Attention

All comments are subject to approval by Moderators. Any off-topic comments will be rejected. Thanks for your cooperation!

Sunday, March 19, 2017

This Clueless NY Senator Wants To Ban Things She Doesn’t Understand

“When I need expertise and calm, rational advice on firearms and accessories I look to New Yorkers for solutions,” said no one ever.

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), representatives from law enforcement, and gun violence prevention advocates today vowed to block an effort currently underway in Congress to make it easier for criminals to obtain gun silencers. Gillibrand said she would fight against legislation introduced earlier this year in the Senate (S.59) and House of Representatives (H.R. 367) to eliminate gun silencers from the requirements of the National Firearms Act, making it easier for criminals to obtain these deadly weapons, making it harder and more dangerous for law enforcement to catch criminals.
None of the fear-mongering above is true.

The Hearing Protection Act of 2017 does not “easier for criminals to obtain gun silencers.” If Senator Gillibrand (or let’s be honest, her staff) had done any research at all before opposing HPA, she and they would know that if criminals actually wanted silencers, they could make them very easily from common items for less than $30.

More/Video

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I love guns. But responsible gun owners should be in favor of background checks and silencer bans. And 50 cal rifles and fully auto weapons. They serve no purpose, unlike shotguns rifles and handguns

Anonymous said...

Dave T: Great lead in this story! Good points too. Couldn't agree more. Thanks for fighting to protect our 2A rights.

lmclain said...

They have the Hollywood idea of a silencer, where a .44 magnum with a silencer on it sounds like "PHFFT! PHFFT!"...
That's all BS.
It's STILL loud.
Fantasy politicians using fantasy ideas and living in a fantasy world....

Anonymous said...

True. But responsible gun owners should still be in favor of some regulation as the first post mentions. It's counter productive for us to defend letting insane people have guns and makes us look bad. Libs are taking their madness too far, as usual with their mass hysteria, but republicans should still want some form of sane regulation. I don't want to be lumped and associated with the loons who go on shooting sprees. Of course it won't stop mass shootings, but sane regulations help at least provide some form of limiting access to the whack jobs

Anonymous said...

3:03 amen

Anonymous said...

3:44, tell me the story again about the mass shooting that the silencer gun was used, PLEASE?

I'll wait right here till you get back!

Anonymous said...

Dear 3:03
I've yet to ever hear of anyone killed with a 50 cal. , I've never even heard of anyone using a silencer to rob , gang bang or kill.
The point is that some people like to shoot these arms at the range or in an area of acceptance .If they ban anything then that's the first steps to disarming America . I wish I could afford an M60 or an M16 or a 50 cal. auto , I would have em all . I like guns also , I have many and will keep them all.
Background checks should be extreme and cover all bases , of course you cannot control what happens after the gun is sold. I believe you have missed the entire point of the post.

Anonymous said...

That's because your a snowflake

Anonymous said...

I have a silencer on my SigSauer. And, no it's not for killing quietly. It's so I can target shoot without disturbing neighbors. If someone breaks in, that's what the Taurus Judge is for. Scary looking thing. Will make you crap your pants so I won't have to shoot.

Anonymous said...

No I own guns. For hunting and sport. Just think responsible people would want to keep insane people away from guns. Snowflake lol meet me and say that you'll laugh

Anonymous said...

No I get it. You can respectfully degree with people without getting personal, sadly a skill lacking in our society. But a 50 cal rifle can realistically serve no purpose but I can agree with stringent background checks to own one. See how that works? It's called talking

Anonymous said...

When you call a gun owner a snowflake, you lose all credibility

Anonymous said...

I'm here and I get what you're saying. Again a conversation, not inflamed discourse. I see your point- it's valid. But to disagree with background checks is counterproductive and letting guns get into the hands of crazies hurts our cause. It's called polite conversation, something sorely lacking on the internet.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for providing a sensible non hysteric post. It leads to thoughtful reflection. I may disagree respectfully with your opinion but I appreciate you not being attacking and calling names. Again people, it's called conversation.

Anonymous said...

Christopher dorner 2013

Anonymous said...

344 name a state that doesn't do a background check when buying a gun?

Anonymous said...

303 all states do background so it's a non issue. Giving examples of why you own certain guns is nice of you but not required by law and should NEVER be. Zero shootings in America with a 50 cal and zero silences were used in gang or mass shootings so why ban ? Shot guns have been used and of course pistols. We SHOULD NOT pick and choose it's infringement and WILL only lead to communism. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I love guns. But responsible gun owners should be in favor of background checks and silencer bans. And 50 cal rifles and fully auto weapons. They serve no purpose, unlike shotguns rifles and handguns

March 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM

you are full of it and don't know what you are talking about, like the sponsors of this nonsense bill. the correct term is suppressors since it only suppresses the noise of a firearm. only in movies is anything whisper quiet.

and fyi, every criminal was once a responsible gun owner. nobody is born a criminal. bg checks only see what ones' past is, it cannot predict any future acts. but it makes snowflakes feel warm and fuzzy inside and it gives pols an appearance of fighting crime, being tough on crime or whatever the current feel good phrase is nowadays.

Anonymous said...

I think everybody understands the background argument, but criminals and whackado's will get what they need regardless. You have to understand that. On the other side, the 2A doesn't say what you can have or cannot have. Like somebody else said...start with one and before you know it all firearms are banned. And you can bet your (arse) they will try to do it!

Anonymous said...

Slippery slope arguments never sound sane. Did you lose your rights during the Brady Bill era? If so, which ones and how? Say I want a tow missile. Can I have one? If not, according to your theory, that would eventually lead to my 9mm being banned

Rebel Without a Clue said...

The only issue that I have with the BG checks are that once you get an HQL (which requires a BG check so that the State Police can say that you are OK to buy a handgun), you still have to go through a seven-day waiting period for yet another BG check (albeit maybe not as extensive).

Anonymous said...

I don't own any "assault" weapons, mine are all "defensive" weapons....