Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

Then why have you not gone to court?

No, you guys are just emotional snowflakes. Correcting you, doesn't make me a troll.

I'm an endowed member of the NRA. Now what?

I have no reason to argue why it should have been passed.

 

why the contrarian silliness? are you intellectually incapable of arguing for the law since you don't seem to be interested in arguing against it?

 

I don't do silliness. I'm a gun owner. Hard core gun nuts give regular gun owners a bad name with the extremist, and factually incorrect views they hold.

No, I simply haven no need or desire to argue in favor of the law. I'm not advocating for it, or further restrictions. I'm pointing out the fact it's constitutional.

 

Merely claiming such is not proof.

Indeed it is not known, as every type of firearm has its own established measure of what amounts to acceptable accuracy. To some accuracy is nothing less than a one inch group at far as one mile away, but very few firearms of any sort are able to achieve such result

Then actually prove such. Do not claim it, show such to be the case through evidence that can actually be cited. That is how a debate and discussion works. It is your claim, therefore it is your obligation to provide proof of such.

It is not merely thought. Rather it is a known and proven fact.

The national firearms act, however, does not prohibit the private sale of newly manufacturer machine guns. That is an entirely different piece of legislation, as has already been proven through legal citation.

Let us make something quite clear, as it is apparently being missed.

There is no legitimacy on the part of yourself in this discussion. Nothing resembling evidence or proof has ever been presented by yourself, to back up your statements of opinion. Nothing of relevance has been presented, and none of the posts made by yourself have contributing anything to the discussion that is presently taking place. You are disrupting and derailing the ongoing discussion. If you do not being providing actual evidence within the very next post that is made by yourself, you will be reported to the forum staff for derailing the discussion. Furthermore, every single post made within this discussion that has been made by yourself will be reported for the same reason. You will continue to be reported until such time forum staff sees fit to remove you for failing to contribute anything of relevance or significance to the discussion.

Ultimately it is your decision to make, but such is what will indeed happen.

Then they are failing to function as designed.

The terrorist attack in the city of Nice in the nation of France was a significantly greater risk. Four hundred and fifty eight seriously injured, and eighty six dead in less than five minutes, all done with nothing more than one motor vehicle. No mass killing committing with a firearm has ever come close to yielding the same number of victims.

 

All of your points have repeatedly been addressed. All your questions asked and answered. You don't like the answers, which doesn't change the fact they've been given.

 

I find it amazing that you refuse to argue whether the law is good or bad but dance around a corrupt court from a corrupt administration (FDR)

 

I don't care about the law. It doesn't affect me at all. I have no reason or desire to argue in favor or against it. My only point is to bring fellow gun owners on the extreme end, back down to reality. Because the moronic rhetoric that is common, gives the rest of us gun owners a bad name.

 

Can you explain the physics behind your contention that a fully automatic M16 is more dangerous to the pool of victims by its inherent inaccuracy in automatic fire than a semi-automatic AR-15 would be if the shooter was using deliberate aimed fire?

 

You can state you have "more firearms knowledge than the majority of the people on this board" but that doesn't make the statement accurate. With all due respect, you have made absolutist statements towards the function of firearms that demonstrates that your knowledge may not be as all-encompassing as you like to tell yourself it is. A prime example:

This is not a factual statement. It is a statement of hyperbole and not factual justification. Lay a select-fire M4 next to a semi-auto version and neither is "inherently more dangerous/destructive" than the other. They are simple machines, that must be picked up and used, and their danger/destructive potential is dictated by the morality of he or she who picks it up.

Yet again, not factual. A semiautomatic firearm is limited only to how quickly the trigger can be pulled; if a shooter can manipulate the trigger fast enough he can match fully-automatic fire rates. The legendary exhibition shooter Ed McGivern famously stated that the reason he preferred double action revolvers over automatics is that he didn't like having to "wait for the gun" because he could pull the trigger faster than the weapon could cycle. Using modern electronic timers, shooters have recorded shooting splits equal to conventional automatics. There is high speed digital video of the late Bob Munden firing semiauto pistols, and the firearm's slide would barely make it back into battery before the hammer was falling and the slide would be going back again; he was firing it at the mechanical limit of the design. Certainly there are SOME automatic weapons that can outrun even the best shooters, but then we are moving outside the realm of conventional small arms.

One more time, you are simply, functionally, incorrect. Recoil energy is created by the cartridge firing, and as such is consistently identical from shot to shot, the speed with which it is fired notwithstanding. This is simple scientific fact. An untrained shooter may not know how what kind of stance to use for repetitive recoil forces to be effectively channeled, but such is not the case with experienced, trained shooters. I would hardly quality myself as a world-class shooter, but I've fired select-fire weapons of a great many types and with proper stance and trigger control I've kept every round of a burst of automatic fire inside a quarter at standard combat distances.

 

Still feeding the troll?

 

recoil and muzzle rise

 

How does recoil and muzzle rise make it more dangerous than round actually aimed at the intended victims? Way back in the old days when FMs were printed on paper and MREs were first generation, I was issued field manuals for the infantry squad and the infantry platoon. Presuming that the intent of Army doctrine was to enable its soldier to maximize casualties upon the enemy, we'd expect that what the FMs reflected vis a vis Army doctrine would be the way to actually do so.

The majority of soldiers in an infantry squad, according to FM 7-8, were to fire their weapons in semi-automatic mode rather than in full automatic mode. Fully automatic weapons' primary role was that of suppressive fire. I wonder why the Army taught us to use semi-automatic fire for accuracy rather than to fire long bursts on full auto. Discussion with veterans of the war in the Middle East, including one former 2nd Ranger Battalion member, reveals that semi-automatic fire is still the primary mode of fire for the soldier in combat.

If recoil and muzzle rise affect the shooter, it is to raise the point of impact over the persons of the intended victim pool, causing fewer casualties rather than more casualties.

 

That sounds like Vances. You don' have near the knowledge I have given I was a DOJ attorney for 24 years dealing with these issues as well as general counsel for both firearms dealers and two Title II manufacturers. Your disdain for Class III firearms diminishes your claims

 

collateral damage

 

really? ever shoot a Mac 11 in 380 with a suppressor? or an American Carbine in 22?

an FN FAL in 762 NATO is difficult to control in full auto from say a standing position. a MAC 11 or MAC ten not nearly the problem. MP5s are easy to control in full auto. So are the 9mm versions of the M4

 

Blackwing actually

LOL, I own class III firearms.

 

Never shot a Mac 11. I have shot an M16, MP5, BAR, 1919, and M60. MP5 can be controlled, I'll give you that. 1919 can be as well, only because it is tripod mounted.

 

I don't spend much time worrying about tripod mounted crew served weapons. I am talking about stuff that are individual carbine style weapons that have semi auto only versions readily available. The "dangerousness" between the two is not significant at all

 

Then You knew Hal Hare. If you own class III firearms why don't you oppose the Hughes Amendment. Blackwing is mainly clay target stuff IIRC.

 

"I don't care about the law" this much is obvious. You care about control, not about the law of the land.

 

Opposition to the hughes amendment would mean he would be out the fortune that he paid for his class three items, which he will not be able to reclaim at a later date if they are sold to another.

 

To paraphrase Col. Cooper: your ownership of a gun no more means you're knowledgeable about it it than owning a piano makes you a musician.

 

No, Hal was gone before I started there. I was there from 2011-2014. And they started as primarily clay target, but have grown the retail side to include a very large class III selection, as well as firearms training. Including CCW, and advanced tactical training using Combat Focus courses partnered with Rob Pincus.

The hughes amendment doesn't affect me. I have no use for machine guns. And can't afford them anyway.

 

huh? I don't want to control anything. I have repeatedly stated I am not arguing FOR the bans.

 

The only "fortune" is the $200 tax stamp. I don't own any full autos. I have 2 supressors. Their price isn't affected by the hughes amendment, the way full autos are.