RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Trump says he will have 'serious look' at banning silencers on - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Trump says he will have 'serious look' at banning silencers on Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is online   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,050
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 05 June 2019 - 03:41 PM

Trump says he will have 'serious look' at banning silencers on guns because he doesn't like 'idea' of them as he defends right to own semi-automatic weapons that can be a 'tremendous amount of fun'

CHRIS DYER
Daily Mail
6/5/19

EXCERPT:

President Trump has said he is considering banning gun silencers but defended the right to own semi-automatic rifles as people 'have a tremendous amount of fun' using them for sport.

Trump said he was 'going to seriously look at' banning the devices used to lessen the noise of gunfire after 12 people were shot dead by a killer using a suppressor in Virginia Beach last week.

He also claimed many Americans have AR-15 rifles for 'entertainment' and that if civilians in the Bataclan shooting in Paris had guns the terror attack 'would have never happened'.

The president was responding to questions from Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain today about gun violence in the US.

Morgan praised Trump for banning the use of bump stocks after the Las Vegas massacre in October 2017 in which 58 people at a country music concert were slaughtered.

(Full Story)

---

Here we go again.
0

#2 User is offline   Magic Rat 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 6,510
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 05 June 2019 - 03:43 PM

I've never seen a silencer that worked in any significant way. This is about as bright as the bump stock ban. Not only is it a violation of rights, it's worthless as well.
0

#3 User is offline   USNJIMRET 

  • Rule 1:The Chief is right Rule 2:If in doubt, check Rule 1
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,240
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 05 June 2019 - 04:16 PM

Is there any evidence, I mean ANY AT ALL, that the suppressor used resulted in additional deaths?
Or is it just ''do something, even if it won't do a damned thing?"
0

#4 User is offline   SARGE 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 10,814
  • Joined: 26-June 03

Posted 05 June 2019 - 04:25 PM

View PostMagic Rat, on 05 June 2019 - 03:43 PM, said:

I've never seen a silencer that worked in any significant way. This is about as bright as the bump stock ban. Not only is it a violation of rights, it's worthless as well.



Have you ever used one?

The decibel reduction is significant.

I can shoot my 1911a1 with no ear protection.
0

#5 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 30,294
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 05 June 2019 - 04:44 PM

Don't you <censored>ing do it, Trump.

Your bump stock ban was stupid enough.
0

#6 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 30,294
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 05 June 2019 - 04:48 PM

View PostUSNJIMRET, on 05 June 2019 - 04:16 PM, said:

Is there any evidence, I mean ANY AT ALL, that the suppressor used resulted in additional deaths?
Or is it just ''do something, even if it won't do a damned thing?"

:exactly:

I don't agree with everything that Trump does as I have not for every other president before him.

His bump stock ban was a throw away to appease the NRA who didn't want bump stocks either.

Seems like now every new/recent mass shooting the perp uses something that the gun grabbers want banned that has never been used before in a crime?

It does not pass the smell test.
0

#7 User is online   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,050
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 05 June 2019 - 04:56 PM

View PostSARGE, on 05 June 2019 - 04:25 PM, said:

Have you ever used one?

The decibel reduction is significant.

I can shoot my 1911a1 with no ear protection.


The only one I was lucky enough to play with was integrated into a .40 MP5. It was a quiet clicking sound. I've never gotten to play with a screw on can type, but I hear they make a 9mm/.40cal sound like a .22. Definitely not the silly sounds made in movies though.
0

#8 User is offline   Magic Rat 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 6,510
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 05 June 2019 - 05:06 PM

View PostSARGE, on 05 June 2019 - 04:25 PM, said:

Have you ever used one?

The decibel reduction is significant.

I can shoot my 1911a1 with no ear protection.

Never have. I watched a guy at a berm outside of Billings use a few, including home made ones made out of water bottles, etc.

Like I said, I didn't think it was all that significant. I didn't ask him about them. He was shooting at beer cans and I thought it best to mind my business.
0

#9 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,636
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 05 June 2019 - 05:34 PM

View PostMagic Rat, on 05 June 2019 - 03:43 PM, said:

I've never seen a silencer that worked in any significant way. This is about as bright as the bump stock ban. Not only is it a violation of rights, it's worthless as well.


Th US Navy was known for using them on covert missions in Viet Nam. As they were used mostly for taking out guard dogs they were called "Hush Puppies:

Guns.com:

The Navy’s Mk 22 ‘Hush puppy’ Pistol
02/4/13 6:00 AM | by Chris Eger


So you are a Navy SEAL crawling around deep in the enemy’s back yard. You are vastly outnumbered which means your primary weapon is stealth. You are a shadow—you have to be if you expect to get out of this alive. The thing is, the enemy’s camp has dogs that are bound to bark. What do you do to keep hidden?

Bring a Hushpuppy.

What was the Hushpuppy?

...the Smith and Wesson M39, a 9mm handgun. Originally bought as a commercial off the shelf design this compact semi-auto pistol was coupled to an effective detachable suppressor and dubbed the Mk 22. Since its use was in taking out sentries and the occasional yapping stray dog, it was commonly referred to as the Hush Puppy.

Carl Hellstrom at Smith designed the S&W M39 in the early 1950s. It was a lighter pistol, at 28-ounces than the popular (and heavy at 39-ounces) Colt 1911 style semi-autos of the time period. Unlike the 8.25-inch long single-action Colt, the DA/SA M39 fired the 9x19mm parbellum round and carried eight of them in a single-stack magazine. With a 4-inch long barrel, the all-steel S&W auto loader came in at 7.55-inches overall. Borrowing ideas from several past designs, it used a cammed barrel-dropping design with a Browning-style lock up and Walther surface controls for reliable operation...

The special warfare community inherited these guns and began issuing them out among SEALs in Vietnam who already had supplies of 9mm on hand for their K-guns. Originally, these guns were carried as sidearms with only a few given the Mk 22 modification to operate as a suppressed special purpose pistol. The Mk 22 Hushpuppy modification performed by S&W gave the gun a threaded barrel to accept the screw-on suppressor can. The slide was replaced with one that had pronounced high-profile front and rear sights that could be used accurately with the suppressor attached. A skeletonized butt stock was designed that could be attached to the pistol grip, giving the gun increased accuracy. The pistol grip itself was modified to use a 13-round double-stack Browning HP magazine to increase firepower. A holster was issued to carry the whole affair assembled and ready for use. The frame was modified with a slide-lock that would keep the top end of the pistol securely closed when firing. This feature turned the pistol into a single-shot weapon but eliminated the “click-clack” sound of the slide cycling when the gun was fired. This was important because, due to the very effective suppressor, the slide was the loudest part of the gun.

-------------------

If the click-clack of the slide was the loudest part then, Damn, that must've been a good silencer.

My only question is, If they went to that much trouble to give an S&W the capacity of a Browning Hi-Power, then why not just buy a Browning HP in the first place and be done with it.

As a Navy CT, in the early '80s was escorted into Juba Sudan (now South Sudan) to set up some comms equipment. Escort was Canadian 48th Highlanders. They carried Browning HPs. I'm a believer.
0

#10 User is offline   Tabla_Man 

  • Go Nuggets!!!
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 9,367
  • Joined: 07-August 03

Posted 05 June 2019 - 05:38 PM

View PostModerator T, on 05 June 2019 - 04:56 PM, said:

The only one I was lucky enough to play with was integrated into a .40 MP5. It was a quiet clicking sound. I've never gotten to play with a screw on can type, but I hear they make a 9mm/.40cal sound like a .22. Definitely not the silly sounds made in movies though.



Yeah my M&P Shield 9mm is threaded for one, though I don't own one or plan to get one, but I've heard them before. The James Bond films are more responsible than anything for the misinformation about silencers. If you're going to stealth assassinate someone you sure as hell wouldn't use a firearm silenced or otherwise.
0

#11 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:22 PM

My 2 cents is the ban will help no one but the hearing side companies. I have a friend that is just a nut for any gun thing. He has them for both hand guns and his 308 ar 10. Granted they are quieter and I can shoot the 40 hand gun without hearing protection. But is it worth the fees,no ear plugs are cheaper. Are you going to shoot someone in stealth mode and not be heard no. I don’t plan on ever shooting someone and wanting to try and hide. So it’s a stupid thing to go through the hassle and cost of owning for me. If it was legal and cheaper yeah I’d think about one for my 45 for range practice, if 16 yrs on tanks and shooting 1911’s hadn’t already screwed my hearing. I don’t understand the point otherwise of one especially for a carry weapon. How are you going to conceal carry anything adding 6-8” to the barrel? Other then for hearing protection I see no point. If I need to use a gun the last thing I’m worried about is being quiet about it. This is a worthless feel good law that only hurts recreational shooters hearing.

This post has been edited by Squirrel: 05 June 2019 - 06:25 PM

0

#12 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,636
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:25 PM

View PostTabla_Man, on 05 June 2019 - 05:38 PM, said:

Yeah my M&P Shield 9mm is threaded for one, though I don't own one or plan to get one, but I've heard them before. The James Bond films are more responsible than anything for the misinformation about silencers. If you're going to stealth assassinate someone you sure as hell wouldn't use a firearm silenced or otherwise.


Ahem. Navy here. Though I DO like the way that Wild Geese (1977) tackled the subject with crossbows and Cyanide.

Well, it WAS a movie. LOL.

Could the same be done with a Browning HP???
0

#13 User is offline   GrimV 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,578
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:50 PM

View PostSARGE, on 05 June 2019 - 04:25 PM, said:

Have you ever used one?

The decibel reduction is significant.

I can shoot my 1911a1 with no ear protection.


Very true. But still a far cry from "silence".

And if Lefties were honest negotiators, not sure I'd take issue with a ban on "silencers". Foam earplugs are just as effective, plus they're cheaper and less of a hassle. But Lefties are not honest negotiators. They want a full ban on all weapons, not just "silencers". Give'em nothing.
0

#14 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,636
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:58 PM

View PostGrimV, on 05 June 2019 - 06:50 PM, said:

Very true. But still a far cry from "silence".

And if Lefties were honest negotiators, not sure I'd take issue with a ban on "silencers". Foam earplugs are just as effective, plus they're cheaper and less of a hassle. But Lefties are not honest negotiators. They want a full ban on all weapons, not just "silencers". Give'em nothing.


:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:
0

#15 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:23 PM

View PostGrimV, on 05 June 2019 - 06:50 PM, said:

Very true. But still a far cry from "silence".

And if Lefties were honest negotiators, not sure I'd take issue with a ban on "silencers". Foam earplugs are just as effective, plus they're cheaper and less of a hassle. But Lefties are not honest negotiators. They want a full ban on all weapons, not just "silencers". Give'em nothing.

So what would the ban achieve is my question, other then one more goverment infringament for no reason? How many crimes are committed with them? There must be a reason to take away a right. The same as In 0 crime increase committed with fully automatic weapons before or after the ban it hasn’t changed. So what would the law help. By the way flame throwers including millitary are legal in all 50 states. Let’s ban those. The only thing this would accomplish is taking away someone else’s rights. Well and if they deregulated them and dropped the price it would stop hearing loss. But please explain what crime are. attributed to people having a silencer? It’s all ready heavily regulated to even get one. Please explain where any gun restriction has cut down any crime. I’d be interested to see those numbers and facts.

This post has been edited by Squirrel: 05 June 2019 - 07:28 PM

0

#16 User is offline   Confessor 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 280
  • Joined: 04-February 09

Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:48 PM

Lol, at least those that want to ban them could at least call them what they are - suppressors. They don't silence anything. That being said, I don't think Trump wants to go that route. He is going to piss off a LOT of gun owners. The suppressor used in the shooting accounted for exactly zero deaths, and I hope he isn't trying to placate the idiots by giving them something. Suppressors are useful for protecting your hearing when shooting. There was a bill introduced in the Senate (Hearing Protection Act) in March that would reclassify suppressors to be regulated like regular firearms. This should have been the case the whole time.
0

#17 User is offline   ASE 

  • You do NOT have a right to NOT BE OFFENDED!!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,707
  • Joined: 15-June 03

Posted 06 June 2019 - 01:15 PM

I think it would be a mistake, and a concession that would only embolden the anti-gun nuts. Right now they use the 'weapons of war' excuse, but a silencer is not necessarily used on 'weapons of war' so it doesn't fall within their targeted range - don't give any alibis, Trump; make 'em justify their points, if they can.
0

#18 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,636
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 06 June 2019 - 05:53 PM

View PostConfessor, on 05 June 2019 - 07:48 PM, said:

Lol, at least those that want to ban them could at least call them what they are - suppressors. They don't silence anything. That being said, I don't think Trump wants to go that route. He is going to piss off a LOT of gun owners. The suppressor used in the shooting accounted for exactly zero deaths, and I hope he isn't trying to placate the idiots by giving them something. Suppressors are useful for protecting your hearing when shooting. There was a bill introduced in the Senate (Hearing Protection Act) in March that would reclassify suppressors to be regulated like regular firearms. This should have been the case the whole time.


"Silence" is relative. There's no such think as 0 dbm, unless you're in outer space where nobody can hear you fart.

But... silence relative to ambient background noise of, say, trees rustling (20 dB) or even a quiet rural area (30 db) up to even conversational level (50dB)

Yes, the US Navy could do that.

Had an M1 Carbine in the day (early '80s) (Paid $30 or so for it at the local woolworth's in West Palm Beach FL.) Added a "flash suppressor". Local LEO, a friend, warned me "You might want to be careful with that, some would call it a sound suppressor as well. Well, technically correct, in the sense that it lowered it by 0.5 db. LOL.

Then I added a collapsible stock, and another LEO friend wondered, "IS that legal"? "well, I dunno". Came up with something that looked reasonable close to an M3 "Grease Gun"... IF you saw it from a distance and squinted your eyes.

These were "innocent" days. And, besides, free beer to PBSO and WPB-PB at the strip club I managed. No harm, no foul.

These days? Not so much. The entire electorate of the USA (on BOTH sides) seems to have corn cobs up their arses.
0

#19 User is offline   GrimV 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,578
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 06 June 2019 - 08:35 PM

View PostSquirrel, on 05 June 2019 - 07:23 PM, said:

So what would the ban achieve is my question, other then one more goverment infringament for no reason? How many crimes are committed with them? There must be a reason to take away a right. The same as In 0 crime increase committed with fully automatic weapons before or after the ban it hasn’t changed. So what would the law help. By the way flame throwers including millitary are legal in all 50 states. Let’s ban those. The only thing this would accomplish is taking away someone else’s rights. Well and if they deregulated them and dropped the price it would stop hearing loss. But please explain what crime are. attributed to people having a silencer? It’s all ready heavily regulated to even get one. Please explain where any gun restriction has cut down any crime. I’d be interested to see those numbers and facts.


I dunno, man. Suppressors aren't a hill I'm eager to die on. Yes, I've used one. No, they're not "silent". They don't go "pew pew" like you hear in the movies, but they still serve a purpose. And as a man in his 50s who attended way too many rock concerts in his youth, it's a purpose I'm keenly familiar with. Point being, we have cheaper alternatives that work equally well, so nobody's sacrificing their hearing if a ban on suppressors took effect. And if we were living in a sane world where Lefty gun control activists weren't lying to our faces, I'd say give'em the win.
0

#20 User is offline   Weaseljd 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,575
  • Joined: 04-September 03

Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:15 PM

The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms. I am not sure that a "suppressor" would constitute "arms" as it is not a weapon or a necessary part of a weapon, but is an accessory not a part of the weapon (as many here have admitted you have guns that can use them but don't). Like bump stocks, or possibly even scopes for guns, under a strict reading of the Constitution I cant say a ban on things such as a suppressor or scope or the bump stock ban should not pass constitutional muster as you don't need any of them for your arms and banning them does not infringe on your right to bear a weapon under the Constitution.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users