|
|
|
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:
New bill re-activates fight for suppressors by turning gun grabber argument on its head
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun grabbers have classified guns as a public health issue for far too long, and this argument is about to backfire on them. For years now, the deregulation of silencers, or “suppressors,” has been shot down over and over again by gun control freaks in Congress, but this is likely to change—all in the name of public health.
Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) along with Rep. John Carter (TX-31) have introduced a bill called the Hearing Protection Act, which moves to eliminate a $200 tax and nine-month approval process on suppressors. Guns are loud, and these legislators are trying to spare some ears from permanent damage. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/2/2017)
|
| Yes, it is a health issue, not a violence issue!! |
| Comment by:
jughead
(2/2/2017)
|
| i would lose money but go for it. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
