That’s a feature, not a bug

Some people say the name of the bill to remove suppressors from NFA is “brilliantly named”.

I’m not so sure. I can see people on our side of that political aisle thinking it is “brilliantly named”. But from the other side of the aisle we have this (via Sebastian):

There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire,” says Kristin Brown of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “

The real flaw in the silencer lobby’s efforts, however, may be the patent obviousness of their fakery. Calling the Duncan-Carter bill the “Hearing Protection Act” is so absurdly transparent an effort to deceive that voters may be prompted to ask an obvious question: “What are they hiding?”

My take is a little different. The best that can be said about the anti-gun crowd in this regard is they don’t care if gun owners hearing is damaged. They publicly let us know they want us dead. It is my opinion that naming the bill the “Hearing Protection Act” made them realize they are even more opposed to the bill than before. That guns can permanently damage a person hearing is, to them, a feature. It is not a “bug”.


13 thoughts on “That’s a feature, not a bug

  1. I think shining a light on the names of a bill versus the effect of the content is a great idea. Look at all the absurd names the Dems come up with. Point out their hypocrisy in their own bill names, when at least the HPA is provably correct. Maybe have them talk to an old hunting partner of mine when he doesn’t have his hearing aids in. His hearing took quite a beating in WWII. Lots of unsuppressed gunfire. LOTS.

    • Hearing loss carries no real risks? Tell that to my Grandfather’s Uncle who didn’t hear the bus coming. Or tell that to my cousin’s ex Mother-in-Law whose husband the locomotive engineer stepped out of his locomotive in front of a train he didn’t hear.

  2. Also since when does ANYBODY use the bill’s actual name?

    The ONLY exception I can think of in modern time is the Affordable Care Act, and that’s ONLY because Obama has become such a political turd in the punch bowl that they HAD to stop calling it “Obamacare” and risk people questioning the amount of “care”, and “affordability” created by the law.

  3. If the lady will voulenteer to prove how non damaging gunfire is I will petition to change the bills name. A pair of M240s firing a belt in stereo on an indoor range while she stands there with no hearing protection is all the convincing I need.

    How bout it Krissi? Contact Joe to set that up. I’ll wait.

  4. Pingback: SayUncle » I think it is a good strategy

  5. They certainly do not have our best interests in mind; even the minimal amount that a person in a civilized society should show to fellow citizens.

    They want us disarmed so they can rule over us. They want us to be unable to defend ourselves against criminals, terrorists, and governmental abuses.

    So, I relish every reverse we deal them as we reassert our liberties.

  6. IIRC WaPo already has an article up about how the loudness of gun fire is, in fact, a ‘safety feature’ and the proposed bill is a step backward for ‘gun safety’.

    Go figure.(rolls eyes)

    • So, the lack of noise from the hybrid cars such as the Prius is likewise a backwards step in safety when one considers the aging population of the United States. Consistency is not a value for statists in the pursuit of power.

      • Well, yes. And indeed the crazies are pushing for laws to mandate beepers on excessively quiet cars.

  7. There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire,” says Kristin Brown of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “

    Says the numbskull who has apparently never met a WWII or Korean era vet.

    I spent twenty years working in a retail grocery environment regularly running a hamburger “loafing” machine which emitted a .22 caliber decible retort every 1 or 2 seconds (millions of retorts) and have lost enough acuity in my left ear I can no longer tell what direction load sounds emanate from. Pertinate? Perhaps.

Comments are closed.