Suggestion for compromise gun legislation

True.
However.... CCW permits from some states exempt a person from a NICS check when purchasing a firearm.
If a person has such a CCW permit, there's no question it should be honored in another state.

- - - Updated - - -

Psst...

 

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

...and anyone who cares about loud noises. If I didn't have to pay a $200 tax to have one, I'd use it all the time in consideration of my neighbors, and to preserve my own hearing.

To the OP: I see no reason to compromise on anything, at the moment.

 

Don't lie!
Silencers are criminal tools; as soon as you get a silencer, you're going to shoot up a school or something!

 

Hahahahahahahahaha oh your ignorant arguments are AMAZING.

- - - Updated - - -

Every time you speak it becomes more obvious you have never touched a firearm.

 

It does to a progressive, that's how they get all of their ideas.

 

You mean a library.

 

Silly me!

 

Yeah that is what is holding the military back.....paperwork. Have you ever spent a day in the military? They love paperwork. Lol

 

Gun control is what has cost Democrats the South, the Upper Mid-West and the Working Class. Why when we win are we then supposed to compromise with the folks that lost? Over 1200 Democrats have lost their office and been replaced with Democrats since Obama took office. If you are an American and you want to keep and carry a firearm, you can. This is a right we had before the formation of any government and the governments are instituted to secure these rights.

If we start foolishly restricting gun rights like the Democrats do, why would those that value our civil rights continue to vote Republican rather than Democrat? Name a state with a strong gun owning and hunting culture that continues to vote for Democrats? NH, Vermont and MN, I can't think of any others.

 

The fact remains they are regulated. Who are these GOP champions who are fighting to over turn this? Lol

- - - Updated - - -

Then don't compromise.....and you will not pass a single bill. Lol

 

Sure. Regulate means "make regular". Dems pretend it means "prohibit". And Dems are on quite a losing streak here, so I'm not clear on why we would adopt their outlook on this.

 

That's nice. You can't pass a single bill without the democrats. Lol

 

You keep parroting this like you have been consulting with the dem leadership. Actually thats not quite right because the New dem leadership has stated that they are willing to work with the new president.

 

I think denial is his super power.

 

That's nice. Let's see it

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing to add? Got it

 

I'm surprised to see that you are pleased with the idea of dems working with the new congress.

 

I am glad to see that you are happy trump will work with the democrats

 

Sure.... on anything but the only proposed legislation of UBCs, Mag Capacity limits, and AWBs.

 

We shall see

 

As usual, Dems "working with the new Congress" means "whining and crying when they do not get what they want."
Obama did it for 6 years...

 

McConnell did it for eight

 

I was about to ask if there was a logical reason for sound suppressors (silencers) based upon a legitimate purpose and this actually provides one but here's the question. At a 130dB level the firearm isn't actually silent or even close. If that sound can be reduced to perhaps 40dB or below then it has a purpose in criminal activities where it's not about protecting hearing but instead about the sound of the firearm being heard during the commission of a crime.

So is it pragmatically possible to make a sound suppressor that only reduces the sound to perhaps the 120dB-130dB range but not below? This is a firearm technology that I know little about but what I'm looking for is something that works for the sports shooter but doesn't work for criminal purposes.

I just use hearing protection when I go shooting and it's not a big deal and sound suppressors shouldn't be a big deal for shooters either but I'm willing to listen to why it seems important. It's not like they're a Second Amendment issue.

 

In Europe many gun ranges require suppressors/silencers. That, and despite the way they look on TV, most "silencers" don't silence. They just reduce the noise to safe levels that don't hurt the ears. Finally, silencers are easy to make. If they were really a criminal's tool, we'd be hearing about a lot of silencer murders. We don't, because they aren't happening.

 

I would be fine with ranges providing silencers for use at the range