Those who actually use guns on a daily basis, and know how they work, argue reasonably that certain restrictions should be relaxed. The debate about the bill is sadly an example of one of the long-standing problems about discussions of Second Amendment rights in the US.
However, in case there are any liberals reading, let me enlighten you: guns fitted with suppressors are still incredibly loud. If you’re reading this, I’m betting that you’ve used a “silencer”, and what I am about to say will not be news to you. It seems that some Democrats, in particular, have never actually used a suppressor, but are nevertheless absolutely sure that they oppose them. Though the bill is eminently sensible, debate about it has been characterized by a stunning level of ignorance by those who oppose it. It also proposes that suppressors no longer be counted as equivalent to handguns, as per the Gun Control Act of 1968, lifting the requirement for a NICS check during the purchase of suppressors. This earlier act requires additional, lengthy background checks on those who would like to buy a suppressor, and imposes a $200 tax on their sale. The bill seeks to lift the restrictions placed on the use of suppressors put in place by the National Firearms Act of 1934. (Editor's note: We since have on the table the "Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act", which seeks to incorporate suppressors - see item 9/12/17). The Hearing Protection Act of 2017 is still awaiting a hearing in Congress.
September 18th, 2017 1: How Semantics Are Defeating Sensible Gun Legislation
0 kommentar(er)
