Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

When a compelling interest exists in restricting it.

It is demonstrably more dangerous. Harder to accurately shoot, and capable of shooting rounds at a much higher rate of speed.

 

Lol, how? Full autos fire at a faster rate than semi autos. That is not debatable. Full autos are inherently less accurate. That is not debatable.

 

All of this has been asked and answered already.

The simple fact remains. You can't no own machine guns made after 1986, and it's a perfectly constitutional restriction.

 

you are still proving massive ignorance. it depends on the target doesn't it? and the users? so tell me, at what rate of fire does a commonly used firearm become so "unusually dangerous" that it no longer had second amendment protection.

 

Constitutional how?

 

see now you are trying to argue a constitutional matter-an issue you have proven afraid to address in the past. Why is it "perfectly constitutional" given Heller and Miller? we understand that the stupid law is still in place but that is a cowardly argument to say merely because it has yet to be struck down, its "perfectly constitutional"? why do I get the feeling you really are a fan of government intrusions on our right to keep and bear arms but you wish to engage in a timid passive-aggressive strategy of supporting those stupid laws?

 

Still feeding the troll?

 

ever see Monty Python's Mr. Creosote? But you are right. I am seeing disingenuous passive aggressive nonsense

 

Much has been asked, but nothing has actually been answered as of yet. The only answer that is had at present time, is that there is no knowledge on the part of yourself pertaining to the subject that is being presently discussed. Just as you cannot cite the proper legislation that supposedly says what you claim it says, you cannot explain how newly produced machine guns present any more of a unique risk to the public, than those already in existence and privately available. Simple repeating the terms "asked and answered", "simple physics" and "perfectly constitutional" over and over again does nothing to answer any questions being presented by those far more knowledgeable on the subject than yourself.

 

Wrong. Many full auto firearms cycle relatively slowly, at rates easily exceeded by a skilled shooter with a conventional semi-automatic. Some particularly high level shooters have even run autos at rates matching some of the fastest cyclic rates today.

Wrong again. Full automatic firearms are no less "inherently" accurate than any other firearm. What creates the ostensible "inaccuracy" of full auto weapons is the relative skill of the shooter running the weapon and how well they can control its recoil.

 

You don't understand how court cases work do you?

 

You haven't read the case have you?

 

As TurtleDude noted, you display ignorance in your statements. I can fire my semi auto AR15 at the same rate of fire as a full auto M16; it's an relatively easy thing to do. Easy to do with most semi autos.
How is a full auto inherently less accurate? How is a hi rate of fire more dangerous than control semi auto, aimed shots?
Clearly, it's debatable.

 

He seems to think that if a shooter can't hit what he's aiming at more people will be shot.

 

I suspect like others commenting against suppressors in this thread, his education on weapons is derived from Hollywood U...evokes images of the Mac10 scene in Lone Wolf McCade. Add a suppressor and all you'd see is bodies silently falling all about.

 

But not the ones that the killer was aiming at. Most of those rounds would be heading downrange of the heads of the targets, anyway.

 

To a degree. But the firearm is in and of itself inherently more dangerous/destructive, than it's semi auto counter part.

You are asking for a definitive answer, to a question that can't be answered as such. At least I don't have the answer.

 

it has never been ruled unconstitutional.

 

I have more firearms knowledge than the majority of people on this board. I was a purchasing manager and in charge of ATF compliance for a large retail gun store/shooting range in central Ohio for 3 years, and have been around and used firearms my entire life.

 

this is demonstrably false.

also demonstrably false.

NFA act regulates full autos. That is just a fact. And I have already conceded the manufacture date is arbitrary, in my opinion.
.

Of course is answers them. You just don't like the answers, which is not my problem. And no, you are in no way more knowledgeable than myself, lol.

 

Indeed they are not. You have not even attempted to prove that the claim has actual merit, you merely keep repeating it as if it were an undisputed truth that does not have to be proven. It is not.

And yet such cannot be proven on the part of yourself.

Which ultimately means nothing.

Then actually demonstrate.

As does the firearm owners protection act that was implemented fifty two years later. That is where the hughes amendment is located, not in the national firearms act as is so erroneously claimed on the part of yourself.

What is a problem on the part of yourself, however, is your blatantly inability to actually present a legitimate answer when being asked a question. So far no answers have been presented. If you had any answers as to how machine guns presented a unique risk to the public, such would have been demonstrated by now. Such has not been, meaning no answers are actually possessed by yourself.

No such claim was ever made. Only that you are engaged in an argument with those who actually do possess more knowledge on the subject than yourself.

 

If true, then, explain how, using physics if you like, how I can achieve full auto rates of fire with my semi AR (with a mil spec trigger no less) and how inaccurate full auto (as you suggest) is more dangerous than a semi auto.
Is my semi AR more accurate than a full auto M16?

 

Awww Xen why did you feed him FOPA? Mr. ATF compliance officer was just ******** all over himself, it was hilarious!

 

some. but most fire faster than semi auto.

Again, it's a matter of physics. The faster rate of fire produces significantly more recoil, to the point very few people can accurately fire the weapon.

 

clearly I do. So, why haven't you taken your argument to court? Surely if the bans violate miller, the courts will swiftly side with you and declare the NFA unconstitutional.