Odds of No NFA Tax for Silencers According to Iraqveteran8888

The National Firearms Act was enacted into law in 1934. As the story goes the act was the result of the many mafia-perpetrated crimes during Prohibition and there was also, of course, the assassination attempt made on then-President Roosevelt in 1933. Although it may have seemed like a good idea, or at least somewhat justifiable common sense, to many Americans at the time, it’s become a point of serious contention for gun owners today. Not to say it’s a new debate, just that it’s definitely ramped up lately.

There’s quite a bit of discussion going on about the recent challenge to the NFA tax on suppressors, and it’s always interesting to hear what different people think of the odds. In this video, YouTuber Iraqveteran8888, Eric, talks about the suppressor tax. It’s a bit long, but interesting to watch.

Do you guys think there’s a snowball’s chance in that really hot place that the tax would ever be removed from suppressors?

TFB Staffer

TFB Staff, bringing you the latest gun news from around the world for a decade.


  • BearSlayer338

    It would be really cool if suppressors got off the NFA list but, with a government that continues to push and pass gun control laws I really doubt this will be allowed to pass and we also have a lot of misinformed people that don’t realize suppressors just lower the decibels of a gunshot by about 20-35 decibels and it doesn’t make anything silent,just makes gunshots sound different but they are still loud on most weapons other than manually operated weapons.(bolt actions ect…)

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      And really, ten more years of inflation, and who the %$#@ will care about a $200 stamp?

  • DW

    “Yes we can!
    Yes we can” ~ Best_firearm_salesperson_NA

    ….oh wait

  • mig1nc

    Depends. If we get a right leaning house, senate, and Pennsylvania Ave I think it would be extremely likely we would get some NFA reform. But without all three, it will be a hard sell.

    • Lt_Scrounge

      The ONLY way to get NFA reforms will be to eliminate the Democrat filibuster. To do that you’ll have to replace at least 5 or 6 Democrats and possibly a couple of RINOs to make that happen.

  • hking

    I really think it could happen with a big industry wide public education push. These devices are unregulated, and even encouraged in nations with strict firearm laws (Britton, Sweden, Norway, etc). They are a health & safety device for the user and those around them. They do not make a gun silent like in movies, it makes them hearing safe, still as loud as a lawnmower in many cases. There are hundreds of thousands legally possessed and used, yet are used in a statistically insignificant number of criminal acts. With the facts on the table, its really hard to come up with a downside even through the eyes of a anti-gunner, but we all know facts don’t matter to them for the most part.

    Educate the people, educate the non gun owners, educate the politicians.

    • Phillip Cooper

      You’re suggesting we use facts to oppose people that focus on how they FEEEEEL about things.

      Good luck with that.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        Have you counted how many states have CCW and reciprocity now, vs 1986?

    • Rattlerjake

      Look, the reason that this and repeal of other gun laws is unlikely is the money. The fed and the states that charge fees (tax) for these “rights” are raking in the dough since Ovomit took control. It has nothing to do with what is right, what is healthy, what is safe, what is smart, etc. it only has to do with money! Tens of millions of CCW permits have been sold every year for the last 7 years (increases every year); that equates to hundreds of millions of $$$$$!

  • THAT guy

    Didn’t read. Didn’t watch. Honestly who gives a F what this youtube star has to say? and WHY? He’s just another guy and doesn’t know any more than the rest of us.

    • Joe

      Yes, yes you are that guy. Very much so. If you didn’t read the article, and didn’t watch the video then why are you commenting? Here’s a tip, Google narcissistic behavior and then get back to us.

  • G0rdon_Fr33man

    They mention European countries in the beginning of the video. In Norway, they are free to buy over the counter, no questions asked, no paperwork, no age restriction, no nothing. Let me just write a few words about the attitude towards suppressors in general.

    First of, they are not used in any sort of “tactical” shooting, as in IPSC, DFS (Voluntary militia) or NROF (Norwegian Reserve Officers Association). They mess with the timers and are not issued to basic infantry in the Armed Forces.

    There are no pistol competitions where they are legal, as they count as a muzzle brake. If you want one for fun, they are available.

    Where they really shine is with hunters. The data I have is showing 90% of new hunting rifles sold as a package, now includes a suppressor. They are legal when taking the hunters permit. As they make the shooting experience so much more pleasant, now everyone use one.

    About 5-6 years back, the State wanted to make them a registered item where you had to apply to get one (like in Sweden), but the hunters lobby got really pissed about it, and managed to kill off that proposition. As mentioned in the vid, the FDA does regulate certain things related to firearms. Same thing happened here, where “Folkehelseinstituttet”, the national health institute, completely sided with the hunters lobby to prevent hearing damage and to continue to allow them to be sold over the counter. Today, there are no chance in h*ll the state would attempt the same maneuver. There has never been any sort of crime involving suppressors here either as far as I know.

    • n0truscotsman

      Thats interesting!

      I think the United States is still stuck in the prohibition-era thinking that created legislation heavily regulating suppressors, under the erroneous idea that the actually “silence” gunshots (when in fact, at best, they lower it by 20 decibels).

      • iksnilol

        At best they lower it by about 40 db. 😀

        • n0truscotsman

          No kidding? I have to admit, I haven’t been keeping up to date with suppressors.

          • iksnilol

            .22 suppressor + subsonic reduces by about 40 db. It is relatively quiet.

            Centerfire rifle suppressors with regular ammo are about 20-30 db, usually in the 23-28 range.

      • NormB

        As a physician, an avid shooter (NRA pistol instructor), I own a dozen some-odd suppressors. I believe they should be over-the-counter sale, cash and carry, no paperwork. But, in living near DC for 22 years, I have learned the prevailing attitude – call it anecdotal – is “only criminals use silencers.” Hollywood has taught us well.

        • Mustascheo

          That’s funny. Because you, I and the rest of the commentators on her probably know damn well that criminals probably never even get their hands anywhere near a suppressor. Unless you count an old pop bottle and some tape…..

          • Jwedel1231

            Wait, criminals will find a way to do something they aren’t legally allowed to do? WHAAAAAA?

          • G0rdon_Fr33man

            A lot can be done with a lathe! Last time I checked, they did not need an NFA stamp 😛

            Suppressors are probably the easiest thing to make… My little brother made a fuctional suppressor in high school. He made a Glock sear for me as well, but please don´t tell his teacher, who did not know what it was :p

          • Mustascheo

            Say it ain’t so, right?

    • M40

      Many years ago, I was in Copenhagen on business. I walked into a small pawn shop, and right there on the shelf was a really nice suppressor. They wanted the equivalent of about $30 for it. No paperwork… no tax stamps… no oversight… just a piece of hardware that anyone could buy.

      The salesman saw me looking at it and kept trying to sell it to me. I had to explain to him that there was no way it would get through customs, and that I could end up in jail if I tried. This seemed to amuse him. He explained that Denmark had laws REQUIRING people to use suppressors in certain areas (to avoid disturbing other people with the noise of gunshots).

      • Sir TuberKopf

        We should file an OSHA complaint against the federal government for hearing loss.

        Let’s take everyone that ever fired a gun that has any measurable hearing loss and form a class action lawsuit!

  • Geoffry K

    Until we have a pro-gun President it will not happen. Even now, if it makes it through Congress, obama would veto it. Not enough votes to over-ride.

    • David

      The ban on firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges was signed by the current president.

      This “until we have canard is responsible for more gun owners not getting involved than all the gun grabbers in the world combined.

      • Geoffry K

        That was an amendment attached to “must pass” legislation.
        He had no choice.
        BTW, it is still illegal to discharge the firearm in a National Park.

        • Mustascheo

          Let them charge me with illegal discharge of a firearm in a National Park. I’ll take the charge over being dead or grievously injured…..

          • itsmefool


      • Geoffry K

        Mods do not like links in comments, so go look up the “Credit Card Act of 2009”

        • David

          What’s your point? You said there’s no sense doing anything to support this because it won’t get signed and presumably no override would occur.

          That premise is false. We have solid pro-gun majorities in both houses and attached to something that’s necessary or key legislation works just as well as a bill on the floor.

          I could go look up the credit card act, but I’m already familiar with it and the NPS gun ban, and its rich repeal history.

          Politically speaking, it’s sometimes better to have an opposition party executive because the legislators will be more willing to send the opposite party executive uncomfortable legislation. If the executive is from the same party the house, senate and executive leadership coordinate to ensure no “controversial” legislation gets to the executive’s desk.

          This “it won’t happen” argument is poison to legislative success. It poisons the well of potential supporters for those in our camp who are simply looking for an excused to not help. Many of the fence sitters will read your comments and similar ones, and ignore all of the encouraging or supporting comments and we get nothing.

          • Annika R

            Agreed. I’m actually constantly surprised by the intense, debilitating pessimism exhibited by large sectors of the pro-gun crowd. It feels like we’re constantly shooting ourselves in the foot, if the pun can be excused, and it feels out of touch with reality. So many of us are constantly throwing our hands up in the air and bemoaning defeat without even really trying.
            The anti-gunners might have a president… but if we care to take a look around, it turns out we’ve got damn near everything else. Are we afraid to organize because that seems like an overly “liberal” tactic or something? Or are we just too much in love with claiming a persecuted victim status?

          • wzrd1

            What surprises me is, the only place any suggestion of deregulating suppressors is on firearms related blogs.
            Not a word from any legislator in the nation.
            Not even a syllable uttered by a legislator.

      • Rock or Something

        True, but it was just a small part of a larger bill he was signing. It’s like when people slam Reagan for signing the 1986 firearm bill that heavily restricted civilian ownership of newly manufactured fully auto firearms, but that wasn’t the original intent or point of the bill.

        Regardless, if we want to make it happen, we have to get our ducks in a row for when the political winds shift our way, instead of complaining about the current POTUS.

        • He signed it none the less. I keep saying it, but no one seems to look at the voting history for themselves…Obama is the most conservative Democratic president in the last 40 years as far as gun legislation goes.

          The only legislation he actually signed “EXTENDED” CCW rights (as stated above). He only brings up firearms legislation when there is a high profile shooting. Short of that, it’s a non-issue for him.

          Here in IL, his voting history in the Senate is chalk full of every type of legislation you can think of…except anti-gun bills.

          The manufacturers have most of you dupped. The mere mention of his name causes a run on guns, and their wallets get bigger and bigger. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was in on it with them.

          • wzrd1

            In one very real way, he is. Those campaigns are funded somehow and eight billion dollar campaigns have that money coming from *some* wealthy groups.
            The United States of America has the best government that money can buy.

          • Mustascheo

            But a government for whom?

          • Ken

            Those that can afford it.

          • wzrd1

            Indeed, hit the nail on the head.

          • Scott P

            I guess you forgot the import bans he screwed us over on:

            The M1 rifles from South Korea
            7n6 5.45 ban
            Russian AK ban
            Steyr AUG pistol kit ban

            You may think they are insignificant but they are still restrictions (death by 1000 cuts) people like you routinely forget about (including the ban mentioned above in having guns in national parks) when praising Obama for doing “nothing” on gun restrictions.

          • You need to do some fact checking sir…

            That bill ALLOWS concealed carry in national parks…previously it wasn’t!

            The AUG is on the the 89 ban list…explicitly by name!!! The pistol kit ban was an extension of that, a result of the ATF’s ridiculous policy on what they enforce, when they enforce it, and why. That’s been happening for the last couple of decades. 89…those were Regan years, no??? 😮

            The AK and 7n6 ban is him trying to display some sort of power play against Putan. (We now have have American and Russian aircraft and soldiers on the ground in the same country, in actual conflict.) If it were more than that, they’d ban ALL AK’s, not just Russian imports.

            And the South Korean M1 ban…Ha!!! Who would be hurt most by 1 MILLION cheap M1s flooding the country??? Manufacturers of course!!! Obama initially approved the plan in 2009…then suddenly reversed course. He approved it AGAIN in 2011 for a smaller amount (86,000 I believe). And again, he suddenly switched course. Now who do you think was on the phone with him both times bitching about those deals??? Senator this guy or Congressman that guy??? Hell no, it was the ones who stand to lose the most money!!!

            It’s not that “people like me routinely forget”. It’s that people like you have been bamboozled, hoodwinked even, by the manufactures. So much so that you regurgitate the same tired “Obama is going to take your guns” mantra, sparking both astronomical gun sales and price gouging, the likes of which had never been seen before!!!

    • n0truscotsman

      Im not confident that he would sign it either. He is too emotionally invested in increasing gun legislation, and a move like this will paint the appearance to his supporters that he’s doing the opposite.

      Throwing away all the politics, this is something that should’ve been done a while ago. The NFA is coming up on being, what? 100 years old?

  • JLR84

    I’m not overly confident. It’s one of those things that’s very easy to scare the general public with, with the movie-fueled perception that silencers are the tools of assassins that make guns about as loud as mouse-farts.

  • Phillip Cooper

    “A bit long”?

    At a half hour it’s more like a darn speech.

    Someone want to BLUF it for me?

  • skusmc

    Why, for the love of John Moses Browning, did an enterprising NRA A+ congress person not just attach a silencer NFA tax repeal to the recent ginormous budget bill?

    • Laserbait

      It still can be. It has only just been introduced, so it can be bundled into something else at any time.

      • Rattlerjake

        We know it will pass considering they never read anything.

    • nadnerbus

      I’m sure it would find it’s way to the trash bin when the Senate reconciled it, but it would still be a great move to make, for the statement if nothing else.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Hillary is going to be the next President. Watch.
    Shes going to make Obama look like Reagan.

  • iowaclass

    We could get ANYTHING WE WANT from the gun-control voters regarding the NFA in exchange for:
    (i) background checks on all gun & ammo sales, private or dealer;
    (ii) a federal license-to-purchase for all guns and ammo.
    (And, indeed ,a federal license-to-purchase would facilitate background checks to a “card-swipe” system.)
    Suppressors? Done.
    SBS/SBR? Done.
    Open the books on post-’86 MGs? Done.
    Green-tip ammo? Done.
    Anything else on your wish list? Done-done-done-done-done.
    Such a “grand bargain” would be about the easiest thing that could be accomplished in Washington, as far a voter approval is concerned.
    Why won’t it be? Because the Lobby Industry on both sides do not want a grand bargain. They do not want a “solution.” They want “The Issue” in perpetuity. They want those direct-mail solicitations bringing back the cash, and they want it to keep coming in the future; from your children’s grandchildren.
    NRA and NSSF want your money, every election, better yet every year, better yet every month.
    Obama wants your guns! — Now send us money.
    Boo! Hillary! — Now send us money.
    Looters at the police shooting protest! — Now send us money.
    Knock-out gamers coming to a street near you! — Now send us money.
    ISIS infiltrating with refugees from Syria! — Now send us money.
    And the Sarah Brady-Violence Policy Center is twice as bad. Every school shooting is like three cherries on the slot machine to them.
    If gun owners want legal reforms, they have to engage in a quid pro quo with the gun-control voters: Something-for-something. And it ain’t going to get done by the NRA or its opposite numbers across the aisle. This requires direct engagement, grass-roots, voters talking to voters and voters talking to politicians, directly.

    • ARCNA442

      You really thank that if we give them universal background checks they will not only leave us alone but let us have machine guns as well? I think you are seriously underestimating their goals. What about magazine limits? And “assault weapon” bans? Just a month ago Obama called for an “Australian Solution” (i.e. confiscate everything).

      As far as quid pro quo goes, the gun rights movement has had astounding success with very little bargaining. Just a little more than a decade ago you couldn’t have a flash hider on your AR-15 and now someone has introduced a bill to make silencers more available!

      If we stop being pessimistic and believing our opponents’ propaganda we have a good chance of getting everything on your list without giving up any more of our freedoms.

      • iowaclass

        Therein lies the recurring error: thinking that when you are in a strong position, you should try to get everything and give nothing, and that bargaining is for those in a weak position.
        It’s just the opposite. When you are strong, that is the time to strike a deal and get a favorable terms. When you are weak… that is when bargaining leads to bad deals.
        This is the “silly season” in our election process — the time when the polls tell us not only that Donald Trump or Ben Carson could win the party nomination, but would be Hillary by ten points in the general election. Does that sound real? Does that sound right?
        If Hillary wins in Nov. ’16, takes office Jan. ’17, and appoints two or three anti-2nd judges to SCOTUS by 2024, will you be happy that you held out to get everything on a no-compromise basis?

        • ARCNA442

          I think you have the right idea – if we were looking for a grand bargain to resolve everything. I see our situation as continuing battle. We should hold the ground we have, shore up weaknesses, and look for openings. In the long run it doesn’t matter what Presidents or Supreme Court Justices think, the voters will ultimately decide and we need to focus on getting them on our side.

          • M40

            You’re correct… the left NEVER sees an issue as “resolved”. They see only the baby-steps they can take towards Marxism. The idea that striking grand bargains with them will help gun owners is ridiculous. They will break those bargains the moment they have the power to do so.

          • iowaclass

            Supporting popular legislation is how you are supposed to keep your opponent from getting power. Failing to deliver popular legislative reform is how you lose power.

          • M40

            And judging by LANDSLIDE midterm victories and the fact that the house senate, and most state governorships are now firmly in conservative hands… the people have spoken. The fact that we happen to have elected feckless, hapless, spineless “conservatives” who are seemingly afraid of the left-media’s attack apparatus is another story.

          • iowaclass

            The Republican politicians now in power are reliably pro-gun. I see nothing spineless about them on that count.
            Public opinion surveys indicate that improved background checks are overwhelmingly popular even with NRA members. This may be wrong. There is a general election soon. We’ll see. No sense arguing over predictions. My own estimate is that arguments in favor of letting people sell guns without background checks is not a political winner, but, again, we’ll wait and see.

          • M40

            I’m against background checks every time I want to buy a gun or ammunition because I happen to be in a state where I’ve already been through all that just to get licensed. Also because I see that as INFRINGEMENT.

            You seem to support FEDERAL control over gun laws, licensing, and regulation. Sorry, but that is NOT within their purview. Show me where in the constitution they are allowed to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms. For that matter, the left seems to want federal control over all manner of things they have NO BUSINESS meddling in.

            The Democrat ‘plan’ is right out of the socialist playbook. They stifled industries with crushing regulations until they faltered. They blamed capitalism for the failures, and implemented socialist ‘fixes’ to effectively take over those industries one by one. So far they’ve largely gobbled up the auto industry, healthcare, energy, education, banking, insurance and many others.

            Socialists have ALWAYS attempted to obfuscate and muddy the concepts of rights and privileges. They cite all manner of nonexistent, imaginary “rights”, like gay marriage, abortion, health care, education… and of course the all pervasive one that feeds them… the “right” to raid your wallet.

            Socialists see the (actual) bill of rights as an ultimately malleable list of federally granted privileges which should be legislated into near nonexistence. They are actively attempting to shred the first amendment, tearing at the second amendment, ignoring the fourth and fifth amendments, and taking a giant dump on the ninth and tenth amendments. Liberals now abuse the “commerce clause” and imagine that it gives them the power to control vast sectors of your life and business.

          • iowaclass

            This is telling. You are not concerned with gun rights as an independent matter. You have accepted a pre-packaged ideology that expediently bundles gun rights with hostility to gays, reproductive rights, universal medical coverage and even public education funding. In that context, the gun debate is merely leverage for achieving a broader agenda of Right-wing-nationalist-populist goals. You’re really not even part of the debate on firearms policy. You are a partisan adherent, and gun rights are merely instrumental.

          • M40

            This IS telling… I’m apparently debating someone who hasn’t even read the constitution, and who doesn’t know the difference between state and federal purview. In your own ignorance, you think the federal government (while FAILING in their assigned duties) should attempt a wholesale usurpation of states rights.

          • steveday72

            The current DOJ does not prosecute failed background checks now. Why bother with “improving” (a BS term) them??

            Universal Background Checks are not “overwhelmingly popular … with NRA members”. Don’t believe the lies from NBC or Bloomberg’s mindless minions.

        • M40

          …and you think Hillary or her judges would honor any “deal” struck right now? You’re sadly mistaken. Giving ground to Marxists NEVER ends well.

          • iowaclass

            Marxists are not the source of anti-gun policy in the United States. Michael Bloomberg has more “capitalist” bona fides than the whole NRA membership combined.
            Hillary and her appointees will have no choice but to “honor” whatever is codified into law.
            Of course no deal can be sealed in amber, unless you put the deal in the form of a constitutional amendment. This is a democracy, and people get to vote in the future. The objective is to build a strong legislative edifice that can be defended on its merits to future voters.

          • M40

            Okay… I’ll bite!

            “Marxists are not the source of anti-gun policy in the United States.” – YES THEY ARE.

            Michael Bloomberg has more “capitalist” bona fides than the whole NRA membership combined. – NO HE DOESN’T. HIS MEDIA EMPIRE CONTINUALLY ESPOUSES MARXISM AS THE CURE FOR THE WORLD’S ECONOMIC WOES.

            Hillary and her appointees will have no choice but to “honor” whatever is codified into law. – REALLY? YOU THINK HILLARY ABIDES BY LAWS??? REALLY?!?!

            Of course no deal can be sealed in amber, unless you put the deal in the form of a constitutional amendment. – IT ALREADY IS, YA TOOL!!! AND THAT ISN’T STOPPING HILLARY, BLOOMBERG, OR ANY OF THE OTHER SOCIALIST TRASH.

          • iowaclass

            You have a very common problem among people of your political persuasion: you have a Tourette’s-type verbal tic in which you bark “Marxist” or “Socialist” at anyone who disagrees with you on any issue, even issues without a clear socialist-capitalist axis, such as gun control.
            Here is a therapeutic exercise for you: identify a person who disagrees with your view, but who is not a Socialist or a Marxist.

          • M40

            And those on the left like to call me a “Nazi” (which is laughable because Nazism was a socialist movement).
            Anyone who makes the argument that we should give up rights and freedoms for some imagined modicum of safety… is playing right out of the Marxist playbook. So yes, I’ll call them Marxists every time!

          • iowaclass

            The Left has an analogous problem with certain cohorts calling anyone they disagree with racist or anti-woman. We have all seen anti-gun arguments framed in terms of “racial justice” or “protection of women.” But why you think it is a good idea to mirror this idiocy in your own rhetoric is incomprehensible.
            And then you offer a ridiculous non-definition of “the Marxist playbook,” such that one would label theocracy or feudalism as “Marxist.” This is an assault on language to deprives important words of all meaning except the epithetical. You should stop it, if you are even mentally capable of doing so.

          • M40

            We’re all pretty familiar with the oft repeated Marxist playbook. It is the systematic destruction of personal rights in favor of the state. It is a political media blitz of repeated lies. It is a crippling, Orwellian takeover of industry through regulation and taxation. It is the strategic pitting of south vs. north – union vs. management – religious vs. non-religious – urban vs. rural – minorities vs. white – gay vs. straight – women vs. men – rich vs. poor – (and many more that escape me at the moment).

            All of this is designed to divide and conquer, ending in poverty and misery for the people. The political endgame is POWER.

          • iowaclass

            You have absolutely no sense, no inkling, of what differentiates Marxism from any other ideology that elevates authority over individual rights. You are incapable of distinguishing Marxism from, say, Tsarism. You are a historical ignoramus, and you lack even the vocabulary to participate in meaningful political debate.

          • M40

            And there it is… the liberal primate instinct for turd-hurling kicks in once they have lost the ability to back their debate with real facts, logic, or historical precedent.

          • iowaclass

            Name three differences between “the Marxist playbook” and Hindu Nationalism.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          There is nothing “Favorable” about registration and there is no reason to “bargain” with a right.

          The proper way to approach this is the reverse of what the antis do. We need to demand civilian ownership of nuclear weapons and warships, per the “Letters of marque and reprisal” clause.

          But we’ll settle for unlicensed suppressors.

          Then we come back and demand privately owned artillery be restored, and combat aircraft.

          But we’ll settle for reopening the Registry.

          Then we insist a free society requires access to Tomahawk cruise missiles.

          But we’ll settle for eliminating the DD Registry.

          Then we come back and demand nukes again.

          You “compromise” be demanding more than you will ever possibly get, and “settling” for less. For now.

          Your proposal, btw, is what led to the mag capacity limit…which didn’t avoid the AW ban.

          So much for “compromise.”

          • iowaclass

            You are being unserious, even silly, and your attitude typifies an approach that has cost us a lot. If you think showing up in your foam-mesh camo hat and your Punisher-skull T-shirt and talking about missiles and bombs is going to advance gun rights, then the folks who are legitimately trying to advance the cause of the 2nd amendment need to keep you at the margins where you belong.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            People like you got us the AWB. People like me, including me, got us wider CCW.

            I don’t dress as a stereotype.

          • iowaclass

            The NRA itself acquiesced to the AWB, so I’m not sure where your purity test is supposed to come from.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Yup. They “compromised” to be “reasonable.”

            There’s your lesson.

            Goodbye now.

          • iowaclass

            Not sure where you get this. The AWB is not an example of compromise. It was the opposite of a compromise. The NRA got precisely nothing in exchange for the AWB. They did get a sunset clause, and thank the good lord for that.
            An example of a compromise was FOPA ’86. It was a pro-gun bill signed by Reagan, but it came with the Hughes Amendment. I think it was a bad deal myself, but it was a compromise between pro- and anti- forces, and it was quite popular.

    • nadnerbus

      In the unlikely event such a grand bargain could ever be struck, it wouldn’t be honored for more then a decade or so before the issue was dragged back into the court of public opinion over another shooting or another high profile gun crime like an assassination. We would be right back were we are now, with renewed calls for restrictions, only with all of the tools in place (registration and data bases) to make it a reality if they were able to move forward.

      I walked away from my NRA membership years ago for all the reasons you mention, so I really do understand where you are coming from. But I also live in California, and you cannot count on the opposition to negotiate in good faith. They will almost certainly go back on the bargain at some point.

      • M40

        Striking a “deal” that gives the left another step towards gun control… is like Neville Chamberlain giving Hitler more and more land, in the silly hope that he would be sated. Power-hungry leftists see pacification as weakness, and “common ground” concessions as a starting point for their next attack.

        • iowaclass

          Your analogy is inapt because the struggle is for public opinion, not military claims to territory. The way to win public support is with legislation that is popular with the voting public. You don’t win public opinion by saying “we won’t agree to ANYTHING EVER because the other side drinks children’s blood for breakfast.”

          • M40

            Self-described “liberal” voters are at an all time low, while self-described “conservative” voter ranks continue to swell and outclass the left by a solid 15 points. Gun ownership also continues to boom with about HALF of all American households having at least one gun. Almost every legislator that has been outspoken against guns over the last decade has been dumped from office.
            The public has SPOKEN… and you don’t seem to like it. And now we get to hear leftist sympathizers like you asking that we come to a compromise? Not bloody likely!!

          • iowaclass

            If you think you can get the whole ball of wax without compromise, of course you will proceed accordingly. I caution against this approach as a matter of prudence. It is a predictive and probabilistic matter, not to be settled through debate on first principles. However, anyone who thought McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan were finally going to deliver total control of Washington to “Real America” should incorporate some circumspection into their thinking about 2016.

          • M40

            The numbers don’t lie. Your ranks are dwindling. Socialism sucks, and we’re all growing sick of it. But feel free to keep your head in the sand. Your idea that Hillary might find her way into the white house again is as laughable as your idea that she’s somehow honest or law-abiding.

          • nadnerbus

            Sorry man, yours are rose colored glasses on that one. The left is in decline at the moment because they have had political primacy for the last eight years, and the public is getting tired of them. For the same reason the right was in decline at the end of the Iraq war and the left was voted into office. These are cyclical things, and are not indicative of any sort of long term trend. Republicans can easily, and are historically likely to, squander any kind of electoral victory in one or two presidential terms.

          • M40

            Gallup polling on that subject goes back some 30 years, and conservative voters have outweighed liberals by a wide margin no matter who has been in “political primacy”. It’s not “cyclical”.

          • nadnerbus

            What people label themselves in a poll is not the same as the way people vote in an election. In the 80s congress was controlled by Dems. In 94 it was taken by Reps. In 2006 it went back to Dems, in 2010 the house went to Reps, Senate is split. There is no electoral evidence that either party has a lock on future voters. As always, elections are driven by current political issues, which either play to a strength or weakness of the two parties. The most common issue is the economy, which is inevitably credited to the prior administration. Bush 1 had a bad economy, he lost to Clinton (with Perot’s help). Clinton had a good economy, he was reelected. 2000 saw a bad economy, Bush was elected over Gore (sort of…). Bush had an OK economy in 2004, plus was in the middle of a war, he got reelected. Bush had a bad economy, Reps lost the election to Dems.

            Right now the economy is fairly flat, wage growth is almost nil, health care is still a mess despite being the signature initiative of the in party, and foreign affairs seem to be going to hell. This bodes well for the out party, Republicans. It does not mean they will keep that power if things don’t improve.

          • M40

            The 20% that self proclaim as ‘liberal’ are greatly outweighed by the nearly 40% that self proclaim as ‘conservative’. The deciding factor (as always) are the 40%+ that are undecided. They are the ones that sway elections. If they stay home… Republicans win. It takes a fairly massive groundswell of undecided voters to show up and vote Democrat for a liberal to win.

            Democrats – The party that claims government can make you wealthy, good-looking and get the weeds out of your lawn. They get elected and fail abysmally.

            Republicans – The party that claims government doesn’t work. They get elected and prove it.

            I’ll at least vote for the honest side of the debate. The reason that the ‘Tea Party’ resonates is that we all KNOW that more government does NOT make our lives better. In fact the opposite is true. Smaller is better.

      • iowaclass

        This is a democracy, and people will get to vote in future elections. A legislative bargain cannot be turned into an irreversible covenant unless it takes the form of a constitutional amendment. This does not make legislative bargaining meaningless or worthless. It just means you have to strike a bargain that can be defended on its merits to the voting public, today and going forward.

    • M40

      It would seem that you’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for the leftist line that they just want “common sense gun legislation”. But the left LIES to get their way. They use bumper sticker slogans and daily propaganda campaigns to spread those lies. Their lies, repeated often enough, become truth to the masses… and apparently to you as well.

      Here’s a hint… they DON’T want “common sense gun laws”. They want all privately owned guns registered and placed on a convenient federal list… so they can confiscate them… and destroy them.

      They KNOW that criminals will always have ready access to black market guns. They KNOW that more paperwork, laws and regulations will only restrict law abiding gun owners. But they also KNOW that law-abiding, patriotic gun owners are the only barricade between them and their ultimate goals… vast, centralized power and a Marxist state.

      In short, the wolves cannot feast upon the sheep… as long as the sheepdogs have teeth. They want those teeth GONE. They want a submissive flock of sheeple.

      There is NO WAY to find “middle ground” with Marxists. They see the middle ground only as another step towards their true goals. The issue isn’t “settled” until they have stepped across the line, won the war, and danced upon your corpse.

      • iowaclass

        I have already condescended to explain, it simple terms, that the part of “the Left” consisting of professional gun-control lobbyists do not want any kind of a solution to illegal gun commerce, and would not support a grand bargain.
        Meanwhile, the part of “the Left” that consists of ordinary voters who show up on election day for pro-gun-control politicians, do, in fact, want a solution to illegal gun commerce and would support a grand bargain.
        (Neither of these constituencies are accurately categorized in gross as “Marxists.”)
        The objective is to get around the lobbyists, directly to the voting public and their representatives, to strike a favorable bargain, especially while the pro-gun side has leverage.

        • M40

          There seems to be a disconnect here… so allow me to “condescend” and explain this in a way that might penetrate your overly thick skull.

          – Most GUN crimes are committed by criminals who buy black market guns.

          – Most DRUG crimes are committed by criminals who buy black market drugs.

          Therefore… if you think that new laws restricting LEGAL firearm ownership will curb ILLEGAL gun violence… you may as well pretend that a new laws against aspirin will somehow curb the use of meth, heroine and cocaine.

          Going after the law abiding people who obtain and use legal goods does NOTHING to curb criminals or black market enterprises. Therefore, the liberal left is either DELUSIONAL… or they are LYING about the true intent of their proposed laws. I’d say it’s a bit of both.

          • iowaclass

            It is very unclear to me how much background checks would actually mitigate illegal gun sales in the future. 3D/CNC alone might undermine any effort at improved background checks in the near future.
            Guns are not analogous to drugs because almost all illegal gun transfers are preceded by legal transfers, and many private transfers might be “legal” for the seller (who does not know, e.g., the buyer is a felon) but “illegal” for the buyer (who is a felon). Drugs are not the subject of any such paradox.
            What is clear is that improved background checks are popular with the public at this time. We’ll see how that translates into general election results in a year.

          • M40

            Things that seem “clear” to you just happen to be false. As Reagan said, “the problem with our liberal friends, is that they know so much that isn’t so”.

            In fact, a recent CNN poll and article said it all – “A new CNN/ORC poll shows that registered voters continue to be in revolt against more gun control, with majorities saying ‘current laws are about right or even too harsh’.”

          • iowaclass

            Yes, they consistently oppose gun control; consistently support strengthened background checks. Specific proposals always poll high while “gun control” as a concept polls low. It indicates that public opinion is rather fluid on the topic and capable of being further shaped.

          • M40

            If you truly believe that, then you must be ignoring reputable polling and relying on left-driven polls. The voting public has spoken loud and clear on this issue. Democrats can continue to ignore that at their own peril, and we the people will continue to send them packing.

          • iowaclass

            If you have a link to any public opinion polls showing majority opposition to proposals for expanded background checks (as distinct from generic “gun control”), it would actually assist me with some ongoing research.

          • M40

            The only poll I cited is the only one that matters… the voting booth.

            I’m pointing out that you’re not relying on any sort of reputable polling… you (and a LOT of leftist gun-grabbers) are repeatedly citing the same 2 internet polls conducted by left leaning websites. Each of these polls had less than 3,000 respondents, and NO way of checking for any sort of accuracy or cross section of respondents.

            Conduct a poll at the Vatican, and you can assume that 99% of the world is Catholic, right? Likewise, if you conduct an on-site poll at the IPCC, you can claim “scientific consensus” on global warming.

          • iowaclass

            The election results don’t help because that is a choice between candidacies, not a referendum on a single issue.
            When background checks were on the ballot in Washington State, they passed: 59%. Washington is a pro-gun state: no AWB, “shall issue,” legal silencers (not MGs, though).
            What are you going to do? Blame all those “Marxists” at Boeing and Microsoft?

          • wzrd1

            First, you lost me when you went on and on about Marxism. I usually ignore jugheads who call US citizens “sheeple”.

            So, how many NFA firearms have been used in a crime since the NFA was enacted?
            The answer is three, the latest being some years ago when a corrupt cop shot up a drug house with his NFA Uzi.
            The NFA was effective in stopping criminals from possessing machine guns.
            Not so effective against SBR’s and SBS’s, as all one needs to do is use a hacksaw.

            What is needed is to address those who want some form of gun control is education.
            When asked “Why do you need a barrel shroud?”, I replied, “So that I don’t burn my hands by the fifth round when competing”.
            When asked “Why do you need a bayonet lug?”, I replied, “When was the last time you heard of someone being bayoneted to death?”.

          • iowaclass

            Thanks, wxrd1. I’m not sure how many people you will convince by your sound and reasonable logic, but I expect you will do better than M40, who barks “Socialist” at everybody like a trained seal and advocates legal shrapnel bombs as a good starting “bargaining position.”

        • steveday72

          I agree, you have already been extremely condescending.

    • Bill

      You are dead on with the direct mail comment. I always tell people that all of those little fliers in their mailboxes are nothing more than a way to perpetuate deforestation via leaflet production. Let’s look at the “rights insurance” theory: send us money, send us money, send us money. If we win, it’s because we just squeaked by no matter how much we collected, and we need more to continue the fight. If we lose, it’s because you didn’t send us enough, and now is your chance to correct that oversight and send us more so that we can continue the fight. This goes for virtually every fundraising/agenda driven entity from A to Z and covers virtually every cause, Constitutional or otherwise. Anyone remember the media blitz by everyone from the NRA to GOA prior to the Brady Bill? Remember how right we were and how delusional the Left was? Remember how much money was raised, what happened next, and what those organizations said afterward? I sure do, and it still makes me mad. The reason the libs keep outflanking is that they own the media and we don’t (see what CNBC did with the recent Republican debate for a perfect illustration of this). Until that problem is somehow rectified it won’t matter how much we give or how righteous we are. That’s not ideology, it’s reality.

      • iowaclass

        The newsmedia is not reliably “Liberal” or even pro-Democrat, but it is reliably anti-gun. It is a single-issue bias that goes well beyond most other biases.

    • Holy spoken truth Batman!

  • hami

    “Although it may have seemed like a good idea, or at least somewhat justifiable
    common sense, to many Americans at the time, it’s become a point of
    serious contention for gun owners today”

    It’s refreshing to see firearm writers being realistic about the laws and how they came to be. I always roll my eyes at the “I should still be able to buy full auto at hardware stores” crowd. Of course those weapons needed to regulated more than a traditional firearm.

    The real question is whether the NFA regulations are too strict, and if silencers and SBRs should even be included. We would (back then and still today) be out of our minds to not regulate MGs and DDs in some way.

    Change will only come about if both sides are realistic. Somewhere here there is a compromise.

  • santi

    I heard and this is vague, that this year over a half a million tax forms were submitted. That is a $100,000,000 if that is true, there is no way they will let go of that profit. Also, if anyone has this info let me know??

    • Nick

      Doubtful. Last year they released numbers for, they only saw about 150k, so unless NFA transfers more than tripled, I don’t see 500k being a legitimate estimate.

  • Cal S.

    I believe the original phrase was: “A snowflake’s chance in Vulcan’s Forge,” despite its more recent connotation.

    It’s just one man’s opinion, really. I’m hoping it goes through, because it’s so easily debunked.

  • lowell houser

    No, there’s no chance of this passing. Moreover we don’t want this to pass, because that will placate everybody when we want them enraged. What we want is the end of all gun control, but bare minimum that we should accept is a bill that does away will class 2 altogether, completely deregulates silencers so that they become mail order, and re-opens the class 3 registry to new entries.This is actually a modest proposal, one that leaves in place the ATF, FFL system, and tax stamps for machine guns, but only fools start out a negotiation asking for something reasonable. It leaves you no room to negotiate down.

    Right now they are terrified of what would happen if they said YES. We need them to be terrified of what would happen if they said NO.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      You won’t get the NFA eliminated all at once. But if you pull suppressors off, and DDs, then the ATF will actually be amenable to reopening the Registry–they’ll have an excess of manpower.

      THEN you move to eliminate the MG ban.

  • I don’t even care if it’s taxed. The tax dollars are not the problem. The problem is the processing and processing time.
    Let people buy it over the counter like any other firearm, pay the tax right then and there. And be done with it.
    Of course I’d love to see them removed from the NFA – but that’s never going to happen.

  • Don Ward

    Ain’t nobody has time for a half hour IraqVetAteAteAteAte video. What is the House Bill Number? Where is the link to click on the bill to read the text? Who are the House Bill’s sponsors? And where is the list of congress critters in the House Ways and Means Committee whom folks can write/email/call to express their support of this bill?

    That’s how you write a story about a piece of legislation.

  • Lance

    Now with Obama no. maybe under a GOP President after next years election… If we win.

    • Esh325

      You’re gonna loose. Too many welfare queens and people who want free stuff outnumber all the good hard working Americans.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      The GOP as it currently platforms cannot ever again win a presidential election.

  • Anomanom

    Not a chance. They wont give up the USD 200 worth of free money they get every time a supressor gets transferred.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      “Free” money? Those bureaucrats have to be paid, at least $20/hr at the bottom, plus benefits, insurance, etc. Then there’s office space…

      I suspect we’re getting close, if not already past, where it costs more than $200 to process an NFA stamp.

  • JoshZ

    I think we should offer that stupid universal background check idea they had if they will go with HSA. Hell we can call it like The American Safety Act. That should make them happy.

    • iowaclass

      If you were willing to support a mandatory federal ownership license that allowed card-swipe background checks on all gun and ammunition sales, private and public, you could get a whole lot more than the HSA from the other side. You could get comprehensive NFA reform, in my estimate. But you would have to go around the NRA, the VPC and the Brady Campaign to get such a “grand bargain,” because it would cost those groups millions in direct-mail fundraising.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        We should totally have a mandatory license on internet usage, too. To stop child porn.

        You seem to think these people want to give us anything.

        Once you give them a mandatory license, they will CONTINUE, because they already have, to put conditions on it. No domestic violence. No felony. No having anyone appointed to handle your finances. Then they’ll add no DUIs. No “negative statements” about the government. No bad credit ratings…

        You’re an Iowa Class idiot.

        • iowaclass

          By “these people,” if you mean VPC and Brady Campaign, you are right, they don’t want a deal, which is what I said.
          The people I am talking about are actual voters – Americans who are not card-carrying anti-gunners but who show up to vote for Cuomo and Boxer and Reid. They would like a solution. That is who has to be engaged — directly.

          • The Bellman

            Wow! A person on the internet who actually talks about voters and politics as if it contains real human beings as opposed to demonized straw men and dark orkish forces on the horizon? I must be hallucinating vividly from a bad dose of cold medicine (*achoo*)…

  • aka_mythos

    Even if they keep the tax and reduced the hurdles and expedited the check and registry to a standard NICS check… that’d be an improvement.


    I’m guessing that the cost of administering the tax and collecting the tax far exceeds the revenue gained from the tax. Not that anyone cares, but that could carry some weight in Congress if they are functioning.

    Local law enforcement has to sign-off on the ownership of silencers and automatic weapons. Sheriffs and Police Chiefs don’t like to give up power – any power.

    • Nick

      No they don’t, but they’re slowly losing it anyway. Many states are passing “shall sign” legislation. My home of WV just recently passed such a law modeled after KY’s.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        And I have a trust, which doesn’t require LEO sign off.

  • Kivaari

    Flush the entire NFA 34 and GCA 68 and follow up laws down the toilet. Why should an M4 with 14.5 inch barrel require the tax and related paperwork be needed? A 16″ model doesn’t? There is no need for any of these laws.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Yes, but you can’t sell that to the public. First you sell them on “Hearing protection.” Then you sell them on DDs being either recreational or useful for large game. THEN you go after the FA ban.

  • J.E.Walker

    It’s too late for me. My hearing is already shot. 🙁

  • Mitch Rapp

    I’m not holding my breath. ATF spends a LOT of man, (and woman), power processing all those silencer apps. My home state, Texas, is perhaps the biggest culprit. I’m also sure the agency likes all those two hundred dollar checks. I think they will hang on to the present system because of the money and the jobs it generates. For the same reason, the DEA will never win the war on drugs. ATF will never voluntarily de-classify suppressors. It will take an act of congress. And it won’t matter how many of us correctly state the obvious…that the 1934 and the 1986 firearm acts are blatantly unconstitutional.

    • wzrd1

      Mitch, the BATFE classified suppressors for one reason, Congress ordered them to do so. They can’t reclassify anything *without* Congress telling them to.
      The NFA has withstood challenge at the SCOTUS and was found Constitutional. I’m uncertain if the 1986 act was challenged, however it does not prohibit firearms ownership, so it’d likely pass muster.

      • Scott P

        Did not stop them from reclassifying rifle calibers like surplus 7.62×39 and 5.45×39 as AP Pistol ammo when they were designed for rifles even when the original sponsor of the bill said it was supposed to be ONLY directed at genuine pistol calibers. ATF enacted their bans on a whim with zero oversight. Heck we almost lost M855 ammo too because they attempted to change the rules.

  • Andrew Foss

    What do you call it when one side bargains in bad faith? Because it’s not “negotiation”. They want to negotiate? How about they give us back everything: remove all restrictions pertaining to firearms and incorporate the 2A. Yes, that means tax-free MGs with grenade launchers would be legal in CA, OC/CC would be legal in NYC and you could mail-order (and keeping pace with technology, internet-order) firearms.

    We need to be pushing for immediate removal. Turn their tactics against them: Demand everything, settle (for now) with getting a few things we want. The reason this piecemeal thing doesn’t generally succeed is because they can shoot them down one by one. Bury the removal of the NFA and GCA deeply in a critical funding bill for the HUD, HHS, DoD, or Social Security. Wait for them to shoot it down: “Why do you hate [agenda group]? Hey [group], [politician] hates you! We don’t, and we’re trying to help you, but we need your help: Demand they pass this.”

    If that doesn’t succeed, at least you’ve driven people away from their party.

    • wzrd1

      That won’t work for one reason, “Why do you hate X” gets turned around by, “Why did you poison Social Security?”, “Why do you hate the military so much that you poisoned the bill for their paychecks?”

      • Andrew Foss

        “We’re the ones who created a budget, they’re the ones who have a long history of refusal to create or pass them.”

  • Bill

    In a word, no. Law abiding citizens carry the load for the scumbag contingent. Thus it has always been, thus shall it always be.

  • jrdeahl

    There is a lot of misinformation and BS around them. The movies has done a job on them.

    The only way to effectively and quietly use one is on a single shot action, like a bolt action, where the blow back gas/noise is more controlled. This is why gangs and crooks probably would not like them since they want rapid fire and the noise shock effect.

    The most reason I see people get them is because it is hard and expensive to get and people just want to play around with them. An oddity.

    I personally would like to use them at a day at the range, or gopher or groundhog hunting. It would also be good at stand hunting, like deer or coyotes.

    The very way the movies have made them out to be what they are not, is probably the reason why the lawmakers will be had pressed to approve them.

  • dat bee tru

    I only have one firearm that has a threaded barrel, someday I hope to get a silencer for it. As of today I refuse to pay the tax. On a side note, the city of Seattle has placed a special tax on firearms and each round of ammunition?

  • uisconfruzed

    First four seconds, “we wanted to make a quick video” that’s 30 min long.

    It’s retarded you will be ticked for noise pollution if the muffler on your car is missing/too loud. Yet a firearm is much louder and a muffler for that is HIGHLY regulated.

  • iowaclass

    Here’s my policy on hyperlinks to “American Thinker”: NO
    The dialogue concerned making predictions about the future.
    It had nothing to do with the biography of Charlie Wilson.
    You knew this and you are being deliberately obtuse.
    Probably because you’re mad about getting shot down about background checks, pace the referendum in WA, among other things.
    Name three differences between the Tudor Monarchy and “the Marxist Playbook.”

    • M40

      You cite leftist blather, and I’ll cite what I want to cite.

      Name 3 differences between you and any other Bolshevik brain-mulch spouting forum troll.

      • iowaclass

        Your refusal to answer is more revealing than any answer.

  • Bob

    It’s about time we did away with the entire unconstitutional NFA law as well as the 1968 and 1986 gun bans. I do not care who owns a gun or what type, I only care how they use it. Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs should not be regulated by the federal government at all, just a waste of time and money as well as a way to create criminals for victimless “crimes”.

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    The video credits the NRA for doing some of the work to get the Hearing Protection Act introduced into Congress. Fair enough. I’d point out however that the NRA was also partially responsible for the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which is NOT our friend. When I was a kid, an American could buy any gun from a mail order catalog and have it delivered via the US Post Office to their home. Now, courtesy of the GCA, we have a form 4473 for every new gun purchase which is essentially a federal gun registry.

  • You are very mistaken on one big point!

    They are RIGHTS, not privileges. They are already yours. If states want to track who carries, there is no law that says they can’t. That said, the cost of doing it should be on them, not you!

    The 2nd gives you the right to keep and bear arms. States take it away from you, then sell it back in the form of a CCW! Imagine if you needed to purchase a permit for the freedom to post your comments here or speak freely in the street…you wouldn’t feel that your 1st Amendment rights were violated???

    You don’t have a constitutionally protected right (Federal or State) to drive on public roads. That is why they say driving is a “privilege”. The Federal & State governments build and maintain the roads, then provide you the privilege to drive on them in the form of a driver’s license. This is why it’s legal to drive on privately owned roads without one.

    Driving privileges cost me around $25. My right to bear arms (which I had from the moment I was born) cost me $150 + $125 class. When the government gets tired of people talking about it, I wonder how much that is going to cost?!?!?

    EDIT: Almost forgot…they resell my right to me for another $150 every five years!

    • wzrd1

      I’ve frequently mention the difference between rights and privileges. My question was in regards to permits being “sold”.

      My right to bear arms cost me nothing, my firearms cost me money and a hunting license costs me money, but range time is free at my home state game land ranges.
      CCW permits cost money to defray the administrative costs incurred by the county. The cost for a CCW permit hasn’t changed in over 20 years in Pennsylvania, I can’t speak to other states charges.
      Interestingly, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requires a safety course, which was waived as I was in the military and no proof of proficiency with one’s firearm is required.

      You do forget, rights have limitations and regulations. You cannot speak words designed to plan the overthrow of the government, that is sedition. You may not speak words designed to cause a riot, that is inciting a riot. You cannot conduct human sacrifices as part of your faith, that is murder. I could go on at length over every enumerated and common law right and the limitations on them, but hopefully, even with the outlandish religious bit, hopefully you’ll see what I am speaking about.

      Oh, one other oddity about Pennsylvania, it’s an open carry state and has been so for as long as I’ve been alive and likely, longer. Well, everywhere, save cities of the first class, which is only the city of Philadelphia.

      • Issuing permits is the polar opposite of naturalized rights.

        As far as rights having limitations…that is true. We haven’t even gotten to that yet. We are talking about using them in the bare minimum. Keep & Bear. No more. No less. You, as an American, already own that right according to the Constitution. It is yours from the time you were born (if you were born here) or from when you obtained citizenship.

        Of the other 9 Rights in the Bill of Rights, which ones do you have to pay for to exercise? Which others require a “permit”?

        Now if you already have the right to do something, then some entity penalizes you for exercising it UNLESS you pay them not to, that entity has SOLD your right back to you. (Technically speaking, that’s extortion.) There shouldn’t be any offsetting of costs because you shouldn’t have to pay to exercise any of your rights. Again…if they want to track who carries they can, but the cost to do that shouldn’t be yours to pay. You can look at it two ways…they either took away a right and made it a privilege, or they’ve effectively monetized the Bill of Rights. Either way, it’s wrong!

        BTW – I’m very familiar with Pennsylvania’s CCW. I lived in both Erie and State College (Go Penn State!), and it’s where I obtained my first CCW. I can’t remember the exact cost of my PA permit back then, but it was MUCH cheaper than here in IL. At the time it didn’t require a class, but I guess that has now changed.

        • wzrd1

          The only thing PA requires is safety training, which is waived for law enforcement and the military, as both already received that training.
          Proficiency and any other training is not required.
          The cost is $50.00 for five years (I had to look at my old CCW from Philadelphia).

          • It’s $150 in IL for the permit itself. If you want to only wait three months you have to pay an additional $60 to be electronically fingerprinted. Otherwise, you have to wait an additional 2-3 months. This is all after you pay an instructor for a 16 hour class. There are no restrictions to what instructors can charge. I was “lucky” enough to find one for $125. Most people I know paid between $200 – $300!

            Oh, almost forgot. Here in IL you also need a F.O.I.D. Card (Firearms Owner ID) in order to even look at a firearm in a gun shop, let alone purchase one. Somehow that only costs $10, even though it’s the same background check and issued by the same department for over 30 years.

            So yeah…$285 minimum and a 3 – 6 month wait to exercise a right that you already had in the first place.

  • iowaclass

    Marxism is atheistic. Hindu Nationalism is religious.
    Marxism is internationalist. Hindu Nationalism is, perforce, nationalist.
    Marxism advocates socialist ownership of major capital goods.
    Hindu Nationalism is compatible with private and corporate ownership of major economic production, viz., the BJP.
    These are things that intelligent and educated people understand, so they can talk about politics in general, and gun control in particular, without looking stupid or ignorant. When people who understand basic ideas and information speak out for gun control, it advances the cause. It helps. Because they know what to say and WHAT NOT to say.
    When people like you speak out, it tends to hurt the cause. You say the wrong thing, and it harms advocacy of the Second Amendment. Because you come across as ill-informed, partisan, rude, and deceitful.
    If you care as much about the Second Amendment as most people on this board, do us all a favor: just shuddup. Keep your mouth closed. Let other people do the talking in support of the Second Amendment. Your game is weak. Leave the talking to stronger players, so that the cause of the Second Amendment can be advanced competently, rather than sabotaged by your personal ineptitude.

    • M40

      WOW! So let me get this straight. The gist of your argument is… if I don’t have a full grasp of the intricacies and nuances of India’s political climate, then I’m not fit to debate the issue of gun control in America?!?

      You PRETEND to be pro second amendment, all the while advocating for some imaginary “middle ground” with leftist gun-grabbers.

      I hereby posit that your penchant for fallacious trolling and illogical syllogism… discount any and all arguments you have made.

      • iowaclass

        Well, you didn’t get it straight. Again. Which underscores the message: pleasepleaseplease DO NOT talk about the Second Amendment to any remotely persuadable voters. If you must spout off, do so only in the company of like-minded persons, or else anti-gunners who are so convinced of their own position already that your idiocy will not do further harm, anyway.
        You are a LIABILITY. You open your mouth, and the intellectual equivalent of vomit spews forth. So please don’t hold your head over the dining room table. Stay out of sight and keep a bucket close at hand.

        • M40

          “Lowa-class” – You came trolling in here POSING as a pro-gun advocate, even though you’re nothing of the sort. Your whole spiel revolves around capitulation to anti-gunners. You spouted your Democrat daily talking points like a well-trained parrot. You are NOT a pro-gun advocate. You DON’T understand the constitution. Your debate tactics are disingenuous and subversive.

          You didn’t actually answer any of my questions, nor did you dispute anything I’ve said with any kind of logic, facts or precedent. You’ve repeatedly changed the subject off topic, and tried to divert the debate into inanity. When called on this, you quickly reverted to name calling like some turd-hurling primate.

          • iowaclass

            Again: the request is that you keep your pointless bloviation out of the sightlines of persuadable voters.

          • M40

            I could request that you contain all of your Socialist tripe to Bernie Sanders rallies, but that probably won’t happen either.

      • steveday72

        @M40 – Please don’t feed the Fudd’s. They care about the Second Amendment right up to the point where it innovates past the shotgun and bolt-action rifle… then it’s “You must compromise!” (emphasis on the YOU) all the way from thereon.

  • Rattlerjake

    Are you really that stupid? I didn’t say he started it, I was referring to the years he has been (illegally) in office, dumbass! And, yes, CCW permits are SOLD. They are a direct violation of the second amendment. It’s interesting that many states allow open carry and require NO permit yet to carry concealed it is required and you must pay a fee. And a driver’s license is also “illegal”, as the fed and states are only allowed to regulate commerce, not private travel; this was also upheld by a SCOTUS decision many years ago, yet the fed and states continue to force illegal/ unconstitutional laws on us.

    • M40

      RattlerJake – You sir, are on to something here…

      It’s a FACT that more than 99.99% of all legal gun owners are responsible individuals who are absolutely no danger to anyone. I would stipulate that a FAR larger percentage of KORAN OWNERS represent a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the citizenry.

      So… as long as we’re allowing the government to arbitrarily decide who can practice their RIGHTS (and to CHARGE TAXES AND FEES for the ‘privilege’), then we can immediately start issuing LICENSES TO PRACTICE ISLAM. We can let police chiefs evaluate each candidate, and DENY those who they feel are “unsuitable” candidates for Islamic teachings.

      We can write thousands of laws restricting the purchase and ownership of Korans. We can legislate how Korans are locked and stored, and when and where they can be carried. Mosques should likewise be strictly regulated. Mountains of paperwork and attendance records should be submitted on a regular basis to state and federal governments. We can build a huge Muslim database to track them, and form a well armed enforcement agency dedicated to keeping tabs on them.

      Most importantly… we must do everything in our power to keep Korans and Islamic teaching out of the hands of children! Seems to me these kinds of laws are (using liberal terminology) “COMMON SENSE MEASURES”, and if it “SAVES JUST ONE CHILD”… then it’s worth it, right?

      If pro-gun, conservative politicians had SPINES, they would propose a massive omnibus bill that restricts Islam in EXACTLY the ways I’ve outlined. Then we can all sit back and laugh as the liberals squirm and try to explain why these measures are wrong when applied to Muslims, but somehow okay when applied to gun owners.

      • wzrd1

        Wow, so you’re pro-second amendment, but anti-first amendment.
        *Every* right has limitations and stipulations on them.

        • M40

          Either you didn’t bother to read my post, or you missed the point entirely (or maybe just being intentionally obtuse?) . I’m against ANY restrictions placed on ANY rights, and against the socialists who twist words to justify it.

          I’m pointing out the absurdity of the left’s current stance on gun issues by allegorically applying their own arguments to a first amendment issue.

          So… how about telling us all how the left’s restrictions on guns and gun owners… are any different than the SAME hypothetical restrictions I just outlined on Korans and Muslims?

  • Donald Darr

    Everyone was still in an uproar over Kennedy getting shot and killed by a “mail order” rifle that “anyone” could buy through the mail. The NRA agreed on the GCA as an alternative to all out banning of firearm ownership.