Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership: Deregulate Suppressors Now

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) is releasing a white paper, prepared by highly credentialed subject matter medical experts, that provides supporting information for the proposed Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 367 and its companion bill S.59), which are being considered to aid in protecting the hearing of hunters and recreational firearms users.

The causal relationship between loud noise exposure and irreversible hearing loss and chronic tinnitus have long been recognized by medicine and the U.S. government, DRGO said.

The document cites the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders (NIDCD) as well as academic studies and publications which collectively provide a preponderance of evidence supporting the need for greater access to and use of firearms suppressors.

“Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership strongly supports making firearm suppressors readily available to the public as a critical health intervention to prevent Americans’ hearing loss,” said DRGO Project Director, Dr. Arthur Przebinda. “Reducing barriers to firearms suppressor ownership and decreasing the likelihood of gunshot blast noise induced hearing loss and tinnitus in tens of millions of U.S. firearms owners will have no material impact on criminal firearms use.”

The Position Paper may be downloaded here.

 

This post originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission.

comments

  1. avatar Madcapp says:

    Shoulda gone after the SBR rule first, that mighta worked because its the weakest link in the NFA. At least we woulda had a realistic chance of getting something off the NFA. You can’t justify excessive SBR regulations and a tax stamp in a society that allows pistol ownership.

    1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      I disagree. While SBRs being banned (especially when their rationale was because handguns WERE to be banned) is silly, suppressors offer a multitude of benefits. Also, as long as the sight of a scary black as salt rifle makes Moms Needing Some Action clutch their pearls, SBR have a much harder hill to climb. I can already hear the screechs of “It’s shorter, and therefore deadliester! You can hide an AK15 and its murder clipazines in your trenchcoat! (Peggy Hill voice) WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE FREAKING CHILDREN!!!” Etc…

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Trolllikepie, you parrot the same “save the children” lines when you pretend you know a thing about vaccines.

        1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Oh look everybody, Pg2 is back to not contributing to a conversation and instead bringing it back to anti-vaxxer talking points. NEVA BEEN DONE B’FOR

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Are you an anti gun troll who just tries to make every thread about vaccines?

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          Lol CA, pro gun, anti troll.

    2. avatar GunDoc says:

      While I applaud these docs for putting this forth, from a Federal law standpoint, 18 USC only applies to DC, Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Guam. Which means it’s back to being an individual 50 state issue (with many of the 50 states having no restrictions).

      Relevant information below:

      Any sort of Federal ban or restriction on anything gun related ONLY (ONLY, ONLY, ONLY..get it?) applies to:

      DC
      Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
      Posessions

      Definition of “State” per 18 USC 921(a)(2):

      The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

      Per 8 USC § 1101(a)(36):

      The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

      “Oh, but they can just do what they want, interstate commerce clause and all.”

      Yep. Again, in the enumerated “States:”

      Per 18 USC § 921(a)(2)

      The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

      “But….they must mean all the other states too, they just didn’t list them.”

      Nope. The statutory definition of “Includes” means “those things listed and things not listed in the same class.” Meaning, territories. Unless you consider the various 50 states (not one of which is listed following “includes”) to be territories. But just in case some obtuse or mentally deficient attorney comes along to insist it means the states, rather than the enumerated territories, here’s some precedent and relevant case law examples:

      26 USC 7701(a)(22):
      Includes and including: The terms ”includes” and ”including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”

      “[T]he verb “includes” imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition.” Helvering v Morgan’s, Inc, 293 U.S. 121, 126 fn. 1
      (1934);

      “[I]ncluding… …connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.” Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 62 S.Ct. 1 U.S.(1941)

      Per US Treasury Dept.: “The terms “includes and including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.”

      Put in plain English: “Cruciferous Vegetables Include Brocolli and Okra.”

      You would not then be able to make the assertion that potatoes, squash, and corn were also included, since they are not “Cruciferous Vegetables.” Includes imports “all those things which are of the same class or nature.” Cruciferous Vegetables, and non-state Territories.

      So there you have it. Any sort of “Federal” bans or restrictions on anything are only applicable if you live in the enumerated territories (or give presumption of being from there).

      The above is why it’s important to read for comprehension.

      Now, it does not make up for people deciding to assert that they actually DO live in the United States (as defined in the various iterations of the US code), or making other testimony under penalty of perjury that places them back into the statutory jurisdiction. The government is not going to interfere with your ability to make contracts, and sign away your rights. That’s on you.

      But next time someone says “the interstate commerce clause authorizes this,” explain to them that you don’t live in Puerto Rico.

      Now it’s just about the individual states.

      This needs to be spread far and wide. Freedom hidden in plain sight, if people could just be bothered to read.

      1. avatar Sjay1956 says:

        That just isn’t correct. Speaking as a member of a state bar. The term “includes” is used to pull in, in addition, to actual states, entities that will be considered as states for the purposes of this legislation.

  2. avatar FedUp says:

    Now there’s a gun safety proposal I can support.
    Stop guns from injuring shooters’ hearing!

  3. avatar Warlocc says:

    I’ll get excited when it abolishes state level suppressor bans.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      That’s the real key – since the grabbers have decided to act at the state level on firearms…

    2. avatar GunDoc says:

      Agreed, since state-level bans are all that are currently in-force.

  4. avatar AZgunner says:

    There was never a great chance of the HPA passing, but after the highly publicized shootings of the last few months I’d say it’s basically impossible. With so many republicans supporting a bump stock ban, I can’t see them getting behind the HPA.

    1. avatar GunDoc says:

      The HPA would change very little. Since 18 USC and 26 USC ONLY apply to DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Samoa, a very small number of inhabitants would be affected.

      Restrictions at the 50 state-level are far more pressing right now.

  5. avatar Benny Hinn Laden says:

    Jesus cares about gun rights and says that soon, the HPA will pass and every poor person who can not afford a silencer will be able to have one. Amen.

    1. avatar Detroiter says:

      Which raises an interesting point: I’m not sure how the law reads. If suppressors come off the NFA and just become a fire arm accessory, like a sling, or scope, It would certainly Lu help the budget minded (and handy) among us.

      Even if they are treated like a serialized firearm (which we can legally build for ourselves if not for sale)…..

      I’ve been looking for an excuse to buy a mill and a lathe….

      1. avatar GunDoc says:

        The relevant law is found in 18 USC 921. Pay special attention to the definitions of “State” and “interstate commerce.”

        You might be pleasantly surprised, unless you live in DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, or Guam. And if that’s the case…move out of the US to one of the 50 states, preferably a free one.

  6. avatar Pg2 says:

    Sick of reading what representatives of the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA think or feel about firearms and firearm safety.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      So…don’t read the article?

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Wrong assumption. Maybe you misunderstood my post?

    2. avatar Scott says:

      Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease?

  7. avatar Jaque says:

    Congress lacks the knowledge of the constitution and the will to back any changes to federal gun laws that would result in less restrictions to civilian ownership of firearms. The morons we call lawmakers and their friends of the Judiciary do not understand the most basic and simply worded law named the 2nd Amendment as it is written. Their public statements, bills, acts, rulings, and laws bear this out.

    1. avatar GunDoc says:

      No, Congress does not lack knowledge.

      Every current Federal gun regulation passes constitutional muster, down to the last comma.

      Not a single Federal gun law has any effect outside of the States enumerated as being part of the United States. Which would be common knowledge if people would READ instead of running around like Chicken Little, or spouting off about violence.

      Since it’s likely that most STILL won’t read the relevant laws (specifically 18 USC, with 26 USC as well), here’s the short and sweet, the most important and relevant portions:

      Definition of “State” and “Interstate Commerce” (i.e. the enumerated limits and extent of authority/enforcement of said laws):

      Per 18 USC § 921(a)(2):

      The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

      If you are in any of those “States” (territories), move out.

      Oh, and here’s the statutory definition of “includes,” just in case some obtuse or mentally deficient bar member comes along to bestow their “wisdom:”

      “[T]he verb “includes” imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition.” Helvering v Morgan’s, Inc, 293 U.S. 121, 126 fn. 1 (1934);

      “[I]ncluding… …connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle.” Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 62 S.Ct. 1 U.S. (1941)

      US Treasury Dept:

      “The terms “includes and including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.” This language was previously published as both 27 CFR 26.11 and 27 CFR 72.11.
      27 CFR 18.11, and at 27 CFR 447.11 with the addition of “or are otherwise within the scope thereof”.

      In Pacific National Insurance Co. v. United States, 422 F.2d 26 (9th Cir., 1970) by describing “includes” as conveying “a calculated indefiniteness with respect to the outer limits of the term” defined.” (quoting First National Bank)

      In Plant City, Plant City Florida v.Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122, 90 S.Ct. 337, 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969)) and then adding, from its own precedent in United States v.Graham, 309 F.2d 210, 212 (9th Cir. 1962), “Its scope is illustrated rather than qualified by the specified examples.”

      Freedom never went away, it was just ignored.

      1. avatar Jaque says:

        Tell me then if the NDAA does not violate the Constitution.

        And of course there is the 2nd Amendment and the dozens of federal laws that violate it.

        As plainly and simply worded the 2nd Amendment is, only a fool or moron could misinterpret its meaning. Or maybe one with evil intent.

        Federal laws are often overturned as unconstitutional.

        https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/acts-of-congress-held-unconstitutional.html

        Spend a while viewing hearings on CSPAN and the fools and morons and even Marxists that serve as law makers are easy to spot.

        1. avatar GunDoc says:

          Ok, I’ll tell you: The NDAA does not violate the Constitution. It is perfectly legal within the extent of its powers.

          Nor do any of the Federal Gun Control Laws violate the Constitution. But it is because they don’t have to co-exist with the Constitution.

          Let’s make this REAL simple: Federal territories DO NOT enjoy ANY of the protections of the Constitution for the several states.

          They are wholly outside of it, and are administered as protectorates of Congress.

          Or even simpler:

          50 states= Constitution
          United States (as defined in 8 USC, 18 USC, and 26 USC, look it up sometime)= Congressional decree.

          The trouble is, the vast majority of inhabitants that THINK they live in one of the 50 states claim to live in DC, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands. Usually unknowingly.

          I’ll help you out: Federal Territories all have a zip code. No zip code? Congratulations! You are back in America.

          Doctrine of Elections: you choose, freely and without coercion, that you would rather live under Congressional Dictat instead of enjoying the Constitutional protections. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

          But I guess it is easier to grumble about violence and secession than it is to simply examine what you may have done to put yourselves in the frying pan in the first place.

  8. avatar rt66paul says:

    It isn’t that congress lacks the knowledge, it is the 100 or so people that run the major multinational corporations in our industrialized world that want to run our country the way they run most European countries and Australia. The pressure is on the few countries in Europe and in New Zealand to conform to their wishes(as well in Eastern Europe) for globalization under their control.
    Sadly, they own the Democratic Party and also many politicians in the Republican Party.

  9. avatar cisco kid says:

    Forget silencers and thank the Republicans for tabling the bill under Herr Paul Ryan who even hates Clergymen who disagree with him.

    With the present mass hysteria over guns a snow ball in hell would have a better chance of not melting than a silencer bill being passed.

    The present law works and works well. Imagine what it would be like if every street punk and gang member could just walk into a gun store and by one over the counter with no background checks. You think we have high crime in our big cities now well you have not seen nothing yet.

    Accidental shootings will also sky rocket because the average hillbilly Moron will just start shooting in his back yard when the noise level is reduced which will result in ricochets killing people out simply trying to mow their lawns or work in their gardens.

    And nut cases can and will use them to murder people fully understanding that when you silence a rim-fire weapon you can knock off a dozen people in a crowd before they even figure out what is happening. AND DO NOT GIVE ME ANY BULLSHIT ON THE NOISE LEVEL OF A SILENCED .22 RIM FIRE. I HAVE FIRED M16 AND AR15 GUNS AND ALL YOU HEAR IS THE BOLT CLICKING BACK AND FORTH ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS ORDINARY BACKGROUND NOISE SUCH AS WHAT A CROWD MAKES OR EVERY DAY TRAFFIC MAKES. You could also walk into a house to rob it and shoot everyone in it and the next door neighbors would never hear a thing.

    1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      5.56 out of a 14.5 or 16 inch barrel (AR15-M16) with a suppressor on it is still LOUD AS FUCK. It’s literally not even hearing safe with 99% of the suppressor I’m aware of.

      You obviously have no idea what the hell you’re talking about based on your “You can only hear the action” hyperbole I’ve taken the liberty of toning down for you in repeating because, frankly, I’m embarrassed for you.

      1. avatar ORCON says:

        Yeah, well, this is the internet y’know. It’s a place where you can spew the kind of stuff that would get you a sock in the mouth if you tried it in the real world. For example, one time I shot an AR15 with a suppressor and it ricocheted of off the Cisco Kid’s thick dome and ripped a hole in the space time and then JFK died. It was real bad, mkay.

        1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

          Cisco… I’ve checked most of my guns, none of my bolts click when they go back and forth even when racking them as quietly as I can… I would recommend using some oil on your guns, and looking for burrs if you keep hearing clicking.

          As to the rest of your post…. Blood in the streets!

          Except the blood never materializes…

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        to Drunk on his Ass.

        Reading Comprehension you fking Moron. Reading Comprehension. I specifically stated the caliber as a .22 lr out of an M16 or AR 16 now Moron which part of this do you not understand. God what an idiot.

        1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

          No…you did not…you mentioned suppressed .22LR and then said you fired dead silent M-16s and AR-15s…no mention that you shot .22 out of them.
          quoting:
          AND DO NOT GIVE ME ANY BULLSHIT ON THE NOISE LEVEL OF A SILENCED .22 RIM FIRE. I HAVE FIRED M16 AND AR15 GUNS AND ALL YOU HEAR IS THE BOLT CLICKING BACK AND FORTH

          Yes…if they are suppressed…firing .22LR subsonic rounds…that may be true.
          But…firing .223 or 5.56…even suppressed…is still LOUD

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      No you haven’t. Go on YouTube and look up videos of people shooting with suppressors.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Go back and read my post it says .22 l.r. Moron

        1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

          You might want to add into that post…M16 and AR15 firing .22LR…and subsonic ammo I assume

    3. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      Lying sack of shit. One of my builds is a 20″ 5.56 upper with a SiCo Saker 7.62. Still not hearing safe. My 300BLK 9″ barrel with the same model suppressor is with subsonics, but only barely. It is about as quiet as a compressed-air powered nail gun. Not pleasant in the least. Lying turds like you are what is wrong with any gun control debate.

      Oh, and the current system under the NFA sucks. It is not some magical check against criminality. It is a $200 fine, fingerprints, pictures, and an average 10 month wait for a rubber stamp, signature, and tax stamp. Oh and that background check is THE EXACT SAME ONE when you fill out a 4473. Lying communist shit stain.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Once again all you Morons. Reading Comprehension. I stated a .22 l.r. which can be fired out of many weapons with a conversion kit. I thought you were experienced enough in firearms so I would not have to give you page of instructions about this. Never underestimate the stupidity of a Conservative.

        1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

          You were definitely NOT clear that you were firing M16 or AR15 with subsonic .22LR. Sorry.

        2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Cisco, you’re trying to cover your moronic statement: “I HAVE FIRED M16 AND AR15 GUNS AND ALL YOU HEAR IS THE BOLT CLICKING BACK AND FORTH ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS ORDINARY BACKGROUND NOISE SUCH AS WHAT A CROWD MAKES OR EVERY DAY TRAFFIC MAKES.”

          YOU said that, no one else. You make stupid statements, and then try to say everyone misunderstood you. Screw you. Also, you really have no knowledge about how a .22lr conversion works in an AR platform if you actually think it is that quiet. On a Ruger 10/22 perhaps, because of the reduced bolt weight making it easier to utilize subsonic ammunition with enough force to cycle the bolt. That doesn’t even begin to get into the argument about ballistics and lethality of a subsonic 32-48 grain .22lr projectile.

          I don’t expect you to even bother to learn anything about that though, because it is easier for Constitution-hating communist scum like you to just lie about everything.

  10. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Doctors are also OK with abortions..that prevent 600,000+ lives per year inthe USA
    but…would be nice if suppressors were considered firearms or accessories
    heck…I’d even be OK with a photo and fingerprints for each one if it was an instant check and got rid of the $200 tax stamp and 6-12 month wait- I know many disagree on those…but we could compromise

  11. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Nope, no suppressors, the only practical solution is an Ammo law to reduce the powder charge down to 75 db.

  12. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Funny (not funny Ha Ha) how almost every industrial or consumer product that emits loud noises includes some form of noise abatement device. Most are required by law – local ordinance, if not OSHA regulation. Ever notice what your suburban neighborhood sounds like when landscapers illegally remove the mufflers from their leaf blowers?

    But firearm silencers are heavily regulated, if not specifically prohibited in some states.

    If silencers were particularly useful in the the commission of crimes or mayhem, criminals would use them. And it’s not because criminals can’t get them. You can make one out of materials you can get a Home Depot. Or a Fram oli filter.

  13. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Everyone is hung up on the fact that suppress the control or legalization would have no effect on crime
    The effect of control on crime is not material
    Gun control and suppressor control is all about control of the people

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      Docduracoat says:
      April 29, 2018 at 09:04
      Everyone is hung up on the fact that suppress the control or legalization would have no effect on crime
      The effect of control on crime is not material
      Gun control and suppressor control is all about control of the people

      Correct. The control of the right kind of people i.e. maniacs and criminals. who would use the deregulation of silencers to buy silencers with no background check so they could massacre hundreds of people and commit thousands of crimes. A .22 l.r. conversion kit in an assault rifle like an AR 15 or high capacity pistol in .22 lr. could and would enable a guy to gun down many people in a crowd before they even knew what was happening and the same maniac could enter a house and murder everyone in it without the next door neighbors ever hearing a thing.

      Yea sure I want deregulation of silencers so some of my hillbilly neighbors can start shooting in their back yards and hit me with ricochets or will be bumping off my pets for target practice even if they are on my own property.

      As I have said before many years ago I cringed with a cold shiver running down my spine when I fired off a silenced .22 l.r. weapon and suddenly realized how quiet and how dangerous to the public they really are. Its like letting the genie out of the bottle and once he is out only then do you realize what a mistake you have made.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        Aw… Is fweedom scawee? Do you need your hand held everytime you walk into a Home Depot or to a used car lot? Do planes make you go boom-boom in your pants? How can people possibly live without your wise and loving forced benevolence?

        Does it send a cold shudder up your spine when people whisper? My God! They could be exercising the right to free speech in secret! They could be plotting something! Think of the children!

        Screw you dude. You’re obviously okay with a blatant, nonsensical violation of our rights. And for what? Are you one of those morons who thinks you can outrun a bullet? Or that a bomb can be silenced? Go eat some more Tide Pods.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          No screw you frogturdpie. You have no rebuttal for the truth except rants and tantrums.

        2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Truth? You live in a fucking fantasy world were the streets are rivers of blood! You wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the ass and held on for dear life. You come here and spout off your freedom-hating horseshit and get your feelings in a tiff when people call you out on your blatant stupidity. You are not interested in debate or freedom. You’re a willing and grateful slave that proudly offers succor and fellatio to any petty tyrant who wants to trample on the rights of the people as long as they whisper sweet nothings about “safety” and “for the children” in your dogged ears. Get bent, commie scum.

      2. avatar Scoutino says:

        Sure, the only thing that keeps mass murdering maniacs that are perfectly OK with braking laws against murder is – illegality of gun mufflers. It’s not like anyone can make a piece od pipe with some baffles in it.

  14. avatar Martin B says:

    I live in New Zealand, and we have no regulations governing the use of suppressors for rifles. You can walk into any gun shop and the only cost will be for threading the barrel and the cost of the silencer itself. We have a lot of hunting, and many like to use silencers (actually suppressors) to avoid scaring away all the game in the area. There is only one recorded case of murder with a silencer in NZ. That one was a killing for gain by a financier. Gangs do not use silencers, they prefer the full effect of a loud bang. I do not understand this American obsession with useless regulations. Silencers do not cause crime sprees, and they help protect hearing and the efficacy of hunting in the wild.

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      Can you come run our ATF? Or send a fellow kiwi?

    2. avatar cisco kid says:

      quote—————–I live in New Zealand, and we have no regulations governing the use of suppressors for rifles. You can walk into any gun shop and the only cost will be for threading the barrel and the cost of the silencer itself. We have a lot of hunting, and many like to use silencers (actually suppressors) to avoid scaring away all the game in the area. There is only one recorded case of murder with a silencer in NZ. That one was a killing for gain by a financier. Gangs do not use silencers, they prefer the full effect of a loud bang. I do not understand this American obsession with useless regulations. Silencers do not cause crime sprees, and they help protect hearing and the efficacy of hunting in the wild.————————————————-quote

      We are speaking of two entirely different countries and cultures. Here in the U.S. we are knee deep already in mass murders on a weekly basis and rivers of blood running down our streets and our morgues sometimes full to capacities in our cities on holidays especially in the hot summer where gang wars have more bullets firing than on many Middle East Battlefields. It is so bad we have had not one but several of our Veterans home from the Middle East Wars of Conquest shot down on our city streets after having survived battles in the Middle East Wars. Now just think of what would happen when any criminal or nut case could with no background check walk into a store and buy an unregistered silencer. It would be a criminals and a psychopaths heaven on earth paradise.

      In the past illegal silencers were not common and very expensive when they were encountered on the black market. Also most illegal operations were often found out about and shut down very quickly. In other words the average Moron Street punk never even thought of using one because they were so scarce and of course impossible to get legally if you had a criminal history. That was the beauty of expensive registration was that it kept most silencers out of the hands of criminals and nut cases. The nut case is often an impulse buyer and few even if they could pass the background check would wait the very long time it takes to get one if the nut case wanted to go on a killing spree which would be many times more horrific if he used a silencer rather than a very loud weapon.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        Can I buy some drugs from you? You obviously do not live on planet Earth.

        You know, it just occured to me. You’re not communist scum, you’re just a complete moron. Simply stupid. *POWERFULLY* stupid. Like, you could vomit blood and say you’ll never eat another Tide Pod again, then grab another bag because “these ones will be different” or some such nonsense. I feel bad for you. Really.

  15. avatar Wally1 says:

    Why does it take 8 months for an approval for a suppressor purchase. I thought this is why we had a NCIC computer systems for efficiency. It should be the same as a firearm purchase, just a 4473, call in backround check, approval and done. How about a regulation that any suppressor purchase or transfer has to have a mandatory backround check, it would be really simple. The current tax stamp system it ridiculous. It makes no sense that a firearm purchase is simpler than a suppressor purchase.

  16. avatar AJ187 says:

    The kid takes the dumbest comment award I’ve ever read on this site. What lemming…..

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email