On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:00:31 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

I'd say that anyone who opposes closing the private sale background check
loophole, who opposes putting people on the no-fly list on the list of
blocked sales, and anyone who thinks we should make silencers less
expensive and more available meets the definition.

How many people have EVER been killed by a suppressor? The bullets
still come out the same way, suppressed or not. This is knee jerk
opposition to a non issue.

I agree, those gun nuts are having a knee jerk reaction. They think
we need to make it easier and cheaper to get silencers. I guess they
figure they need to hide it by calling it a hearing protection act.
Funny, for 250 years people were able to engage in sport shooting,
hunting, but now suddenly people need easier access to silencers.

If I used that logic I would ban cell phones instead of just having a
law saying they are illegal to use in the car.

What's the urgent, compelling need to make getting a silencer easy
and cheaper?


Gun Nuts should always be protected by a properly fitted cup and athletic supporter, especially during extreme sports. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Armed Monster