Once I discovered that suppressors didn't silence a gunshot, I lost nearly any interest in having them.
I understand the arguments in favor of them (hearing protection, and it's your right).
I also know the arguments against them (criminals will use them to silently murder) are based on imaginary TV/movie silencers that work like I wish they really worked. The people who want them banned or regulated are coming from a place of supreme ignorance and fear.
I'm just not personally willing to put a big, expensive cylinder on the end of a pistol for so little benefit. I'm completely in favor of you being able to order one online and have it mailed to your door without any paperwork or proof of ID.
I've noticed the politically addled people have two arguments they keep pushing: that "silencers" are "arms", and that they aren't. They each seem to believe this doesn't change government's "authority" to regulate them. it just shifts the direction a little.
If suppressors are "arms", then they believe this gives the illegal ATF the "authority" to regulate them. I believe this makes it a crime for the ATF criminals to do so.
If they aren't "arms", then some people believe this means they aren't protected by the Second Amendment, and thus are subject to regulation by the aforementioned illegal ATF. I believe this puts them outside anything the criminal ATF believes it has the "authority" to do.
Either way, the unconstitutional ATF has no legitimate say over suppressors. Nor does any other government agency or bureau or employee.
And they know it, even if they won't admit it. They are just trying to buy time until they can get a new crew of Supreme Courtjesters to agree with them.
Which leads to another argument in favor of getting a supressor: make them so ubiquitous that it doesn't matter what anyone says about them-- make them as common as flies at a feedlot.
Itching to subscribe or donate?
