OMG! Boys Scouts With Silencers! OMG! [VIDEO]

“A Boy Scouts camp in Maine [not shown] is now using silencers — the controversial devices that muffle the sound of gunshots — as part of their marksmanship training, thanks to donations from various firearms companies and coordinating efforts by pro-silencer groups,” writes. Wait. What? What’s controversial about silencers/suppressors, exactly? In the middle of an excellent report on the ten silencers Gemtech and SilencerCo donated to Maine’s Camp William Hind Boy Scout facility, and a look at the history and future of suppressors, Vice scouts for an anti-gun org ready to accuse the Boy Scouts of training future assassins. Not so easy, eh. Mr. Bond? Somehow, they manage . . .

Yet despite the negative reputation of being a tool for quiet killers, few gun control groups have an official position against silencers. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence declined to speak to VICE News about the issue, saying the group does not have a specific stance on suppressors. The Violence Policy Center also declined to comment on the issue of silencers.

New Yorkers Against Gun Violence does not have a specific position on silencers, but the group’s director, Leah Gun Barrett, told VICE News that silencers “are notorious for people being able to snuff out other people’s lives silently. Any of these things in the hands of civilians are unnecessarily dangerous and can be misused.”

Gun companies “are going to dress up [silencers] as being okay, as being actually a reduction in noise pollution,” she said, “when actually it’s an increase in gun pollution and gun injury.”

Gun pollution? Next thing you know the antis will claim firearms contribute to global warming. Still, fair’s fair. Vice does a credible job explaining the ins and outs of suppressors without once referring to Silent Scope. Winning. [h/t Jeff Three]


  1. avatar jwm says:

    Wonder how long it took the Boy Scouts to get their paperwork thru the BATFE?

    1. avatar Benny the Jew says:

      Oofah…good point!

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Gun pollution? WTF?
    Gun p0rn I can understand. I love pictures of guns. I’m taking modeling pictures of my guns right now. But gun pollution?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Gun Porn. Oh yeah. Boom-chicka-mau-mau.

  3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    After more than ten years as a Cub/Boy scout leader long ago, it is my opinion that it is not possible to put silencers on scouts. Their guns, maybe… LOL and a darn good thing too.

    Why in the world would anyone remotely on this side of the fence ask what gun grabbers want about anything?

    1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

      This ^^^^ +10000. Wife and I were both scoutmasters for years. Nicely done.

      1. avatar Rokurota says:

        Add another 1×10 to the nth power, says this Webelos Den Leader.

  4. avatar Grindstone says:

    New Yorkers Against Gun Violence does not have a specific position on silencers, but the group’s director, Leah Gun Barrett, told VICE News that silencers “are notorious for people being able to snuff out other people’s lives silently. Any of these things in the hands of civilians are unnecessarily dangerous and can be misused.”

    That is literally only in movies, you fking idiot.

    1. avatar James says:

      But the movies is the gun grabbers sole information on firearms. It’s why we have classics like: “shoulder thing that goes up”, Diana Digette’s one time only magazine use, and 33 mm caliber or whatever the DeYoung guy from CA said.

      But remember, the know guns because the researched them before coming to their conclusion that we need more gun control.

      Anyone recently seen or heard the “why could he wing him” crap after a DGU?

      1. avatar Tom says:

        A ghost gun with a 30 caliber clip it could empty in half a second!

    2. avatar moronobot2000 says:

      “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence does not have a specific position on silencers, but the group’s director, Leah Gun Barrett, told VICE News that silencers “are notorious for people being able to snuff out other people’s lives silently.”

      OK, Leah. Name one.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        I suspect her answer would be something like: “I saw a story about this one bald guy with a bar code tattooed on his head.”

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I have $100 says that is not the name on her birth certificate. Another maniacal beach.

  5. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Good for the boy scouts and the ASA. My NRA dues are well spent.

  6. avatar Roy says:

    Its really weird that silencers were added to the NFA because they really aren’t controversial. Pretty much at all. Even in gun control paradises like the UK, they have laws and regulatory schemes that encourage people to use silencers.

    Also…. Also…. Also… for the liberals and feminists… I’d like to point out that silencers are a womens health issue. It’s just not safe for women to be around loud firearms while they’re pregnant because the sound travels more intensely through bodies and fluid causing damage to fetuses. So big bad governments restrictions on silencers are actually anti-womens rights forcing women to have to stay away from the range while pregnant.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I don’t think you’ll get much traction with that particular “women’s rights” argument. The people that are constantly yammering about “women’s rights”, “war on women”, and to a large extent, even “women’s health”, seem to be primarily interested in dismembering fetuses, not protecting them from loud noises.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        What makes you think that? Possibly you’ve been subjected to propaganda? And sucked it right down?

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          I read and hear what they say. I’ll agree it’s propaganda, but not the way I expect you had in mind

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Oh, and also what they don’t say, as in the thundering silence from the Hillary Clintons, Kathleen Sibeliuses, 99% of Democratic national officeholders, etc, etc, vis-à-vis Dr. Gosnell.

  7. avatar Cameron b says:

    Thanks to the donations of safety minded companies the BSA is now operating their marksmanship classes in an environment that is calm and safe for both the scouts and the neighbors.

  8. avatar pod says:

    I would expect nothing but this sort of nonsense from Vice. The author, Olivia Becker, is a typical mindless mouthpiece for this “media outlet”. if you want to see what you are dealing with.

  9. avatar Blacque Jacque Shellacque says:

    Of course the Scouts need silencers! How else can they earn their “Hit Man” merit badge? I mean, there couldn’t be any other possible use for a silencer, could there?

  10. avatar gsnyder says:

    Lets line up Barrett next to a suppressed shotgun and pop-off a few rounds. Then quietly ask how silent the experience was? What a f’ing idiot.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Follow with a few rounds from a NON-suppressed shotgun, ask her which she preferred. You’ll probably have to write that question.

  11. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

    I’m still of the interest of pitting OSHA against the ATF for mandating noise levels. other than an endless, inter-departmental conflict, It would show which dept has more pull.

    And hopefully we shooters win with OSHA mandated noise reduction.

  12. avatar ANdrew Lias says:

    This is a great idea. I remember seeing a gun control bill where a former boy scout testified to the state congress about how the gun he learned to shoot with in the 60s would have been illegal under the laws they were trying to pass. By letting the younger generation actually get to use them it will do the same thing and give a real world understanding vs what Hollywood says.

    It is a shame that regulation adds significantly to their cost, they are an accessory that is just flat out courteous to other users.

  13. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I would love to see the producers of silencers publish the projected cost of a silencer designed to last 500 rounds. Today that is ridiculous, who would go through all the registration BS and pay $200 tax for something they will discard in 6 months? But decontrolled, I could probably buy a $25 silencer to test, sight in, and work up loads for my new deer rifle, and then spend another $25 to buy a new one to serve my hunting needs for the rest of my life. And such disposables would weigh nothing.

  14. avatar Bob says:

    Dear Leah,

    How do you manage to get actual words out while continuously stuffing your pie hole full of paste? Your’s isn’t a natural kind of dumb.

  15. avatar Kilo says:

    “Leah GUN Barrett”??? Is that a joke?

  16. avatar Desert Ranger says:

    Darn it! When I was in scouts in NH we had to make a basket and use it in our first assassination! Kids these days have it way too easy.

    1. avatar defensor fortismo says:

      Really? We had to choke our victims with macrame.

  17. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Yet despite the negative reputation of being a tool for quiet killers, few gun control groups have an official position against silencers.”

    Watch that change in the near future.

    As others have noted, the cold, harsh facts that suppressors are sold over the counter in the gun control Utopia of Europe will work in our favor.

    If conservatives prevail in 2016, killing the NFA requirement for suppressors should be a top priority.

    I’ll be fine to replace the 200 dollar paperwork for a $200 point of sale tax, and treated the same as a firearm for transfer.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      I wouldn’t like the $200 point of sale tax, but it would be a good baby step to our eventual goal, and a betterment over the current double plus absurd system.

  18. avatar Johnny G. says:

    Why are suppressors “controversial?” They are nothing more than a muffler! Next time I go to get my GMC muffler replaced, I’ll be sure to ask for the “non-controversial” type.

  19. avatar Bill says:

    Are you effing kidding me? They’re worried about BSA turning into mossad??? How about the fact that most scouts that go through Camp Hinds are introduced to the rifle range…on .22s. It’s not about noise pollution. You can’t hear the shots from the road, let alone the nearest neighbor. How about we try this reasoning on for size: The silencers were donated to allow the scouts to lean to use the rifles while being able to easily hear the range officer’s instructions without jeopardizing their hearing. Common sense gun safety. You know, for the children.

    Here’s a thought. Go away. Leave us alone up here. You know why we are hearing this from Vice and not WCSH 6? BECAUSE NOBODY UP HERE THINKS THAT!

    1. avatar Bill says:

      Also, did they get a 12 gauge silencer as well? That would be very useful to have at the introduction of the shotgun shooting merit badge.

  20. avatar DevilNuts says:

    I ALWAYS thought the NFA requirements for a suppressor was insane. I mean all NFA requirement are ridiculous, but suppressors are in my opinion very beneficial for people to shoot with. And if any one has ever shot a rifle with a suppressor on it, you would know it sounds nothing like it does in the movies. They damn sure don’t silence the weapon. They take the edge off so you could shoot without ear-pro, and communicate with those around you. I lolled really hard when the chick said “notorious for killing people quietly” lmfao!

  21. It s good to be looking out for their hearing safety. That way they can hear all the BS about how bad guns are. I am from Maine, I support and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government. That is why it says “shall not infringe” so we can have what the government has to prevent a Holocaust. I believe the people should have what the government has including machine guns. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms.

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