core shortly.

brushfire
02-19-2019, 07:57 PM
Thank you for the correct 'term' the article used the term silencer, I fully understand what today's 'term' is,
and if you go back before 1990 or so you will see the term silencer, right or wrong today, that's
what they were called, semantics, revisionism, euphemisms.
I'm rural.

I've found that the fight for gun owners rights has been a battle that is rooted in the semantics of words.

"Assault Weapon"
"High Capacity Magazines/Clips"
"Shoulder thingie that goes up"

Since the facts do not support the gun grabber case, they will choose emotional triggers, and prey on the uneducated. You and I are in agreement on the annoyance of such semantics, but its how they play the game. Infighting between folks who essentially agree on the same cause is just the cherry on top for the gun grabbers.

Call things what you wish - my only intention is to make humble mention of the company you may inadvertently be keeping by choosing certain words.

Its a dumb game, but its how they play.

phill4paul
02-19-2019, 08:01 PM
lol
I had a hunch you would use this against my argument when I wrote it but wasn't
convinced that you would go there.:frog:
The big picture hasn't sht to do with Silencers, it has to do with the right to bear arms , we have
never been allowed to have silencers, this is the red herring the gun grabbers have all
been waiting for , a huge distraction and tool they will use to round up our weapons.
And as for swordsmyth , yes I stated that there are ways to kill without noise.

I find it very disturbing that either of you would latch on to this micro issue and equate it with the
right to bear arms, as a key point in the 'Grave importance' of our right to keep rogue government
at bay, because my friends that is the big picture.

Catch up on your history and get back to me on this.

Edit: And I do concede your point on the terminology. As I described it is how it was taught to me.

Swordsmyth
02-19-2019, 08:05 PM
lol
I had a hunch you would use this against my argument when I wrote it but wasn't
convinced that you would go there.:frog:
The big picture hasn't sht to do with Silencers, it has to do with the right to bear arms , we have
never been allowed to have silencers, this is the red herring the gun grabbers have all
been waiting for , a huge distraction and tool they will use to round up our weapons.
And as for swordsmyth , yes I stated that there are ways to kill without noise.

I find it very disturbing that either of you would latch on to this micro issue and equate it with the
right to bear arms, as a key point in the 'Grave importance' of our right to keep rogue government
at bay, because my friends that is the big picture.
If they can ban suppressors they can ban anything else and they didn't used to be banned.

phill4paul
02-19-2019, 08:09 PM
lol
I had a hunch you would use this against my argument when I wrote it but wasn't
convinced that you would go there.:frog:
The big picture hasn't sht to do with Silencers, it has to do with the right to bear arms , we have
never been allowed to have silencers, this is the red herring the gun grabbers have all
been waiting for , a huge distraction and tool they will use to round up our weapons.
And as for swordsmyth , yes I stated that there are ways to kill without noise.

I find it very disturbing that either of you would latch on to this micro issue and equate it with the
right to bear arms, as a key point in the 'Grave importance' of our right to keep rogue government
at bay, because my friends that is the big picture.

If I invented an 'silent' bullet, should the government deny me the right to own one?

phill4paul
02-19-2019, 08:27 PM
Catch up on your history and get back to me on this.

Edit: And I do concede your point on the terminology. As I described it is how it was taught to me.

Did you have a chance to catch up? Silencers, nod to your correct terminology, were entirely legal from 1909 until 1934. What happened in 1934? That one egregious period in time in which an act of Congress stripped away the Second Amendment. That's what happened. And the silencer and machine guns and short barreled shotguns and all the other crap that stripped away the rights of citizens to be on equal footing with the military squad that the Federal Government re-funds year after year despite warnings from the family of having a permanent Army.
Silencers, and the regulation thereof, are intricately tied into the demise of the 2nd Amendment.

Stratovarious
02-20-2019, 05:41 AM
Did you have a chance to catch up? Silencers, nod to your correct terminology, were entirely legal from 1909 until 1934. What happened in 1934? That one egregious period in time in which an act of Congress stripped away the Second Amendment. That's what happened. And the silencer and machine guns and short barreled shotguns and all the other crap that stripped away the rights of citizens to be on equal footing with the military squad that the Federal Government re-funds year after year despite warnings from the family of having a permanent Army.
Silencers, and the regulation thereof, are intricately tied into the demise of the 2nd Amendment.

No Phil, I didn't do my 'homework' / 'research' ,
I'm not focusing on the fact that
as you say , 100 years ago they stripped our silencer right away,
though that is an interesting piece of history, thanks for posting
it.

My comments on this issue are from life experience , since the 60's ,
and likely as far back as the 40's , no one in their right mind in general society
would have thought they could legally use/posses silencers.
My concern is that of; where we are today, what can we do to
stop further erosion of the 2nd amendment.

Promoting and bringing silencers live is not where our energy should focus.
Silencers were always considered an assassin's tool, did we all want one,
hell yea what a cool way to target shoot etc.
Other ways of killing quietly?;
Sure, you can sneak up on someone and silently kill them
with a butter knife, a spoon , or a hammer, garrote, but you can
do so much more without getting blood on your clothes
or needing to get close and personal , and putting
yourself at 'risk' if you are there with a silencer, .
clean , anonymous.

With a Silencer;
No one needs to know what you did for up to hours/days or months.
The term suppressor in general society is a fairly modern term, my guess is that it
was borrowed from 'flash suppressor' nomenclature, possibly by accident,
but it stuck, and in the literal sense 'suppression' is more accurately
what they are, still 'suppressor' is somewhat of a euphemism today imv.
Silencers aren't silent, most people understand that, but the
noise reduction is enough to give a murderer anonymity , in practical scenarios.
The silencer issue as a splinter issue, the core issue is not
adding legal accessories to our weapons, rather preserving what we have,
stopping them from demonizing and banning bump stock/semi auto/
magazine capacities, registration , sales restrictions, etc.

Big Picture;
Preserving an armed population, to prevent the death of the first
amendment which is only in place because we are still armed.
Prevent genocide which never occurs until all our weapons are registered,
then confiscated.

Tiny Picture;
Adding a new accessory 'right' that will add to the
fuel of the left's arguments to take our weapons away.
This accessory is valuable to the left in that respect, it is just
what they need, the final 'nail' ......
I'm already being redundant so from here out I think I'll just leave it
at that.
And just so you know , I've written thousands of pro 2nd amendment
rants since 2002, I will paste a couple here if I can dig up copies that I
have saved , youtube stripped me of all my posts during the purge,
where most of them resided.
=============================


Some posts that I saved, nothing special here, just
some quick mini rants I found, the links won't work
due to the purge, but do show where they were posted.
Nothing is particulary edited either, they are close to
'live chats' :

New reply on "Thank God Alex isn't backpedaling for Trump's
turning his back 00:45:00 on the 2nd amendment, the issue
should be ending BIG PHARMA DRUGGING of our youth,
and enforcing already existing laws, as well as investigating
the FBI for ignoring youths that threaten to attack schools.
The media makes big stars out of all shooters, they cover it
so much that society begins to think it is acceptable to kill
people when 'you' get angry or aren't getting your way."
-------------------------------------------------
Govts kill Millions of times more innocent people than all the civilian caused
deaths throughout all of human history, the single most important task that all
civilians have is to prevent their own and foreign govts/entities ( read NATO)
from democide/genocide, wholesale slaughter of you , your sons and
daughters as well your pets, and subsequent acquisition of all your wealth
and belongings that you worked a lifetime for.
2nd Amendment , "...Right to Bear Arms Shall not be infringed" our
forefathers knew from experience how vitally important that
right is/was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXZ4nSPwzNA
--------------------------------------------------
New reply on "Thank God Alex isn't backpedaling for Trump's
turning his back 00:45:00 on the 2nd amendment, the issue
should be ending BIG PHARMA DRUGGING of our youth,
and enforcing already existing laws, as well as investigating
the FBI for ignoring youths that threaten to attack schools.
The media makes big stars out of all shooters, they cover it
so much that society begins to think it is acceptable to kill
people when 'you' get angry or aren't getting your way."
-------------------------------------------------
Govts kill Millions of times more innocent people than all the civilian caused
deaths throughout all of human history, the single most important task that all
civilians have is to prevent their own and foreign govts/entities ( read NATO)
from democide/genocide, wholesale slaughter of you , your sons and
daughters as well your pets, and subsequent acquisition of all your wealth
and belongings that you worked a lifetime for.
2nd Amendment , "...Right to Bear Arms Shall not be infringed" our
forefathers knew from experience how vitally important that
right is/was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXZ4nSPwzNA
------------------------------------------------
2nd Amendment wasn't really written with women particularly in mind*, but
does anyone ever find it very creepy that liberals want women completely
HELPLESS.......and they are so pro women's rights;;;;;;;;;???
* I say that 'not in mind' because back in the day , it was very obvious,
that the man was primarily in charge of that sort of thing, but today, a woman
probably has a hell of a lot more exposure to attack then days of old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ00wtium0I

When the military and law enforcement turn in their weapons, I will too, until then piss up a rope....We are a country with a Constitution that was an inspired work.
I suppose the idiots that don't believe in the 2nd amendment think women, or handicapped, or elderly should be stronger and bigger than thugs.
They don't deserve to defend themselves if they aren't
kung foo experts or pro cage fighters?
99% or the time law enforcement is going to be at your side just
in time to zip you into a body bag, they can't be everywhere all the time, they will never be able to prevent violent crime, an
armed citizenry does and can.
The biggest cause of homicide in human history is always governments, and genocide never occurs while the citizens are well
armed, arms are registered and rounded up first,
a rogue government is never routed through petition .
Citizens are never protected from any source , be it criminals or
tyrannical governments, through kind words and peaceful rhetoric.
Gun grabbing pc liberal pussies can kiss my ash...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-oJBnbaTvA

Swordsmyth
02-20-2019, 05:03 PM
No Phil, I didn't do my 'homework' / 'research' ,
I'm not focusing on the fact that
as you say , 100 years ago they stripped our silencer right away,
though that is an interesting piece of history, thanks for posting
it.

My comments on this issue are from life experience , since the 60's ,
and likely as far back as the 40's , no one in their right mind in general society
would have thought they could legally use/posses silencers.
My concern is that of; where we are today, what can we do to
stop further erosion of the 2nd amendment.

Promoting and bringing silencers live is not where our energy should focus.
Silencers were always considered an assassin's tool, did we all want one,
hell yea what a cool way to target shoot etc.
Other ways of killing quietly?;
Sure, you can sneak up on someone and silently kill them
with a butter knife, a spoon , or a hammer, garrote, but you can
do so much more without getting blood on your clothes
or needing to get close and personal , and putting
yourself at 'risk' if you are there with a silencer, .
clean , anonymous.

With a Silencer;
No one needs to know what you did for up to hours/days or months.
The term suppressor in general society is a fairly modern term, my guess is that it
was borrowed from 'flash suppressor' nomenclature, possibly by accident,
but it stuck, and in the literal sense 'suppression' is more accurately
what they are, still 'suppressor' is somewhat of a euphemism today imv.
Silencers aren't silent, most people understand that, but the
noise reduction is enough to give a murderer anonymity , in practical scenarios.
The silencer issue as a splinter issue, the core issue is not
adding legal accessories to our weapons, rather preserving what we have,
stopping them from demonizing and banning bump stock/semi auto/
magazine capacities, registration , sales restrictions, etc.

Big Picture;
Preserving an armed population, to prevent the death of the first
amendment which is only in place because we are still armed.
Prevent genocide which never occurs until all our weapons are registered,
then confiscated.

Tiny Picture;
Adding a new accessory 'right' that will add to the
fuel of the left's arguments to take our weapons away.
This accessory is valuable to the left in that respect, it is just
what they need, the final 'nail' ......
I'm already being redundant so from here out I think I'll just leave it
at that.
And just so you know , I've written thousands of pro 2nd amendment
rants since 2002, I will paste a couple here if I can dig up copies that I
have saved , youtube stripped me of all my posts during the purge,
where most of them resided.
=============================



New reply on "Thank God Alex isn't backpedaling for Trump's
turning his back 00:45:00 on the 2nd amendment, the issue
should be ending BIG PHARMA DRUGGING of our youth,
and enforcing already existing laws, as well as investigating
the FBI for ignoring youths that threaten to attack schools.
The media makes big stars out of all shooters, they cover it
so much that society begins to think it is acceptable to kill
people when 'you' get angry or aren't getting your way."
-------------------------------------------------
Govts kill Millions of times more innocent people than all the civilian caused
deaths throughout all of human history, the single most important task that all
civilians have is to prevent their own and foreign govts/entities ( read NATO)
from democide/genocide, wholesale slaughter of you , your sons and
daughters as well your pets, and subsequent acquisition of all your wealth
and belongings that you worked a lifetime for.
2nd Amendment , "...Right to Bear Arms Shall not be infringed" our
forefathers knew from experience how vitally important that
right is/was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXZ4nSPwzNA
--------------------------------------------------
New reply on "Thank God Alex isn't backpedaling for Trump's
turning his back 00:45:00 on the 2nd amendment, the issue
should be ending BIG PHARMA DRUGGING of our youth,
and enforcing already existing laws, as well as investigating
the FBI for ignoring youths that threaten to attack schools.
The media makes big stars out of all shooters, they cover it
so much that society begins to think it is acceptable to kill
people when 'you' get angry or aren't getting your way."
-------------------------------------------------
Govts kill Millions of times more innocent people than all the civilian caused
deaths throughout all of human history, the single most important task that all
civilians have is to prevent their own and foreign govts/entities ( read NATO)
from democide/genocide, wholesale slaughter of you , your sons and
daughters as well your pets, and subsequent acquisition of all your wealth
and belongings that you worked a lifetime for.
2nd Amendment , "...Right to Bear Arms Shall not be infringed" our
forefathers knew from experience how vitally important that
right is/was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXZ4nSPwzNA
------------------------------------------------
2nd Amendment wasn't really written with women particularly in mind*, but
does anyone ever find it very creepy that liberals want women completely
HELPLESS.......and they are so pro women's rights;;;;;;;;;???
* I say that 'not in mind' because back in the day , it was very obvious,
that the man was primarily in charge of that sort of thing, but today, a woman
probably has a hell of a lot more exposure to attack then days of old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ00wtium0I

When the military and law enforcement turn in their weapons, I will too, until then piss up a rope....We are a country with a Constitution that was an inspired work.
I suppose the idiots that don't believe in the 2nd amendment think women, or handicapped, or elderly should be stronger and bigger than thugs.
They don't deserve to defend themselves if they aren't
kung foo experts or pro cage fighters?
99% or the time law enforcement is going to be at your side just
in time to zip you into a body bag, they can't be everywhere all the time, they will never be able to prevent violent crime, an
armed citizenry does and can.
The biggest cause of homicide in human history is always governments, and genocide never occurs while the citizens are well
armed, arms are registered and rounded up first,
a rogue government is never routed through petition .
Citizens are never protected from any source , be it criminals or
tyrannical governments, through kind words and peaceful rhetoric.
Gun grabbing pc liberal pussies can kiss my ash...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-oJBnbaTvA
The best way to avoid losing ground is to attack and take more.

PAF
02-20-2019, 08:48 PM
Swordsmyth

I'm shocked! Is it just this topic? Or have you taken a new change of heart as of very recent?

Swordsmyth
02-20-2019, 08:52 PM
@Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299)

I'm shocked! Is it just this topic? Or have you taken a new change of heart as of very recent?
:rolleyes:

That is always my attitude when it is possible, I want to take America for freedom instead of surrendering it to the invading hordes.

PAF
02-20-2019, 08:57 PM
:rolleyes:

That is always my attitude when it is possible, I want to take America for freedom instead of surrendering it to the invading hordes.

You blew it, I had my hopes up.

I'm still reading through that "emergency" spending bill +/- few hundred more pages. What you think about it?

Swordsmyth
02-20-2019, 09:00 PM
You blew it, I had my hopes up.:brokenheart:


I'm still reading through that "emergency" spending bill +/- few hundred more pages. What you think about it?
I don't like it but Congress was going to pass it over a veto anyway.

PAF
02-20-2019, 09:08 PM
:brokenheart:


I don't like it but Congress was going to pass it over a veto anyway.


Aw, thanks for the heart. Does that mean you support that Global lgbtq initiative?

So, what you are saying is, trump gets a pass for demanding it, because if he didn't, they would have passed it anyway?

I'm confused now. Did trump like it and demanded it? Or did he not like it and demanded it?

Serious question... what parts did you not like?

Swordsmyth
02-20-2019, 09:14 PM
Aw, thanks for the heart. Does that mean you support that Global lgbtq initiative?
:rolleyes:

I guess I should have used a :sarcasm: after that broken heart but I thought it was obvious.


So, what you are saying is, trump gets a pass for demanding it, because if he didn't, they would have passed it anyway?

I'm confused now. Did trump like it and demanded it? Or did he not like it and demanded it?

Serious question... what parts did you not like?
He demanded funds for the wall, he did not demand the rest of what was in the bill.
The wall is not my preferred method of securing the border but it is better than doing nothing.
Almost everything else in the bill was terrible.

PAF
02-20-2019, 09:30 PM
:rolleyes:

I guess I should have used a :sarcasm: after that broken heart but I thought it was obvious.


He demanded funds for the wall, he did not demand the rest of what was in the bill.
The wall is not my preferred method of securing the border but it is better than doing nothing.
Almost everything else in the bill was terrible.


Fair enough, you support that stupid wall. So here's my question, keeping in mind I know exactly what's in that spending bill:

Trump, the business man that he is, is fully aware of contracts and expenditures. He is presented with well over a thousand pages, and out of that thousand pages he wanted one single thing: money for a wall. Because it's an "emergency".

Now, he demanded and knew the emergency bill would pass. But somehow there's not enough to do what he wanted. Taking that into account and wanting to MAGA, millions upon billions, go to International Organizations, Refugees in Africa, United Nations Population fund, Multilateral Fund for Montreal which is not even part of the U.S. (yet)...

Explain to me how or why he would demand over a thousand pages of bullsh|t as an "emergency" just to get a stinking bill or two out of $350,000,000,000 of tax payer money.

Is that really MAGA? Was it the "emergency" that he boasted?

At what point do people begin to figure things out and know that it's all a farce?

The bonus question: since that stuff is globalist, is trump a Globalist?

Swordsmyth
02-20-2019, 09:40 PM
Fair enough, you support that stupid wall. So here's my question, keeping in mind I know exactly what's in that spending bill:

Trump, the business man that he is, is fully aware of contracts and expenditures. He is presented with well over a thousand pages, and out of that thousand pages he wanted one single thing: money for a wall. Because it's an "emergency".

Now, he demanded and knew the emergency bill would pass. But somehow there's not enough to do what he wanted. Taking that into account and wanting to MAGA, millions upon billions, go to International Organizations, Refugees in Africa, United Nations Population fund, Multilateral Fund for Montreal which is not even part of the U.S. (yet)...

Explain to me how or why he would demand over a thousand pages of bullsh|t as an "emergency" just to get a stinking bill or two out of $650,000,000,000 of tax payer money.

Is that really MAGA? Was it the "emergency" that he boasted?

At what point do people begin to figure things out and know that it's all a farce?

The bonus question: since that stuff is globalist, is trump a Globalist?
He didn't demand the other garbage, please post one example of him asking for any of that.
Congress put all of that in there and wouldn't pass anything without it.

PAF
02-20-2019, 09:44 PM
He didn't demand the other garbage, please post one example of him asking for any of that.
Congress put all of that in there and wouldn't pass anything without it.

Don't side-step. Whether he asked for those things or not, don't tell me he was not aware of over 1,000 pages. As I stated, he is a business man privy to contracts and expenditures. I am certain he knew what was in it, whether he requested it or not.

AS PRESIDENT, was that $350,000,000,000 bill the emergency that he boasted it to be, and was it in the best interest of MAGA?

Swordsmyth
02-20-2019, 09:46 PM
Don't side-step. Whether he asked for those things or not, don't tell me he was not aware of over 1,000 pages. As I stated, he is a business man privy to contracts and expenditures. I am certain he knew what was in it, whether he requested it or not.

AS PRESIDENT, was that $650,000,000,000 bill the emergency that he boasted it to be, and was it in the best interest of MAGA?
It was going to pass over his veto anyway and they may have cut out the money for the wall.

PAF
02-20-2019, 09:49 PM
It was going to pass over his veto anyway and they may have cut out the money for the wall.

Again, do not side-step, please.

AS PRESIDENT, was that $350,000,000,000 bill the emergency that he boasted it to be, and was it in the best interest of MAGA?

Trump could have stated to the people what was in it to make the tax payer aware. He could have explained to the people that globalists agendas riddled the bill and refuse to sign it. At that point if it did pass, it would not be at his hand.

Please answer my question.

Swordsmyth
02-20-2019, 09:56 PM
Again, do not side-step, please.

AS PRESIDENT, was that $650,000,000,000 bill the emergency that he boasted it to be, and was it in the best interest of MAGA?
The invasion is an emergency and stopping it is in the best interests of MAGA.


Trump could have stated to the people what was in it to make the tax payer aware. He could have explained to the people that globalists agendas riddled the bill and refuse to sign it. At that point if it did pass, it would not be at his hand.

Please answer my question.
And he could lose all cooperation from McConnell and the Republicans and be impeached, he may not be doing the best he can at this point or he may, in 2 more years we will see what he has done both good and bad and decide whether or not he has earned reelection.

PAF
02-20-2019, 10:05 PM
The invasion is an emergency and stopping it is in the best interests of MAGA.


And he could lose all cooperation from McConnell and the Republicans and be impeached, he may not be doing the best he can at this point or he may, in 2 more years we will see what he has done both good and bad and decide whether or not he has earned reelection.


So what are eluding to is, it is better to withhold (lie) to the American people, because he would have risked impeachment because Republicans support a globalist agenda.

And as long as globalist agendas are passed (ie that bill, along with Omnibus), it reassures his election, which is in the best interest of the tax paying Americans who are trying to reclaim our country.


This is what being principled is all about. And until people realize that, you and others who support that NY Globalist are the very reason this country is a shi|t hole.


Do you understand now what my position is?


Btw, that $1.5 - $2B whatever it is for that wall just cost Americans a whopping extra $348,000,000,000 NOT used for that wall.




Apologies for side-tracking the OP topic, this conversation should have been a thread of its own.

Swordsmyth
02-20-2019, 10:16 PM
So what are eluding to is, it is better to withhold (lie) to the American people, because he would have risked impeachment because Republicans support a globalist agenda.

And as long as globalist agendas are passed (ie that bill, along with Omnibus), it reassures his election, which is in the best interest of the tax paying Americans who are trying to reclaim our country.


This is what being principled is all about. And until people realize that, you and others who support that NY Globalist are the very reason this country is a shi|t hole.


Do you understand now what my position is?


Btw, that $1.5 - $2B whatever it is for that wall just cost Americans a whopping extra $648,000,000,000 NOT used for that wall.




Apologies for side-tracking the OP topic, this conversation should have been a thread of its own.
I'll take some good progress over none provided it is enough because it is better to get some good than all bad, that is a principled stand.

Whether Trump delivers enough remains to be seen.


And yes, let's stop derailing this thread.

osan
02-21-2019, 08:44 AM
In fact, each of the reasons the Supreme Court gave in 1937, finding it to be a tax, no longer apply today, 82 years later.

It never applied.


Rather, the NFA has become what Justice Frankfurter once described as regulation “wrapped … in the verbal cellophane of a revenue measure” — an unabashed gun control regulatory scheme, designed not to raise revenue for the federal government, but instead to keep NFA items out of the hands of Americans.


https://i.imgflip.com/2u915s.jpg



Next, Jeremy’s petition challenges the Tenth Circuit’s absurd holding that the Second Amendment applies only to “bearable arms” — but not firearm accessories, such as suppressors. The petition points out that the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment extends beyond actual firearms to ammunition, magazines, the ability to purchase firearms in gun stores, and the right to practice at shooting ranges.

If the NINTH gets something so obvious, then it must be REALLY obvious. Therefore, we cannot conclude error based in ignorance, but rather in purposeful corruption. Whoever was the judge should be quietly investigated, removed from the bench, and imprisoned for not less than ten years at hard labor at the military barracks. Hammering these bastards hard including the wrecking of their families is the only way to put this sort of thing to proper ends.


Finally, Jeremy’s petition argues that, if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the NFA as a “tax,” then it is allowing Congress to impose a tax on a constitutionally-protected right — something which the Supreme Court has long said to be unconstitutional.

That is an absolutely brilliant tack. Whoever coughed up that little gem should get a large raise because it is worth 1000x its weight in gold.


Prior to the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh in October of last year, the Supreme Court had refused to hear numerous firearms cases, leading some members of the Court to comment on the “distressing trend” — “the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”


As if that were different from the previous years? The aberration there were the few short years where SCOTUS agreed to hear Heller and MacDonald. Prior, they had steadfastly refused to hear cases for at least a couple of decades. I remember because I was there, paying attention.

TheTexan
02-21-2019, 10:53 AM
I love weapons and I love silencers, but in the wrong hands , which
would be many and varied, they are licenses to anonymously murder.
When someone is killed with a firearm, I appreciate a loud noise,
I don't see it as a lot to ask.
There are ways of deadening the noise without a 'silencer' but most
thugs aren't that smart, if they could buy silencers the
intelligence barrier is broken.
Ear protection is one of the arguments proponents use for the justification
of silencers, I get it, but, well I've got ear plugs, a small price to pay.

Point two;
This imv has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and opponents will
use this 'effectively' to disarm us, that opens us up to a much more
important issue ; genocide , agenda 21, Globalism.

We are building a Trojan Horse here, much bigger fry to catch.

I couldn't agree more. Silencers are weapons of war, designed for killing people, and therefore are not protected by the 2nd amendment's constitutional right to bear traditional deer hunting weapons.

TheTexan
02-21-2019, 10:57 AM
Even if the weapons are made in Kansas and stay in Kansas, federal law still applies because deer that are shot with these weapons could still cross state lines.

kcchiefs6465
02-21-2019, 12:10 PM
I couldn't agree more. Silencers are weapons of war, designed for killing people, and therefore are not protected by the 2nd amendment's constitutional right to bear traditional deer hunting weapons.
Weapons of war, indeed.

Could you imagine a silencer on a thirty caliber clip? It'd be pure anarchy.

jmdrake
02-21-2019, 12:44 PM
Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court

Written by Gun Owners of America Published: 15 January 2019

(January 14, 2019) — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its litigating arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), today continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, against a conviction for violating the National Firearms Act.

Read GOA’s petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Jeremy for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor under the authority of the Kansas “Second Amendment Protection Act.”

https://gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Jeremy-Kettler.PNG

The Kansas statute declares that any suppressor manufactured, possessed, and used within the borders of Kansas is exempt from federal law. Relying on that Kansas law, in 2014 Jeremy purchased a suppressor from a local military surplus store, but did not register it with ATF pursuant to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Believing he was following the law, Jeremy posted a video about his new suppressor on Facebook, and ATF swooped in. Rather than simply requiring Jeremy to register his suppressor, the feds instead chose felony prosecution — to make an example of Jeremy, and to intimidate all who resist federal power over guns. Jeremy was indicted, and convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer, and now this veteran is a federal felon.

GOA and GOF have stood with Jeremy, both in his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and now in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today GOA and GOF lawyers, representing Jeremy, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Jeremy’s case. The petition challenges the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which rejected Jeremy’s appeal from the district court.

Jeremy’s petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called “tax.”

In fact, each of the reasons the Supreme Court gave in 1937, finding it to be a tax, no longer apply today, 82 years later. Rather, the NFA has become what Justice Frankfurter once described as regulation “wrapped … in the verbal cellophane of a revenue measure” — an unabashed gun control regulatory scheme, designed not to raise revenue for the federal government, but instead to keep NFA items out of the hands of Americans.

Next, Jeremy’s petition challenges the Tenth Circuit’s absurd holding that the Second Amendment applies only to “bearable arms” — but not firearm accessories, such as suppressors. The petition points out that the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment extends beyond actual firearms to ammunition, magazines, the ability to purchase firearms in gun stores, and the right to practice at shooting ranges.

Finally, Jeremy’s petition argues that, if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the NFA as a “tax,” then it is allowing Congress to impose a tax on a constitutionally-protected right — something which the Supreme Court has long said to be unconstitutional.

Prior to the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh in October of last year, the Supreme Court had refused to hear numerous firearms cases, leading some members of the Court to comment on the “distressing trend” — “the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

While some do not seem to mind ATF’s regulation of weapons covered by the National Firearms Act, GOA and GOF have stood for the right to own “bearable arms” of all types, and firearms accessories as well — including suppressors and machineguns.

Continues, you can read GOA’s petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court and donate to the case at https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-america-funds-challenge-to-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/

Interesting. The million dollar question is what will John Roberts do? He upheld the Obamacare mandate as a "tax" even though it wasn't. Will he do the same for the NFA?

kcchiefs6465
02-21-2019, 03:04 PM
Thank you for the correct 'term' the article used the term silencer, I fully understand what today's 'term' is,
and if you go back before 1990 or so you will see the term silencer, right or wrong today, that's
what they were called, semantics, revisionism, euphemisms.
I'm rural.
The article used the incorrect term.

Only faggy action movies and ignorant anti-gun zealots say, "silencers."

Suppressor is the correct term. Much like clip versus magazine, words have meaning. It is laughable that virtually all anti-2nd Amendment types have no idea what they are talking about.

Since you are familiar with suppressors and firearms... what do you think suppressors do?

(Hint: around -30dB wet or dry)

https://i.imgur.com/KlI6VcP.png

And what does 130dB sound like?

Well, 121 dB is the average chainsaw, and 130dB is a military jet take off at 50 ft.

Do you see why it is one, silly and emphatically incorrect to call it a silencer and two, why it is silly to concern yourself with silent killers? This isn't a James Bond movie. Suppressors simply dampen the noise. For instance, rather than an AR-15 (.223) sounding like an AR-15, with a suppressor it sounds like a .22LR (which if you're not familiar with what a .22LR sounds like, it is still loud... in fact, just a little louder than a jackhammer, or a chainsaw).

So, minus 30dB from whatever caliber you see above and compare it to this graphic below. Suppressors do not only not silence firearms, even with something as 'quiet' as a .22LR, it can still cause hearing damage and is as loud as a lawnmower.

https://i.imgur.com/sT3VCbA.png

Swordsmyth
02-21-2019, 06:38 PM
The article used the incorrect term.

Only faggy action movies and ignorant anti-gun zealots say, "silencers."

Suppressor is the correct term. Much like clip versus magazine, words have meaning. It is laughable that virtually all anti-2nd Amendment types have no idea what they are talking about.

Since you are familiar with suppressors and firearms... what do you think suppressors do?

(Hint: around -30dB wet or dry)

https://i.imgur.com/KlI6VcP.png

And what does 130dB sound like?

Well, 121 dB is the average chainsaw, and 130dB is a military jet take off at 50 ft.

Do you see why it is one, silly and emphatically incorrect to call it a silencer and two, why it is silly to concern yourself with silent killers? This isn't a James Bond movie. Suppressors simply dampen the noise. For instance, rather than an AR-15 (.223) sounding like an AR-15, with a suppressor it sounds like a .22LR (which if you're not familiar with what a .22LR sounds like, it is still loud... in fact, just a little louder than a jackhammer, or a chainsaw).

So, minus 30dB from whatever caliber you see above and compare it to this graphic below. Suppressors do not only not silence firearms, even with something as 'quiet' as a .22LR, it can still cause hearing damage and is as loud as a lawnmower.

https://i.imgur.com/sT3VCbA.png

You must have subsonic rounds to be anywhere near "silent".

TheTexan
02-21-2019, 06:45 PM
You must have subsonic rounds to be anywhere near "silent".

Good point. It doesn't make sense to ban silencers without also banning subsonic rounds.

I'll be writing my Congressman.

kcchiefs6465
02-21-2019, 11:01 PM
You must have subsonic rounds to be anywhere near "silent".
Indeed and it is still not silent.

Swordsmyth
02-21-2019, 11:04 PM
Good point. It doesn't make sense to ban silencers without also banning subsonic rounds.

I'll be writing my Congressman.
Don't forget crossbows.

Stratovarious
02-22-2019, 06:11 AM
The article used the incorrect term.

Only faggy ........ ignorant anti-gun zealots say, "silencers."

Suppressor is the correct term. Much like clip versus magazine, words have meaning. It is laughable that virtually all anti-2nd Amendment types have no idea what they are talking about.

Since you are familiar with suppressors and firearms... what do you think suppressors do?

(Hint: around -30dB wet or dry)

.....

And what does 130dB sound like?

Well, 121 dB is the average chainsaw, and 130dB is a military jet take off at 50 ft.

Do you see why it is one, silly and emphatically incorrect to call it a silencer and two, why it is silly to concern yourself with silent killers? This isn't a James Bond movie. Suppressors simply dampen the noise. For instance, rather than an AR-15 (.223) sounding like an AR-15, with a suppressor it sounds like a .22LR (which if you're not familiar with what a .22LR sounds like, it is still loud... in fact, just a little louder than a jackhammer, or a chainsaw).

So, minus 30dB from whatever caliber you see above and compare it to this graphic below. Suppressors do not only not silence firearms, even with something as 'quiet' as a .22LR, it can still cause hearing damage and is as loud as a lawnmower.



LMAO,
:frog:
You parroted what I already stated; they are not
silent.

The article used the correct term and so did I , that is not my
argument , it is yours.

Beautiful cut n' paste work though........ :)

Point 1
I'm not bent on being right about
everything, yet resent being corrected aggressively,
insultingly, and emphatically as you have just done,
particularly when I am right, and you are so
very wrong.
The term Silencer is the original term, the true term,
Silencer like millions of words is not to be taken literally it
is just a 'term' .
Revisionists and manufacturers prefer to use the euphemism, 'suppressor'
that's fine, its just semantics, and the bulk of your ridiculous
argument.
And as I have stated, who in the hell wouldn't want to own
a suppressor/silencer, we would all love to have them.


Point 2

Some of the people here including yourself give the appearance
of being in support of the 2nd amendment , yet almost come off
as being infiltrators attempting to obfuscate
the importance of the core issues, and fueling the left's
hatred of Guns in general by promoting silencers/suppressors.

If you are sincere about protecting the 2nd amendment
you will be or already be doing some or all of the following;

Marching for 2nd amendment
Boycotting Dick's Sporting Goods
Advocating Open Carry rights
Advocating Concealed Carry rights
Advocating Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Advocating Safety, and Concealed Carry Classes

I got my CCW in 2002 , when did you get yours?
========================

What is the 'real' name , what is the difference between a Silencer and a Suppressor;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFhIXPZwdJ0


Sound difference 9mm 0:31 to 0:38


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak-QH9x8Hcc







.




.

kcchiefs6465
02-22-2019, 09:45 AM
LMAO,
:frog:
You parroted what I already stated; they are not
silent.
Then step outside and quit being afraid of the world. Your point is that you don't feel comfortable with people owning silencers, right?



The article used the correct term and so did I , that is not my
argument , it is yours.

Thank you for pointing this out. I was incorrect and concede that point.



Beautiful cut n' paste work though........ :)
Thank you. As is yours.



Point 1
I'm not bent on being right about
everything, yet resent being corrected aggressively,
insultingly, and emphatically as you have just done,
particularly when I am right, and you are so
very wrong.
The term Silencer is the original term, the true term,
Silencer like millions of words is not to be taken literally it
is just a 'term' .
Revisionists and manufacturers prefer to use the euphemism, 'suppressor'
that's fine, its just semantics, and the bulk of your ridiculous
argument.
And as I have stated, who in the hell wouldn't want to own
a suppressor/silencer, we would all love to have them.
I concede this point. Silencer is the original term.



Point 2

Some of the people here including yourself give the appearance
of being in support of the 2nd amendment , yet almost come off
as being infiltrators attempting to obfuscate
the importance of the core issues, and fueling the left's
hatred of Guns in general by promoting silencers/suppressors.
I am pro property rights.

You are promoting drawing a line between what the 2nd Amendment covers and does not as it relates to firearms vs. firearms accessories. If they can tax stamp a silencer they can tax stamp a magazine.



If you are sincere about protecting the 2nd amendment
you will be or already be doing some or all of the following;

Marching for 2nd amendment
Boycotting Dick's Sporting Goods
Advocating Open Carry rights
Advocating Concealed Carry rights
Advocating Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Advocating Safety, and Concealed Carry Classes



I got my CCW in 2002 , when did you get yours?
I never asked.

========================

What is the 'real' name , what is the difference between a Silencer and a Suppressor;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFhIXPZwdJ0
Thank you.

Sound difference 9mm 0:31 to 0:38


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak-QH9x8Hcc.
Subsonic 9mm
XD(m) 3.8 Velocities
Min Unsuppressed = 844 fps
Max Unsuppressed = 885 fps
Avg Unsuppressed = 861 fps
Min Suppressed= 861 fps
Max Suppressed = 916 fps
Avg Suppressed = 892 fps

XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Unsupressed)
Min = 162.2 dB
Max = 163.4 dB
Avg = 162.81 dB
XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Suppressed using Ti-RANT 9)
Min = 123.8 dB
Max = 128.6 dB
Avg = 126.09 dB

Stratovarious
02-22-2019, 10:16 AM
Then step outside and quit being afraid of the world. Your point is that you don't feel comfortable with people owning silencers, right?


Thank you for pointing this out. I was incorrect and concede that point.


Thank you. As is yours.


I concede this point. Silencer is the original term.


I am pro property rights.

You are promoting drawing a line between what the 2nd Amendment covers and does not as it relates to firearms vs. firearms accessories. If they can tax stamp a silencer they can tax stamp a magazine.




I never asked.

========================

What is the 'real' name , what is the difference between a Silencer and a Suppressor;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFhIXPZwdJ0
Thank you.

Sound difference 9mm 0:31 to 0:38


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak-QH9x8Hcc.
Subsonic 9mm
XD(m) 3.8 Velocities
Min Unsuppressed = 844 fps
Max Unsuppressed = 885 fps
Avg Unsuppressed = 861 fps
Min Suppressed= 861 fps
Max Suppressed = 916 fps
Avg Suppressed = 892 fps

XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Unsupressed)
Min = 162.2 dB
Max = 163.4 dB
Avg = 162.81 dB
XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Suppressed using Ti-RANT 9)
Min = 123.8 dB
Max = 128.6 dB
Avg = 126.09 dB

None of what I wrote is cut n' paste, nice try.

What have you written here or anywhere that is more that
a personal attack, or a feeble sentence or two, have you
every written a page, a paragraph , anything that was based on what
you know rather that what you just wikid' up and threw at the
wall to see if it might stick....
I'd love to see your best work . lmao

:upsidedown:

Superfluous Man
02-22-2019, 10:16 AM
Subsonic 9mm
XD(m) 3.8 Velocities
Min Unsuppressed = 844 fps
Max Unsuppressed = 885 fps
Avg Unsuppressed = 861 fps
Min Suppressed= 861 fps
Max Suppressed = 916 fps
Avg Suppressed = 892 fps

XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Unsupressed)
Min = 162.2 dB
Max = 163.4 dB
Avg = 162.81 dB
XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Suppressed using Ti-RANT 9)
Min = 123.8 dB
Max = 128.6 dB
Avg = 126.09 dB

I think that velocity data is deceptive. What I think is causing the increased velocities with the suppressor is the increase in effective barrel length, allowing pressure to continue to build up behind the bullet over a greater distance. But this only happens when the gun being used has a significantly shorter barrel than whatever the ideal length is for the ammunition being used. When the gun has a barrel that is either longer than that, or close enough to it that the addition of the suppressor would significantly exceed that ideal length, then the velocities will be slower with the suppressor, rather than faster, due to greater friction over a distance where the pressure is no longer building up. It's not that suppressors generally increase bullet velocity as a rule.

Superfluous Man
02-22-2019, 10:26 AM
I oppose silencers 100% , but I resent the feds under 'color of law' pretending to have
jurisdiction or authority over State's rights.



I love weapons and I love silencers, but in the wrong hands , which
would be many and varied, they are licenses to anonymously murder.
When someone is killed with a firearm, I appreciate a loud noise,
I don't see it as a lot to ask.
There are ways of deadening the noise without a 'silencer' but most
thugs aren't that smart, if they could buy silencers the
intelligence barrier is broken.
Ear protection is one of the arguments proponents use for the justification
of silencers, I get it, but, well I've got ear plugs, a small price to pay.

Point two;
This imv has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and opponents will
use this 'effectively' to disarm us, that opens us up to a much more
important issue ; genocide , agenda 21, Globalism.

We are building a Trojan Horse here, much bigger fry to catch.


lol
I had a hunch you would use this against my argument when I wrote it but wasn't
convinced that you would go there.:frog:
The big picture hasn't sht to do with Silencers, it has to do with the right to bear arms , we have
never been allowed to have silencers, this is the red herring the gun grabbers have all
been waiting for , a huge distraction and tool they will use to round up our weapons.
And as for swordsmyth , yes I stated that there are ways to kill without noise.

I find it very disturbing that either of you would latch on to this micro issue and equate it with the
right to bear arms, as a key point in the 'Grave importance' of our right to keep rogue government
at bay, because my friends that is the big picture.

Are you saying that you support the government at any level, whether state, federal, or other, regulating suppressors (or silencers, or whatever you want to call them, which makes no difference to me)?

oyarde
02-22-2019, 05:40 PM
My silencers have three feathers on one end and an archaic period stone point on the other . In between a shaft made from a plant that does not grow close by . Untraceable .

kcchiefs6465
02-22-2019, 06:05 PM
None of what I wrote is cut n' paste, nice try.

What have you written here or anywhere that is more that
a personal attack, or a feeble sentence or two, have you
every written a page, a paragraph , anything that was based on what
you know rather that what you just wikid' up and threw at the
wall to see if it might stick....
I'd love to see your best work . lmao

:upsidedown:
I've cut down on posting as much on this forum. Now it is mostly sarcastic insults levied at the few glue sniffing statists that have yet, in three years, to figure out that this forum promotes private property rights as well as the 2nd Amendment.

But you are right. Your dyslexic ramblings are eerily similar to Mark Twain or Hemingway. The prose... I mean Goddamn you are brave!! Paving the way for milennial's lol textspeak one jumbled runaway sentence at a time.

It is truly a treat to be in the presence of such a free thinker.

In any case, have a great night.

Stratovarious
02-22-2019, 07:09 PM
The article used the incorrect term.
lmao
Only faggy action movies and ignorant anti-gun zealots say, "silencers."
lmao

And what does 130dB sound like?
Well, 121 dB is the average chainsaw, and 130dB is a military jet take off at 50 ft.
lmao


Now it is mostly sarcastic insults levied at the few glue sniffing statists that have yet, in three years, to figure out that this forum promotes private property rights as well as the 2nd Amendment.
lmao *


So far, in between your personal attacks and tos violations (I'm guessing f** and faggy are frowned upon since idiot and sht are)
you've been so very wrong about everything, yet like herpes, you just keep the insults rolling, gotta love it,
don't you just love it......



* The 9mm , with and without silencer/suppressor, gee, sounds the same right, lmao , your cut n' pastes
turned around and bit you right in the ash. :frog:

The kicker is that you completely ignored the big picture items that I wrote about , much bigger than this
tiny little, micro point of silencers vs the important items, saving our;
Bump Stocks , Semi Autos , so Called assault rifles, participating in Boycotts , all the stuff I talked about you ignored,
phony much ?
Yea , and the ccw, you never bothered to get, lol, I'd be shocked if you could trusted not to put your eye out with a slingshot.

9mm, the sound difference is incredible, but I guess you'd rather talk about jet db's and think
you are beating down a real patriot with personal attacks , Yea I see what you got there.....


https://youtu.be/ak-QH9x8Hcc

kcchiefs6465
02-22-2019, 07:34 PM
So far, in between your personal attacks and tos violations (I'm guessing f** and faggy are frowned upon since idiot and sht are)
you've been so very wrong about everything, yet like herpes, you just keep the insults rolling, gotta love it,
don't you just love it......



* The 9mm , with and without silencer/suppressor, gee, sounds the same right, lmao , your cut n' pastes
turned around and bit you right in the ash. :frog:

The kicker is that you completely ignored the big picture items that I wrote about , much bigger than this
tiny little, micro point of silencers vs the important items, saving our;
Bump Stocks , Semi Autos , so Called assault rifles, participating in Boycotts , all the stuff I talked about you ignored,
phony much ?
Yea , and the ccw, you never bothered to get, lol, I'd be shocked if you could trusted not to put your eye out with a slingshot.

9mm, the sound difference is incredible, but I guess you'd rather talk about jet db's and think
you are beating down a real patriot with personal attacks , Yea I see what you got there.....


https://youtu.be/ak-QH9x8Hcc
To be honest it is difficult to get past your first absurd anti-2nd Amendment claim of silenced killers and wanting to hear the gunshot... in the interest of being reasonable.

Well it isn't reasonable, it is too much to ask and it is absurd.

Suppressor vs silencer.. You are correct. It seems the NRA, in its own attempts at being reasonable in crafting the NFA and helping to secure its passage, popularized the usage of silencer in an effort to show people how scary they were. Though as well, Maxim coined the term first some thirty years prior.

Your larger point of cutting losses on 2nd Amendment encroachments so as to prevent further encroachments is naive and was as such, summarily dismissed. One, that is going against what courts have already ruled with respect to what is and is not covered by the 2nd Amendment and for two, it is anti private property. Not even mentioning what a stupid and shortsighted plan that it is.

And because of what? You being a little bit uncomfortable?

I am sorry that no one cares about your feelings. I'm sure they mean a great deal to you. As it stands: Not an argument.

I feel uncomfortable having to explain basic property and self defense rights on a libertarian forum but alas, no one cares, do they?

It probably makes you uncomfortable too that I didn't need the King's permission to carry. But again, no one gives a fuck.

Take a .22LR shooting subsonic rounds and you are getting near the point of 'silence.' In as much as a bolt closing, or birds chirping, or a diesel train at 100ft is 'silent.'

My bigger point, which I'll admit should have been stressed earlier, is who gives a fuck if they are silent or not?

Hypothetically speaking, is using a laser for self defense allowed in your vision of America? Or would you needlessly wish for people to be inconvenienced by needing hearing protection to protect their life or property?

I can hear you now.. The Founding Father's could never have envisioned technology developing to the point where contained explosions weren't necessary to launch a projectile.

Stratovarious
02-22-2019, 08:04 PM
To be honest it is difficult to get past your first absurd anti-2nd Amendment claim of silenced killers and wanting to hear the gunshot... in the interest of being reasonable.

Well it isn't reasonable, it is too much to ask and it is absurd.

Suppressor vs silencer.. You are correct. It seems the NRA, in its own attempts at being reasonable in crafting the NFA and helping to secure its passage, popularized the usage of silencer in an effort to show people how scary they were. Though as well, Maxim coined the term first some thirty years prior.

Your larger point of cutting losses on 2nd Amendment encroachments so as to prevent further encroachments is naive and was as such, summarily dismissed. One, that is going against what courts have already ruled with respect to what is and is not covered by the 2nd Amendment and for two, it is anti private property. Not even mentioning what a stupid and shortsighted plan that it is.

And because of what? You being a little bit uncomfortable?

I am sorry that no one cares about your feelings. I'm sure they mean a great deal to you. As it stands: Not an argument.

I feel uncomfortable having to explain basic property and self defense rights on a libertarian forum but alas, no one cares, do they?

It probably makes you uncomfortable too that I didn't need the King's permission to carry. But again, no one gives a $#@!.

Take a .22LR shooting subsonic rounds and you are getting near the point of 'silence.' In as much as a bolt closing, or birds chirping, or a diesel train at 100ft is 'silent.'

My bigger point, which I'll admit should have been stressed earlier, is who gives a $#@! if they are silent or not?

Hypothetically speaking, is using a laser for self defense allowed in your vision of America? Or would you needlessly wish for people to be inconvenienced by needing hearing protection to protect their life or property?

I can hear you now.. The Founding Father's could never have envisioned technology developing to the point where contained explosions weren't necessary to launch a projectile.
They said there was a cure for herpes, apparently not,
you are just Golden son , pure gold .........

kcchiefs6465
02-22-2019, 08:26 PM
They said there was a cure for herpes, apparently not,
you are just Golden son , pure gold .........
Herpes makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps you and Dianne Feinstein could partner together to put some legislation in place so that my sensibilities aren't bothered.

You know, pragmatism and feelings and all that.