It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Now the gun rights people want silencers for their weapons.

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


We need the silencers so that it will be harder to target us when the cops execute their no-knock warrants at 5 AM. Or something like that, anyways...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Ranb40
My 50 bmg can will be over $200 for material though.

Ranb


Holy cow. I thought about it for one of my Barretts but I'm just really hesitant about something like this on a 50 cal.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ranb40
 





Nipples are easy to come by. But I am unwilling to pay the $200 tax to the BATFE and wait 11 months for approval to test a silencer design that I am certain will fail



WTF? Nevermind, just put a flower in your gun barrell and forget about it.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Bedlam

Ranb40
My 50 bmg can will be over $200 for material though.

Ranb


Holy cow. I thought about it for one of my Barretts but I'm just really hesitant about something like this on a 50 cal.

Why hesitant? The louder the gun is the more it can benefit from a silencer.

Ranb



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

randyvs
WTF? Nevermind, just put a flower in your gun barrell and forget about it.

Did you think I was asking anyone to make a contraband silencer and risk a $10k fine and 10 years in prison for doing so? I'm certain that a nipple sucks as a silencer because I tested my 22lr silencer with the baffles removed so that it was just an empty tube with end caps mounted on the muzzle. The suppression was nil; but most likely much better than a nipple by itself. Inserting a single baffle into the can greatly improved the suppression.

Ranb



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Ranb40

Bedlam

Ranb40
My 50 bmg can will be over $200 for material though.

Ranb


Holy cow. I thought about it for one of my Barretts but I'm just really hesitant about something like this on a 50 cal.

Why hesitant? The louder the gun is the more it can benefit from a silencer.

Ranb


The thought of it coming off the barrel the hard way!



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Ranb40
 


What I think is it's actually the type of rubber that is used for the making
of the nip. It muffled the souned for me after I heard about it and tested it.
But I didn't get fined or incarcerated cause I didn't rat myself off like an idiot.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I finished my 50 caliber silencer; works ok.

www.youtube.com...

Ranb



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBA2848
So here it is. A website for American Silencer Association. And they want silencers for all their weapons because it will help to protect their hearing.

americansilencerassociation.com...



FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE COMMERCIAL SILENCER INDUSTRY’S 103 YEAR HISTORY, INDIVIDUAL MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, AND DEALERS ARE FORMALLY BANDING TOGETHER TO COLLECTIVELY ADVOCATE FOR THE SILENCER INDUSTRY.


And here is a page membership page.

americansilencerassociation.com...




WHERE DO THE FUNDS FROM MY MEMBERSHIP FEE GO?
PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN
The ASA will work to create an effective public awareness campaign to educate prospective users on the merits of silencers. We will do so through the development of a comprehensive campaign, utilizing electronic, print, and social media applications.

DEALER EDUCATION
One of the applications of our public awareness campaign will be the education of standard Title I firearms dealers on the ease and the advantages of becoming a Class 3 dealer. In doing so, we will help expand the availability of silencers general consumers.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Throughout the year, the ASA will attend various trade shows to generate exposure within the industry, further our educational agenda, and recruit new members. We will begin by attending SHOT Show, the AcuSport Show, the NRA Annual Meeting, and more.

BOOST MEMBERSHIP
The success of the ASA is directly correlated to the participation of an active membership base. Our membership base includes silencer manufacturers, firearms manufacturers, sporting goods distributors, firearms dealers, and members of the public. We will work hard to continuously expand our membership in order to better represent the industry as a whole.


On this page you notice the NRA meetings are listed. But then they list "We will begin by attending SHOT Show". Shot Show is owned and ran by NSSF National Shooting Sports Foundation which is located 2 miles from the Connecticut school shooting.

www.nssf.org...



NSSF Statement In Response to White House Press Conference
Dec. 19, 2012

The National Shooting Sports Foundation today issued the following statement:

We listened with careful attention to President Obama's statement from the White House today. Being one of the "stakeholders" he discussed, we would welcome the opportunity at the appropriate time to become part of a full national conversation with all policy makers that has as its goal the improved protection of our children and our communities from future violence.

NSSF Statement on Newtown Tragedy

We at the National Shooting Sports Foundation have been deeply shaken and saddened by the horrible events that took place in Newtown last week. There are not many degrees of separation in small communities like Newtown, and so, not surprisingly, we had family, friends and acquaintances that were affected. We are weighed down by their heartbreaking stories and the sorrow that has blanketed our community. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy.

Out of respect for the families, the community and the ongoing police investigation, it would be inappropriate for our organization to comment or participate in media requests at this time.


NSSF was a big pusher of the Bushmaster firearm and all it's modification kits being sold. They promoted it through their show on TV and online. Their answer to Virginia Tech and the call to make a gun free zone at colleges and universities? They funded students to start shooting clubs in colleges and universities. Fighting against the proposed government restrictions.

And the statements above that they are ready to talk about gun control with the government? Really when they now are going to push for silencers so a school shooter down the road would not have been heard as he killed little kids in the classroom next door? What a joke. Lets give the mass killers a silencer so they can kill more before people realize what is happening. There would be no need to hide the noise by doing it at a movie theater during a gun scene. You could do it any where. Great idea idiots!!!


You do realize that we are the only industrialized nation that restricts silencers and the are off the shelf items in aeurope and Scandenavia and are considered polite.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Lets be realistic, it's an oxymoron when a firearm or accessories manufacturer claims they want to discuss gun control with the government. It's a simple game of chess whereby they are positioning to market a product with the possible caveat of supplying the military in exchange for dropping a push into te civilian market. I'll ask again though, would it make any difference to you WHERE the company was located in proximity to the school shooting? Would it be less offensive if they were based in North Carolina? I would guess not so much as your reply to me dented on the dubious business practices but I'd prefer not to assume. And also, what would you personally like to see in regards to the subject of gun control in the US? I'm just trying to get a feel for where your. Coming from and not trying to attack your position per se.


And it's an oxymoron when anti gun statists talk about "gun safety" when what they really want are bans.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ranb40

Silencers were originally designed and marketed for civilian use. It took a long time for the military to become interested in them. Since a gun muffler is just as suitable for civilian use as a car or truck silencer, why do you think there isn't any use for them for civilians?

Ranb


Because all he knows about firearms comes from TV and Bloomburg.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The 2nd Amendment covers guns. It doesn't cover accessories or AMMUNITION. You have the right to OWN a gun, not the right to be able to fire it.

If someone truly wants to limit gun ownership, they would push huge taxes on Ammunition that would make it unaffordable for the average American.

It's not infringing on their right to bear arms, it's simply making it excessively expensive to go to the range on a Saturday afternoon. $20 - $30 per bullet seems about right.

You can't restrict gun ownership thanks to 2nd Amendment, but you can sure as hell make it tough to get ammunition if you were really serious about gun control.

Taxes on ammunition also wouldn't have to pass Congress, it could be done with an Executive Order, if the will were there.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
When I am going to shoot someone I kind of like it to be quite too... Just preference...



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   


What's the big deal?


The big deal is that it will be easier to murder people and get away with it. Not that any conservatives give a damn about that, except when they're claiming to be the "party of life".



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

I know that TV shows them as going "pfft" but it's a lot louder than that. Just not as bad as the full-on muzzle noise.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
The 2nd Amendment covers guns. It doesn't cover accessories or AMMUNITION. You have the right to OWN a gun, not the right to be able to fire it.

If someone truly wants to limit gun ownership, they would push huge taxes on Ammunition that would make it unaffordable for the average American.

It's not infringing on their right to bear arms, it's simply making it excessively expensive to go to the range on a Saturday afternoon. $20 - $30 per bullet seems about right.

You can't restrict gun ownership thanks to 2nd Amendment, but you can sure as hell make it tough to get ammunition if you were really serious about gun control.

Taxes on ammunition also wouldn't have to pass Congress, it could be done with an Executive Order, if the will were there.


So you only want the wealthy to defend themselves? How 1% of you.

No, it would require an act of congress. The president cannot levy a tax with an executive order. DO you even Constitution bro?

"Keep and bear arms" includes ammunition. The militia act of 1792 and US code clarifies that.

So you would use the power of taxation to achieve what you couldn't do through the democratic process--that's fascism.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

The 2nd Amendment itself covers ammunition, as its impossible to use a firearm as intended for the legal purpose of self-defense without it. This is very strongly implied in the section of Heller vs DC dealing with the law requiring a firearm to be disassembled or rendered inoperable, which was struck down as unconstitutional given that in such state, it was unusable for its intended lawful purpose.

And I agree about the idea of using an executive order to impose exorbitant taxation as well. Taxation is a power of Congress, not the president. Ignoring that, we're really saying here that we should just ignore the people and their representatives. No debate, lets just do whatever we want. I can just imagine the outrage from the same people who would support such a thing when the next GOP president mandates a $1 million tax on each abortion, to be paid in full up front. Its not an infringement, either, right? It would still be legal.
edit on 17-6-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: NavyDoc

The 2nd Amendment itself covers ammunition, as its impossible to use a firearm as intended for the legal purpose of self-defense without it. This is very strongly implied in the section of Heller vs DC dealing with the law requiring a firearm to be disassembled or rendered inoperable, which was struck down as unconstitutional given that in such state, it was unusable for its intended lawful purpose.

And I agree about the idea of using an executive order to impose exorbitant taxation as well. Taxation is a power of Congress, not the president. Ignoring that, we're really saying here that we should just ignore the people and their representatives. No debate, lets just do whatever we want. I can just imagine the outrage from the same people who would support such a thing when the next GOP president mandates a $1 million tax on each abortion, to be paid in full up front. Its not an infringement, either, right? It would still be legal.


Yes, just as the first amendment covers paper and ink, the second covers ammo. I guess my point was to point out that since the militia act states that the citizens were to supply themselves with arms, ammunition, and the accouterments "of the average soldier's kit" that it is obvious that the writers of the second intended ammo and accessories with "keep and bear arms."



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Agreed. I knew that was your point, my intent was just to add to it. And you're absolutely correct about original series of Militia Acts. It is indeed a gigantic logical hole in the usual anti-2A arguments when the early acts required the citizens to supply their own arms and ammunition. That's pretty tough to do without an individual right to both.
edit on 17-6-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Not done reading. Lots of misinformation.

.22 is often VERY loud. It's the sonic boom. Supresssor will have no effect on that.

.45 ammo is typically naturally subsonic. Very loud, but no sonic boom. Supresssor very effective.

9mm supersonic typically.

50cal sniper WAY supersonic.

Supresssor are mostly short lived. The most effective are the shortest lived.

Also, easy to make.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join