Hearing Protection Act of 2017

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

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


jb2012
Senior Member
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:12 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby jb2012 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:36 pm

canvasbck wrote:Admittedly, I surround myself with a lot of like minded individuals. I was having a hard time coming up with arguments that the left could make AGAINST this bill. Suppressors do not make firearms any more or less efficient in the context of being killing machines.


You're forgetting one key ingredient to this whole pckage. The left as a whole does not base decisions on facts, rather emotions; supressors are actually scary noise removers that increase velocity as well as bullet weight, making the gun even more lethal. Supressors also add a heat seeking ability to the rounds fired. Haha but seriously, arguing solely on facts (which should be the case 100% of the time) does nothing for the left.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:49 pm

jb2012 wrote:
canvasbck wrote:Admittedly, I surround myself with a lot of like minded individuals. I was having a hard time coming up with arguments that the left could make AGAINST this bill. Suppressors do not make firearms any more or less efficient in the context of being killing machines.


You're forgetting one key ingredient to this whole pckage. The left as a whole does not base decisions on facts, rather emotions; supressors are actually scary noise removers that increase velocity as well as bullet weight, making the gun even more lethal. Supressors also add a heat seeking ability to the rounds fired. Haha but seriously, arguing solely on facts (which should be the case 100% of the time) does nothing for the left.


Maybe we need to make the argument on their intellectual level.

I know those loud guns are scary. So we are going to make them quiet. That way they will be less scary. But this is only the first step. We are also working to require that all guns be painted in rainbow colors and play a reassuring song whenever they are fired.

Ding dong, the witch is dead


jb2012
Senior Member
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:12 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby jb2012 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:01 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
jb2012 wrote:
canvasbck wrote:Admittedly, I surround myself with a lot of like minded individuals. I was having a hard time coming up with arguments that the left could make AGAINST this bill. Suppressors do not make firearms any more or less efficient in the context of being killing machines.


You're forgetting one key ingredient to this whole pckage. The left as a whole does not base decisions on facts, rather emotions; supressors are actually scary noise removers that increase velocity as well as bullet weight, making the gun even more lethal. Supressors also add a heat seeking ability to the rounds fired. Haha but seriously, arguing solely on facts (which should be the case 100% of the time) does nothing for the left.


Maybe we need to make the argument on their intellectual level.

I know those loud guns are scary. So we are going to make them quiet. That way they will be less scary. But this is only the first step. We are also working to require that all guns be painted in rainbow colors and play a reassuring song whenever they are fired.



Maybe instead of reducing sound signature, if the supressor could convert the noise into the "I love you" barney song

User avatar

JustSomeOldGuy
Senior Member
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:49 am

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby JustSomeOldGuy » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:27 pm

I want a suppressor that sounds like a duck call. If they can do it with a turbo wastegate on a eurotrash car, is should be possible, at least on a Glock or an H&K.. :fire
member of the church of San Gabriel de Possenti
lay brother in the order of St. John Moses Browning
USPSA limited/single stack/revolver

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5368
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby Pawpaw » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:51 pm

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:I want a suppressor that sounds like a duck call. If they can do it with a turbo wastegate on a eurotrash car, is should be possible, at least on a Glock or an H&K.. :fire

I want mine to sound like a Bronx cheer.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22735
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Contact:

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby The Annoyed Man » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:48 pm

Pawpaw wrote:
JustSomeOldGuy wrote:I want a suppressor that sounds like a duck call. If they can do it with a turbo wastegate on a eurotrash car, is should be possible, at least on a Glock or an H&K.. :fire

I want mine to sound like a Bronx cheer.

I'd go for one that sounds like a Pooter.
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre


jason812
Senior Member
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:41 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby jason812 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:04 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Pawpaw wrote:
JustSomeOldGuy wrote:I want a suppressor that sounds like a duck call. If they can do it with a turbo wastegate on a eurotrash car, is should be possible, at least on a Glock or an H&K.. :fire

I want mine to sound like a Bronx cheer.

I'd go for one that sounds like a Pooter.


Am I the only one that still laughs like a 5 year old when watching those videos? Thanks TAM, you just cost me $10 plus shipping.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22735
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Contact:

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby The Annoyed Man » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:18 pm

jason812 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Pawpaw wrote:
JustSomeOldGuy wrote:I want a suppressor that sounds like a duck call. If they can do it with a turbo wastegate on a eurotrash car, is should be possible, at least on a Glock or an H&K.. :fire

I want mine to sound like a Bronx cheer.

I'd go for one that sounds like a Pooter.


Am I the only one that still laughs like a 5 year old when watching those videos? Thanks TAM, you just cost me $10 plus shipping.

I've worn out two of them. I almost bought another one tonight, but I'm going to take a blue recovery chip for that instead........ :lol:
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre

User avatar

Topic author
TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby TexasJohnBoy » Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:49 pm

Just got this back. And on Inauguration Day, no less!!

Dear Mr. TexasJohnBoy,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (S. 59). I recognize your dedication to participating in the democratic process and appreciate your comments on this matter.

As you may know, S. 59 was introduced on January 9, 2017. As a cosponsor of this legislation and a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe that it is essential to safeguard law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes. This legislation would remove sound suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (P.L. 73-474), ensuring that purchasing a firearm suppressor is treated the same as purchasing a long gun and thus subject to the same background check process. S. 59 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee for further consideration. As a member of the Finance Committee, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as reform proposals are considered during the 115th Congress.

Burdensome regulations, such as restricting the Second Amendment, runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms. It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has upheld the will of our Founders and re-affirmed the ideals upon which our country was established. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provides a greater guarantee that Americans' constitutional rights remain secure from federal government intrusion. I was proud to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting the fundamental right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This landmark ruling continues to have implications far beyond the District of Columbia. In the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago decision, the Supreme Court struck down the arbitrary gun ban in Chicago—thereby affirming that the Second Amendment protects Americans’ fundamental right against state and local encroachment.

As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of effective crime-fighting policies and believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to harm innocent Americans. I believe that strictly enforcing the law—and imposing tougher sentences on career criminals and violent offenders who use firearms—will reduce violence more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, lawmakers should work to reduce violence by enacting policies that increase treatment options for those who are dangerously mentally ill—a common factor in many acts of mass violence that have occurred in communities across the nation.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texas in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14


Mxrdad
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:55 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby Mxrdad » Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:19 pm

^^^^^^^^^

Outstanding. Good job reaching out to him and what a great response!
Finally woke up.......... Proud NRA Life member.
Proud member of TSRA as well.

User avatar

Topic author
TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby TexasJohnBoy » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:14 pm

5 more cosponsors yesterday for House version. All five are from outside of TX. 74 total cosponsors now!
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... astToFirst

Cronyn is officially a cosponsor of the Senate version as of Yesterday, bringing that to 3 cosponsors. Where's Ted????
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... astToFirst

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts: 2535
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: DFW, TX

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby bblhd672 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:06 pm

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Just got this back. And on Inauguration Day, no less!!

Dear Mr. TexasJohnBoy,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (S. 59). I recognize your dedication to participating in the democratic process and appreciate your comments on this matter.

As you may know, S. 59 was introduced on January 9, 2017. As a cosponsor of this legislation and a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe that it is essential to safeguard law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes. This legislation would remove sound suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (P.L. 73-474), ensuring that purchasing a firearm suppressor is treated the same as purchasing a long gun and thus subject to the same background check process. S. 59 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee for further consideration. As a member of the Finance Committee, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as reform proposals are considered during the 115th Congress.

Burdensome regulations, such as restricting the Second Amendment, runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms. It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has upheld the will of our Founders and re-affirmed the ideals upon which our country was established. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provides a greater guarantee that Americans' constitutional rights remain secure from federal government intrusion. I was proud to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting the fundamental right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This landmark ruling continues to have implications far beyond the District of Columbia. In the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago decision, the Supreme Court struck down the arbitrary gun ban in Chicago—thereby affirming that the Second Amendment protects Americans’ fundamental right against state and local encroachment.

As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of effective crime-fighting policies and believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to harm innocent Americans. I believe that strictly enforcing the law—and imposing tougher sentences on career criminals and violent offenders who use firearms—will reduce violence more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, lawmakers should work to reduce violence by enacting policies that increase treatment options for those who are dangerously mentally ill—a common factor in many acts of mass violence that have occurred in communities across the nation.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texas in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator


I received the same letter from Senator Cornyn. Nothing from Senator Cruz.
NRA Life Member, TSRA Member
“What ‘gun law’ would have prevented the Las Vegas massacre?”

User avatar

Skiprr
Moderator
Posts: 6458
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Outskirts of Houston

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby Skiprr » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:07 pm

bblhd672 wrote:I received the same letter from Senator Cornyn. Nothing from Senator Cruz.

Ditto.
Join the NRA or upgrade your membership today. Support the Texas Firearms Coalition and subscribe to the Podcast.
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

Topic author
TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby TexasJohnBoy » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:21 am

House version, HR 367, picked up four more cosponsors Tuesday, bringing it to 78. None of the new sponsors from Tuesday are from TX.
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14

User avatar

Topic author
TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby TexasJohnBoy » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:23 pm

HR 367 up to 81 cosponsors yesterday
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14


Return to “Federal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest