Quote of the day—Glenn Kessler

Foes of the law such as Gillibrand should not use misleading terms such as “quiet” to describe the sound made by a high-powered weapon with a suppressor attached. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but finally tipped to Three. There is little that’s quiet about a firearm with a silencer, unless one also thinks a jackhammer is quiet.

Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Fact Checker
Are firearms with a silencer ‘quiet’?
[H/T Bob Owens.

One should not be surprised an anti-gun organization and their people are lying. It is in their nature and it is the best they have to work with.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Glenn Kessler

  1. Nothing short of astonishing that Kessler wrote this.

    Nonetheless very unlikely it becomes law.

  2. So if a high powered rifle with a silencer were quiet, we’d cede the point to the Progressives?

    A carbine in 22 LR, silenced, is pretty damned quiet. Does that simple fact alter our whole moral, constitutional argument?

    So apparently we’ll have to alter the second amendment so as to include decibel readings, and add several pages detailing the process of taking the measurements. So instead of a simple sentence based on principle, we can throw that out and set up pages and pages of technical requirements and exceptions, modifications of those requirements and exceptions based on weekly crime statistics, with addenda celebrating how much smarter we are than the American founders. Something like;
    “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms that operate above X dB, C weighted scale, measured at fifteen feet, 90 degrees off axis from the muzzle, outdoors on flat turf, shall not be infringed until such time as the murder rate, by firearm, shall exceed ten per hundred thousand in a given year within a given county…”

    This is where we want to take it?

    • Lyle, it isn’t “our” argument. Its theirs. And exposing that they lie about basic facts is to our advantage.

      • Your response is a perfect characterization of the problem I’m describing.

  3. I debated in high school and college. When you were attacking your opponents case, you didn’t just state an opposing principle and sit down. You addressed each and every point in their case and provided countervailing evidence or argument. Principle is great – but when fighting an unprincipled opponent, it isn’t enough.

    • I think 2017 was some sort of event horizon. I am seeing a lot of support for libertarian issues from the strangest places.

      • In 2017, Leftists lost heavily, therefore now they argue for liberty from fear that they will be treated as they would treat the conquered.
        Once they’ve won, they argue equality of condition.
        In between, they nibble at the edges, like rats.

    • Note that the Daily Kos post was made in 2007.

      Still, your point is valid that things seems to have changed.

      • Yes, it’s a while ago. Still it was odd to see a pro gun (after a fashion) piece in an extreme left wing rag.

Comments are closed.