Salon writer Amanda Marcotte first achieved infamy by labeling people defending the falsely-accused players in the Duke Lacrosse case as “rape-loving scum.” She’s a familiar [rhetorical] target in these parts for her shameless willingness to bend, twist and manipulate facts to promote her civilian disarmament agenda. Here’s a fresh example of her work from Silent but deadly: Gun industry eyes a sneaky and dangerous new revenue stream:

NRA leaders have argued that the name “silencer” is a misnomer, because the devices muffle but do not eliminate the sound of gunfire. In May, gun lobbyists invited reporters to a demonstration of guns fired with silencers, to show that one can still hear a firearm’s report. Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s lobbying efforts, argued that the movies distort people’s views of silencers, adding, “They’re not silent.”

Fair enough, right? So fair I suspect that Ms. Marcotte’s Salon editors forced her to include that information. Regardless, the Texan enfant terrible is not one to consider incontrovertible facts an impediment to peddling anti-gun agitprop. There’s no gun truth so truthy that she can’t find a way to bend it to her will.

It’s true that silencers don’t completely silence the sound of a gunshot, but the correct perception that the muffle or distort that sound can be used by kidnappers, robbers or domestic abusers who use guns to control and intimidate their victims. Seeing a silencer on a gun could go a long way towards convincing a victim that the assailant could shoot them without being detected, making the crime victim more likely to comply with an assailant’s demands. It’s also true that the movie images of silencers, accurate or not, are a big selling point with gun customers who are motivated in large part by the glamorization of guns in pop culture.

In Marcotte’s view, someone facing the business end of a silencer-equipped firearm is more likely to comply with a bad guy than a victim looking down the barrel of a suppressor-less gun. And suppressors will stimulate gun sales because pop culture has glamorized them. And that’s a bad thing, not a good thing.

Oy.

To bolster her “argument” that suppressors should remain NFA items, Ms. Marcotte claims “73 percent of gun owners want to keep the restrictions on silencer sales in place.” The poll quoted offers no indication of the methodology used. And here’s the question in question:

[A] Since the 1930s, silencers have been regulated the same way as machine guns and short barreled rifles: to purchase a silencer, the buyer must have a clean criminal record and register the silencer with law enforcement. Do you support the current law regarding silencers, or would you support changing the law to deregulate the sale of silencers?

– Support the current law regarding silencers 73% ….
– 24% Support changing the law to deregulate the sale of silencers
– Not sure 3%

The query stacks the deck by asserting the historical legitimacy of silencer regulation and equating silencers with machine guns. Equally, it woefully mischaracterizes silencer “de-regulation.” If the Hearing Protection Act passes, suppressor buyers will have to go through the same FBI background check as they would when purchasing a firearm.

The good news? Ms. Marcotte reckons the HPA will “sneak through Congress.” From her lying conniving lips to Congress’ ponderous ears. And just in case you thought Ms. Marcotte’s misandry is a thing of the past, she recently Tweeted “I’m not saying ban guns. But maybe ban men from having guns.”

51 Responses to Amanda Marcotte: Silencers Are Evil Even Though They Aren’t Silent

  1. I know we’re not supposed to disparage, but . . . I see a dress but that screams ‘dude’.

    I’m not saying take away zher First Amendment Right to a free press, I’m saying she never had one, or at least no one of ~ its type ever had any.

    You might be able to prove me wrong. But you won’t be able to get the conversation started if you don’t have a gun to defend opening your mouth.
    See how that sh_t works?

    • RF, in this age of sensitivity, please refer to Aman,duh by the proper they/them/Xi/whatever the f***ing 1984 double speak de jour.

    • You can use statistics without any published backup information to prove anything.

      100% of the people typing this message right now think she has no idea what she’s talking about and should have some Reagan tape put over her mouth.

      If we treated the 1st amendment like we do the 2nd, she should have had her right to free speech removed due to comments that were not protected political content in nature, but simply designed to be inflammatory. Just like if someone started waving a gun around randomly, they could (most likely would) lose their right to own a gun.

      “speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.” – Oliver Wendel Holmes, Supreme Court justice, in Schenck V United States.

    • Sorry, Joe. I don’t know why my earlier comment showed up as a reply to yours. Meant to comment on the story.

  2. If “gun-mufflers” are treated like a firearms instead of Strontium 90, I’d buy one (or three).

    Same with short-barreled rifles.

    Time for the NFA to be scrapped.

    • +10000

      I think repealing the NFA requirement for SBR’s is much more important in the long run than suppressors or national reciprocity. Legal SBR’s would negate much/all of the AR-style pistol market. I believe that would end up alleviating future steel core ammo ban tricks (like the M855 NPRM in 2015) that may be attempted by future administrations.

      • What? No love for SBSs? (Sarc)
        But in all seriousness, the NFA needs to go, or at least be re-written so that all Long guns only have to be a 24 inches OVERALL (none of this 18″ minimum OVL with a 16-18″ minimum barrel length).
        Repeal the Hughes amendment, lifting the ban on production of full-auto firearms, and reclassify pistol grip SBSs as handguns.
        I understand that some may find my list blasphemous (“Shall not be infringed!”) but honestly, I think it’s what could actually be passed if given the chance.

        • I don’t find it blasphemous at all. I just think the NFA will have to be dismantled in pieces if it is to be politically feasible.

  3. This is the kind of stupidity that causes me to pause and consider how this species ever invented the wheel, nevermind the circular saw.

    If this came off some random soccer mom’s blog I wouldn’t much care but Salon actually makes money and pays this lady for such nonsense because a shockingly large number of people are really, really dumb.

    • They were invented over the dead bodies of the visionaries who risked being called demons, sorcerer’s, and evil incarnate because they proposed doing something different.

      It generally becomes less risky to try new things as society becomes richer, as there’s more buffer between being wrong and major problems like starvation. But as a whole species we’re.not that good at analyzing the whole risk/benefit/reward situation, especially across a broad spectrum of technologies and potential impact therefrom.

      But as for this author in particular, I think that would be over-analyzing it, she’s either an idiot or deliberately ignorant and inflammatory. Count how many “could”s, “might”s, etc. appear in her screed.

    • I want someone to invent a circular saw that has a blade guard that won’t snag on thin material – apparently outside of the realm of the possible.

  4. Gee, whiz! There aren’t enough corks to fill all of the holes in this lady’s “logic”. Instead of her desire to continue the current regulation of suppressors, she should try to legislate away stupidity. Apparently, she has a lot of experience with being under-educated and an expert in stupidity.

  5. “the buyer must have a clean criminal record and register the silencer with law enforcement”

    Thank goodness they don’t have to pay a $200 tax and wait for months before the paperwork clears.

    • This ^

      It’s not even time of the wait, per se. Many people wait years for a custom gun. It’s the seedy, absolutely futile feeling the wait gives you right up until the time you receive the approval and stamp.

      It’s supposed to feel like a huge, uncaring, mind-fu<K of a bureaucracy. And it does.

      Just one more reason to hate the ATF&E.

      • It’s the beauty of legalese.

        The word “firearm” is a creation of the ATF, and since the 2nd does NOT mention the word “firearm,” they are free to ransom the rights of anyone wishing to purchase or trade in “firearms.”

        The word “firearm” needs to be eliminated. It’s either an arm or it is not.

        • “The word “firearm” needs to be eliminated. It’s either an arm or it is not.”

          Most *any* tool can be used as a weapon…

  6. The first thing to go after in the NFA is the SBR rule. You can’t justify a ban on SBRs in a society that allows handgun ownership and concealed carry. Get something done, instead of getting nothing done. Quit focusing on silencers first, you’ll end up getting nothing accomplished.

    • YES – the 4′ pistol is legal without a forward grip, but with a forward grip no. A rifle with a 10″ barrel no go, but pay for a stamp and you can have your forward grip back. Take off the stock ahead of time and call it a pistol – ok, but you have to lose the fore-grip again. Same for Shotgun, but a 37MM launcher is not even a gun.

      Who’s on first? Not your trigger finger.

      Same thing with full-auto. If a motorized-trigger-pulling-glove; bump-fire stock; binary trigger; are all legal the ATF&E sounds a little schizophrenic to ban full-auto.

    • “It will be the same people that will try to require silencers on handguns as soon as they are legal.”

      I think *all* LE should have one on a duty pistol.

      It will damn sure increase their situational awareness if the lead starts flying, and that may reduce bystanders being shot.

      I sure hope the major gun companies (and the small ones, as well) are working on integrally-suppressed handguns.

      The LE (and military) market is substantial, and I know I’ll likely buy one for a bedside piece.

      It will be a (muffled, I suppose) boom time for the manufacturers…

  7. Wait, you lie about silencers, so you’re justified in restricting then in case somebody believes your lies?

    Boy, now there’s a principle that’s ripe for abuse.

  8. It is not fair to dismiss little Amanda’s mindless blather out of hand. Her/it’s commitment to realizing the promise of “Idiocracy” is plainly demonstrated by the vast sums of money she/it spends on drugs and alcohol. No naturally stupid person could generate this drivel without the aid of chemically induced impairment.

  9. … If the Hearing Protection Act passes, suppressor buyers will have to go through the same FBI background check as they would when purchasing a firearm.

    Well, I guess that’s an improvement, …

    … but why? It’s not a firearm. It’s a part.

    • “… but why? It’s not a firearm. It’s a part.”

      Blammo, if that’s what it takes to get it signed into law, I’ll grumble, but I will be generally OK with it.

      We attack those gun laws the way the Grabbers implement theirs, meaning, incrementally.

      Baby steps on the path to throwing off the chains of tyranny.

      “No one is taking your guns away, you just have to register them”…

  10. In addition to having to put in my name and email every time I comment, now if I click on a link in a post it just goes to a blank page not to the actual link. I tried to find a place to email you about this but when I click on the Contact Us I get the same blank page. Please let me know how to fix this. I’m using Firefox.

    • She doesn’t haunt houses, but she does a thriving business hiring herself out as a bill collector against certain types of business debt. If, say a doctor doesn’t pay you, just pay her to hang out in their waiting room, with her scaring off customers, they pay up quickly.

  11. So the author maintains that somebody is more likely to be compliant if a suppressor is pointed at them?

    That’s great! I can save money by not buying a pistol then.

    But seriously folks, if somebody points a pistol at me, I’m going to take them very seriously regardless of whether or not it is suppressed.

    • This is probably the dumbest part of her screed. First she conjures up an imaginary situation, then evokes the feelings of the people in said imaginary situation, then modifies the imaginary situation and assumes a new set of feelings for the imaginary actors in the imaginary situation and then proclaims that all these things she has imagined are justification for federal law. All this while clearly demonstrating complete ignorance of the subject at hand. It is becoming easier to see how political discourse got to where it is.

  12. She might have a point about a suppressed pistol being more intimidating, but not the one she thinks, since to my mind a more intimidating pistol is one that’s less likely to need to be fired to resolve the situation. If I had to draw on someone, them thinking I’m some kind of operator or assassin probably isn’t a bad thing, just a lot of hassle for a relatively minor potential edge.

    Also, pretty sure the gun pictured in her article is a bb gun, just saying.

  13. I hope the mentally unbalanced woman keeps talking. I think it’s wonderful she has the position in a socialist media site. She is not hurting the second amendment.

    But she does show just how dangerous she and people like her are to civil rights.

  14. “I’m not saying ban guns. But maybe ban men from having guns.”
    Is it too late to ban her “mama baby daddy” from having babies? Maybe an ex post facto vasectomy?

  15. DAMN she is one of the LEE sisters, either UG lee, or for sure HOME Lee.
    WHEW I do not think I could drink enough, IF I still drank to want hit dat. WHEW DAAAHAMN

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *