PDA

View Full Version : Silencer


johnwilliamson062
July 15, 2008, 04:41 PM
I have a p22, rem 700 in .222, marlin 891T in 22lr and soon to have Mini 14 in .223. I am under the impression these can all use a modifier meant for a .22. I am also under the impression that although the bullets are all very close to .22, they are not exactly the same. Whats the deal? Can they all use the same modifier/silencer?

MisterWilson
July 15, 2008, 04:55 PM
You can shoot .22lr through a .223 silencer but it's not a good idea because of the lead deposits.

www.silencertalk.com is your friend. :)

TPAW
July 15, 2008, 05:52 PM
You can shoot .22lr through a .223 silencer but it's not a good idea because of the lead deposits.

It is not a good idea to talk about silencers on this forum at all. Anti gun liberals just love that!

MisterWilson
July 15, 2008, 06:08 PM
You've got to be kidding me, right?

Oh goodness no! Let us alter our behavior as to not scare them.

If you were serious that may very well be the most disappointing thing I've read in a long long time...

CowTowner
July 15, 2008, 06:41 PM
TFL has a forum for just these types of questions. It is the NFA Guns and Gear forum. The moderator may want to move this thread there.

MGRacer
July 15, 2008, 08:39 PM
The silencer is designed for the specific round. In general, you can shoot a round that has the same diameter and equal or lower pressure through a silencer designed for the higher pressure round. You cannot safely fire a .223 round through a silencer designed for a 22lr. It will come apart. As another poster has pointed out, it is safe to fire a 22lr through a can designed for .223 or 9mm or etc. However, I would not since the .22lr is a very dirty round that will deposit lead in your suppressor.

Harry Bonar
July 15, 2008, 09:14 PM
Sir;
No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.
And, I agree it is improper and immature to post such on a public forum.
Harry B.

oldcspsarge
July 15, 2008, 09:44 PM
Silencers are another form of hearing protection....I find it much easier to start primary pistol instruction with a supressed 22 pistol.

Allows shooters to talk normally to one another.

and LEGAL for hunting small game, varmints AND Big game here in Colorado !

They are LEGAL and a registered silencer has NEVER been used in a crime.

johnwilliamson062
July 15, 2008, 09:48 PM
I enjoy my hearing. I also enjoy being able to hear cars, animals, and people around me while shooting. Wearing ear protection which pretty much eliminates my best sense drives me nearly insane. Also I sometimes forget to put it on for the first shot.

I posted this here not the NFA b/c it wasn't really about the legality of it or about the equipment itself(where to get it or which is best, etc.). more about the actual caliber of the bullets as pertains to the equipment.

No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.

Besides, I thought Heller just decided firearms were not limited to sporting. No sportsman needs a 100 round drum magazine either.

MisterWilson
July 15, 2008, 09:52 PM
Sir;
No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.
And, I agree it is improper and immature to post such on a public forum.
Harry B.

Look friend, I don't know what kind of hand wringing liberal indoctrination you've suffered through, but implying that even DISCUSSING silencers is somehow improper and immature is grossly incorrect.

Not only are they legal in most states, but they're fun and useful.


Who's side are you folks on??? I suppose I don't need high-capacity magazines or guns that resemble military firearms either.

ETA: Harry, I see according to your bio that you work on accurizing rifles. I guess that it should come as no surprise that silencers are said to enhance accuracy as well.

MisterWilson
July 15, 2008, 10:00 PM
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q252/mastersqurm/Fudd.jpg

swingset
July 16, 2008, 04:28 AM
Sir;
No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.
And, I agree it is improper and immature to post such on a public forum.
Harry B.

Are you for real? Seriously?

Do you know that in many countries suppressors are considered "good form" because they reduce noise?

Do you know that many hunters, varmint hunters in particular favor their use because of follow-up shots on multiple targets?

Do you know that many people buy and use guns for reasons other than being a Fu.....err......sportsman?

If your post wasn't just trolling, which I suspect it is, you should be shamed off of this site for holding such a ridiculous opinion of a PERFECTLY legitimate firearm accessory.

TPAW
July 16, 2008, 11:10 AM
They are LEGAL and a registered silencer has NEVER been used in a crime.

I have nothing against silencers, but the above statement is a gross and ridiculous generalization and incorrect. I have vouchered a few during my 20 years in LE that were used in homicides, both legal and illegal silencers. I'm sure many other LEO's across this country have as well.
And yes Mister Wilson, I was being facetious. Regards, Dennis the menace.

MisterWilson
July 16, 2008, 11:18 AM
I have nothing against silencers, but the above statement is a gross and ridiculous generalization and incorrect. I have vouchered a few during my 20 years in LE that were used in homicides. I'm sure many other LEO's across this country have as well.

Registered ones?

TPAW
July 16, 2008, 11:28 AM
Registered ones?

Yes, generally one's that were registered and stolen during burglaries. A few by the registered owners. One that comes to mind is a guy who murdered his wife in the kitchen of his apartment in a multi dwelling building. Cut her up, bagged her, and buried her in a land fill. His was registered.

MisterWilson
July 16, 2008, 12:08 PM
I mean no disrespect in asking but, cite?

Any public records info I could look into?

Thanks Much.

Joey
July 16, 2008, 01:55 PM
Sir;
No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.
And, I agree it is improper and immature to post such on a public forum.
Harry B.

Talk about absolutely ridiculous, this just goes to prove that we as gun owners are our own worst enemy with people like Harry B pretending to be pro gun :barf::barf::barf::barf:

Hold your friends close and your enemies even closer & it looks like Harry B has more than defined where he stands when it comes to friends of gun owners.

Scorch
July 16, 2008, 02:59 PM
In some foreign countries, suppressors are required for big game hunting, mostly to protect the hearing of professional guides and gamekeepers. Here in the USA, suppressors are typically banned for hunting game animals, but allowed in some areas for varmints and furbearer hunting. I don't have an opinion either way as to their ethical implications, but there are a lot of people (including gun owners and gunsmiths) who have never seen or handled a suppressor, and their only exposure to the equipment is negatively cast in movies. But I suppose you could say the same about guns. A suppressor is just a tool, it has no ethical implications, positive or negative. The person using it is the responsible party.

And just a general comment: calling people names or insulting them will never win them over to your point of view, and it offends others who might otherwise not have an opinion one way or the other.

MisterWilson
July 16, 2008, 03:34 PM
And just a general comment: calling people names or insulting them will never win them over to your point of view, and it offends others who might otherwise not have an opinion one way or the other.

Yup, that's why I had to edit out a great deal of my first post...

TPAW
July 16, 2008, 03:58 PM
I mean no disrespect in asking but, cite?

Any public records info I could look into?

Thanks Much.

I am retired now. I do not know the disposition of the case, or whether or not it has been officially closed. Not being in the loop anymore precludes me from gaining access to any official records concerning the investigation. Consequently, what information I do have, is confidential, and I am not at the liberty to discuss it. There was a brief story of the account in the local rags, NY Daily News, NY Times, NY Post, to name a few. If you wish to pursue the incident, those rags are a good place to start. Perhaps you can contact the NYPD homicide division at the NYPD headquarters building in lower Manhattan, NYC. The ATF based in lower Manhattan was also part of the investigation. Perhaps an inquiry to them would help. That's the best I can do for you.

Zak Smith
July 16, 2008, 04:09 PM
Sir;
No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.
And, I agree it is improper and immature to post such on a public forum.
Harry B.
You are factually incorrect and an enemy of shooters and the 2nd Amendment. That is all.

-z

TATER
July 16, 2008, 05:12 PM
“And when they came for me, there was nobody left....”
Harry and TPAW.. Wow! Fellas.:confused:

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 05:13 PM
Illegal in NC period.

10. any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such firearm is
included within this definition; and

I didn't think they were legal anywhere. I suspect that is what Harry was thinking also.

If you have a logical reason for their use other than covering a crime, such as ear protection or not aggravating the neighbors, fine. But, attacking Harry who probably knows more about firearms than most any ten of us shows your intelligence.

TATER
July 16, 2008, 05:36 PM
Zero,
No attacks here. Just kinda let down is all.
You think you’ve gotten the feel of someone
through their posts over the years and they
pull a Jim Zumbo on ya.......

Joey
July 16, 2008, 06:22 PM
If you have a logical reason for their use other than covering a crime, such as ear protection or not aggravating the neighbors, fine.

Why do I have to have a "logical reason" to own a can as long as they are legal in my state? Do I now have to have a "logical reason" to own a AR15, AK47, Barrett .50 cal "sniper" rifle?

Do I have to have a "logical reason" to have 2 cars, or 3 cars and a truck?

Give me a break here, your "logic" about this issue ranks right up there with the Brady bunch's anti gun reasoning.

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 06:36 PM
Do I now have to have a "logical reason

No. You don't have to have a logical reason to do anything.

But, most men out of diapers have a logical reason to attack somebody who has a different opinion.

.300H&H
July 16, 2008, 06:53 PM
I'd like a silencer, but for me it's just not worth the legal hassle... While I see folks get all hot and bothered about silencers on firearms, I note they don't seem to have any qualms about the natural silence of my bow and arrow.:rolleyes:


I do wonder,however, about the noise levels ie. how silent does a round have to be to be illegal? I know of some very potent air guns and arrows and certain subsonic loads - so when does the 'silence' become illegal?

Zak Smith
July 16, 2008, 07:01 PM
I do wonder,however, about the noise levels ie. how silent does a round have to be to be illegal? I know of some very potent air guns and arrows and certain subsonic loads - so when does the 'silence' become illegal
When you have a device which diminishes the report of a firearm. Air guns are not firearms. Arrows are not firearms. Simply shooting low power loads do not comprise a "device".

"The terms `firearm silencer' and `firearm muffler' mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication."

MisterWilson
July 16, 2008, 07:49 PM
I didn't think they were legal anywhere. I suspect that is what Harry was thinking also.

If you have a logical reason for their use other than covering a crime, such as ear protection or not aggravating the neighbors, fine. But, attacking Harry who probably knows more about firearms than most any ten of us shows your intelligence.

Umm...Yeah...About that.

Obviously Harry-who-probably-knows-more-about-firearms DOESN'T know that while restricted, they are indeed legal in the majority of the US.

Check it out, in 1934 the infringing NFA (National Firearms act) was passed, restricting certain types of guns & accessories to a $200 tax and relatively strict scrutiny. This basically put a damper on machineguns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and silencers as $200 was a great deal of money at the time. Fast forward 50+ years and it's not so much.

Later, in 1986, another infringement was passed restricting the manufacture of new machineguns. Silencers on the other hand, remained legal under federal law. However, a few states have restricted NFA guns & devices but the tide is turning as a few states are actually striking down their state laws and allowing toys such as these.


But law aside, what in the name of Sam Hill is wrong with you folks demanding "logical reasons" & what not? What a downright European thing to say. You ought to be ashamed.

TPAW
July 16, 2008, 07:57 PM
Obviously Harry-who-probably-knows-more-about-firearms DOESN'T know that while restricted, they are indeed legal in the majority of the US.

I am pleased to hear that. Can you cite your source of information. It would be interesting to know for future reference. Thank you.

Zak Smith
July 16, 2008, 07:59 PM
I am pleased to hear that. Can you cite your source of information. It would be interesting to know for future reference. Thank you.
You can google for a variety of queries including "silencers legal in states" and "nfa faq" to find the information.

MisterWilson
July 16, 2008, 08:00 PM
But, most men out of diapers have a logical reason to attack somebody who has a different opinion.

It's not a different opinion that they're attacking.

You know how you hear the stories about people out at dinner (or where ever) that are open carrying, then some weenie calls the police on them because, *gasp*, they have a gun!?

You know that feeling how on one hand you'd like to educate the weenies and teach them the error of their ways, but on the other hand you just want to slap them mercilessly until they grow a set and stop acting like...well...weenies?


Well with those people we can rationalize, "They're just ignorant weenies, not worth our time or rise in blood pressure."

What are we supposed to think & say to our own, the pro gun people?

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 08:01 PM
Mister Wilson, I could not care less about silencers one way or the other. Harry doesn't think much of them so you attack with your little adolescent cartoon, I suppose because you could not think of any words at the time. If your last response has been your first less the typical smart a$$ first and last paragraph I would have had nothing to say on the subject

Excuse me, next to last.

MisterWilson
July 16, 2008, 08:02 PM
I suggest wandering on over to www.silencertalk.com.

The administrator responsible for registering accounts can sometimes take his sweet time but there's no better hive of information, save maybe ar15.com, in the armory sub-forum.

eta: http://www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=6&f=20

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 08:18 PM
Zak, the first site I googled which was Gemtech showed NC as being a legal state which they obviously are not as I posted the law. So, anybody should double check with whatever authorities.

VUPDblue
July 16, 2008, 08:21 PM
Wow, after reading this thread, it makes me wonder if the majority of the membership here knows that the NFA section of this site even exists.

You are factually incorrect and an enemy of shooters and the 2nd Amendment. That is all

I couldn't agree more. Like Zumbo, why on Earth would one shooter try to make life harder for another shooter simply because he doesn't agree with the second shooter's interests? I swear, we can be our own worst enemy sometimes...

Mr. Bonar, I am genuinely interested in learning why you feel the way you do about this subject. You can PM me if you like, but I'd really like to pick your brain...

MisterWilson
July 16, 2008, 08:23 PM
My apologies to all. I just take great offense when I hear the words & phrases of the Brady bunch being parroted by "pro-gun" folks.

VUPDblue
July 16, 2008, 08:23 PM
Zak, the first site I googled which was Gemtech showed NC as being a legal state which they obviously are not as I posted the law. So, anybody should double check with whatever authorities.

Go to a site like NC.gov and look up that law yourself. Be sure to read the opening paragraphs of the criminal code that holds that law. You may find some kind of exemption listed for properly registered items. FOUND IT!

NC 14-288.8
The only persons capable of owning or possessing a weapon of mass death and destruction, as defined above, are the following:

1.Persons exempted from the provisions of carrying a concealed weapon in North Carolina with respect to any activity lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties;

2.Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors of firearms, ammunition, or destructive devices validly licensed under the laws of the United States or the State of North Carolina, while lawfully engaged in activities authorized under their licenses;
The part in red is the important part that authorizes posession. It should be noted, however, that the only acceptable answer on the Form1 or 4 for the reason you need to posess the weapon is "research and development", whether or not you intend to research or develop anything...

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 08:26 PM
Go to a site like NC.gov and look up that law yourself. Be sure to read the opening paragraphs of the criminal code that holds that law. You may find some kind of exemption listed for properly registered items.__________________

I did. It's in my first post.

Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors of firearms, ammunition, or destructive devices validly licensed under the laws of the United States or the State of North Carolina, while lawfully engaged in activities authorized under their licenses;


I saw that. But, for all practical purposes they are illegal for most or at best you are at the mercy of the officer, prosecutor, and judge.

Zak Smith
July 16, 2008, 08:34 PM
Zerojunk,
Zak, the first site I googled which was Gemtech showed NC as being a legal state which they obviously are not as I posted the law. So, anybody should double check with whatever authorities.
Illegal in NC period.

You're wrong about NC. I know several people who possess legal suppressors in NC.

VUPDblue
July 16, 2008, 08:34 PM
Yes, I see that, I just meant for you to look a bit harder for the exemption that I knew existed...;)

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 08:44 PM
You're wrong about NC.

Not for the average shooter.

MGRacer
July 16, 2008, 08:45 PM
I am pleased to hear that. Can you cite your source of information. It would be interesting to know for future reference. Thank you.

http://www.advanced-armament.com/ownership.asp

http://www.srtarms.com/legalities.htm

http://www.johnsguns.us/legal.htm

etc.

Using a suppressor on a gun:

1. Makes the gun much quieter and you will bother those around you less. If everyone used a can we would not have noise complaints from those who live near rifle and pistol ranges. Also the person in the next lane at the range is not subject to any muzzle blast so it is just more pleasant.

2. Many improve the ability of the gun to group well. The suppressor on this gun cut the group size by about 1/3 -- it was already a very accurate and precise gun.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b25/Racer351/Savage110FPCycloneSuppressor.jpg

3. Teaching new shooters is easier as the silencers reduce the muzzle blast and recoil and make the gun less intimidating.

4. They make shooting more enjoyable even for those of us that have done it for many years.

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 08:54 PM
I see. If I fill out a form, have my picture taken, get the signature of the high sheriff, send $200 etc. I can use a silencer. Oh boy, can't wait.

Zak Smith
July 16, 2008, 08:55 PM
I trust you Zak. I'll order a couple tomorrow and take them to the range next week. And, if anybody asks I'll tell them Zak said it was OK.

If you want a legal opinion, write a check to your lawyer. However, it's easy to find references to online sources stating that suppressors are legal in NC, and it's also not hard to find NC shooters who have them. Like I said, several of my friends in NC have them.

Zak Smith
July 16, 2008, 08:57 PM
I see. If I fill out a form, have my picture taken, get the signature of the high sheriff, send $200 etc. I can use a silencer. Oh boy, can't wait.
Dude, you're tilting at windmills here, with no tenable position and no point that is possibly defensible.

MisterWilson
July 16, 2008, 08:59 PM
I see. If I fill out a form, have my picture taken, get the signature of the high sheriff, send $200 etc. I can use a silencer. Oh boy, can't wait.

Or you could drop $20 on Quicken's Willmaker program, draw up a revocable living trust, and put the silencer in it's name, and skip the fingerprinting, photographing, & begging permission of another authority figure.

A trust is mentioned in the NFA (along with corporations) as being legally able to own NFA toys. As the trustee of the trust, I'm allowed to possess my trust's assets.

That's how I have this:

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q252/mastersqurm/Guns/DSC02894.jpg

But you probably wouldn't want something like that, I mean, what would be the purpose...

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 09:01 PM
Dude, you're tilting at windmills here, with no tenable position and no point that is possibly defensible.


You don't think so. It's the same as saying fully automatic machine guns are legal. The same hurdles apparently have to be jumped in NC. From my point of view you are the one splitting hairs.

MGRacer
July 16, 2008, 09:03 PM
Not for the average shooter.

You are unfortunately right -- most average shooters do not know about suppressors and the fact that they are legal in most states. Most average shooters also do not know about the benefits of silencers just like most average shooters do not put very many rounds down range annually.

Skilled and educated shooters on the other hand ....

http://www.silencerresearch.com/silencer_faq.htm

Tac Sol with silencer. VQ sear so 1.5 lb trigger pull, under 24 oz with the can mounted.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b25/Racer351/PacLiteWithCheyenne.jpg

Zak Smith
July 16, 2008, 09:05 PM
The same hurdles apparently have to be jumped in NC. From my point of view you are the one splitting hairs.
You might as well say that concealed carry is illegal in every state and oppose talking about it on forums because it makes gun owners look bad. Neither is true.

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 09:09 PM
You might as well say that concealed carry is illegal in every state and oppose talking about it on forums because it makes gun owners look bad. Neither is true.

BS. A concealed carry permit in NC is a simple matter.

MGRacer
July 16, 2008, 09:15 PM
Quote:
You might as well say that concealed carry is illegal in every state and oppose talking about it on forums because it makes gun owners look bad. Neither is true.


BS. A concealed carry permit in NC is a simple matter.

It is not a simple matter in California.

Bottom line -- silencers are fun and legal in most states. They should be legal in all states, in fact they should be strongly supported by the gun community since they are a very positive influence on shooting. Hollywood and the movies that show suppressors in a certain way have "poisoned the well" on silencers just like they try on guns in general.

Zak Smith
July 16, 2008, 09:16 PM
BS. I concealed carry permit in NC is a simple matter.
I used that example specifically because the application requirements are similar. One might argue that the NC CCW application process has more requirements:

from http://www.co.forsyth.nc.us/sheriff/firearm_concealed.aspx

* Must apply in person.
* Must be able to properly complete application process.
* Must be 21 years of age or older.
* Must provide current/valid identification in the form of either a N.C. Driver's License or N.C. State Identification Card.
* Must provide proof of U.S. Citizenship.
* Must be a resident of Forsyth County for a minimum of 30 days.
* Must provide proof of residency.
* Must provide a list of all previous addresses.
* Must have successfully completed an approved firearms training course and provide the original certificate with application – Firearms Safety Certificate.
* If discharged from the military, must provide a copy of your DD-214 which indicates an Honorable Discharge.
* Must authorize Mental Health background check.
* Must pass criminal history background check.
* Must provide complete set of legible fingerprints (taken at time of application).
* Must be eligible to own, posses or receive a firearm under the provisions of State or Federal Law. See N.C. Firearm Laws.

The cost is $95 (not quite half the NFA transfer tax fee), and the delay (90 days quoted) is more or less similar to an NFA transfer time (Form 4).

The requirements for a Form 4 transfer are fewer in number, but substantially identical.

ZeroJunk
July 16, 2008, 09:16 PM
LOL, the moderators probably didn't expect a fight in the gunsmith forum. I don't really care one way or the other, just didn't like the tone toward Harry. Later

TPAW
July 17, 2008, 08:07 AM
Zak Smith

Thank you for the info.

johnwilliamson062
July 17, 2008, 12:44 PM
You don't think so. It's the same as saying fully automatic machine guns are legal. The same hurdles apparently have to be jumped in NC. From my point of view you are the one splitting hairs.

I am probably the only one that believes this, but I think the "hurdles" are reasonable. I really don't want people who have been declared mentally unstable or who are known to associate with criminals, but have never been indicted to get any of these things legally. I would prefer that everyone have a license which requires CLEO signature to purchase guns. Then not have the background check for individual purchases. I would much rather pay say $500 to get a real background check done and then not have the the hassle of of individual background checks and a registry that could always be used to seize firearms(really, what else is the purpose of the current system).

As far as illegal use for murders, I think anyone who has given the subject much attention at all realizes expedient suppressors can be manufactured for short term use relatively easy. Even without looking it up online I am sure many on this forum with basic firearm knowledge could dream up an expedient suppressor. Just as many could easily manufacture a zip gun. What separates us from criminals is not our possession of these items, but our willingness to work within the system to attain them, no matter how strange the rules are, and responsibly/legally use them.
I have already discussed this purchase with my CLEO, and it is legal in my area. He is not at all concerned about me having it. I was just wondering how many I should budget for. Looks like one for my .22lr and one for both the .222 and .223 centerfires will be fine.

ZeroJunk
July 17, 2008, 02:54 PM
John, I don't have any problem with them. In the end Zak and I were nit picking about whether an otherwise illegal object or material obtainable with a special permit should be generally labeled as legal. I doubt many state governments will ever allow them to be acquired without some special permit nor should they IMO. I'm sure others will look at it differently.

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 09:32 AM
Guys;
OH! MY!
Harry B.

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 10:01 AM
Sirs;
I had NO idea this would grow into the size it has.
Now, I'll tell you my view on silencers:
When I see a silencer on a rifle I think that it is going to be used for an illegal purpose - and - that the individual using one isn't using it for hearing protection but for some stupid illegal purpose. I feel the same about muzzle brakes - they damage your hearing and those about you (african P.H. will either have you unscrew it or go back to the plane.)
Do silencer or brakes enhance accuracy? NOTHING you screw on the muzzle of a rifle does anything for accuracy, BOSS or anything (bullet seating does the job of BOSS to some degree).
The same about super lite triggers - they are used generally because many shooters flinch and they think it helps (it doesnt - they still flinch).
The muzzle of a rifle is a sacred sight - it must be a perfect exit for the bullet and nothing in the bullets way will help to stabilize it - NOTHING.
If a person needs a silencer or brake they need to go to a smaller caliber they can shoot well.
The ONLY reason I personally can see for a silencer is poaching or some other erroneouus activity. This is just my personal opinion. If I was going to poach or god forbid shoot people in a city surrounding - yea - I might want a silencer! I'm not sorry for my opinion, nor my post but I cannot for the life of me understand this eruption of comment.:)
Harry B.

zoomie
July 19, 2008, 10:48 AM
If a person needs a silencer or brake they need to go to a smaller caliber they can shoot well.
The ONLY reason I personally can see for a silencer is poaching or some other erroneous activity. This is just my personal opinion.
Antis think gun control works. It's their opinion. Unfortunately their opinion, like yours, is wrong.

I would like a suppressor on my .223 hog gun. What "smaller caliber" would you recommend? The suppressor would mean I wouldn't have to wear plugs to protect my hearing. Then I could more easily hear the world around me. It would also mean I'd have a chance to take more than 1 hog at a time. Since the pests are often found in groups of 5-10-15, I could take multiple pigs without them scattering, or at least have a chance as such. As it is, we coordinate shots among multiple shooters so we all shoot at one time at different pigs. It works, but a suppressor would make it much nicer. A suppressor on my .308 deer rifle would be a great benefit, also. If we all had suppressors, Walker Game Ear wouldn't have a market.

You, sir, are clueless on this subject.

VUPDblue
July 19, 2008, 12:08 PM
It's absolutely inconceiveable to me that a fellow firearm enthusiast could harbor that opinion. I don't agree with it in any way, shape or form, and I think you should be embarrassed to call yourself a firearms enthusiast. You are certainly no friend of the second ammendment, nor the shooting sports community as a whole. What a shame...

MGRacer
July 19, 2008, 01:25 PM
Harry Bonar
The ONLY reason I personally can see for a silencer is poaching or some other erroneouus activity.

How would you react if someone said: The ONLY reason I personally can see for a very accurate rifle is poaching, sniping, or some other erroneouus activity.

Sir,

You are entitled to your view, but it is uninformed and demonstrably wrong. It is the kind of blanket statements that those who would attempt to take our rights away will use against us. That is the reason for this eruption of comment.

We will defend our rights.

A couple of guns for a fun afternoon with the kids and others. Quiet, accurate, economical, fun.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b25/Racer351/Ruger9622andCZ452withSuppressors.jpg

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 03:42 PM
Sirs:
OH! MY! OH! MY!
Harry B.:)

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 03:47 PM
Fellas:
I just hope everybody sleeps well. I still think you're all great guys!
Harry B.

MisterWilson
July 19, 2008, 04:06 PM
Fellas:
I just hope everybody sleeps well. I still think you're all great guys!
Harry B.

Well you're entitled to your opinion, as we are ours.

I'm pretty sure that they're quite contrary...


Your thinking is irrational, emotional and devoid of logic. Your programming is nearly complete.

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 08:14 PM
Sirs;
I have simply given my opinion. That is all it is - it is simply no reason for the personal attacks which I deem to be mean spirited and impolite.
I've tried to just brush this off and defuse the situation but to no avail.
It appears that there is no respect given to a 73 year old mans simple opinion anymore. The statements made about me are all false; I've been a supporter on T.V. and news print in my area for gun rights several times. I've worked on guns my entire adult life - I love guns.
I've done "contract" work for Charleston WVa police sniper division - homeland defense, desert storm A10 pilots and many other agencies un-named. I've supplied an ex-Vietnam sniper, forensic team leader whose picture with his crew was in J.Edgar Hoovers office till his retirement. I worked contracted for Wayne Novaks 45 Shop for years on special projects.
I am a loyal American and support the second amendment. I'm old fashioned in my views and make no apology for them.
Now, I've taken your remarks and resent them and will post no more on this subject - my views run the same now as then
Now, I wish you all well - I hope you enjoy your sport; I just would like some of you to grow up and respect others opinions without demeaning them personally. I wish you all well.
Harry B.

MisterWilson
July 19, 2008, 08:29 PM
I'm old fashioned in my views and make no apology for them.

This is the crux of the issue. By "old fashioned" you mean "close minded". You've got your opinion and you're not willing to hear anything else.

Meanwhile you support the right to keep and bear, but only the arms YOU feel are acceptable. This is a dangerous opinion and is largely responsible for the disarmament of most of Europe, so forgive us if we don't see it as merely an opinion but downright threatening.


Like I said, you're not willing to change your mind based off anything you will read or be told, so I propose this:

Give us a ballpark of where you live. God willing, if in a free state, lets see if we can't arrange someone to take you out shooting with a quality suppressor or two and see if we can't change your mind via that route. I'm sure you would enjoy it immensely.

Respectfully yours...

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 08:36 PM
Mister Wilson;
I'll be happy to tell you where I live - then we can have a face to face discussion. I live at Veto Ohio and anyone can tell you where I live.
I think this is getting really out of hand and I'm sick of it.
Harry B.

MisterWilson
July 19, 2008, 08:38 PM
Veto Ohio, got it. Gimme a moment.


There's a website, ar15adviser.com, which kinda started off as an Ohio hometown forum. Might be a good start.

Joey
July 19, 2008, 08:43 PM
Sirs;
I have simply given my opinion. That is all it is - it is simply no reason for the personal attacks which I deem to be mean spirited and impolite.
I've tried to just brush this off and defuse the situation but to no avail.
It appears that there is no respect given to a 73 year old mans simple opinion anymore. The statements made about me are all false; I've been a supporter on T.V. and news print in my area for gun rights several times. I've worked on guns my entire adult life - I love guns.
I've done "contract" work for Charleston WVa police sniper division - homeland defense, desert storm A10 pilots and many other agencies un-named. I've supplied an ex-Vietnam sniper, forensic team leader whose picture with his crew was in J.Edgar Hoovers office till his retirement. I worked contracted for Wayne Novaks 45 Shop for years on special projects.
I am a loyal American and support the second amendment. I'm old fashioned in my views and make no apology for them.
Now, I've taken your remarks and resent them and will post no more on this subject - my views run the same now as then
Now, I wish you all well - I hope you enjoy your sport; I just would like some of you to grow up and respect others opinions without demeaning them personally. I wish you all well.
Harry B.

Jim Zumbo was outspoken in his views and un willing to learn till he was "Zumboed" by evil black rifle owners. He lots all kinds of money and his jobs as Hunting Editor for Outdoor Life magazine and host of the television program Jim Zumbo Outdoors on The Outdoor Channel.

He was smart enough and able to learn from his mistakes.

Are you of the same caliber as that of Jim Zumbo, or are you a narrow minded FUDD as your statements above indicate.

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 08:45 PM
Staff;
If you permit these personal attcks then I'm done on the forum. This is getting very personal to me. Anyone can stop by if they have a problem with me. Face to Face.
Harry B.

Joey
July 19, 2008, 08:47 PM
Veto Ohio, got it. Gimme a moment.

There's a website, ar15adviser.com, which kinda started off as an Ohio hometown forum. Might be a good start

MisterWilson, do you have the ability to post a link on that silencer forum you mentioned to this thread?

It would be nice to have others knowledgeable in the silencer world to chime in about this topic.

MisterWilson
July 19, 2008, 08:49 PM
Aww come on Harry, take it easy. You've made some pretty inflammatory statements and while I'm sure we could have kept a better buffer between our minds and our mouths (or hands), there's no good reason to start making ultimatums & throwing down gauntlets.

Lets just work on getting you a product demo on a few cans and take things from there.

Joey
July 19, 2008, 08:50 PM
Staff;
If you permit these personal attcks then I'm done on the forum. This is getting very personal to me. Anyone can stop by if they have a problem with me. Face to Face.
Harry B.

There are no personal attacks against you, just differing opinions and you are unable to be open minded to learn and grow in the firearms arena.

You state you above references, yet are un willing to learn more about silencer's and retreat under a guise of being under personal attack and the threat to leave this site.

I'm sorry you are such a narrow minded person.

MisterWilson
July 19, 2008, 08:52 PM
Joey, I'm wondering whether or not it'd be a good idea.


I look at it like this, if we could win over Mister Bonar (hehe), we'd win over a lot more people than just himself.

Other folks are watching this no doubt and making judgments based on it.

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 08:56 PM
Sirs;
Mister Wilson - I agree. I think we both did this and I'm willing to let bygones be bygones - after all, we both love guns - O.K.?
Harry B.

Joey
July 19, 2008, 08:59 PM
MisterWilson, I can understand what you are talking about. As a long time member and few post's this has drawn me out of lurking.

It does not need to get ugly & can remain professional and friendly as long as we remember where we are & post like mature adults having a arguement whil not "personally attacking" Harry Bonar.

As in real life, do you not have arguments and disagreements with friends yet remain civil and in the end remain friends?

This thread has so far been extremly civil while disagreeing & yet one of the posters refuses to partake in the arguement in the possibility of learning more & instead plays the 'personal attack" card in a effort to deflect the heat away from him and his views.

I agree with you and would hate at this point to see this thread go downhill to the point it's locked and Harry B walks away hating the people who own/want to own/shoot weapons with cans, it does nobody any good.

Joey
July 19, 2008, 09:02 PM
Sirs;
Mister Wilson - I agree. I think we both did this and I'm willing to let bygones be bygones - after all, we both love guns - O.K.?
Harry B.

Thank you, this goes to show you are a gentleman and willing to learn & I will now shut my trap on a subject I know so little about but want to learn more about & have plans on purchasing in the not so distant future.

MisterWilson
July 19, 2008, 09:03 PM
Who wouldn't mind shooting some of these?

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd224/paintballplayer700/Guns/IMGP0374.jpg

http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/AAC/IMG_9245%201028%20Stick.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll104/drdevildoc/LWRCsuppressed002.jpg


I sure didn't:

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q252/mastersqurm/NFA/DSC00741.jpg

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q252/mastersqurm/NFA/DSC00749.jpg

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q252/mastersqurm/NFA/DSC00750.jpg

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 09:14 PM
Mister Wilson & Joey'
I've got a Bushmaster sniper grade with s.s, 24" heavy bbl and a Stag Arms sniper also in the AR line.
I'm happy you're happy but as I said silencers just aren't my cup of tea - now don't go and get hostile - just my preference and opinion.
It appears you have lots of fun.
Harry B.

MisterWilson
July 19, 2008, 09:23 PM
See folks, this is PROGRESS!

He's gone from

"No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer" and "improper and immature to post"

to

"Not my cup of tea"

:D

Also, you just say that it's not your cup-o-tea because you haven't played with one yet. They're very enjoyable.

Harry Bonar
July 19, 2008, 09:26 PM
Mister Wilson;
I've tried to be a man about this to you to no avail with your last post!
Go take a leap at a flying donut buddy!
Harry B.

MisterWilson
July 19, 2008, 09:37 PM
???

VUPDblue
July 19, 2008, 09:44 PM
It's absolutely inconceiveable to me that a fellow firearm enthusiast could harbor that opinion. I don't agree with it in any way, shape or form, and I think you should be embarrassed to call yourself a firearms enthusiast. You are certainly no friend of the second ammendment, nor the shooting sports community as a whole. What a shame...
Harry, I offer you my apollogy if you feel that the above quote was a personal attack. However, on my end, your statement that "no legitimate sporting weapon needs a silencer" felt a little like a personal attack itself. My emotions are running high on the subject anyway due to a specific rule change at my local club aimed squarely at me and my black rifle. My interest does not lie in all areas of the shooting sports, but I believe that if something I don't particularly care for makes someone else happy, then more power to 'em. I also feel like I am entitled to the same mindset. I'm not immature because I like to post about my machineguns and silencers, I derive a great amount of joy using each. I have devoted a signifacant amount of my time over the last decade or so learning about Title II firearms and how they work, and the laws governing them. I also look at this site kind of like a firing range insofar as it is similar to a lot of the conversations that take place on one. If I were at the range and you spoke your mind about the issue of silencers to me, I assure you I wouldn't be as cordial there as I am here. If you or anyone else doesn't particularly enjoy what I am doing, turn your head, provided that I am not doing anything illegal or dangerous. Again, I'm sorry if you took offense to my comments. And, you are welcome to 'demo' any of my Title II firearms if you are ever in my neck of the woods....

Joey
July 19, 2008, 09:54 PM
Mister Wilson;
I've tried to be a man about this to you to no avail with your last post!
Go take a leap at a flying donut buddy!
Harry B.

De cloaking once again.

What are you talking about?? MisterWilson has been quite professional and "nice" yet you are now attacking him and telling him off.

I do not understand you.

Stan_TheGunNut
July 19, 2008, 10:25 PM
I was recently at the range doing some bench rest shooting when a guy came up with his Remington bolt action in 300 Win Mag. I'm glad that he was kind enough to let everyone around him know when he was going to take a shot, so we could take a few steps back from the firing line. Even then, I could still feel the shot when he fired, and it was still really loud.

The same gun with a quality silencer on it would have made being at the range that day much more enjoyable. If I can find the link, I'll post results to a test that some manufactureres were doing where a 300 Win Mag was maxing out their sound meter, and the sound signature was much reduced by the use of a silencer. I think this is the one...

http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24884

I assume that most people on here have never handled, shot, or been exposed to a silencer, but they are not like what you see on TV or in the movies. A good one can make a centerfire rifle such as a 223 sound similar to an unsupressed 22 long rifle. Anyone who lives in the upstate of SC and would like to experience shooting with some, drop me a line. You can shoot mine.

Zak Smith
July 19, 2008, 10:29 PM
When I see a silencer on a rifle I think that it is going to be used for an illegal purpose - and - that the individual using one isn't using it for hearing protection but for some stupid illegal purpose. I feel the same about muzzle brakes - they damage your hearing and those about you (african P.H. will either have you unscrew it or go back to the plane.)
Do silencer or brakes enhance accuracy? NOTHING you screw on the muzzle of a rifle does anything for accuracy, BOSS or anything (bullet seating does the job of BOSS to some degree).
The same about super lite triggers - they are used generally because many shooters flinch and they think it helps (it doesnt - they still flinch).
The muzzle of a rifle is a sacred sight - it must be a perfect exit for the bullet and nothing in the bullets way will help to stabilize it - NOTHING.
Just keep digging.

Again, you are factually incorrect and you keep revealing your irrational bias against suppressors. You might as well assume that anyone who owns a handgun for self defense or carries a CCW has it for murdering people or "some stupid illegal purpose.". Both are equally irrational, mindless, and anti-gun.

Silencers typically either have no effect or increase the accuracy of centerfire rifles (in part due to the "calm, controlled atmosphere" just past the muzzle).

These are both 1/4 MOA barrels.. yes, with suppressors:

http://www.demigodllc.com/photo/AI-Volcano/smaller/G100_0281_img.jpg (http://www.demigodllc.com/photo/AI-Volcano/?small=G100_0281_img.jpg)
............... Larger version of above photo. (http://www.demigodllc.com/photo/AI-Volcano/?small=G100_0281_img.jpg)

rj4
July 19, 2008, 11:02 PM
To All
Thinking like this is scarrrry
I have a car that will go faster than the speedlimit then I must be a SPEEDER
I have a AX I must be a AX Murder
I have white sheets I MUST BE A RACIST
I hope you get it???????????

You Can't Fix Stupid!!!!!!
Thank you for your time

David Hineline
July 19, 2008, 11:04 PM
silencers

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

Sirs;
I had NO idea this would grow into the size it has.
Now, I'll tell you my view on silencers:
When I see a silencer on a rifle I think that it is going to be used for an illegal purpose - and - that the individual using one isn't using it for hearing protection but for some stupid illegal purpose. I feel the same about muzzle brakes - they damage your hearing and those about you (african P.H. will either have you unscrew it or go back to the plane.)
Do silencer or brakes enhance accuracy? NOTHING you screw on the muzzle of a rifle does anything for accuracy, BOSS or anything (bullet seating does the job of BOSS to some degree).
The same about super lite triggers - they are used generally because many shooters flinch and they think it helps (it doesnt - they still flinch).
The muzzle of a rifle is a sacred sight - it must be a perfect exit for the bullet and nothing in the bullets way will help to stabilize it - NOTHING.
If a person needs a silencer or brake they need to go to a smaller caliber they can shoot well.
The ONLY reason I personally can see for a silencer is poaching or some other erroneouus activity. This is just my personal opinion. If I was going to poach or god forbid shoot people in a city surrounding - yea - I might want a silencer! I'm not sorry for my opinion, nor my post but I cannot for the life of me understand this eruption of comment.
Harry B.



Harry since you see a person with the equipment to be an assasin when you see a silencer.

I happended to notice that your mother,wife, and daughter all have the equipment to be prostitues so I will just assume they are in that line of work.

You are the worst kind of gun owner, unlike the anti gunners you pretend you support gun owners rights then stab them in the back every chance you get.
You are a true ****.

David Hineline
July 19, 2008, 11:13 PM
If everyone were to contact Novak's Custom then Harry B just might have pulled a Zumbo.

volkstech
July 20, 2008, 02:11 AM
harry
you seem like a nice old gunsmith. i think that the message that most people are trying to get through to you is that you should do some research on this subject. you just might change your views on this subject. gun people need to be united not devided. all legal firearms have their uses weather you need them or not. you of all people should understand that the weapons are not the problem. i own many nfa weapons and i enjoy every one of them. you might not need them but please do not condem me for enjoying a legal part of the hobby.
i welcome you to come to colorado and try them out. you might, just might enjoy yourself.
also please remember that gun people have a very hard time dealing with someone who says that they are strongly progun and then posts statements
putting down a part of the gun world that they do not like. i think it would have been a lot better to just say nothing.
do not take that to mean that you do not have the right to express your opinion. but when you start saying negitive anti gun liberal view points, you will probably get this kind of feedback.
please take this reply in the sprit it was sent. i have nothing against you.
do yourself a favor and check out silencer talk.

RAnb
July 20, 2008, 08:44 AM
This is my first post, to bad it has to be directed towards a person who is one of those that would not be united with all other moral/legal American gun owners to prevent the erosion of our rights in this country.

Thinking that someone is going to use a gun for some stupid illegal purpose merely because they have a muffler on a gun is either very ignorant or prejudiced. It is also disrespectful to say these things online when silencer owners take the time and money to remain legal.

HB, you say you love guns; but it seems you only love some guns. You appear to hold silencers in contempt; as you do the legal owners.

I think you need to grow up and respect silencer owners without demeaning them; I wish you well and hope you learn to be less prejudiced in the future, for your sake.

Usually when I read comments like the ones typed by HB, it is a result of ignorance and prejudice. People think that silencers are illegal, but are too lazy to actually take a look at the law for themselves. Or they think that silencers make a gun silent like in the movies; not knowing that even a good silencer might still require the user to wear hearing protection. Maybe if they stopped to think that the reasons some gun owners use silencers are the same reasons why car owners use mufflers, then they would not be so prejudiced against gun owners.

Ranb

Conqueror
July 20, 2008, 10:02 AM
Illegal in NC period.
Zero:

Your statements in this thread regarding NC have been absolutely, unequivocally incorrect. There are Class 3 dealers all over the state with thousands of happy customers. Hell, the founder of SWR retired to NC. I own the first rifle pictured above with the AAC silencer. The photo was taken at the Durham Pistol and Rifle Club, in Mebane, NC.

The only special requirement in NC to own silencers is some careful wording in the "reason" box on the Form 4. I simply use "Consistent with the laws of the US and NC 14-288.8" and I've never had a hangup despite owning multiple silencers. It is no harder to buy a silencer in NC than in any other NFA-friendly state.

MisterWilson
July 20, 2008, 10:15 AM
Said by someone else in regard to this thread...

"First off, I am not sure I am a sportsman. If I am, I am certainly not a legitimate one. We don't have protected gun rights for sport."

MOS11C
July 20, 2008, 10:48 AM
No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.
And, I agree it is improper and immature to post such on a public forum.

What is a sporting weapon?
and
Who the hell cares about the sportsman?
It's any American "individual" citizen that we should be concerned about.

Some would think that one must have to be part of some organization to legally own a piece of metal and/or for it to be legitimate.
Not aplying this about anyone here but, IMO, only the socialists would think that way.

Actually, silencers are used for a number of non-sporting purposes. They are often used by police to shoot animals in residential areas. In addition to police, grounds-keepers, janitors and private security may use silencers to shoot rabid animals or rats inside buildings. Silencers can be used for hunting small animals such as rabbits or squirrels. Since a loud retort from a gun will likely cause all the animals in field to run away or run into holes, a silenced weapon will allow a hunter to shoot many animals in field without scaring away others. The most common use of silencers is for target practice. It is also said that using a silenced firearm is helpful for first-time shooters to get used to firing a weapon, because first-time shooters often are disturbed by the loud noise. Other people simply collect exotic weapons, and many people seem to make them for the same reason people build model airplanes and ships in bottles.

And yes, I just registered to TFL and this is my first post just to answer this one. I wouldn't want the scum Brady to use our own quotes for their gun control agenda. :rolleyes:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd57/godseeker83/IMG_0373.jpg

Hugh G Rection
July 20, 2008, 12:06 PM
Harry Bonar,

Thanks for showing your anti gun rights beliefs. I'll be sure and let Novak know that he has an anti gun rights person working with him. We got rid of Zumbo when he revealed his turncoat status, maybe we can get rid of you also.

2008 is a NO SHRUG year for me.

Sincerely,

Hugh G. Rection


http://photos-g.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v287/154/121/595683698/n595683698_513406_9595.jpg

Here is the AtomicLabRat shooting his 6.8mm AR with a can on it.

1SGT Harlin
July 20, 2008, 12:25 PM
I just got back from South Africa and silencers are quiet legal there. Guess what, if your a PH and have to cull out a heard of springbuck in a park near a town because people keep hitting them with cars and can is pretty handy!!
Shooting varmits at night is legal in Michigan. I think silencers shout be too. Why wake up folks when there trying to sleep??

Hugh G Rection
July 20, 2008, 12:52 PM
Sirs;
Mister Wilson - I agree. I think we both did this and I'm willing to let bygones be bygones - after all, we both love guns - O.K.?
Harry B.

Harry Bonar,

Do you really "Love Guns"?

Are are you a Zumbo who loves some guns, but not all guns and doesn't think that subjects should possess "Those guns" that you don't love?

Are you a Zumbo type that beleives that the 2nd amendment is about hunting?

Just wondering about your committment to gun rights and the 2nd amendment.

Sincerely,

Hugh G. Rection.

MOS11C
July 20, 2008, 12:55 PM
As I have posted elsewhere:

Actually, because of the fact that silencers are helpful for first-time shooters to get used to firing a weapon and not be disturbed by the loud noise,
....it also help us to increase our pro-gun pro-2A community.

....which, for me, is the most important use of silencers. ;)

ZeroJunk
July 20, 2008, 01:29 PM
Your statements in this thread regarding NC have been absolutely, unequivocally incorrect.

That's BS. There are any number of illegal objects and substances that can be obtained for specific purposes with a special permit. That doesn't magically throw them in the legal category to the laymen.


The only special requirement in NC to own silencers is some careful wording

Code for lying about your purpose or stretching the definition of collector, which suits me if it suits the AHJ.

MisterWilson
July 20, 2008, 02:13 PM
Okay, so after we're forced to register, after we're treated like criminals, good GOD you'd better not lie on your ATF form and say that it's for "Research purposes" or whatever stupid phrase they require, because that'd be lying and wrong.

Did you bump your head?

MOS11C
July 20, 2008, 02:24 PM
I am retired now. I do not know the disposition of the case, or whether or not it has been officially closed. Not being in the loop anymore precludes me from gaining access to any official records concerning the investigation. Consequently, what information I do have, is confidential, and I am not at the liberty to discuss it. There was a brief story of the account in the local rags, NY Daily News, NY Times, NY Post, to name a few. If you wish to pursue the incident, those rags are a good place to start. Perhaps you can contact the NYPD homicide division at the NYPD headquarters building in lower Manhattan, NYC. The ATF based in lower Manhattan was also part of the investigation. Perhaps an inquiry to them would help. That's the best I can do for you.

Maybe regarding this isolated case this is the best one can do but regarding actual prosecuted crimes committed where silencers are mentioned, well, we can do better than that.
And we don't need any special hot shot credentials to do so.

We also don't need to call NYPD or the anti-gun NY liberal press to get unbiased information on criminal cases involving firearms.

Actually, I've visited 1 Police Plaza, in Manhattan, many times and seen with my own eyes the disrespect shown by officers and clerks, of the Licensing Division, towards the law-abiding applying for a permit. The only thing that you have to do is walk into their buildings for them to start looking at you like a criminal. And this was during the scum Guiliani administration. Today under the anti-gun twerp Bloomberg things are 10 times worse. And Newark PD is not far behind. I dealt with them, on a daily basis, before, during and after 911.

It's true that crimes have been committed by folks possessing silencers (legally or otherwise) but statistics do show that the number of crimes committed with a firearm that hosted a silencer is almost null and NOT an LE or a society concern.

Information on criminal silencer use and conviction is not available from ATF as the machinegun reports.

The Lexis/Westlaw database contains 153 cases over the past ten years in which the evidence suggests a silencer was used for a criminal purpose — including unlawful possession of a silencer where no other crime was committed. That gives an average of about 15 reported cases each year, and assuming this represents close to half of all prosecutions, one can assume 30-40 total cases per year (to be conservative). This is out of 75-80,000 overall federal criminal prosecutions each year. Overall numbers certainly suggest that silencers are a very minor law enforcement problem. Moving from the overall numbers and looking at more specific offences, it appears that use of silencers in truly violent crime is even more rare. Thirty-six of the 153 defendants (23%) had prior criminal records, although many were for relatively minor offenses. For 17 of those the prior offense was not listed.
The 19 whose prior records were listed broke down as follows (if there was more than one prior then the most serious prior conviction is listed): 4 drug trafficking, 3 misdemeanors (disorderly conduct, domestic violence, possession of marijuana), 2 felony possession of drugs (but not trafficking), 2 assault, 1 murder, 1 arson, 1 rape, 1 burglary, 1 attempted grand larceny, 1 DWI, 1 carrying concealed weapon, 1 (previ-ous) possession of silencer. So even for the 23 percent of defendants with a prior record, almost half of them (8 out of 19 reported) had fairly trivial, non-violent prior crimes. There were 20 cases (13%) in which possession of silencer was the only charge (state or federal). These would not be subject to the 30-year enhanced sentence. Thirty-seven cases (24%) included other illegal weapons charges (such as possession of “short barrel” rifle, or an automatic weapon), but by a person who had no criminal record and no apparent intention to use the weapons for a violent purpose. Not surprisingly, many people who manufacture silencers also manufacture other firearms, which is illegal without a permit. There were 50 cases (32%) in which silencers were found during drug raids, and in which drug trafficking was the most serious charge. Almost without exception the silencer was simply found on the premises when the residence was searched for drugs. In these 50 cases there is no evidence that the silencer found during the drug raid was ever used to injure anyone. In 32 cases (21%) some crime other then drug trafficking was charged: 7 Continuing Criminal Enterprise, 6 robbery, 5 illegal sale of weapons, 4 murder, 2 attempted murder, 2 conspiracy to murder, 2 extortion, 1 sexual assault (state crime), 1 bank robbery, 1 assault and 1 burglary (state crime). If we include sale of weapons in the victimless category (along with possession of illegal weapons, drug trafficking, and mere non-violent possession of weapons by a felon), then more than 80 percent of federal silencer charges are for non-violent, victimless crimes. If we consider all those convicted of Continuing Crimianl Enterprise, CCE, extortion, robbery and conspiracy as “professional” criminals, these still represent less than 20 percent of defendants prosecuted. In 14 cases of 160 silencer prosecutions (about 9%) the defendant was acquitted of all charges (7 cases) or the case was dismissed due to illegal search (7 cases). It should also be noted that there were 3 other acquittals in which the defendant was acquitted of use of a silencer during a crime but convicted of simple possession of an unregistered silencer. The guns found with silencers were overwhelmingly small caliber, low power semi-automatic pistols. Of the reported cases, 46 listed the caliber of the firearm associated with the silencer. For those cases in which caliber is noted, 52 percent were .22, 32 percent were 9mm, 10 percent were .38, 2 percent were .25 caliber, 2 percent were .45 caliber, and 2 percent were either 9mm or .22. So of the 46 cases with listed calibers we have only one large caliber handgun—the .45. While a 9 mm could make up for its small caliber by using a higher-velocity bullet, a silenced 9mm would need to fire a subsonic round and thus would not be a deadly as a non-silenced 9mm.

You see this, is not a simple question to answer. Specially with one case, which as TPAW mentioned, is still under investigation.

MOS11C
July 20, 2008, 03:20 PM
IMO, silencer crimes are a non-issue even by Criminal Justice standards.

One of the harshest penalties in the federal system is a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a silencer during a violent crime or drug trafficking:
Whoever, during and in relation to any violent crime or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly weapon or de-vice) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years (18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)).

That's 30 years of enhanced sentence!
This can result in lengthy prison sentences for otherwise minor crimes.

The legislative history of silencer statutes indicates that these provisions were adopted with little or no debate. Probably done while watching some Hollywood movies.
The silencer provision is very obscure, and the average stupid criminal has no idea that there is a 30-year enhanced sentence for their use in the commission of a crime. Even if the “professional criminal” (the ones that Harry probably eludes to from watching too many TV shows) is more likely to know the penalty than others, the result could simply be that these perps will use disposable objects for silencers to avoid being caught (heck even a pillow or cushion), and so the law will most likely affect non-professionals who lack knowledge of both the law and the ease with which it can be avoided. It may be that people who consider using silencers think that if they do they will not be caught, or that their chances of being apprehended are so greatly reduced by using a silencer that it is worth the risk. So despite the harsh sentence attached to silencer use, the statute and the small number of criminal convictions may still have little or no deterrent effect.

So the huge sentencing deters nothing. Not the dumb common perp who lacks the knowledge of it...and not the so called "professional" who has the knowledge but rather use other readily available and non-traceable means to commit the crime.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd57/godseeker83/leaving.gif

ZeroJunk
July 20, 2008, 03:25 PM
Simple point. If they weren't illegal, you would not have to get a special permit to start with.


BTW, Kudos to Harry for not backing down to the little Rambo wannabes and, more than that, those manufacturing and selling to them.

MOS11C
July 20, 2008, 03:33 PM
Simple point. If they weren't illegal, you would not have to get a special permit to start with.

They are legal.

And it's not a permit.
At least not at the Federal level.

Although a very small number of States and counties may require a permit.

ZeroJunk
July 20, 2008, 03:37 PM
And it's not a permit.


OK, whatever you call it. Why do you need it?

MOS11C
July 20, 2008, 03:53 PM
OK, whatever you call it. Why do you need it?

Why do we need an approval or application or tax stamp?
Another way of the Government to collect taxes. LOL

The BATF "needs" to collect a tax fee for the registration of the NFA item. They attach the paid tax stamp to the approved application and mail it to you.
In other words, we need to apply and pay for the registration of transfer or "make" of the NFA item.
...in a nutshell.

No one here denies that certain approvals and signatures will be required for the application form...but special permits perse are not required. And State/localities laws for NFA items must be also be followed, here is where some States or counties may require registration permits and restrictions...But these a very few scummy municipalities.

Botomline is that the firearms industry in America is the most over-regulated industry. Nevertheless, I rather live here than anywhere else. The vast majority of the gun enthusiasts here are very knowledgable about the laws.

Imagine that someone spends above $700 bucks for a tactical firearm with a threaded barrel, $700-$1000 for a good silencer, $200 for an ATF tax stamp, wait 2 to 3 months for an ATF application approval, study the laws on what "you can and cannot do" regarding transporting, storing and using the silencer...wouldn't this be an indication of a responsible law-abiding person?

I tend to believe that people taking possession of NFA items show a lot more restraint, patience and knowledge about the use and consequences of misuse of these items than the folks who don't.

MisterWilson
July 20, 2008, 03:56 PM
Why do you need it?

Did you really just say that!?

Zero, sell your guns, move to California, register as a "D", and destroy your mancard.

Gun owners have NO BUSINESS ever uttering those god-forsaken words.

What is God's name is wrong with you?

VUPDblue
July 20, 2008, 04:27 PM
Zero, I've been watching your posts in this thread and while I don't agree with some of them, you are generally well spoken. However, your statement of Simple point. If they weren't illegal, you would not have to get a special permit to start with. shows that you are not aware of all the facts that you continue to argue against. You need a permit to carry a gun. You don't need a permit to purchase a NFA firearm, what you need is to pay a tax on the transfer of that weapon. It is a tax, the same as a sales tax is a tax. It doesn't mean that a suppressor is an illegal item any more than the candy bar you just bought is a prohibited item, because you had to pay a tax on it...

MisterWilson
July 20, 2008, 04:32 PM
Except with any other form of tax evasion you're not generally stuck with 30/$300,000.

I'll take "8th Amendment" for $100, Alex.

swingset
July 20, 2008, 04:54 PM
How many ways can a person be shown to be hysterical, emotional, and wrong and STILL keep punching at the air wildly?

Keep on boxing, Zero.

ZeroJunk
July 20, 2008, 05:21 PM
hysterical, emotional

LOL, have a problem understanding English? I promise, I don't care if everybody has a whole house full of silencers. But, the derogatory nature of the pro silencer bunch on this thread doesn't say much for any capability of explaining a silencers purpose in any convincing manner, other than I make money selling them.

But that is beside the point, you keep trying to tell me they are legal when the NC law that I posted says they are not. If they are not illegal why does it specifically list them as illegal.

I admitted it is nit picking. But, if I go down to the shop and fabricate a rudimentary silencer and attach to one of my rifles, I am breaking the law. What is complicated about this?

Hugh G Rection
July 20, 2008, 05:21 PM
Mister Wilson;
Go take a leap at a flying donut buddy!
Harry B.

I don't think that someone that posts has Hairy Boner should be talking about leaping at flying donuts . . . Just sayin'

Hugh G. Rection

MisterWilson
July 20, 2008, 05:30 PM
Many states list these kinds of toys as being against the law with a clause stating that being registered in the NFA registry is a defense against the law.


Not being registered is against the "law". I legally have a registered short barreled rifle, yet if I were to go into a machine shop and manufacture a sub-16" rifle, that would be against the law.

What's so hard about this? People have legal cans in NC.

Conqueror
July 20, 2008, 05:31 PM
But that is beside the point, you keep trying to tell me they are legal when the NC law that I posted says they are not.
You posted around two lines of the law, without citing their source, and without their context or subsequent listed exceptions. The NC firearm statutes comprise like 50 pages of legislation. The ATF doesn't approve illegal transfers. For example, if you applied to transfer a silencer in CA, where only SOTs may possess them, you would be denied. Yet ATF happily approves thousands of transfers in NC every year. No person in NC history has been convicted of a crime under 14-288.8, and I doubt anyone has even been charged under that statute.

The most you could possibly claim is that silencers in NC are illegal to the few people who do not fit within any number of broad and poorly-defined categories like "collectors", "inventors", or "other persons lawfully engaged in pursuits designed to enlarge knowledge." They are FAR from "illegal, period" which you have claimed throughout this thread.

VUPDblue
July 20, 2008, 05:34 PM
But, if I go down to the shop and fabricate a rudimentary silencer and attach to one of my rifles, I am breaking the law. What is complicated about this?

And if you carry a pistol without a license you are breaking the law, and if you drive without a license you are breaking the law, and if you hunt without a license you are breaking the law, and if you fly without a license you are breaking the law. All these things are inherently legal, but can become illegal if you don't go through the proper channels. That's all I'm saying!

ZeroJunk
July 20, 2008, 05:41 PM
And if you carry a pistol without a license you are breaking the law, and if you drive without a license you are breaking the law, and if you hunt without a license you are breaking the law, and if you fly without a license you are breaking the law. All these things are inherently legal, but can become illegal if you don't go through the proper channels. That's all I'm saying!

I agree with all of that 100%. And since you are the only one left particpating in this thread that is worth having a discussion with, I will surrender to the others.

MisterWilson
July 20, 2008, 05:43 PM
Well whatever you do, don't admit that you were wrong...

VUPDblue
July 20, 2008, 05:48 PM
It's kinda humorous that the NFA '34 restricted suppressors because of fears of people poaching game animals during the depression years, yet most people think they are restricted because of their use in murders and other violent crime. I'm convinced that is 100% Hollywood's fault. I enjoy these things because they are interesting and I am a 'gadget guy'. I like all things mechanical and I especially like to learn about things that a vast majority of people know nothing about. I won't lie to you about hearing protection, and noise pollution. I like 'em becaue I think they are cool and interesting. That should be reason enough........

Zak Smith
July 20, 2008, 06:40 PM
Glad you finally figured out the point I made in post #50.

Conqueror
July 20, 2008, 06:40 PM
Careful with your acronyms. The 1934 law is the National Firearms Act, NFA. The GCA (Gun Control Act) is a specific law enacted in 1968.

SR420
July 20, 2008, 08:47 PM
Sound suppressors are great and I wish they were mandatory on all rifles.
Check out http://www.silencertests.com/ (http://www.silencertests.com/) - I participated in that event back in '06 :D

I shot my CRAZY HORSE® US NAVY MK14 SEI MOD 0 and a Fisher suppressor - Video Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5582457370480061216&q=mk14%20mod%200&hl=en)


http://www.athenswater.com/images/Fisher-SEI.30calcan.jpg

I'll soon be running the same can on my 7.62 x 39 AKs.

MGRacer
July 20, 2008, 09:29 PM
ZeroJunk:

LOL, have a problem understanding English? I promise, I don't care if everybody has a whole house full of silencers. But, the derogatory nature of the pro silencer bunch on this thread doesn't say much for any capability of explaining a silencers purpose in any convincing manner, other than I make money selling them.

Did you miss post numbers: 43, 62, 86, 87, 95, 97 and probably others where the use of silencers was explained.


ZeroJunk:

BTW, Kudos to Harry for not backing down to the little Rambo wannabes and, more than that, those manufacturing and selling to them. emphasis added

???

Do you find that your inflammatory characterization of those who are posting on this thread helpful to the discussion? I expected better from you. I neither make nor sell silencers and I am not a Rambo wannabe, whatever that is. I am an engineer and a project manager by training and license. Do you watch too much TV? This kind of perspective can come from the false presentations of lawful gun use by Hollywood.

MOS11C
July 20, 2008, 09:36 PM
And since you are the only one left particpating in this thread that is worth having a discussion with, I will surrender to the others.

Wait a minute, ZERO, I thought that I posted a bunch of information here.

***!!!!!

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd57/godseeker83/leaving-1.gif

Ridge_Runner_5
July 21, 2008, 01:47 AM
I don't think that someone that posts has Hairy Boner should be talking about leaping at flying donuts . . . Just sayin'

Hugh G. Rection

Seeing as you joined yesterday, have about all your posts in this 1 thread, and have an equally immature name;

1. You have no room to talk
2. You are probably the same person with a 2nd account
3. You shouldnt be posting on these forums until you get your GED

ZeroJunk
July 21, 2008, 05:28 AM
Ridge Runner, some of these guys have a monetary interest in the sale of sliencers. Others are recruits from some silencer forum. Good old boys I'm sure, but not representative. And there are a couple that just like silencers and can make a coherent sentence wiithout demonizing anybody who doesn't.


Glad you finally figured out the point I made in post #50.


Post 50
You might as well say that concealed carry is illegal in every state and oppose talking about it on forums because it makes gun owners look bad. Neither is true.

I was giving deference to VUPDblue because even though I disagree, he is civil. Comparing hunting licenses and pilot licenses to silencers and machine guns is a stretch to anybody other than the choir.

If you ask NC LEO's " Are silencers legal?" with no coaching, the answer will be overwhelmingly "No". If this is inconvenient perhaps some advertising would help since almost everybody is aware that concealed carry permits are obtainable although concealed weapons are still illegal otherwise. Few other than the choir would think the reward/benefit for the trouble involved between getting a CCW permit or a silencer "permit" is a valid comparison. Anything about disliking silencers making gun owners look bad or demonstating one is
an enemy of shooters and the 2nd Amendment
is preposterous.

A bigger enemy to the perception of gun owners is the posts in public forums that come across as petty and shallow.

AZ-K9
July 21, 2008, 06:01 AM
" Harry Bonar
Senior Member

Join Date: 2004-12-05
Location: In the Vincent, Ohio general area.
Posts: 1,436

silencers
Sirs;
I have simply given my opinion. That is all it is - it is simply no reason for the personal attacks which I deem to be mean spirited and impolite.
I've tried to just brush this off and defuse the situation but to no avail.
It appears that there is no respect given to a 73 year old mans simple opinion anymore. The statements made about me are all false; I've been a supporter on T.V. and news print in my area for gun rights several times. I've worked on guns my entire adult life - I love guns.
I've done "contract" work for Charleston WVa police sniper division - homeland defense, desert storm A10 pilots and many other agencies un-named. I've supplied an ex-Vietnam sniper, forensic team leader whose picture with his crew was in J.Edgar Hoovers office till his retirement. I worked contracted for Wayne Novaks 45 Shop for years on special projects.
I am a loyal American and support the second amendment. I'm old fashioned in my views and make no apology for them.
Now, I've taken your remarks and resent them and will post no more on this subject - my views run the same now as then
Now, I wish you all well - I hope you enjoy your sport; I just would like some of you to grow up and respect others opinions without demeaning them personally. I wish you all well.
Harry B."

By my count you were the first with the insults. Educate yourself.

imp
July 21, 2008, 06:31 AM
OK..I've read 6 pages of this, and now I would like to add a thing or two.

1) Silencers are legal in many places, whether you like it or not.

2) Criminals are opportunistic in nature. If they want to kill you silently, they will do it with a knife, pillow, homemade silencer, or steal one from a legal owner. Criminals don't care if it is legal or not. Criminals don't care about your opinions either.

3) Silencers can be used for reasons other than hollywood like assassinations. There are plenty of legal reason to utilize one. How great the need for a silencer is, however, is arguable.

4) If you are a sensitive person, don't make unreasonable, un-informed comments that are likely to draw criticism.


Anyway, all that being said, silencers are legal in NC, even though you can't just go get one at wal-mart. And they're jolly good fun too.

AtomicLabRat
July 21, 2008, 10:42 AM
Here is a picture of Hairy Boner speaking his mind:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd57/godseeker83/gun_control_9.jpg

Zak Smith
July 21, 2008, 11:25 AM
ZeroJunk,

You keep equivocating, changing context, and simply misdirecting to attempt to support your point. You've got no legs to stand on in this argument. You were factually wrong and many people have pointed out. With nothing factual and no good argument fall back on, you found it easier to attack the messengers by saying they called you names or have a vested interest in silencers.

Here are few concrete examples:

Anything about disliking silencers making gun owners look bad or demonstating one is "an enemy of shooters and the 2nd Amendment" is preposterous.
No. Saying
No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.
makes one an enemy of shooters and the 2nd Amendment.

Comparing hunting licenses and pilot licenses to silencers and machine guns is a stretch to anybody other than the choir.
In fact, I compared a CCW license/permit to the NFA transfer tax because, in NC, both have very similar applicant background requirements, paperwork, LEO approval, cost, and wait time once the application is submitted. Nobody would say "CCW is illegal" under these circumstances; yet you maintain it's perfectly fine to allege that silencers are 100% illegal. This is you grasping at straws to maintain an untenable position once people showed that silencers are in fact not illegal in NC per the partial law you posted.

In short, your and Harry's ignorance of the law and of the prevailing use of suppressors is the problem. You're both getting strong feedback here for good reason. Think of it as a form of peer "correction."

-z

MOS11C
July 21, 2008, 11:35 AM
If you ask NC LEO's " Are silencers legal?" with no coaching, the answer will be overwhelmingly "No". If this is inconvenient perhaps some advertising would help since almost everybody is aware that concealed carry permits are obtainable although concealed weapons are still illegal otherwise. Few other than the choir would think the reward/benefit for the trouble involved between getting a CCW permit or a silencer "permit" is a valid comparison.

Silencers are legal for private ownership in the following states: AL, AR, AK, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MS, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY.

KS Governor signed legislation, a few months ago, that will allow Kansas firearm retailers, manufacturers, importers and citizens qualified under the National Firearms Act to sell, manufacture, import and own NFA firearms.

Additionally, they may be owned by Class 3 dealers and Class 2 manufacturers (but not individuals) in: CA, IA, MA, MO, and MI.

Please, any one is welcome to correct my list if I'm wrong.

The smart ones will check with BATF, the States Statutes, State Attorneys office, Silencer forum, Local class 3 dealer or Silencer manufacturer for information on silencers.
The dumb ones....well, we already know where they go.

MisterWilson
July 21, 2008, 12:54 PM
Since when is asking LEO's about the law a good idea?

You could as 100 officers if open carry is legal (in the states it's allowed) and I'd wager that most of them would instinctively reply "no".

A poor arguement, at best.

ZeroJunk
July 21, 2008, 12:56 PM
You're both getting strong feedback here for good reason. Think of it as a form of peer "correction."

LOL, the reason we are getting strong feedback is because you are dragging these one or two posters over here from another forum, or they work for you.

The only reason NC residents have to go through the NFA hurdle is because NC law says specifically that silencers are illegal. Concealed weapons are specifically illegal also with exceptions that most are more familiar with. If the nuance of this is too much for you , I understand.

Zak Smith
July 21, 2008, 01:48 PM
LOL, the reason we are getting strong feedback is because you are dragging these one or two posters over here from another forum, or they work for you.
Again you go off half-cocked with assumptions and incorrect facts. SC-Texas started the thread on AR15.com, not me. The only reason I posted to his thread was to make a correction since he attributed something someone else said to me and I do not like to have things wrongfully attributed to me. I'm not "dragging" anyone over here. Nobody here "works for me", and I don't know how you got that idea. Perhaps you made it up like your interpretation of NC NFA law.

To be clear, ad hominem attacks to the other side do not help your argument. However, if you feel compelled to personally attack me for other reasons, at least get your facts straight and cite them properly.

-z

VUPDblue
July 21, 2008, 02:23 PM
I'm all for a good arguement every now and then, but I suspect that this has gone on for long enough and has nowhere good left to go....

ZeroJunk
July 21, 2008, 03:08 PM
I'm all for a good arguement every now and then, but I suspect that this has gone on for long enough and has nowhere good left to go....

I agree. I was a sleeping dog, but Zak couldn't stand it.
And as with all threads, once somebody learns how to spell ad hominem the usefullness is over.


North Carolina General Statute § 14-288.8 provides that it is unlawful for any person
to manufacture, assemble, possess, store, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, offer to
purchase, deliver, give to another, or acquire any weapon of mass death and destruction.
A weapon of mass death and destruction includes:

10. any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such firearm is
included within this definition; and

I see little room for interpretation. Maybe you could petition the NC General Assembly to have it removed.

SC-Texas started the thread on AR15.com, not me. The only reason I posted to his thread was to make a correction since he attributed something someone else said to me and I do not like to have things wrongfully attributed to me.

I see no mention of him or you before your first post.

Zak Smith
July 21, 2008, 03:29 PM
I agree. I was a sleeping dog, but Zak couldn't stand it.
Leveling new allegations doesn't generally count as letting sleeping dogs lie ("you are dragging these one or two posters over here from another forum, or they work for you."). I see no reason to let fallacious arguments or incorrect facts sit without refutation; it gives the appearance of acceptance. Furthermore, aspersions on my actions and character are unwarranted and deserve rebuttal.
-z

Zak Smith
July 21, 2008, 03:35 PM
I see no mention of him or you before your first post.
You referred to, "posters .. from another forum", and the AR15 thread is the only one I am aware of which discusses this thread. Furthermore, you alleged that I was "dragging these one or two posters over here from another forum, or they work for you.".

zoomie
July 21, 2008, 03:39 PM
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a191/NightHawkZone/Emoticons/popcorn.gif

ZeroJunk
July 21, 2008, 03:39 PM
I was through with it until your post 120. Now, I'm through with it again. Anybody who wants to use a silencer, have fun.

RAnb
July 21, 2008, 03:41 PM
I work for the government, but I'm not here to help. :) I heard about this post on another forum, but was not dragged over here. I was wondering if there was a Zumbo clone here and it appears there is. The only gun forums I have been on where people have not insulted others by telling them that their silencers are illegal, immoral or some otherwise unamerican tripe have been subguns and silencertalk forums. If we do not remain united, then we will help those like the Brady bunch anbd the VPC take away our rights.

Ranb

MisterWilson
July 21, 2008, 03:42 PM
The only reason NC residents have to go through the NFA hurdle is because NC law says specifically that silencers are illegal. Concealed weapons are specifically illegal also with exceptions that most are more familiar with. If the nuance of this is too much for you , I understand.

The NFA is Federal law. Everyone in the country must jump through that.

If I'm not mistaken, Arizona, Texas, and many other states list these items as being illegal but NFA registration as an acceptable defense.

Savvy?

VUPDblue
July 21, 2008, 04:07 PM
NC 14-288.8
The only persons capable of owning or possessing a weapon of mass death and destruction, as defined above, are the following:

1.Persons exempted from the provisions of carrying a concealed weapon in North Carolina with respect to any activity lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties;

2.Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors of firearms, ammunition, or destructive devices validly licensed under the laws of the United States or the State of North Carolina, while lawfully engaged in activities authorized under their licenses;
Once again I quote NC statutes. What I am having a hard time working out with you, Zero, is why you don't see this exception in NC law. I understand where you quoted 14-288.8 but just that one part of the definition isn't the whole law. The whole statute says basically 'suppressors are illegal unless they are properly papered'. This is parallel to concealed cary laws which are written the same way. 'Concealed cary is illegal unless you are properly licensed'. In fact, lots of laws are written this way, not just gun laws.

ZeroJunk
July 21, 2008, 05:21 PM
Once again I quote NC statutes. What I am having a hard time working out with you, Zero, is why you don't see this exception in NC law. I understand where you quoted 14-288.8 but just that one part of the definition isn't the whole law. The whole statute says basically 'suppressors are illegal unless they are properly papered'. This is parallel to concealed cary laws which are written the same way. 'Concealed cary is illegal unless you are properly licensed'. In fact, lots of laws are written this way, not just gun laws.

LOL, the same reason SCOTUS goes 5/4 so often. I don't see why you can't see that if they weren't illegal you wouldn't need an exception.

Zak Smith
July 21, 2008, 05:29 PM
I don't see why you can't see that if they weren't illegal you wouldn't need an exception.
This is ridiculous. It's like reading, "No dogs are allowed in the park unless if leashed." and concluding that dogs are not allowed in the park at all. That is basic reading comprehension fail.

-z

VUPDblue
July 21, 2008, 06:49 PM
I don't see why you can't see that if they weren't illegal you wouldn't need an exception.

I guess it boils down to the nuts and bolts of the definition of illegal. The way I see it, illegal and restricted are very far apart by definition. The way I was schooled, illegal is final and has no exceptions. Restricted, however, has exceptions and is legal as long as those exceptions are abided by. The way I read it in NC law, suppressors are restricted items, not patently illegal.

ZeroJunk
July 21, 2008, 07:46 PM
It's like reading, "No dogs are allowed in the park unless if leashed." and concluding that dogs are not allowed in the park at all.

You keep wanting to compare this to the little innocuous rules we follow in everyday life because it serves your purpose.
Why not put it in the context it is actually in?



1. bombs of all sorts;
2. grenades;
3. rockets having a propellant charge of more than four (4) ounces;
25
4. a missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter
(1/4) ounce;
5. mines;
6. any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell of a type
particularly suitable for sporting purposes) which will expel a projectile using
an explosive, or other propellant, and which has a barrel with a bore of more
than one-half (1/2) inch in diameter;
7. any firearm capable of fully automatic fire;
8. any shotgun with a barrel length less than eighteen (18) inches or an overall
length of less than twenty-six (26) inches;
9. a rifle with a barrel length of less than sixteen (16) inches or an overall length
of less than twenty-six (26) inches;
10. any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such firearm is
included within this definition; and
11. any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting a
device into any weapon described above, and from which a weapon of mass
death and destruction may readily be assembled.
Thus, a device which could convert a semi-automatic firearm into one capable of full
automatic fire, would be in violation of this statute, whether or not one actually possesses
such a weapon. The possession of the device itself is a crime. If any person possesses a
weapon of mass death and destruction in violation of this statute, he/she would be guilty
of a Class F Felony.

Zak Smith
July 21, 2008, 07:55 PM
You keep wanting to compare this to the little innocuous rules we follow in everyday life because it serves your purpose.
Why not put it in the context it is actually in?
Hysterics aside, that's followed by the provision (the "exception" or "unless") that defines when the preceding law does not apply. That is the context.

ZeroJunk
July 21, 2008, 08:21 PM
that's followed by the provision (the "exception" or "unless") that defines when the preceding law does not apply.


Cool. I think I want a land mine, maybe a real Claymore, and a nice big bomb. Should be a simple matter since they are legal.
I just bet my CLEO is going to let me have either.

Hysterics aside

So, it's hysterics now when somebody disagrees with you.

Zak Smith
July 21, 2008, 08:30 PM
Should be a simple matter since they are legal.
The NC law cedes the decision, in part, to federal law. In this case, the federal requirements for NFA items are relatively straight-forward and no harder to satisfy than a NC CCW permit. It's not that complicated to understand.

ZeroJunk
July 21, 2008, 08:37 PM
It's not that complicated to understand.

So, you are saying I should be able to buy a real Claymore, SAM missile etc. per this same exception since it makes all this stuff legal, kinda like letting your dog off it's leash in the park?

VUPDblue
July 21, 2008, 08:53 PM
I just bet my CLEO is going to let me have either.
I think you don't fully understand the implications of the CLEO signoff in relation to NFA items. The CLEO's signature represents the fact that the appicant is not known to the CLEO to be pursuing the transfer of the NFA item for illicit reasons. It is not a permission slip. IMHO, the CLEO signature is merely a formality because there are 2 legal ways around it. In some states, the CLEO is required to sign the forms when asked. The way the NC law reads to me is that if you can get your paws on a registered explosive DD, you can have it transfered to you. NC doesn't appear to restrict those above and beyond the NFA. In my state, however, explosive DD's (and SBS's) are explicitly restricted regardless of the NFA. I see no provisions in NC law for any of that.

ZeroJunk
July 21, 2008, 09:00 PM
I think you don't fully understand the implications of the CLEO signoff in relation to NFA items. The CLEO's signature represents the fact that the appicant is not known to the CLEO to be pursuing the transfer of the NFA item for illicit reasons. It is not a permission slip. IMHO, the CLEO signature is merely a formality because there are 2 legal ways around it. In some states, the CLEO is required to sign the forms when asked. The way the NC law reads to me is that if you can get your paws on a registered explosive DD, you can have it transfered to you. NC doesn't appear to restrict those above and beyond the NFA. In my state, however, explosive DD's (and SBS's) are explicitly restricted regardless of the NFA. I see no provisions in NC law for any of that.

Interesting.

PTK
July 21, 2008, 09:01 PM
SAM missile

Civilians are prohibited from owning/possessing/using any sort of surface to air missile designed as a weapon.

Zak Smith
July 21, 2008, 10:04 PM
So, you are saying I should be able to buy a real Claymore, SAM missile etc. per this same exception since it makes all this stuff legal, kinda like letting your dog off it's leash in the park?
Some of those items are regulated under the NFA; some are not (but are regulated under other law). The NC law refers to the relevant laws for the particular items in question to determine its exemption status.

Conqueror
July 21, 2008, 10:45 PM
If you ask NC LEO's " Are silencers legal?" with no coaching, the answer will be overwhelmingly "No".
I have to chuckle at anyone who uses "what LEOs think" as proof that silencers are illegal. If you ask LEOs in ANY state whether silencers are legal, the answer will usually be "No." Law Enforcement training rarely addresses the NFA except to tell officers to investigate with a high degree of suspicion anyone with a sawed-off shotgun, silencer, machine gun, etc.

Here is the full text of NC 14-288.8, so we can put this "selective quoting" to rest:

§ 14 288.8. Manufacture, assembly, possession, storage, transportation, sale, purchase, delivery, or acquisition of weapon of mass death and destruction; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, assemble, possess, store, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, offer to purchase, deliver or give to another, or acquire any weapon of mass death and destruction.
(b) This section does not apply to:
(1) Persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14 269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.
(2) Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors of firearms, ammunition, or destructive devices validly licensed under the laws of the United States or the State of North Carolina, while lawfully engaged in activities authorized under their licenses.
(3) Persons under contract with the United States, the State of North Carolina, or any agency of either government, with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in under their contracts.
(4) Inventors, designers, ordnance consultants and researchers, chemists, physicists, and other persons lawfully engaged in pursuits designed to enlarge knowledge or to facilitate the creation, development, or manufacture of weapons of mass death and destruction intended for use in a manner consistent with the laws of the United States and the State of North Carolina.
(c) The term "weapon of mass death and destruction" includes:
(1) Any explosive or incendiary:
a. Bomb; or
b. Grenade; or
c. Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces; or
d. Missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one quarter ounce; or
e. Mine; or
f. Device similar to any of the devices described above; or
(2) Any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell of a type particularly suitable for sporting purposes) which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one half inch in diameter; or
(3) Any firearm capable of fully automatic fire, any shotgun with a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches, any rifle with a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches, any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such firearm is included within this definition. For the purposes of this section, rifle is defined as a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; or
(4) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any weapon described above and from which a weapon of mass death and destruction may readily be assembled.
The term "weapon of mass death and destruction" does not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of Title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes, in accordance with Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(d) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class F felony. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1975, c. 718, ss. 6, 7; 1977, c. 810; 1983, c. 413, ss. 1, 2; 1993, c. 539, s. 1228; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001 470, s. 3.)

The law does not declare silencers illegal until AFTER it has given a long list of people, including "collectors of firearms," to whom the statute does NOT apply in any way shape or form.

johnwilliamson062
July 21, 2008, 11:12 PM
Simple point. If they weren't illegal, you would not have to get a special permit to start with.
What like the special permit I have to drive my car? The one I had to pay a fee to get and fill out a few pages of paper work? My car is by far the most dangerous weapon I own. What if school shooters had just been witty enough to run through a crowded city crosswalk? I guess the guy in Japan figured it out. Maybe we should outlaw mufflers so mass murderers utilizing vehicles will be more easily sighted.

Really though, this is pretty out of control.

1.I hate being out doors with hearing protection on. At the range it is ok b/c it is a relatively controlled environment. Last year I was backpacking and a tree fell. I literally stepped between two branches as the 100' tree fell behind me. With hearing protection I may not have heard it as distinctly and been able to move out of the way. I am sure anyone who has been out in the woods much understands what I am saying. I also don't like to be around roads with my hearing impaired.
2.I don't like losing my hearing because I forgot to put my earplugs back in after taking them out to talk to someone for a minute. I wish the US would switch to Europes stance and decide it is impolite to shoot without a suppressor.
3.I don't like my neighbors to have to listen to me shoot. If they run a chainsaw all day it annoys me, i assume my shooting annoys them.
4.Cheap suppressors destroy accuracy. A well built one absolutely improves it. It also increases velocity.
5.I have no felonies, and only misdemeanor moving violations(speeding).

Like I said before, making an expedient suppressor is far too easy for me to think government restrictions on the item do anything in the first place. A few rolls of TP and some duct tape and you are in business.

Stop letting the TV think for you. Take up someones offer to shoot their gun. I was sold when shooting with the OSU pistol team and one of the guys had one on a Walther p22. Allowed him to practice at an indoor range without hearing protection and for us to have a reasonable conversation while we shot.

ZeroJunk
July 22, 2008, 05:40 AM
What like the special permit I have to drive my car

John, we have been beating this for a while. I suspect most other than enthusiast would consider the comparison between a driving a car and owning something classified under weapons of mass destruction per NC law ludicrous.

SR420
July 22, 2008, 07:01 AM
This thread is very strange indeed.

ZeroJunk
July 22, 2008, 09:12 AM
This thread is very strange indeed.


It's what happens when you go over to another part of the forum and insult a gentleman there which most of us are not who adds a lot of value to the forum which most of us don't.

Shempf
July 22, 2008, 09:43 AM
If anyone thinks something is not legal, they should do the work and look up the laws. Ignorance can be bliss, but not with this subject.

I have to add, discussing law in the open shouldn't be considered 'bad'.
Find a forum for lawyers and tell them the corp. laws that give them breaks on finances for meeting certain criteria shouldn't be discussed on the Internet.
It's almost delusional to think that certain 'things' shouldn't be discussed when it is stated in law (more than 1) that we can discuss and are allowed to own.
Reminds me of some people to who live in a delusional world and choose not to ever look outside of their little 'bubble'. Look outside the box, it will enable you to do things better, maybe even your day job.

"It is better to thought to be a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt"

SR420
July 22, 2008, 10:02 AM
Quote:
This thread is very strange indeed.

ZeroJunk


It's what happens when you go over to another part of the forum and insult a gentleman
there which most of us are not who adds a lot of value to the forum which most of us don't.

Thanks for the reply, but I'm now more confused than ever.

ZeroJunk
July 22, 2008, 10:04 AM
There are 11 members on this thread with less than 8 posts. The only posts ever for most of them is on this thread. Most attacking a gentleman they know nothing about. I assume you think it was me that was crapping on the thread.

ZeroJunk
July 22, 2008, 10:12 AM
Thanks for the reply, but I'm now more confused than ever.

It started out in the Gunsmith Forum, which is the only reason I saw it to begin with, with John asking a legitimate question. One of the senior gunsmiths there, who we could all learn a great deal from, doesn't like silencers for whatever reason. Some of this bunch, rather than make a case for silencers and their legality decided to go on the attack, post it in some other forums and get all these new posters, most to just attack the senior gunsmith with whatever poor manners they could come up with.

SR420
July 22, 2008, 10:16 AM
That clears it up - thanks :)

Zero, I didn't think you were the offender.

VUPDblue
July 22, 2008, 10:37 AM
This has to be some sort of record for the longest *heated* discussion thread that has not been locked....


ETA: I'm gonna go back to the NFA Guns & Gear forum and play there. If you want to come play, play nice, and you will be welcomed....:)

RAnb
July 22, 2008, 11:13 AM
So you agree that Harry Bonar insulted johnwilliamson062 when he said, “No legitamate sporting weapon or sportsman ever needs a silencer.”?

If someone is going to be so insulting as Harry Bonar is, then he needs to be prepared for the consequences. The other posters should not need to make a case for the legality of silencers. It is the person who objects to the legal use of silencers who needs to be making the case. It is un-American to suggest that a person prove something is legal. The right thing to do is prove something is illegal or inappropriate. “Innocent until proven guilty” ring a bell here?

Shempf
July 22, 2008, 02:18 PM
"If someone is going to be so insulting as Harry Bonar is, then he needs to be prepared for the consequences."

I agree whole heartily. Coming into this thread I read the first few posts and Harry's came out of nowhere that I could tell (maybe threads where merged or modified?). Just seemed to slam someones post asking a question regarding a product they owned. Equal to me stating that no person needs a double barrel that can shoot both barrel at the same time, or no person needs more than a single shot, single barrel shotgun, etc, etc.

on an unrelated note, I'd think most assume what is said is opinion, unless verified through experience or a reference is provided. Just seems like it needs said.


(I am one of these people with few posts, mainly a lurker everywhere I 'lurk', I think the flamboyant remark(s) is what attracted so much attention)

johnwilliamson062
July 22, 2008, 02:39 PM
Well I definitely thought Harry B was calling me a criminal/poacher. Someone else threw in immature child. I just didn't care. Never met the guy, probably never will. Even if he said it to me face it probably wouldn't phase me. In my short 23 years I have been called a lot worse than an immature poacher. If he decides not to answer any more of my questions I am sure someone else on here will. Misterwilson and MGracer were kind enough to answer the question for me this time, so I was able to get along fine without the cooperation of Harry B.
I can come up with a lot more reasons to ban Semi-auto weapons than I can silencers. Start out with if you can't put the shot where it goes the first time or cycle a pump shotgun fast enough to keep a home intruder at bay you shouldn't be given the added firepower of a semi-auto. Of course I don't agree with a semi-auto ban b/c the second amendment is not about hunting or home defense against burglars.

VUPDblue
July 22, 2008, 03:02 PM
on an unrelated note, I'd think most assume what is said is opinion, unless verified through experience or a reference is provided. Just seems like it needs said.

Trust me, there is a whole bunch of that in this forum, to say the least.

MOS11C
July 22, 2008, 04:15 PM
John, we have been beating this for a while. I suspect most other than enthusiast would consider the comparison between a driving a car and owning something classified under weapons of mass destruction per NC law ludicrous.

It's a comparison between a very dangerous weapon (car) that can cause injury to a mass of people in one shot...and a piece of tubular metal.

If you're gonna base your entire common sense to some North Carolina Statute then you're in trouble.

TPAW
July 22, 2008, 05:00 PM
This has to be some sort of record for the longest *heated* discussion thread that has not been locked....

I just hope that all the time and energy put into this thread is also put into the voting booth. If the wrong guy wins, we may loose many of our gun rights and be posting on subjects not to our liking. Lets not loose what we have. Focus in getting the right candidate in office or we're done for.......:(

MisterWilson
July 22, 2008, 05:30 PM
To clarify, they may try to take those rights, but we won't necessarily lose those right, if you catch my drift.

MOS11C
July 22, 2008, 05:41 PM
TPAW, I really don't mind for the time and energy spent here.
This takes very little time off my advocacy for our gun rights.
Heck, this is only one of the many forums and blogs I participate in.
Most of my time is spent contacting and voicing my opinions to our US and State Reps and senators regarding 2A. And not necesarily, in my own State.

As I posted here, in another thread:

I would rather spend my votes and effort in what really matters: Congress.

Democrats possess a field advantage in 2008, needing to defend only 12 seats, while Republicans must defend 23. In addition, five Republicans, but no Democrats, have announced that they are retiring. The open seat gap between the parties is the biggest in 50 year.

And we are well awared of how the 2 Presidential candidates have voted regarding gun control.
These 2 voted hand in hand with folks like Reid, Schumer, Edwards and Feinstein...the craddle for anti-gun anti-2nd in America.

Many would be surprised to know (by the records from the Congressional reports) which of these 2 guys have voted for more gun control.
They would be surprised.....

TPAW
July 22, 2008, 05:47 PM
MOS11C

Excellent...Ditto..........;)

AZ-K9
July 22, 2008, 07:05 PM
There are 11 members on this thread with less than 8 posts. The only posts ever for most of them is on this thread. Most attacking a gentleman they know nothing about. I assume you think it was me that was crapping on the thread.

I suspect it's more a result of the sheer ignorance you and Mr. Boner display regarding the ownership and application of silencers that has people coming from the woodwork than anything else. You do a casual perusal of North Carolina state law and have become convinced that silencers are illegal there, and spout it at every opportunity.

Frankly, your ignorance and proclivity to defend such makes you a giant target for correction.

It is easier, in my state, to buy and obtain a silencer than it is to get a drivers license. There is no test, no eye exam, no example of proficiency required.

ZeroJunk
July 22, 2008, 07:10 PM
I guess as the young graduate from video games to real weapons their taste will be more influenced by what they think is cool looking. I am just behind the times. Perhaps it will eventually dawn on you that thinking silencers are unnecessary has absolutely nothing to do with supporting gun control. If you want to enhance the perception of gun owners try learning how to spell, leave out the invectives, explain your position without any name calling like scum, moronic, etc. and you will be more successful in your cause.

Zak Smith
July 22, 2008, 07:17 PM
I guess as the young graduate from video games to real weapons their taste will be more influenced by what they think is cool looking. I am just behind the times.Here you are guessing at and making assumptions about others' motives again.

Funny, some of the guys that get most excited when I show up with a can at the shooting range are the old-timers who realize if they had one on their .17 HMR, .22LR, or .223 rifles, they could more easily decimate the prairie dog populations on their land.

-z

ZeroJunk
July 22, 2008, 07:26 PM
Here you are guessing at and making assumption


Not really. Since VUPDblue pointed out the exception to NC law to me in the first of this thread I have been pretty much chain jerking. It's somewhat entertaining.

You should have treated Harry better.

Lavid2002
July 22, 2008, 07:36 PM
Lets take a look at the aspects of the person LEGALLY buying a silencer. There are so many steps he/she must take that if the silencer was to be used for illegal purposes they fuzz would be all over them like white on rice. Thats why THE SYSTEM IS SET UP LIKE IT IS. Why get finger printed, picture taken, live in x and such for a certain time. Know the cerial number of gun it will be used on. Someone going to commit a crime with a silencer has to go through WAY too much hassle to do something illegal! Weigh the options, use a bow or knife...silent as anything...or use a suppressed firearm....blow evidence everywhere....You get the point. Supressors are GREAT! How about the bad things about shooting.....recoil, noise, cleaning the weapon....How can we avoid these....Recoil pads, Sweet....Bore snakes, Sweet.....Supressors...Wait. Hollywood has made this one out to be a bad guys weapon of choice.

I would LOVE to have my rifles make minimal-no noise.

MisterWilson
July 22, 2008, 07:58 PM
You should have treated Harry better.

He should have been more careful to not shoot his mouth off making ignorant statements.

Shempf
July 22, 2008, 08:29 PM
"Hollywood has made this one out to be a bad guys weapon of choice."

This reminded me when I did a research paper on the effects of media and it's portrayal of information and it's altering psychological effects on children through adults. Very interesting to learn how it shapes so many people. It even helped me to view my ways and why certain aspects may be what they are. Hence why media is BIG money. People believe.

MOS11C
July 22, 2008, 08:47 PM
If you want to enhance the perception of gun owners try learning how to spell, leave out the invectives, explain your position without any name calling like scum, moronic, etc. and you will be more successful in your cause.

I don't need your suggestion to be successful in my cause.

This is what I do:

-Join pro-gun/pro-Freedom organizations
(you don't even have to pay, just read and be informed, there are pro-gun groups for women, LE, Constitutionalists, RKBA, even some religious sectors have pro-gun groups)

-Contact the Federal and State legislators
(beat the crap out of their email system, even to support or oppose issues from other States or municipalities)
Follow up with the Democrats that support RKBA and let the Republicans who have voted for gun-control know they'll be held accountable on election day.
You see, they come in all colors.

-Write letters and give online feedback to local newspapers and the liberal media in general
(these organizations have it backwards most of the time)

-Get to know what the scumbag Brady center is up to and oppose them.

-Introduce other dudes to shooting and gun-ownership
(some via online forums like this one), take a friend or neighbor (that doesn't own a gun) to a gun show or to the range.

-Post comments in forums and blogs
(specially non-gun related forums where the gun ignorant can be educated)

-Buy the stuff that the anti-gun want to ban.
(Flood the market, there's evidence that this is one of the best weapons against any ban)

-Be a responsible gun-owner (have knowledge of the gun laws, safe storage, gun handling, etc.)

What do you do, besides worrying about other dudes syntax and venting on some laws that you'll never understand? (Rhetorical)

ZeroJunk
July 22, 2008, 08:53 PM
I can't tell you how much safer I feel that our gun rights are in good hands

MOS11C
July 22, 2008, 09:05 PM
You can demonstrate your mentality better than I.

And you yours.

I find it amazing how your brain could only distinguish a few inconsequential words from the entire post. Nothing else was absorbed.

Amazing...........but not surprising. :D

MOS11C
July 22, 2008, 09:08 PM
I can't tell you how much safer I feel that our gun rights are in good hands

You missed the point again.
It wasn't necessarily meant as props for me or to get sympathy from you.

Again, these are ideas for other folks reading this thread and that really care. ;)

Hugh G Rection
July 22, 2008, 09:34 PM
Treat Harry Boner better?

HArry Boner got what he deserved . . . he deserved to be Zumbo'd and he was.

2008 is a NO SHRUG year and we aren't going to simply sit back like we did in 1994, shrug our shoulders . . . and allow anti gun rights douchebags to remain in our midst without complete and total exposure.

ZeroJunk
July 23, 2008, 05:38 AM
Again, these are ideas for other folks reading this thread and that really care.

I can tell you are dedicated and passionate about your hobby.

I still think that you and these guys coming out of the woodwork would be better for gun ownership in the long run if you write as if you were actually educated and have some class.

A good example would be the previous poster who by his member name and intentional mis-spelling of Harry's proves that he has neither.

Johnny Guest
July 23, 2008, 09:39 AM
I can’t believe I missed this entire thread - - At first glance, it seemed like several others, a general request for information, with plenty of members willing to answer. It went wrong in a hurry and it’s my fault I missed it.

I am frankly upset that the participants, some of whom are normally technical-minded and thoughtful members, have stooped to these depths.

I’m leaving this thread up as an example of how NOT to conduct a discussion, and as a reminder to myself to keep better track of what’s going on in this forum.

Any other such thread, though, will be closed off as promptly as possible. Posts will not be edited - - They will simply be deleted. If there are too many to mess with, the entire thread will disappear. I’ve killed a couple of posts in this thread that appear to have taken some time and thought to write. The poster’s having made a personal attack or used crude language, though, resulted in their deletion.

Just as a general reminder: Henceforth, on this forum, ANY personal attacks on a member rather than his argument, purposely degrading or demeaning remarks, and trolling will result in revocation of posting privileges. No tolerance, no warning. It is worth your membership to get in one super clever, ultra spiteful little jab? Think twice, post once.

Johnny Guest
TFL Staff
Moderator,
NFA Guns and Gear forum