Hearing Protection Act of 2017
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
I'm getting older and I'm afraid that without passage of the Hearing Protection Act, I won't be able to hear GOP requests for campaign contributions, etc.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 10
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
- Location: Tomball
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
ninjabread wrote:I'm getting older and I'm afraid that without passage of the Hearing Protection Act, I won't be able to hear GOP requests for campaign contributions, etc.
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas
How many times a day could you say this?
How many times a day could you say this?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 5298
- Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
- Location: Luling, TX
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.bblhd672 wrote: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
Steve Rothstein
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 2574
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
- Location: Vernon, Texas
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
powerboatr wrote:you mean the GOP now????? i love the sarcasm, 8 months and almost zero tangible items through congress.anygunanywhere wrote:Once there is a GOP majority in the house and senate we will get some of these useless gun laws eliminated.mrvmax wrote:Yep and I doubt it will ever make it this far again.TexasJohnBoy wrote:Dead.
http://nypost.com/2017/10/03/bill-to-ea ... slaughter/
House Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday said Republicans have shelved a vote on NRA-backed legislation that would ease restrictions on the use of silencers in the aftermath of the massacre in Las Vegas that killed 59 people and wounded hundreds.
“That bill is not scheduled now,” the Wisconsin Republican said. “I don’t know when it’s going to be scheduled.”
Oh. Never mind.
The GOP will save us.
i let henrsarling , cornyn and cruze know weekly they are not carrying the ball
Not that it's a huge testament to the Republicans, but just imagine if those seats were filled with Democrats, and HRC had gotten into office. I truly shudder to think what that would entail. Not getting what we want does sting, for certain...but it could be a LOT worse. All I can do is try to find the admittedly tiny silver lining in some rather dark clouds.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 10
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
- Location: Tomball
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.srothstein wrote:When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.bblhd672 wrote: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
No guns? He was a pilot and a multimillionaire, he would have flown a plane into the concert.
No guns or plane? He was a multimillionaire, he had explosives in the car, he would have made a bomb.
DO YOU THINK LAWS AFFECT THE RICH???
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas
How many times a day could you say this?
How many times a day could you say this?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:30 pm
- Location: Lamesa, TX
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
Do you think laws affect criminals? Whether they can buy it or they have to steal it, those with criminal intent will get it. Having money just means less legwork and risk.TreyHouston wrote:He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.srothstein wrote:When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.bblhd672 wrote: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
No guns? He was a pilot and a multimillionaire, he would have flown a plane into the concert.
No guns or plane? He was a multimillionaire, he had explosives in the car, he would have made a bomb.
DO YOU THINK LAWS AFFECT THE RICH???
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Carry gun: Springfield XD Tactical .45
Carry gun: Springfield XD Tactical .45
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:20 am
- Location: East Texas
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
It seems that the people in favor of gun control laws are always the people who know absolutely nothing about guns. They don't shoot. Guns scare them (although many won't admit that). And they see people who fancy guns, and own guns as somehow abnormal because we are not like them.srothstein wrote:When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.bblhd672 wrote: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
Do what you say you're gonna do.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:48 am
- Location: Richmond, TX
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
As I'm sure you've pointed out, he had legally purchased a multitude of weapons over the past year. If he had wanted a suppressor, he would have used one.srothstein wrote:When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.bblhd672 wrote: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
Psalm 91:2
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:51 pm
- Location: DFW (Denton County)
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
imkopaka wrote:Do you think laws affect criminals? Whether they can buy it or they have to steal it, those with criminal intent will get it. Having money just means less legwork and risk.TreyHouston wrote:He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.srothstein wrote:When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.bblhd672 wrote: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.
Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
No guns? He was a pilot and a multimillionaire, he would have flown a plane into the concert.
No guns or plane? He was a multimillionaire, he had explosives in the car, he would have made a bomb.
DO YOU THINK LAWS AFFECT THE RICH???
it's not hard with a little knowhow to make a suppressor or an autosear. Or explosives. Or train in knife combat. Or learn how to crash a car. OK, the last one probably doesn't need to be learned.
But here's how I see suppressors. No, they don't silent a firearm unless it's a subsonic .22LR, but you don't even need a threaded suppressor for that. What they do is make it quieter for hearing protection and change the report. For the latter, I argue it's for the BETTER. When I hear people in town shooting in their backyards, I really have to try hard to figure out if I'm hearing guns or fireworks or someone dropping a large object on concrete. But when I hear a suppressed weapon, I know exactly what it is. Nothing else sounds quite like it.
*sigh* Oh well. So much for the HPA.
-
Topic author - Banned
- Posts in topic: 34
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
- Location: North Texas
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
Theory --
Amend SHARE Act to include bump stock ban. Leave HPA language in place. Acceptable to anyone?
ETA: Better yet -- make bump stocks NFA items so they're at least available to those who really want them. So we remove one NFA item, and add one in its place.
Amend SHARE Act to include bump stock ban. Leave HPA language in place. Acceptable to anyone?
ETA: Better yet -- make bump stocks NFA items so they're at least available to those who really want them. So we remove one NFA item, and add one in its place.
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
I was thinking about this today as well and I would be for it.TexasJohnBoy wrote:Theory --
Amend SHARE Act to include bump stock ban. Leave HPA language in place. Acceptable to anyone?
ETA: Better yet -- make bump stocks NFA items so they're at least available to those who really want them. So we remove one NFA item, and add one in its place.
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
That would be an actual compromise. Put slidefire stocks on the registry with an amnesty period to register tax free, and in exchange take suppressors off the registry. Throw in national reciprocity and I might support the compromise.
God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 10
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
- Location: Tomball
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
OK, if thats what the left wants!BBYC wrote:That would be an actual compromise. Put slidefire stocks on the registry with an amnesty period to register tax free, and in exchange take suppressors off the registry. Throw in national reciprocity and I might support the compromise.
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas
How many times a day could you say this?
How many times a day could you say this?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 6
- Posts: 7875
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
- Location: Richmond, Texas
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
Rob Peter, pay Paul.TreyHouston wrote:OK, if thats what the left wants!BBYC wrote:That would be an actual compromise. Put slidefire stocks on the registry with an amnesty period to register tax free, and in exchange take suppressors off the registry. Throw in national reciprocity and I might support the compromise.
Throw the Slidefire owners under the bus.
Why is it that a segment of firearms enthusiast always loses in any compromise and the left always gains something?
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 5073
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: DFW Area, TX
Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017
What we really need is a Federal law banning and confiscating autoloader rifles that are not equipped with a rate of fire slowing device (ROFSD), that keeps you from pulling the trigger more than once every two seconds. All existing semi-rifles must be registered IAW NFA after having ROFSD installed. And if you are discovered pulling the trigger of your semi-auto more than once per 2 seconds you will be guilty, you lose your gun and are guilty of a felony. Most responsible ranges already prohibit rapid fire, so this is a simple, common sense, gun law that even the NRA should be able to get behind.
And why does anyone need drum magazines that hold 50 or 100 deadly bullets? These are unnecessary and illegal for deer hunting so they should be banned.
And why does anyone need drum magazines that hold 50 or 100 deadly bullets? These are unnecessary and illegal for deer hunting so they should be banned.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"