TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

bblhd672 wrote: 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?

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????? 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.

srothstein wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: 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???

TreyHouston wrote:

srothstein wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: 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.

srothstein wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: 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.

srothstein wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: 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.

imkopaka wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

srothstein wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.