474
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
474 points (100.0% liked)
Progressive Politics
3071 readers
196 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They're a common sense accessory; they make guns safer for the hearing of everyone around. That said, having 27 is silly. I won't begrudge someone an odd collection, though. Some people collect Magic Cards.
Right, there is no valid argument that is based on reality, not Hollywood fantasy, for restricting suppressors or taxing suppressors, a literal safety device. It's like restricting and taxing airbags on a car.
Automakers trying to make airbags a subscription: furious note taking
what a fantastic distortion of reality. Only in America. god forbid you wore your actual ppe while using firearms. poor baby, wants the boom boom but doesn't like the bang bang.
take your tinnitus like the rest of us and stop fuckin crying.
What is the reality, then? Tell me how I'm wrong (you cannot).
Hearing protection is still required when using a surpressor to prevent hearing damage
Add this to your collection friend
you don't need a suppressor. You want it. it being a necessary tool in order to use your firearm is a myth.
You didn't even try.
ooh gravy seal crew here for brigading lol
Are you replying to the wrong comment? Quote me where I claimed a supressor is necessary in order to use a firearm. I'll wait.
I even quoted you:
What is the reality, then? the reality is that you don't need a suppressor, you're a gravy seal who wants one. Cans and plugs would protect your hearing better, you CHOOSE not to use them or can't figure it out.
Odds are exceptionally high that your hearing is already for shit from days on the range, don't shit a shitter bucko.
Why can't people who want to play soldier just fuckin enlist already. Sad pogue posers.
"I even quoted you: [empty space where a quote would be, if you had one]"
Still waiting. 😴
I'd say its more akin to restricting muffler use on cars. Instead, we usually place upper limits on how loud a car's exhaust can be. Hearing protection is important and muffler/suppressor use should be encouraged.
Are airbags tax-exempt?
Yes, airbags are exempt items from the National Firearms Act. Your question genuinely doesn't make sense. What tax do you think applies to airbags? Property tax? Sales tax? No one is suggesting suppressors be "tax-exempt", especially because that term doesn't make any sense in this context.
Plot twist: He doesn't own any guns. He just likes silencers.
Got all different sizes so he can play them like pan pipes.
With disappointing results!
You should hear his perfect rendition of John Cage's 4'33".
I need 27 suppressors for my 27 guns. Ever thought of that? Didn't think so.
And why do I need 27 guns? That's right, for my 27 hands. Betcha feel real silly now, huh buster?
That's RIGHT, one flintlock in my hand, and two chest belts each with 13 more flintlocks. AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED!
Aye, my favorite of the Founding Fathers - BLACKBEARD!
one for each pocket, and 1-2 strapped on the ankles, and 1 on the thighs, one for the belt,etc.
I think common sense accessory is a bit of a stretch. Ear plugs/muffs do the same thing and work beyond shooting.
It is stupid to tax something just because you can't ban it and only disadvantages those who can't afford it.
But what if, what if... you combined both, instead of an 'or' situation?
Good god Jameson, you're off the charts with the ideas this week!
I'm unclear where you think I said it had to be one or the other. Please don't misrepresent what I said.
Ear plugs/muffs are cheap, can be used when you mow, weed whip, use a jackhammer, are around loud machinery etc. and are required at most (if not all) ranges.
To claim that a suppressor, which I'm guessing costs $100-$200 minimum, is a ~~necessary~~ common sense piece of safety equipment is a stretch.
Desirable, useful, helpful, fun would all be good adjectives ~~but necessary implies need.~~
Edit: misremembered "common sense" as "necessary".
UK requires them. NZ requires them. They're only expensive here because they are an NFA item. Suppressors are not $100-200 minimum, try like $600-800 and up. The tax stamp was bullshit, but the reality is that they help with the noise, but you still need to wear earpro.
So for protection of your hearing and others, it absolutely is a necessary thing that should be off the shelf available for cheap, and not 6 months of waiting and $200 + having to set up a trust, so you don't become a felon by some random reason that's the NFA as a whole.
"ear plugs do the same thing" implies either/or
Suppessors are a common shooting accessory in many European countries because they do limit the noise for shooters and bystanders. And they are used with ear PPE while shooting. European shooters are often amazed that supressors require a special tax stamp for each unit in the US for something that they consider a basic safety device.
They should be shocked about the tax stamp. It's a ridiculous requirement and it's good that it's finally going away.
As for them being common in Europe, that demonstrates the difference in culture and regulation vs. the US. I suppose if Europe had an NFA tax stamp equivalent that was being removed then the argument that they are a common sense safety accessory makes more sense but it doesn't in the US.
Hell, the same lobby and industry groups that have harped on the NFA would do the same if a suppressor was required to be able to shoot your firearm in the US.
The common problem so many gun enthusiasts in the US face is they try and argue need which just feeds the arguments from those who want to ban certain firearms or accessories.
The reality is need doesn't matter and is largely subjective these days. In the US it's been established that 2a gives the right to keep and bear arms and suppressors are considered "firearms" under the law. That means need isn't even a consideration. If you want one the you should be allowed to buy one because it's protected under 2a.
Edit: Common sense usually means a universally held, unspoken understanding and when it comes to the US, suppressors just don't meet that threshold. Enough time without the NFA tax requirement and that might change, but I'm guessing it won't.
If one silencer makes the gun quieter, imagine how quiet it must be with twenty-seven!
You'd think that, but it actually wraps around the bottom of the graph and BECOMES EXTRA LOUD!
"they make guns safer" so does banning bullets but the point of guns isn't to make anyone safe.
The guy is 67, so he may have bought those over a long time, possibly for different guns. If he shoots a lot, he might even have burnt out a few.
The photo is of a different person.
The begrudging comes from expecting the odd collection to be exempt from tax.
I don't think that's accurate, but I understand why you say that.
The tax on suppressors (and automatic weapons) is often several hundred percent, because the legislature and regulatory agencies are not allowed (by the supreme court's opinions in the last few decades) to outright BAN them. The very high tax is pretty much the only way they have to restrict the sale of those items.
I've never heard a gun enthusiast say they shouldn't have to pay sales taxes. (Well, that's not true because there's some overlap between gun fanatics and libertarian tax radicals.)
Exempt from punitive taxes. Nobody is saying suppressors shouldn't be taxed like game consoles or dog food, they're saying suppressors shouldn't be taxed like gambling or tobacco