Who here actually thinks this bill will ever pass let alone be signed into law? I say its about 99% probable it will never pass and to be honest I am sick of hearing about it. Yes it would be nice as would repeal of the entire NFA but I dont see it happening.

What about the SHUSH Bill?

If you're sick of hearing about it why start yet another thread to talk about it?

doubloon wrote:What about the SHUSH Bill?

If you're sick of hearing about it why start yet another thread to talk about it?

I guess annoyed with all the comments you get around at gunshops and ranges of "I am waiting for the HPA to pass before I get a silencer because I dont want to spend $200 when I wont have to". Then my reply the past year has been thr same "keep waiting and you will never own one because HPA isnt gonna pass".

I mean realistically do people really think it will ever become law?

Trump is sitting in his office with pen in hand to sign the HPA and Reciprocity Bills.

Congress has to do something (and they look somewhat inept to me); in the Senate it's like herding cats.

My personal opinion is that both the HPA and Reciprocity Bills will eventually pass, but it's starting to look less likely in 2017.

johndoe3 wrote:Trump is sitting in his office with pen in hand to sign the HPA and Reciprocity Bills.

Congress has to do something (and they look somewhat inept to me); in the Senate it's like herding cats.

My personal opinion is that both the HPA and Reciprocity Bills will eventually pass, but it's starting to look less likely in 2017.

My opinion is a reciprocity bill will eventually become law however the HPA is never gonna see the light of day. Not all republicans are pro gun just as not all democrats are anti gun however pro gun people exist that dislike the idea of loosening NFA restrictions and no anti gun person favors it.

I simply do not see silencers leaving NFA restrictions anytime soon. An easier battle would be removing SBR and SBS from the NFA first and I dont even see that happening in the current political climate of today.

Clown Boy wrote: I dont want to spend $200 when I wont have to

If they believe the HPA will pass, than why not get your suppressor now. The HPA has it written-in that paid Tax Stamps, from a certain date, will be reimbursed.

$1200 rifle
$800 optics
$800 suppressor
$400/case of ammo
$500 in misc accessories
and your squabbling over a $200 Tax Stamp

-claims to be tired of taking about hpa
-goes out of his way to start a conversion about hpa


The $200 sucks, but the regulation is much worse. It's ridiculous how long the wait times are, and the fact that the ATF needs 47 copies of my fingerprints over my lifetime. It's stupid that I can't lend a suppressor. It's absolutely asinine that I can't repair the suppressor that I built myself.

Asinine describes just about anything to do with firearms controls. I appreciate screenings for felony history, severe mental illness, spouse abuse, known bullying nature, anything which might indicate a tendency towards whipping out the gun to resolve issues which could be better resolved with words or non-violent actions. But once that's dealt with I don't see any need for further government restrictions. Really bad guys are going to get weapons one way or another anyway, so withholding machine guns or even grenade launchers doesn't seem helpful in terms of preventing murders.

But these government asshats aren't reasonable people. And as such, I rather doubt HPA or HUSH will ever get past second reading. There's just not enough carrot, tempting politicians to move that way, while there's abundant stick in terms of anti-gun voters willing to make a noise about perceived escalation of access to murderous guns.

a_canadian wrote:I don't see any need for further government restrictions. Really bad guys are going to get weapons one way or another anyway, so withholding machine guns[...]

Do you really think that a criminal with a machine gun is significantly more deadly than a criminal with a semi auto rifle or shotgun? Enough to justify no one getting to have one, even under the highly regulated NFA system?

People are so terrified over the concept of a machinegun sending 30 lethal rounds downrange in 5 seconds. Even a pump shotgun can put way more rounds down range faster than that, and shotguns aren't even NFA regulated. A saiga can put like 300 #4 buckshot pellets down range faster than an M16 can empty a magazine. Machineguns really aren't that scary, and the ban on them isn't justified[/rant]

fishman; did you read my post before rebutting it? I agree. That's clear in what I wrote:

a_canadian wrote:Really bad guys are going to get weapons one way or another anyway, so withholding machine guns or even grenade launchers doesn't seem helpful in terms of preventing murders.

a_canadian wrote:fishman; did you read my post before rebutting it? I agree. That's clear in what I wrote:

a_canadian wrote:Really bad guys are going to get weapons one way or another anyway, so withholding machine guns or even grenade launchers doesn't seem helpful in terms of preventing murders.

My bad, I read that wrong, I thought you meant that regulations aren't necessary, except for on machineguns and grenade launchers.

Yet, civilians can own surplus army tanks, fighter jets, and field cannons without federal registration.

So peculiar.

In general machine guns don't interest me, just a lot of noise and smoke and generally crappy aim. But the engineering is often interesting. Ian's videos getting into how they work are often fascinating. The other day this machine pistol came up on the high road. I rather enjoyed it, just for the sheer BBBBBRRRRRRRTTTTTTTT of it. Especially suppressed. Fun stuff.
https://youtu.be/gPZscoUwABA
While I'd not be thrilled with the idea of any old idiot concealed carrying such devices at the grocery store or in traffic, it doesn't seem sensible to say nobody can have them at all. After all, cars still kill a whole lot more people than guns do. Nobody's seriously suggesting outlawing private vehicles. Okay, so maybe I'd like to see that happen within my lifetime... but nobody in politics is suggesting it.

a_canadian wrote:Asinine describes just about anything to do with firearms controls. I appreciate screenings for felony history, severe mental illness, spouse abuse, known bullying nature, anything which might indicate a tendency towards whipping out the gun to resolve issues which could be better resolved with words or non-violent actions. But once that's dealt with I don't see any need for further government restrictions. Really bad guys are going to get weapons one way or another anyway, so withholding machine guns or even grenade launchers doesn't seem helpful in terms of preventing murders.

But these government asshats aren't reasonable people. And as such, I rather doubt HPA or HUSH will ever get past second reading. There's just not enough carrot, tempting politicians to move that way, while there's abundant stick in terms of anti-gun voters willing to make a noise about perceived escalation of access to murderous guns.

I rarely agree with a_canadian but this time he/she is spot on.

HPA .... DOA.

The SHARE Act is only delayed, until all the emotional hype for more gun control quiets down.

My father taught me "It's always too soon to give up"...

Gullibility among the electorate in last year's election was at an all time high. People actually believing a single thing Trump and his rich old fart friends say... Amazing.

Did you prefer hitlery? Because that was the other name on the ballot.

a_canadian wrote:Gullibility among the electorate in last year's election was at an all time high. People actually believing a single thing Trump and his rich old fart friends say... Amazing.

The HPA was introduced PRIOR to Trump's election. It was someone else's promise, so keep your ignorance-based snark on your side of the border.

mbogo

mbogo wrote: The HPA was introduced PRIOR to Trump's election. It was someone else's promise, so keep your ignorance-based snark on your side of the border.

Golly, I'm the ignorant one. Oddly your congressional public record disagrees:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... e-bill/367
Seems it was introduced on January 9th, 2017, 11 days before the trumpkin took the oath of office and two MONTHS after he was elected. So. I'm. Guess I'm the silly one somehow. Always am. Just by virtue of not worshipping the idiotic con man.

And no John, of course not. Hillary would have been almost as bad. Almost. Your political parties are so badly f'd up that those were your only choices, and that's sad. I am sympathetic. But my sympathy does not extend to those who seriously believe that Trump is interested in success for anyone but himself.

It was initially offered by Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ 5) October 22, 2015 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... -bill/3799

The version introduced in January of this year by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC 3) is the same bill.

Trumpkin? Is that what keeps you warm up there in Canuckistan? Loser.

I assure you that "The Little Potato" will be as big an embarrassment to Canada as his coke-sniffing father was.

mbogo

Never heard the potato insult. I'll have to look that one up. Pierre Trudeau managed to accomplish a lot of good for my country, certainly did a lot better than his successor Mulroney. For one, Trudeau managed to kick 53 American nuclear missiles out of BC. Three prime ministers before him had tried and failed. For that alone I'm grateful to him. No need for us to be a target of your enemies.
------------
Okay, I see that US-based media loved the little potato reference which arose out of the similarity between Trudeau and tudou, the pronounciation of potato in Mandarin. So that's all you've got? Kinda weak as playground taunts go. How about Trumpa Lumpa? He's certainly orange enough to qualify for that reference. I mean, as long as we're reaching... Seems to me the Trumpkin label works better considering its Russian flavour. Putin, Kropotkin, Trumpkin... he'll fit in well when he eventually gets out of prison and moves to Moscow.

Over a year of innuendo and allegations and you Trotskyites haven't found evidence of a fucking thing, let alone proven anything.

Buh-bye, losers.

The evidence is overwhelming, both of his criminality (and that of many members of his family and crew) and his stupidity. He's got the top doggy seat, so he'll busy himself obfuscating, conflating, muddying the waters as long as he can. Nixon did much the same, and he was vastly more clever a man. The Trumpkin will crash and burn. I'll watch. It'll be grand fun. All his supporters' tears will taste so sweet.

https://g.co/kgs/P2z9FQ

Look like anyone you know?