Just bought a gun recently. I was asked do I want to pay for a 'tag' for a silencer. I was dumbfounded. But I'm not into guns as a hobby so I didn't know you could buy one. I declined. I'm not sure what the practicality is for a silencer unless you're an assassin. It slows down the bullet's velocity, so it's not practical for hunting. I bought the gun for deterrence and protection. So, the louder the better for me. But I was really shocked that you could buy silencers. They did run a background check FWIW. I barely passed. I was sweating it out though.
curious what you bought. The suppressor will help protect your hearing, but ear plugs or ear muffs will do the job just as well for practice. If this is a self-defense firearm that you'd use in the house, if or when you ever use it your ears will ring for a month.
I bought an AR. In the past, I said I'd never do it. After what's been going on, I figured get it while you can. I haven't even gone to the range to sight it in yet. But I'm going before the election that's for sure. If Trump wins, who knows what will happen. I grew up hunting and had access to guns from about age 10 up. My grandparents lived on Lake Sam Rayburn and the national forest was next door. I think that's why gun's really never appealed to me as an adult. I like to dove and quail hunt. I'll probably use this to take a doe on someone else's lease. I'm not a trophy hunter. I firmly believe you eat what you hunt.
What exactly is going on? Is this the same thing that was going on before Obama was elected causing a run on guns?
I’m glad to hear you eat what you hunt. I’m not a hunter but when I fished I did it with the intention of eating what I caught. Just killing something for the sake of killing doesn’t seem right to me.
What’s going on is watching a political party call for the defunding of our police and watching local Dem mayors and governors refuse to call in the Nat guard to allow rioting, destruction of property and assaults. If Trump wins I expect a larger scale violent response, sanctioned by the MSM and radical left. Sounds nuts...except I just watched it happen a month ago.
Agree with raising age to 21. Buyback programs. Ban for those with criminal or mental history. (Buyback with amnesty period). License like a DL. (This one could have a questionnaire that needs to be passed to obtain license.) Ban on fully autos. (Buyback with Amnesty period).
Drinking age is 21. If some sort of military/terrorist incursion occurred, the age would be lowered accordingly.
A silencer on an AR-15 still requires hearing protection. Silencers also tend to INCREASE velocity not decerase it if they have any effect at all. Tactically, the point of a silencer on a rifle is to hide the flash so the bad guys won't see a giant fireball at night and just aim at the fireball. Silencers also reduce felt recoil and allows faster follow up shots. It also makes communicating with your fellow soldiers easier as it isn't quite as loud, and causes the people around you to not get beat up from the blast if they are next to you with a muzzle brake on the gun. Unless you are shooting a round that is traveling below the sound barrier (45acp, subsonic 9mm, subsonic 300blkout, subsonic 22, etc) it is not "movie like" quiet. Another benefit is shooting a gun inside a house is insanely loud. The noise can cause people to do dumb things and having a silencer in a home defense situation could keep your family/children from freaking out in an already stressful situation. Ironically, a lot of European nations sell silencers with less regulation than the US. They like cutting down on the noise... I would suggest getting a red dot like and Aimpoint or Eotech for your rifle. Also, mount a white light. That's really all a civilian needs unless you want to drop 10k on a night vision/IR laser setup.
It's not an Algebra pop quiz. Either you pass with 100% or you don't. Any pressure felt was entirely of his own making. Lots of first time buyers are very nervous though. Last I checked, it takes about a year for the ATF to process the paperwork for the stamp for the suppressor.
"Of Course Kamala Harris Supports Gun Confiscation": https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/of-course-kamala-harris-supports-gun-confiscation/ Of Course Kamala Harris Supports Gun Confiscation By DAVID HARSANYI August 17, 2020 1:13 PM There’s already a concerted gaslighting effort underway to convince voters that Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential nominee, would never support something as crazy as the confiscation of millions of firearms. Take this USA Today factcheck headlined “Kamala Harris didn’t say she’d send police to take firearms via executive order.” You may notice the highly narrow specificity of this debunking. It’s a little game political media like to play — the Associated Press miraculously ran almost an identical piece on the same day — in which reporters take a hyperbolic backbencher’s comments or a misleading social-media post — in this case, a Facebook post that is “gaining traction” — and use it as a strawman to deceive voters about one of the controversial positions of their favored politician. While USA Today is correct that Harris has never explicitly maintained that she would sign an executive order to “send police” to break down your door, she is the first person to be on a major presidential ticket in American history who openly supports gun confiscation. Whether she promised to implement those plans through legislation or via executive order is also, at best, opaque, despite factcheckers’ efforts to claim otherwise. For one thing, USA Today insinuates that Harris, answering a question at an AFSCME forum in Las Vegas, denied she supported gun confiscation. I’m sorry, but her answer to the Washington Examiner’s Kerry Picket — “I’m actually prepared to take executive action to put in place rules that improve this situation” — isn’t by any standard a denial. In responding to the question, Harris not only failed to deny that she supported the confiscation of semi-automatic rifles, she also didn’t deny that she supported unilaterally creating a national database of gun owners. Somehow, though, USA Today and the Associated Press missed the numerous occasions on which Harris promoted her gun confiscation position. The latter, in fact, claimed that Harris merely backed a “renewal of the assault weapons ban,” which is factually inaccurate. The assault-weapons ban of 1994 only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the law’s enactment. Harris supports retroactively making guns illegal — and then taking them through a mandatory buyback program. The California senator said so unambiguously on Jimmy Fallon’s show in September 2019. She did so again the next month at an anti–Second Amendment event hosted by March for Our Lives, where she said, “We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program. It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way but there are five million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.” That event, it should be noted, was billed as a policy a forum on “gun safety” — the same euphemism Harris used in the primary debate where she warned that she would circumvent the legislative branch on gun policy: So where did USA Today get the idea that Harris’ theoretical “gun safety” executive order would not include in ban on the most popular rifle in the United States? Here’s a fact check: Police would almost certainly be sent to homes of Americans to take guns if a “mandatory buyback” program were instituted. AR-15s aren’t “on the streets.” They are hardly ever used in crimes at all. The vast majority of AR-15s are in homes — somewhere around 15-20 million of them, depending on what arbitrary designation Democrats use to define “assault weapon.” The police, incidentally, are already coming to people’s doors in California, where the state’s evolving restrictions on gun ownership are impossible for citizens keep up with even when they make a good-faith effort. These are the restrictions Harris would like to implement nationally. By implement, I mean compel. A “mandatory buyback” would mean the police coming to plenty of doors, because in the United States there will almost certainly be a great pushback against such authoritarianism, even if Harris could get away with it. Once the state is permitted to ban guns over their aesthetics — since AR-15s share the mechanics of many other firearms — it will almost certainly be empowered to ban any semi-automatic gun. This is the ultimate goal of these incremental efforts to inhibit and eliminate gun ownership. USA Today claims that Harris went out of her way to warn about conflating lawful gun ownership and illegal gun ownership, saying that “they are separate and they are different” as if this dispels the notion that she is a would-be gun grabber. Surely Ella Lee at USA Today understands that Harris supports efforts which would transform millions of law-abiding Americans — 99 percent of whom have gone through criminal background checks and never used their guns in any illicit way — into instant lawbreakers. That’s the point. And a misleading Facebook meme doesn’t change that reality. DAVID HARSANYI is a senior writer for National Review and the author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun. @davidharsanyi
If the mob injustice decides to take your home as a reparation, chances are they will prefer to hit those without the AR 15 at the ready
San Jose's Insurance Requirement Is Privatized Gun Control Politicians deputize the private sector to restrict rights protected from the government. https://reason.com/2022/01/31/san-joses-insurance-requirement-is-privatized-gun-control/ excerpt: Leaning on the private sector to lean on people you don't like because politicians aren't allowed to lean on them directly is "constitutionally compliant" only in a brat's "I'm not touching you" sense. It's an end-run around legal protections for the exercise of individual rights. The problems with requiring people to pay fees and carry insurance to exercise their rights might be more obvious if the San Jose city government had imposed its rules on journalists and bloggers. Liability insurance and annual fees would be obvious infringements of First Amendment rights if smugly imposed as an effort to offset the supposed harms caused by alleged disinformation and misinformation. Then again, Liccardo and company might consider that a clever idea after all. "In a new trend, many governments have sought to shift the burden of censorship to private companies and individuals by pressing them to remove content, often resorting to direct blocking only when those measures fail," Freedom House warned in 2015. "Local companies are especially vulnerable to the whims of law enforcement agencies and a recent proliferation of repressive laws. But large, international companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have faced similar demands due to their significant popularity and reach." Since then, privatized authoritarianism has only proliferated. We now commonly see demands that companies boot disfavored speakers coming from sources as highly placed as the White House. Politicians who think it's fine to conscript private businesses into muzzling their opponents were never going to balk at drafting those same firms into helping them to disarm the public. Rather than submit, people who care about liberty need to exercise it in defiance of out-sourced efforts at control. more at the link
I have a good friend who's a gun owner in San Jose and big on the 2nd Amendment. He is fine with the insurance requirement and there is nothing unconstitutional about this.
