On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 18:09:32 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/5/17 12:28 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:27:45 -0400, John H
wrote:

A great article from the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...004-story.html

"The dead weren’t even finished dying in Las Vegas before the left
swooped down to feed on gun
control politics."
I see that they are going after the "hearing protection act" too, in
spite of the fact that the people in Vegas did not recognize the gun
shots until they started seeing people getting shot.
It is the only time in history that I can remember people wanting to
keep ear damaging equipment as loud as they can. That is certainly not
true of cars, motor cycles, leaf blowers or lawn mowers.
They are now trying to ban loud generators in some places.
Since a suppressed center fire rifle is still 130 dB or higher these
people who think it is "silent" should shut the **** up about 90 dB
leaf blowers.


What a wonderful name..."the hearing protection act."

I don't see any problems with the current regs regarding suppressors. I
got one without any fuss or muss...I bought the device, the dealer stuck
it in his safe, we filed the paperwork and paid for the stamp, and I got
approved. Yawn.


No fuss? Create a trust, lots of paperwork. Sounds like a lot of fuss and
unnecessary expense.

I bet by the time Harry was done with the lawyer, the county clerk and
the BATF it was over $500 ($200 stamp, $250-300 for an hour with a
lawyer and recording fees).
There is also an active effort from the usual suspects to eliminate
the "trust loophole".
I owned my machine gun as an individual and it still seemed pretty
cumbersome to me. That was a machine gun. Having to do the same thing
for a piece of threaded pipe really seems stupid (the "can" is the
regulated part)
It is even dumber when you can get a 15-20 dB reduction with a 2 liter
pop bottle.