Quote of the day—Bob Adelmann

The only thing absurd is that one wanting to buy a suppressor for his firearm would have to undergo a vastly more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming application than he did in buying his firearm in the first place!

Bob Adelmann
January 16, 2017
Call Them “Suppressors,” Please, Not “Silencers”: Bill to End Their Restrictions Proposed
[Via email from Paul Koning.—Joe]


16 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Bob Adelmann

  1. I hope the Hearing Protection Act is successful, but I fear that it is unserious virtue signalling. The democrats get their stuff done, like GCA ’86, in the dark of night, tacked on to something else. This republican plan is the equivalent of a football team running the ball up the middle on 4th and 3. If the dems put up a big fuss, make a philibuster the republicans aren’t willing to break, or get a few weak RINOs to cave “For the children” then it’s all for nought. Maybe I’m way off on this, but since the first election I remember as a child was GB 1 vs Dukakis, the republicans have been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory my whole life.

    • But it also gives Trump and the bully-pulpit a chance to demonize the Ds for not wanting to pass an obvious safety law, for not wanting to compromise on common-sense legislation.

    • Unless it’s a ploy to get the Dems to blow their political capital on this so that other stuff can get done (and maybe this, too, quietly, later).

      But that would be smart tactics.

  2. This mock indignation over the use of the term “silencer” has got to stop – time and again I’ve seen Internet bullies rip into someone over supposed misuse of the term. No, suppressors do not make a firearm silent. But, you know what the little stinger that fits in the rear of a 2-stroke motorcycle exhaust is called? Yep, a silencer – and no one ever claimed they were silent either.

    Beyond the semantics debate within the gun community, I think the mock outrage over the naming of the HPA is hilarious! Oh my – fakery and trickery used in the title of proposed legislation! How much anti-gun legislation is couched in innocuous language, purporting “safety”? Or in one of the most egregious examples of liberal trickery, how about the “Affordable Care Act” which priced insurance out of existence for any individual who doesn’t qualify for subsidies?

    • I believe that the guy who invented the suppressor called it a “Silencer” and therefore so can we, much the same way we call “facial tissue” Kleenex.

        • Sure! If it’s for a Garand…. But seriously, how uptight do you need to be to spend your time searching out linguistic errors to point out to people? Words matter – but sheesh….

  3. It’s easier to buy a suppressor (muffler) in some places in Europe than it is to buy a gun. Once you have your firearm license, walk in the gun store and pay your money and walk out with your “muffler”.

    • Ditto in New Zealand, from what I’ve read. Places like that consider them as ordinary gun accessories, no different from alternate sights or the like.

      • They are not even considered “gun accessories” as far as I can tell – they are just “stuff”.

        When I visited NZ in 2012-13, I walked into an outdoor supply store in a little town in the mountains of the South Island. You all know the type – imagine Gander Mountain or Cabela’s on a smaller scale. Sure enough, along the back wall of the store, a whole display unit of suppressors – dozens of them. I could have bought a handful just by handing over cash or a credit card.
        The hardware store down the street had a similar display.
        Prices ranged from NZ$39.99 to about NZ$100.

        Of course, getting caught taking them into Oz would have seen me in prison.

  4. Anything beneficial to the law-abiding citizen is also, arguably, beneficial to the criminal. Therefore anything good can be restricted on the basis that it can be used by criminals.

    With that reasoning, mufflers for automobiles could be restricted on the grounds that they would lead to easier infiltration and getaways for criminals. Limit fuel tank capacity for the same reason, requiring proof of “need” to carry more than ten gallons, etc., etc., etc.

    Of course the radical Marxist left (now referred to as “Democrats”) have been doing a lot of that kind of stuff for many years, attempts to control the internet, and the war on cash, being among the more recent.

    If we severely restrict or ban anything that may in some way be of use to a criminal, then we’ll be banning or restricting everything that’s of any use to anyone.

    Eventually some genius will come up with the revolutionary and heretofore unheard-of idea of only punishing people who actually commit the crimes or knowingly and purposefully facilitate them, and leaving everyone else alone. THAT would be a huge problem though, because it would draw a clear distinction between criminals and the innocent, and THAT would be discriminatory.

    • Burglar tools can be found in virtually every garage of every man in every state in the union.
      Embezzlers and extortionists use pens and paper, so the presence of tools beneficial to criminals extends to every living room, kitchen and office.

      I think you were the one who pointed out about six years ago that chemicals usable by terrorists can be found under every sink and in every laundry room in America.

      [busybody voice] I do wonder at your arbitrary choice of ten gallons, forty liters. Why not 20 liters, five gallons? People should be using public transportation, anyway. [/busybody voice]

  5. …undergo a vastly more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming application than he did in buying his firearm in the first place

    Of course, to the antis, this is an example of how “unconscionably easy” getting a firearm is, not how absurdly difficult and expensive getting a suppressor is.

    • More: they would make that same argument about suppressors. They are often surprised to find out they are mistaken when they speak of suppressors, or for that matter full auto weapons, as illegal.

  6. If this effort doesn’t work out, it would be interesting to create a “Liberty Suppressor” — a 3d printed design that anyone can duplicate. Of course, one can make do with a soda bottle and steel wool, or approaches like that, but I would think we can do far better with readily available technology requiring no great skill. (This is in contrast with what a person skilled with a lathe can construct.)

Comments are closed.