Hearing Protection Act of 2017

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby ninjabread » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:55 pm

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.

:bigear:
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


TreyHouston
Senior Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Tomball

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby TreyHouston » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:13 pm

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.

:bigear:


:smash: "rlol" "rlol"
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas

How many times a day could you say this? :cheers2:


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts: 3841
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby srothstein » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:00 pm

bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.


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.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
Steve Rothstein


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby K.Mooneyham » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:07 pm

powerboatr wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
mrvmax wrote:
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.”

Yep and I doubt it will ever make it this far again.


Once there is a GOP majority in the house and senate we will get some of these useless gun laws eliminated.

Oh. Never mind.

The GOP will save us.

you mean the GOP now????? :smilelol5: :smilelol5: :smilelol5: i love the sarcasm, 8 months and almost zero tangible items through congress.
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.


TreyHouston
Senior Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Tomball

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby TreyHouston » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:22 pm

srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.


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.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?


He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.
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? :cheers2:


imkopaka
Senior Member
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:30 pm
Location: Lamesa, TX

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby imkopaka » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:47 am

TreyHouston wrote:
srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.


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.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?


He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.
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???


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.
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Carry gun: Springfield XD Tactical .45

User avatar

Lynyrd
Senior Member
Posts: 971
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:20 am
Location: East Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby Lynyrd » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:08 am

srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.


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.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?


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.
Do what you say you're gonna do.

User avatar

SQLGeek
Senior Member
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:48 am
Location: Richmond, TX

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby SQLGeek » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:21 am

srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.


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.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?


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.
Psalm 91:2


strogg
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:51 pm
Location: DFW (Denton County)

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby strogg » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:31 am

imkopaka wrote:
TreyHouston wrote:
srothstein wrote:
bblhd672 wrote: :banghead: :banghead: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.


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.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?


He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.
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???


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.


:iagree:

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.

User avatar

Topic author
TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts: 1758
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby TexasJohnBoy » Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:01 pm

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.
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14


1911 10MM
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby 1911 10MM » Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:10 pm

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.


I was thinking about this today as well and I would be for it.


BBYC
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby BBYC » Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:12 pm

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.
Keep your powder dry.


TreyHouston
Senior Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Tomball

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby TreyHouston » Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:46 pm

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.


OK, if thats what the left wants!
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas

How many times a day could you say this? :cheers2:

User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts: 6629
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: La Grange, Texas

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby anygunanywhere » Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:56 pm

TreyHouston wrote:
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.


OK, if thats what the left wants!


Rob Peter, pay Paul.

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?
1911s should be carried openly as God and John Moses Browning (PBUH) intended them to be.
III%

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Postby ScottDLS » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:01 pm

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.
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!!!!"


Return to “Federal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests