|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Professor: Don’t Deregulate Suppressors; Loudness Is a ‘Gun Safety Feature’
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Political science professor Robert Spitzer voiced opposition to the suppressor deregulation by claiming that the sound of gunfire is a “gun safety feature.” Writing in the Washington Post, Spitzer, the chair of the Political Science Department at State University of New York at Cortland, opened his column by quoting George W. Bush’s former press secretary, Ari Fleischer, who was in the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on January 6 when Esteban Santiago allegedly opened fire. Fleischer recalled hearing the shots, saying, “We all realized it was gunfire, and it was coming from the level below us at the escalator.”
|
| Comment by:
jac
(1/24/2017)
|
Another anti-gun liberal with an agenda. Common sense is lost on people like this so their opinions don't count for much.
Silencers reduce the sound pressure level from around 145 decibels to 110 decibels. It is still plenty loud to act as a warning to anyone in the vicinity. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(1/24/2017)
|
| Too much TV professor, gunfire is going to be heard, with suppressors or not. Yet it would be beneficial to have the 'edge' taken from loud firearm use. Not only beneficial, but it's counter productive to be taxed $200 to pursue this hearing health positive product. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
