On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:23:20 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:01 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Do you mean this?

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/


If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the
terror.
Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that
effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your
thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license..
see BATF Form .

If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable
suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops
and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end.

Sounds like you're confusing flash suppressor with silencer.

Not at all.

Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe
trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1.
It is an impressive reduction in report.
The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal.

I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for
example.


Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

On 1/26/13 4:44 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:23:20 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:01 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Do you mean this?

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/


If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the
terror.
Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that
effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your
thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license..
see BATF Form .

If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable
suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops
and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end.

Sounds like you're confusing flash suppressor with silencer.

Not at all.

Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe
trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1.
It is an impressive reduction in report.
The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal.

I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for
example.


Salmonbait

--

'Ignorance'...the conservative answer to everything of importance!


Suppressor can be used as a term to describe a device that minimizes
sound or flash or both.

On Jan 26, 3:44*pm, Salmonbait wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:23:20 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:01 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Do you mean this?

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/

If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the
terror.
Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that
effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your
thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license..
see BATF Form .

If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable
suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops
and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end.

Sounds like you're confusing flash suppressor with silencer.

Not at all.

Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe
trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1.
It is an impressive reduction in report.
The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal.

I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for
example.

Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

Like the cone on the end of a Lee Enfield "jungle carbine" It was
there but didn't work very well. I think all it did was send the noise
back to the enemy.

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/im..._carbine_9.jpg

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:59:14 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:44:14 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote:



Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe
trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1.
It is an impressive reduction in report.
The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal.

I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for
example.


You can call it anything you want but there is no such thing as a
silencer.(no matter what BATF says) It is a suppressor. It only
suppresses the report, it doesn't silence it.

The little thingy on the end of an M-16 barrel, for example, is a 'flash suppressor' - not a 'sound
suppressor' or 'silencer'. The conical thingy on the end of the Lee Enfield 'Jungle Carbine' is a
'flash suppressor', not a 'sound suppressor' or 'silencer'.


Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

On 1/17/13 10:42 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:


Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery?
Posted by Nathaniel Downes

Second_Amendment

We’ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: “The 2nd
Amendment was about freedom!� “The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men
could stand against their government� or other similarly absurd
thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment?
It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd
Amendment was about slavery.


That is an interesting spin, I am not sure it is accurate but it is
interesting.



It sure would make an interesting thesis topic for someone seeking a
master's in U.S. history.

On 1/17/13 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:51:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/17/13 10:42 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:


Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery?
Posted by Nathaniel Downes

Second_Amendment

We’ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: “The 2nd
Amendment was about freedom!� “The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men
could stand against their government� or other similarly absurd
thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment?
It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd
Amendment was about slavery.


That is an interesting spin, I am not sure it is accurate but it is
interesting.



It sure would make an interesting thesis topic for someone seeking a
master's in U.S. history.

Two people, one who agrees with Hartman and one who doesn't.

He makes it sound like Virginia was the only state with a militia and
the only people who wanted the right to own a gun were slave holders.

If I was really interested in pursuing this I would see what the
debate really was about the second amendment in 1789.

It is the kind of thing that may not be that well documented and you
will read a lot more opinion than fact. Most of it will be written in
the latter part of the 20th century.



Hey, let's not go down the road of the bible!