Hearing Protection Act of 2017

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#121

Post by ninjabread »

I'm getting older and I'm afraid that without passage of the Hearing Protection Act, I won't be able to hear GOP requests for campaign contributions, etc.

:bigear:
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


TreyHouston
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Tomball

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#122

Post by TreyHouston »

ninjabread wrote:I'm getting older and I'm afraid that without passage of the Hearing Protection Act, I won't be able to hear GOP requests for campaign contributions, etc.

:bigear:
:smash: "rlol" "rlol"
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas

How many times a day could you say this? :cheers2:

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#123

Post by srothstein »

bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
Steve Rothstein

K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#124

Post by K.Mooneyham »

powerboatr wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
mrvmax wrote:
TexasJohnBoy wrote:Dead.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/03/bill-to-ea ... slaughter/
House Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday said Republicans have shelved a vote on NRA-backed legislation that would ease restrictions on the use of silencers in the aftermath of the massacre in Las Vegas that killed 59 people and wounded hundreds.

“That bill is not scheduled now,” the Wisconsin Republican said. “I don’t know when it’s going to be scheduled.”
Yep and I doubt it will ever make it this far again.
Once there is a GOP majority in the house and senate we will get some of these useless gun laws eliminated.

Oh. Never mind.

The GOP will save us.
you mean the GOP now????? :smilelol5: :smilelol5: :smilelol5: i love the sarcasm, 8 months and almost zero tangible items through congress.
i let henrsarling , cornyn and cruze know weekly they are not carrying the ball

Not that it's a huge testament to the Republicans, but just imagine if those seats were filled with Democrats, and HRC had gotten into office. I truly shudder to think what that would entail. Not getting what we want does sting, for certain...but it could be a LOT worse. All I can do is try to find the admittedly tiny silver lining in some rather dark clouds.

TreyHouston
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Tomball

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#125

Post by TreyHouston »

srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.
No guns? He was a pilot and a multimillionaire, he would have flown a plane into the concert.
No guns or plane? He was a multimillionaire, he had explosives in the car, he would have made a bomb.

DO YOU THINK LAWS AFFECT THE RICH???
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas

How many times a day could you say this? :cheers2:

imkopaka
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:30 pm
Location: Lamesa, TX

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#126

Post by imkopaka »

TreyHouston wrote:
srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.
No guns? He was a pilot and a multimillionaire, he would have flown a plane into the concert.
No guns or plane? He was a multimillionaire, he had explosives in the car, he would have made a bomb.

DO YOU THINK LAWS AFFECT THE RICH???
Do you think laws affect criminals? Whether they can buy it or they have to steal it, those with criminal intent will get it. Having money just means less legwork and risk.
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Carry gun: Springfield XD Tactical .45
User avatar

Lynyrd
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:20 am
Location: East Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#127

Post by Lynyrd »

srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
It seems that the people in favor of gun control laws are always the people who know absolutely nothing about guns. They don't shoot. Guns scare them (although many won't admit that). And they see people who fancy guns, and own guns as somehow abnormal because we are not like them.
Do what you say you're gonna do.
User avatar

SQLGeek
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:48 am
Location: Richmond, TX

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#128

Post by SQLGeek »

srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
As I'm sure you've pointed out, he had legally purchased a multitude of weapons over the past year. If he had wanted a suppressor, he would have used one.
Psalm 91:2

strogg
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:51 pm
Location: DFW (Denton County)

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#129

Post by strogg »

imkopaka wrote:
TreyHouston wrote:
srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.
No guns? He was a pilot and a multimillionaire, he would have flown a plane into the concert.
No guns or plane? He was a multimillionaire, he had explosives in the car, he would have made a bomb.

DO YOU THINK LAWS AFFECT THE RICH???
Do you think laws affect criminals? Whether they can buy it or they have to steal it, those with criminal intent will get it. Having money just means less legwork and risk.
:iagree:

it's not hard with a little knowhow to make a suppressor or an autosear. Or explosives. Or train in knife combat. Or learn how to crash a car. OK, the last one probably doesn't need to be learned.

But here's how I see suppressors. No, they don't silent a firearm unless it's a subsonic .22LR, but you don't even need a threaded suppressor for that. What they do is make it quieter for hearing protection and change the report. For the latter, I argue it's for the BETTER. When I hear people in town shooting in their backyards, I really have to try hard to figure out if I'm hearing guns or fireworks or someone dropping a large object on concrete. But when I hear a suppressed weapon, I know exactly what it is. Nothing else sounds quite like it.

*sigh* Oh well. So much for the HPA.
User avatar

Topic author
TexasJohnBoy
Banned
Posts in topic: 34
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#130

Post by TexasJohnBoy »

Theory --
Amend SHARE Act to include bump stock ban. Leave HPA language in place. Acceptable to anyone?

ETA: Better yet -- make bump stocks NFA items so they're at least available to those who really want them. So we remove one NFA item, and add one in its place.
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14

1911 10MM
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#131

Post by 1911 10MM »

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Theory --
Amend SHARE Act to include bump stock ban. Leave HPA language in place. Acceptable to anyone?

ETA: Better yet -- make bump stocks NFA items so they're at least available to those who really want them. So we remove one NFA item, and add one in its place.
I was thinking about this today as well and I would be for it.

BBYC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#132

Post by BBYC »

That would be an actual compromise. Put slidefire stocks on the registry with an amnesty period to register tax free, and in exchange take suppressors off the registry. Throw in national reciprocity and I might support the compromise.
God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.

TreyHouston
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Tomball

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#133

Post by TreyHouston »

BBYC wrote:That would be an actual compromise. Put slidefire stocks on the registry with an amnesty period to register tax free, and in exchange take suppressors off the registry. Throw in national reciprocity and I might support the compromise.
OK, if thats what the left wants!
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas

How many times a day could you say this? :cheers2:
User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#134

Post by anygunanywhere »

TreyHouston wrote:
BBYC wrote:That would be an actual compromise. Put slidefire stocks on the registry with an amnesty period to register tax free, and in exchange take suppressors off the registry. Throw in national reciprocity and I might support the compromise.
OK, if thats what the left wants!
Rob Peter, pay Paul.

Throw the Slidefire owners under the bus.

Why is it that a segment of firearms enthusiast always loses in any compromise and the left always gains something?
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

#135

Post by ScottDLS »

What we really need is a Federal law banning and confiscating autoloader rifles that are not equipped with a rate of fire slowing device (ROFSD), that keeps you from pulling the trigger more than once every two seconds. All existing semi-rifles must be registered IAW NFA after having ROFSD installed. And if you are discovered pulling the trigger of your semi-auto more than once per 2 seconds you will be guilty, you lose your gun and are guilty of a felony. Most responsible ranges already prohibit rapid fire, so this is a simple, common sense, gun law that even the NRA should be able to get behind.

And why does anyone need drum magazines that hold 50 or 100 deadly bullets? These are unnecessary and illegal for deer hunting so they should be banned.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”