"Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 155 of 155
  1. #1
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,063

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...45645796,d.dmg

    Good/Bad....you decide.

    (the article is from a Whiteville paper, but will affect ALL of NC)
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  2. #2
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Pointless

    I live outside of city limits where people can fire guns all they want.....and they do.
    The noise is not an issue.

    Never once found being in the forest with hunters to be overly noisy either and to be quite honest, I kind of like knowing their proximity to me.

    I am against current proposed gun legislation/bans but why our idiotic gubberment would even entertain trying to ease up on restrictions like this is beyond me.

    I mean seriously, "lets ban a certain type of gun stock but allow silencers".
    What utter idiocy.

    BTW, I don't hunt nor do I fire a gun outside my house ever.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    I support the proposed legislation.

    Why suppressors are regulated as a Class 3 weapon is beyond me. They do not change the functionality of the firearm, nor do the "silence" the weapon like you hear in the movies.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I support the proposed legislation.

    Why suppressors are regulated as a Class 3 weapon is beyond me. They do not change the functionality of the firearm, nor do the "silence" the weapon like you hear in the movies.
    +1
    In addition to the fact that "silencers" do NOT silence the sound of a shot fired like the movies lead you to believe, I don't think hunters are going to be flocking to hunt in areas where we ride a lot so it's a moot point.

    I recently had to go help an acquaintance reign in his expectations of what his suppressor should sound like. Even a .22, which is relatively quiet to begin with, is tricky to make "movie quiet", and it's simply not going to happen with a pistol. In addition .22 is not legal to use for hunting in most cases so even a suppressed hunting rifle will be loud, the sound will just be muffled/different.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    421
    I grew up in a rural town in New England. Hunting was a norm. So was snowmobile racing and ice racing (cars on a frozen pond). Over the years more and more people moved into the town from the Boston area. They started complaining and the racing was stopped. Decades of doing it gone. The same crowd complains about the rifle shots during hunting season. The only public (on state land) rifle range was shut. Things like this just piss me off.

  6. #6
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I support the proposed legislation.

    Why suppressors are regulated as a Class 3 weapon is beyond me. They do not change the functionality of the firearm, nor do the "silence" the weapon like you hear in the movies.
    Granted this is a home built silencer but allowing silencers will allow this.



    People really need to research things when it comes to passing any gun legislation.

    There is no reason to allow silencers for hunting.
    I ride right past hunters while biking and a riffle in the forest is not that loud.
    My next door neighbor who is about 100 yards away target practices regularly and it is not that loud either.

    There just is no need for it and it is pure silliness.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  7. #7
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    And here is a pistol silenced......yeah, not real quiet.

    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Granted this is a home built silencer but allowing silencers will allow this.



    People really need to research things when it comes to passing any gun legislation.

    There is no reason to allow silencers for hunting.
    I ride right past hunters while biking and a riffle in the forest is not that loud.
    My next door neighbor who is about 100 yards away target practices regularly and it is not that loud either.

    There just is no need for it and it is pure silliness.
    I would hazard a guess and say that you don't have a lot of trigger time.

  9. #9
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    I have had plenty of "trigger time" but I don't know how you could make an assumption from my opinion of how loud a riffle shot is through all the trees that separate me and my neighbor. Making a statement like that from what I wrote is lunacy. Of course, I expect that since you already made the statement suggesting that silencers can not be that quiet.


    Now if you meant I don't hunt, you are correct.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Find me a video of a hunting caliber with a suppressor being as quiet as a .22 with suppressor.

    I'll wait.

    And my point on "it's not that loud" and you not having a lot of trigger time has nothing to do with how loud YOU think a rifle shot at your neighbor's house is.

    It has everything to do with how loud the SHOOTER thinks the shot is, and what THEY want to do to mitigate the sound.

    Some folks wear plugs and muffs, some like to use suppressors.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    And BTW -

    You don't need a suppressor to make a .22 quieter than a BB gun. CB Caps do that all on their own.

  12. #12
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    If your trigger time comment had nothing to do with my not that loud comment then why did you bold face my not that loud comment?


    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    Find me a video of a hunting caliber with a suppressor being as quiet as a .22 with suppressor.

    I'll wait.
    Is a 308 a large enough caliber?




    Next?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Not bad, but still louder than a .22 with suppressor.

    So, tell me again why this would be a bad thing to be allowed to hunt with?

  14. #14
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    LOL, did you actually listen to it?
    Not bad? lol
    The sound of the bolt was louder than the sound of the shot.

    You would not hear hear that being fired if in your back yard if you were standing in the front.

    I never said it would be a bad thing to be allowed to hunt with these.
    I just said it was pointless. The sounds of shots are not that bothersome and personally I like to know when weapons are being discharged around me and their proximity along with their general direction.

    Now, tell me why it would be a good thing to hunt with?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  15. #15
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,941
    This should be legal without all the paperwork but not be forced on everyone.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    LOL, did you actually listen to it?
    Not bad? lol
    The sound of the bolt was louder than the sound of the shot.

    You would not hear hear that being fired if in your back yard if you were standing in the front.

    I never said it would be a bad thing to be allowed to hunt with these.
    I just said it was pointless. The sounds of shots are not that bothersome and personally I like to know when weapons are being discharged around me and their proximity along with their general direction.

    Now, tell me why it would be a good thing to hunt with?
    As I mentioned, and as you so aptly demonstrated with the post of the suppressed rifle - to protect the hearing of the shooter.

    And you wonder why I think you don't have a lot of trigger time?

    Or maybe the issue is you have too much, and I need to talk louder so you can actually hear me?

  17. #17
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    As I mentioned, and as you so aptly demonstrated with the post of the suppressed rifle - to protect the hearing of the shooter.

    And you wonder why I think you don't have a lot of trigger time?

    Or maybe the issue is you have too much, and I need to talk louder so you can actually hear me?
    Why would I care about protecting the hearing of the shooter more that my own personal safety? If the shooter is concerned with his/her hearing they can wear noise suppressing ear protection. It is what I do.

    I am beginning to wonder if you have ever fired a gun.

    As far as you talking louder, I don't know if you realize this but you are on the internet. You can talk as loud as you want and nobody here will hear you. Also, if you read the article, the proposed legislation has nothing to do with protecting the shooters ears.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Why would I care about protecting the hearing of the shooter more that my own personal safety? If the shooter is concerned with his/her hearing they can wear noise suppressing ear protection. It is what I do.

    I am beginning to wonder if you have ever fired a gun.

    As far as you talking louder, I don't know if you realize this but you are on the internet. You can talk as loud as you want and nobody here will hear you. Also, if you read the article, the proposed legislation has nothing to do with protecting the shooters ears.
    I think I have determined one of the causes of our disagreement. You see this issue as about YOU and YOUR ears. I ma concerned with offering the HUNTERS the CHOICE of how they protect their ears.

    As for me "never firing a gun before", I will put it this way. My screen name is a tribute to my first unit - the A Co Jaguars 5/87 INF. I think I have fired quite a few weapons.

    And I propose you read more than the first 2 paragraphs.

    "Suppression devices would also help with one of the most common problems suffered by hunters—hearing loss. Conventional hearing protectors make it difficult to hear approaching game or other members of a hunting party, and even ear plugs can be an annoyance for hunters. Hearing damage from gunfire can be measured even in young hunters."

    YMMV

  19. #19
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    No, it isn't about me and my ears. Hunters already have a choice.

    "ear plugs can be an annoyance"

    LOL, forgive me for not giving a sh!t if a hunter who chooses to hunt is annoyed by their earplugs.

    I find it annoying not knowing where the guys near by with fire arms are firing their weapons.

    If ear plugs are too annoying and you are worried about hearing loss, than get bow.

    And before you make an assumption that I am against hunting, don't. I am all for hunting and well aware of the benefits to it. I will also be happy to eat any of the spoils. I just don't do it because I think it would be boring.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Seeing as how you are on an mtb forum, let me see if I can equate this to something you may be able to relate to.

    Should you have the choice of brakes on your mtb? Or should your neighbor, who rides a Wal-Mart bike around the neighborhood once a year dictate to you that you can't use disc brakes, you can only use canti's? After all, he doesn't care that discs are safer for YOU, he is concerned over his idea of what you should use.

  21. #21
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    That is a stupid analogy as the brakes that I use affect nobody.

    Actually correction, if I have safer brakes it could mean I don't crash in to you.

    Would you like to try again and come up with something that actually makes sense?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    The entire point is why do YOU get to dictate what somebody else uses? It's their ears, it should be their choice how they protect them.

  23. #23
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Hunters have options for ear safety.
    So forgive me for not caring about their "ear safety comfort" over my "life safety" while on the trails.

    And FYI the government does get to dictate things in the best interest of the people.
    For instance...
    I feel I can drive down many interstates at triple digit speeds.
    Why should anyone be able to dictate that I can not travel at the rate I want to travel at?

    Or should we just have a lawless country because somebody out there may not like the way the law limits their "rights"?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  24. #24
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    To add, if hunters had no other options or if people on the trails that had nothing to do with hunting were suffering hearing damage then I would support this.

    However, this proposal is not based on the safety of anyone in any way. It is based on the fact that a few people who don't hunt hear shots fired and it interrupts their perfect little silent world.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Now we're starting to get somewhere!!!

    Personally, there is NO WAY I would be riding on hunting land during hunting season. That's just stupid for many, many reasons. So where WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down that list would be if I could hear the report of a shot or not.

    RE: speeding, driving on a public road is a privilege, not a right. So, yes, the gov can regulate what happens on them. Guess what, though? You can drive as fast as you want to on private land! You don't even have to have a driver's license to do it! Nor do you have to have license plates nor registration on the vehicle!!!

    Please, keep going. This is fun.

  26. #26
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    You are right, now we are getting somewhere.

    Where I live in Western NC (Asheville area) hunting is allowed on most of the trails.

    So should mountain bikers, hikers and equestrians give up the trails that they most likely helped to build just so hunters can bag a deer?

    Sorry, but there really isn't a mountain bike park in my area. The "mountain bike park" is national forest where hunting is often allowed.

    Even if there options for hunting free zones near by, why should I limit myself to the trails I ride so a hunter doesn't have to be inconvenienced with ear plugs?

    And what hunters want to shoot with on private land is their business as far as I am concerned. I am riding on public land.

    You are right it is fun watching you continually shoot yourself in the foot. (pardon the pun)
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  27. #27
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,063
    The noise of a gun is like a safety thing for me . Just like an electric car is dangerous for pedestrians because they can't hear it coming, hearing a "report" from a shot is enough to know I should find a different trail to ride that day. I have stood on the dirt rd at Ginger cake & heard 25 or 30 rounds & new I was in the wrong area that day.
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    You are right, now we are getting somewhere.

    Where I live in Western NC (Asheville area) hunting is allowed on most of the trails.

    So should mountain bikers, hikers and equestrians give up the trails that they most likely helped to build just so hunters can bag a deer?

    Sorry, but there really isn't a mountain bike park in my area. The "mountain bike park" is national forest where hunting is often allowed.

    Even if there options for hunting free zones near by, why should I limit myself to the trails I ride so a hunter doesn't have to be inconvenienced with ear plugs?

    And what hunters want to shoot with on private land is their business as far as I am concerned. I am riding on public land.

    You are right it is fun watching you continually shoot yourself in the foot. (pardon the pun)
    So, you have more "right" to the public lands than a hunter?

    Interesting.

    I wonder - how many fees do you pay to have a place to ride your mountain bike? Are there imbedded taxes in every piece of cycling gear you buy to fund the trails? Do you have to go take a special class to get a license to ride on those trails? Do you have to buy a yearly license to continue to ride? Do you have to buy a different stamp for that license for each trail you want to ride on?

    And I still can't get over how you get to dictate to the hunter what gear he uses to hunt with, and what safety gear he can/cannot use.

    Sounds very...big bother-ish to me.

    So, do you also ride a road bike?

  29. #29
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    So, you have more "right" to the public lands than a hunter?

    Interesting.
    Where on earth did I even say that or hint to that?

    Did I say "hunters should not be allowed to hunt public land because I bike there"?

    No, I did not.

    I fully acknowledged their right to be there.
    However, I have the right to know where shots are being fired.

    You are expecting me to ignore my rights of physical safety in order so a hunter does not have to wear earplugs for his hearing safety. Now that is ridiculous.

    I am willing to share the trails safely for everyone's use.

    Also, this proposal IS dictating what safety gear a hunter must use.
    It proposes a MANDATORY use of silencers.

    You keep shooting holes in your own argument.

    BTW, your assumptions on what I donate as far as time and money are ignorant. I won't get in to it, but I guarantee it is more than the cost of a hunting license. After that there are no "imbedded taxes" in every piece of hunting gear either.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    LOL

    Please, go find me the portion of the article in the OP that says use of a suppressor is MANDATORY under this proposed law.

    I did not ask what you donate, I asked very specific question with regards to what you HAVE to pay to go mtb on those trails.

    And you may want to brush up on the imbedded taxes in firearms and ammo that go to fund those exact same national forests you love to ride in.

    But of course, you already know that because you go shooting all the time.

    Suffice it to say, I support the lifting of this ridiculous ban, just as I support the lifting of almost every firearms law.

    YMM(and I am sure will)V

  31. #31
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Hunting license in the state is not expensive.
    Any imbedded costs in the taxes of ammo is equal to the recreational shooter as it is to the hunter.

    Lifting of every fire arm law?
    Now that is a hoot.
    So people should be able walk around wit Uzi's and Bazookas. Riiiiiiiiiight

    I see no point in continue this as it is quite obvious that you have no common sense.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  32. #32
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    BTW, please do not infringe on my right to hunt with land mines. lol
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    You do know you have people walking around you armed every day, right?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    BTW, please do not infringe on my right to hunt with land mines. lol
    Do you know that I can legally own a land mine right now?

  35. #35
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    But you can't legally go plant it on public land.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Maybe not, but that's not my point.

    You seem to have issues with inanimate objects. Why?

  37. #37
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    I have a problem with not knowing where shots are being fired around me.

    If a hunter has or has access to private land then I am ok with them firing a silenced weapon all they want. If a hunter chooses to hunt public land where other people have a right to be also, I am not ok with them using silencers as I believe that infringes on the right of other people to know where shots are being fired. It also lowers the awareness of the use of the land by hunters to non-hunters which proposes safety issues.

    Either way, I stand by my original statement that was proposing to allow this while trying to ban things like certain types of stocks is ass backwards.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    So, how many folks would use the type of specialty ammo that the gentleman in your video used?

    Or do you think they would use their regular super sonic hunting rounds?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gunner66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    164

    Re: "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    No object that breaks the speed of sound can be silenced and that is why they are called suppressors not silencers. Silencer is a Hollywood and politician created term. Suppressors drop the sound pressure by a certain db level which is far from silent. Carry on with this strange argument just wanted to put the facts in place.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

  40. #40
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    I am more curious on knowing why we should drop all gun legislation.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Get ready to laugh at me.

    See, there's this thing called the Second Amendment. I believe it means what it say is means, and the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms.

    I know, crazy, right?

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Since you are uber concerned over noise - or the lack thereof - from hunters, am I safe to assume that you stay out of the woods during bow season?

  43. #43
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    I do not laugh, but I do think you are misguided. I do believe in the 2nd amendment but I also do not believe that it is a free for all either. If it was, we would be allowed to own personal nukes too. I believe that second amendment is there to give us reasonable means to protect ourselves from both people who would harm us and our own government. I do not nor does anyone need a suppressor to do this.

    Someplace between protecting ourselves with butter knives and nuclear weapons lies the answer in what the 2nd amendment should allow.

    I have less concern with bow hunting for multiple reasons.
    1) there just are not as many bow hunters.
    2) You can not rapidly fire a bow
    3) Bows do not accidentally go off
    4) Bow hunters (although not always the case) are generally more skilled hunters. Rarely do first time hunters chose a bow as there weapon.

    That is just to just to name a few
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    I do not laugh, but I do think you are misguided. I do believe in the 2nd amendment but I also do not believe that it is a free for all either. If it was, we would be allowed to own personal nukes too. I believe that second amendment is there to give us reasonable means to protect ourselves from both people who would harm us and our own government. I do not nor does anyone need a suppressor to do this.

    Someplace between protecting ourselves with butter knives and nuclear weapons lies the answer in what the 2nd amendment should allow.

    I have less concern with bow hunting for multiple reasons.
    1) there just are not as many bow hunters.
    2) You can not rapidly fire a bow
    3) Bows do not accidentally go off
    4) Bow hunters (although not always the case) are generally more skilled hunters. Rarely do first time hunters chose a bow as there weapon.

    That is just to just to name a few
    So, what do I need to protect myself? What limitations do you feel there should be?

    1. Immaterial to the discussion about noise levels.
    2. All it takes is one shot.
    3. You have never used a mechanical release, I see.
    4. Agree with the first sentence. Withhold judgement with the second since I have no information either way.

    It boils down to the noise level generated, since we are discussion suppressors in use for hunting. Both are quiet, both are capable of killing you. Yet, you are comfortable with one, and not the other.

  45. #45
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    I am familiar with mechanical release but no I am not an archer.
    Still with mechanical release and a compound draw, it still takes the action of a draw and release. I guarantee I can unload a clip before any archer can fire a second arrow.
    Also, archers do not walk around with a bow ready to fire.

    Yes, both bullets and arrows can kill but like I said there are a lot less bow hunters and they generally take more time with a shot because they rarely get a 2nd one. So there is less worry in needing to know where they are.

    Not to mention the fact that a 308 round or 30-06 which are probably two of the most common calibers of hunting rifles is much more powerful than arrow.

    If I saw a reasonable explanation for suppressors while hunting than I would entertain the necessity. However, noise pollution IMO is not great enough of a concern and there are other reasonable options for hearing protection.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    What make is your Garand?

    You seem to be operating under a couple of inaccurate assumptions.

    1. Most hunter - regardless of weapon - take their time with a shot because they rarely get a second.

    2. You keep coming back to you getting to decide what the needs are of another. Let me ask you a question - do you ride a geared bike?

  47. #47
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post

    2. You keep coming back to you getting to decide what the needs are of another. Let me ask you a question - do you ride a geared bike?
    How on earth does the gears or lack of gears on my bike affect the safety of anyone around me?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    How on earth does the gears or lack of gears on my bike affect the safety of anyone around me?
    They allow you to go so much faster than the hikers and horseback riders that collisions are sure to happen.

    I just feel like you don't need to have more than one gear.

    For the safety of the hikers and horseback riders, of course.

  49. #49
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    They allow you to go so much faster than the hikers and horseback riders that collisions are sure to happen.

    I just feel like you don't need to have more than one gear.

    For the safety of the hikers and horseback riders, of course.
    Even with one gear, I can gear it however I want which means I can reach the same speeds.

    I also challenge you to go faster on a standard geared store bought mountain bike than an average horse at a consistent speed. Sure, maybe on a gravel road down hill you may hit speeds roughly equaling but average horses can do this on flat and consistently.
    So any day you want to race a horse on a bike, let me know. I can arrange it.

    That being said, some trails systems do have laws limiting the speeds of bicycles for the safety of other users. I guess that is infringing on the cyclists rights.

    Not to mention the number of people killed by all bicycles every year due to speed vs the number killed in hunting accidents is a lot lower.

    Your arguments are just ridiculous but entertaining nonetheless.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    You sure that the number of cyclists killed in accidents per year is less than those killed in hunting accidents?

  51. #51
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Excuse me, maybe I should reword that.

    The number of people cyclists kill each year is lower than those killed by hunters in hunting accidents.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  52. #52
    endorphin junkie
    Reputation: dobovedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    Seeing as how you are on an mtb forum, let me see if I can equate this to something you may be able to relate to.

    Should you have the choice of brakes on your mtb? Or should your neighbor, who rides a Wal-Mart bike around the neighborhood once a year dictate to you that you can't use disc brakes, you can only use canti's? After all, he doesn't care that discs are safer for YOU, he is concerned over his idea of what you should use.
    I'd sure like to a law passed requiring Avid to silence their [email protected]%^# brakes. Talk about noise pollution!
    "Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go."
    T.S. Eliot

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    I have not been able to find any data that shows how many people were killed by cyclists.

    However, does it count if 1/4 of all cyclist related fatalities involved alcohol above the legal limit? http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811743.pdf

    Just as I could not find a "killed by cyclists" number, I did not find a hard number for "killed by hunters". What I did find as a number was approximately 100 hunting related deaths per year. This includes folks who fell out of their tree stands.

    Some other interesting statistics I found. It seems that hunting is actually one of the safest outdoor activities you can partake in. Safer even than mountain biking. It also seems that $310,000,000 was raised from excise taxes on firearms and ammunition from 2006 - 2010. What was that you were saying earlier about taxes on those items?

    Source: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811743.pdf



    So, I will posit this: Your opinion is not based on facts or statistics, just your feelings.

    That being the case, I have one more fact for you to chew on. Because suppressors are a Class 3 item, owners go through a six month background check by the ATF before they are allowed to purchase one. I would have to hazard a guess and say that a suppressor owner is even more dedicated that the bow hunters you feel safe around.

  54. #54
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    However, does it count if 1/4 of all cyclist related fatalities involved alcohol above the legal limit?
    Yes if we can include all gun related accidents that involve alcohol.

    We will never agree no matter how wrong you are.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    421
    You are safer in the woods during hunting season then you are in most communities. 100 deaths compared to 30,000 deaths. I bet a lot of those are either hunter shooting themselves or somoen in their party. I have a feeling it is more fear from negative stories of hunters then reality. During hunting season wear orange. Talk to hunters like you talk to other trail users. Respectful. Ask them where the are hunting and if possible leave them in peace to hunt. Respect goes a long way.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    215
    Ummm. . . . . mountain biking is fun, even in the rain.

  57. #57
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by pisgahrider View Post
    Ummm. . . . . mountain biking is fun, even in the rain.
    And clearly it's raining.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,048
    Like somebody mentioned earlier, it's kinda nice to know where the hunters are when on the trails. It makes me jump a bit and scares my dog, but at least I know to be alert when I hear shots. On the other hand, my neighbor shoots guns in his yard, and that annoys me. There's nothing pleasant about a gunshot. It's unsettling to the nerves and makes me edgy. If that can be minimized, then I'm all for it. If you don't understand how gunshots can have a negative impact on somebody else's experience, whatever that may be, then you need to realize that there are others that have just as much rights as you do on this planet.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jerry68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    453
    I don't think people should be allowed to own guns, especially guns with a silencer. I also find it insane that we would let them shoot guns on public land, my god there are CHILDREN there!!! I also don't think people should be allowed to kill innocent animals, this is barbaric and cruel*






















    Pisgah Area SORBA

    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    ... your idea of technical may be much different than other peoples idea of technical.

  60. #60
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by jerry68 View Post
    I don't think people should be allowed to own guns, especially guns with a silencer. I also find it insane that we would let them shoot guns on public land, my god there are CHILDREN there!!! I also don't think people should be allowed to kill innocent animals, this is barbaric and cruel*























  61. #61
    thecentralscrutinizer
    Reputation: mopartodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,939
    Maybe the FS should mandate noise cancelling headphones for evryone in the forest.

    lol
    2019 Giant Fastroad Advanced
    2019 Giant Anthem Advanced 1 29
    2020 Giant XTC Advanced 29
    2019 Surly Karate Monkey

  62. #62
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    There are two answers to every problem.

    Mine and the wrong one.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  63. #63
    endorphin junkie
    Reputation: dobovedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by brianW. View Post
    You are safer in the woods during hunting season then you are in most communities.
    ... or driving to work on any given day. That's what's so funny about this discussion. So much time and energy spent worrying and arguing over things that statistically aren't worth worrying or arguing about. Carry on though; I'm enjoying the banter.
    "Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go."
    T.S. Eliot

  64. #64
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    I dunno, to me it's just a giant gray area.

  65. #65
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Only if you have a card
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Yes if we can include all gun related accidents that involve alcohol.

    We will never agree no matter how wrong you are.
    You're right for once.

    You may say all you like how I am wrong, but you have yet to post a single statistic - even if it's a made up one - that can refute anything I have said.

    Enjoy the trails!

  67. #67
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Interesting of you to say that.
    You said shots couldn't be made silent.
    I posted proof.
    You then said it couldn't be done with a hunting caliber.
    I posted proof.

    What more do you want?

    But thanks, I will enjoy the trails when it stops raining.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  68. #68
    mvi
    mvi is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,236
    I want hunters to be as loud as possible. And I do the same come hunting season.
    Silencers are for hitman IMO.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    "Hitman"

    LOL

    You should probably stop watching so many gangster movies.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Interesting of you to say that.
    You said shots couldn't be made silent.
    I posted proof.
    You then said it couldn't be done with a hunting caliber.
    I posted proof.

    What more do you want?

    But thanks, I will enjoy the trails when it stops raining.
    I would like you to post any facts and/or statistics that will lend credence to your position that hunters having the choice of using suppressors endangers you.

    Suppressors are legal for use when hunting in many other states already. If they are so dangerous, there must be incidents of people being accidentally shot by now.

    Or admit that you have nothing more than your opinion with no facts to back up your claims.

  71. #71
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I would like you to post any facts and/or statistics that will lend credence to your position that hunters having the choice of using suppressors endangers you.

    Suppressors are legal for use when hunting in many other states already. If they are so dangerous, there must be incidents of people being accidentally shot by now.

    Or admit that you have nothing more than your opinion with no facts to back up your claims.
    Since you are so concerned about proving something, proof can go both ways so where are the statistics proving your position?

    You can't provide it.

    That being said, I am sure nobody has done any research to this and if somebody was shot in hunting accident by a gun with a suppressor I highly doubt you could prove or disprove the accident would not have happened if the gun did not have a suppressor.


    Yes, I have my opinion which is I like to know where shots are coming from and the proximity they are to me. Knowing doesn't automatically make it more or less safer. What it does do though is allow me to make a decision if I want to choose a different place to ride or leave a certain section of the park. It also brings awareness to others around that they need to be extra cautious because hunters are in the area.

    Now if you can give me a good reason to allow suppressors other than so a hunter does not have to be discomforted by earplugs than I will listen.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    I have posted the statistics that show 677 cyclists killed vs 100 in hunting accidents, most of which are falling from trees.

    I have asked you for ANYTHING, other than your OPINION, to back up your claims that you are less safe, and you have provided NOTHING.

    Here - I will even give you a hand in trying to find some statistics. Texas allows hunting with suppressors. Go and see if you can find out how many people were shot in Texas in hunting accidents. At least than you might have something substantial to back up your opinion with.

  73. #73
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Texas. A fine example.

  74. #74
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    texas. A fine example.
    lol
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  75. #75
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    Texas. A fine example.
    I'm guessing Dick Chaneyz hunting partners would not have benefited from a silencer. It wouldn't help being shot in the face.
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  76. #76
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I have posted the statistics that show 677 cyclists killed vs 100 in hunting accidents, most of which are falling from trees.

    I have asked you for ANYTHING, other than your OPINION, to back up your claims that you are less safe, and you have provided NOTHING.

    Here - I will even give you a hand in trying to find some statistics. Texas allows hunting with suppressors. Go and see if you can find out how many people were shot in Texas in hunting accidents. At least than you might have something substantial to back up your opinion with.

    You are thick

    I am only saying I want to know that shots are being fired around me, how many shots, how close they are, etc. What is so hard to understand about that?


    Statistics are not going to change how I feel about that.

    If I start riding in a certain area and I hear several shots that are close by, I might want to choose a different area to ride. Where I live, hunting is allowed almost everywhere that people bike, hike and ride horses.


    Now give me one good reason I should give that comfort level up so a hunter does not have to wear ear plugs?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Well, basing laws off of your, or for that matter ANYONE's, opinion just makes for bad law.

    What are needed are facts and statistics to support your position.

    Which you do not have.

    You really should brush up on your debate and/or google skills if you wish to have a defensible position.

  78. #78
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    Well, basing laws off of your, or for that matter ANYONE's, opinion just makes for bad law.

    What are needed are facts and statistics to support your position.

    Which you do not have.

    You really should brush up on your debate and/or google skills if you wish to have a defensible position.
    What you are missing here is there already is a law.
    I am not trying to make a new one.
    You are.

    So it is ok to base a law off your opinion but not mine?

    So you are the one that needs to support your position otherwise you are just supporting a bad law.

    There is nothing supporting that hunting with suppressors makes it safer.
    It just makes it quieter. If it doesn't make it safer, there is no need to change it.

    As far as facts go, it is a fact that I along with many other people are more comfortable sharing the trails with hunters if we can hear gun shots better.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Not trying to make a new one, trying to get rid of an ineffective one.

    It's ineffective because there are many states that allow the use of suppressors, and there is no increase in accidents.

    The article that spawned this entire thread actually states many reasons why they are looking to get rid of this law. You are more than welcome to take your feelings to the State and lobby to keep the current law on the books.

    I make sure to keep in touch with the General Assembly on a regular basis so they know both my opinion and any additional facts I can bring to their attention on laws they are debating.

    I just contacted them this evening showing my support for HB937. As soon as I can find the actual bill number for this topic, I will be contacting them with my support on it as well.

    Seriously, though. You really should get you and your friends together and make your voices heard. Maybe your feelings will overcome facts and logic.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    421
    I have a hard time understanding why hunters are being singled out. I do not hunt, never have but grew up in a hunting friendly community. I have spoken to a number of hunters on the rail while riding, hiking, and trail running. During the hunting season I wear "hunter orange". No big deal. Many hunters have thanked me for doing it. It is all respect. I alway ask where they plan on hunting and if they have others in their party. They have every right to be in the woods as the rest of us. I would prefer to hear the shots so it can help me make the best and safest decisions. Suppressing the rifle IMO is just stupid.

  81. #81
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    Not trying to make a new one, trying to get rid of an ineffective one.

    It's ineffective because there are many states that allow the use of suppressors, and there is no increase in accidents.

    The article that spawned this entire thread actually states many reasons why they are looking to get rid of this law. You are more than welcome to take your feelings to the State and lobby to keep the current law on the books.

    I make sure to keep in touch with the General Assembly on a regular basis so they know both my opinion and any additional facts I can bring to their attention on laws they are debating.

    I just contacted them this evening showing my support for HB937. As soon as I can find the actual bill number for this topic, I will be contacting them with my support on it as well.

    Seriously, though. You really should get you and your friends together and make your voices heard. Maybe your feelings will overcome facts and logic.
    I'm not sure i understand your position, so please explain to me what it is that you want from this legislation. What do you gain and what is the benefit to the public at large?

  82. #82
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by man w/ one hand View Post
    I'm guessing Dick Chaneyz hunting partners would not have benefited from a silencer. It wouldn't help being shot in the face.
    I'm pretty sure Texas is a shoot in the face at will state. Not many questions asked.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    The gain is allowing people with legally owned items to use them when hunting.

    You know, a little thing called freedom?

  84. #84
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    If you feel threatened by something, shoot it, especially if its a face.

  85. #85
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    The gain is allowing people with legally owned items to use them when hunting.

    You know, a little thing called freedom?
    You are right, we should throw all the rules out for hunting because they interfere with your freedoms.

    If you want to shoot deer year round in the name of freedom, do it.
    Want to shoot them with a bazooka, do it.
    Hell, if there is an endangered species soot it in the name of freedom.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  86. #86
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    The gain is allowing people with legally owned items to use them when hunting.

    You know, a little thing called freedom?
    But what's the advantage? What about my freedoms?

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    You are right, we should throw all the rules out for hunting because they interfere with your freedoms.

    If you want to shoot deer year round in the name of freedom, do it.
    Want to shoot them with a bazooka, do it.
    Hell, if there is an endangered species soot it in the name of freedom.
    You know how I know I won this debate?

  88. #88
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    You know how I know I won this debate?
    Name:  tumblr_lmon9iMOYA1qafrh6.jpg
Views: 113
Size:  37.2 KB
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    But what's the advantage? What about my freedoms?
    The advantages have been covered.

    You are free to enter or not enter the woods during hunting season. It would be no more dangerous than it is right now.

    Or restrict your riding to Sundays when no hunting is allowed.

  90. #90
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    The gain is allowing people with legally owned items to use them when hunting.

    You know, a little thing called freedom?
    Speaking of freedom, please feel free to quote the post you're responding to, so we can at least understand that.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Name:  tumblr_lmon9iMOYA1qafrh6.jpg
Views: 113
Size:  37.2 KB
    I rest my case.

  92. #92
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    The advantages have been covered.

    You are free to enter or not enter the woods during hunting season. It would be no more dangerous than it is right now.

    Or restrict your riding to Sundays when no hunting is allowed.
    I'm sorry, perhaps I missed the advantages and who they would be advantageous to. Entertain me. So you suggest that one user group takes precedence over all others? Why is that? Again, entertain me.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,849
    I believe the legislation has had its intended effect: Drive a wedge between otherwise agreeable people.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    I'm sorry, perhaps I missed the advantages and who they would be advantageous to. Entertain me. So you suggest that one user group takes precedence over all others? Why is that? Again, entertain me.
    Already been posted.

    Go read the thread.

  95. #95
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I rest my case.
    Well, good.

    That means you don't need to say anything else about it.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  96. #96
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    Already been posted.

    Go read the thread.
    I read it. I'm still unclear of the point of all this. Are you a politician? Because you seem to pedal squares. Saying or answering nothing.

  97. #97
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    He rested his case already.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  98. #98
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Right. And what an awesome, persuasive case it was.

  99. #99
    Dig it!
    Reputation: 2bfluid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    712

    Re: "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    I think you both need a silencer....

    Since noise suppression on guns is illegal in NC, it seems like a mute point.

    Make some thing better happen.
    Should you do more trail work?

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by 2bfluid View Post
    I think you both need a silencer....

    Since noise suppression on guns is illegal in NC, it seems like a mute point.

    Make some thing better happen.
    Check that again.

    Suppressors are perfectly legal to own in NC. You just can't currently hunt with one on your weapon.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    I read it. I'm still unclear of the point of all this. Are you a politician? Because you seem to pedal squares. Saying or answering nothing.
    I made my case that there is nothing to prove that using suppressors is any more dangerous than not using suppressors.

    I have given kjlued every opportunity to cite any facts and/or statistics he can to support his position. I even directed him to a potential source to get some information he can use to support his position. He declined.

    He has nothing more than conjecture, innuendo, petty insults, and opinion.

    Do you have more than that to make your case?

  102. #102
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I made my case that there is nothing to prove that using suppressors is any more dangerous than not using suppressors.

    I have given kjlued every opportunity to cite any facts and/or statistics he can to support his position. I even directed him to a potential source to get some information he can use to support his position. He declined.

    He has nothing more than conjecture, innuendo, petty insults, and opinion.

    Do you have more than that to make your case?
    I don't have a case. Why can you not answer a simple question?

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Ask away.

    But if you want to stop this, y'all better start calling the State House. The Senate passed it.

  104. #104
    Dig it!
    Reputation: 2bfluid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    712

    Re: "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    I stand corrected.

    I meant to say "hunting" with a suppressor is illegal in NC.

    So, if this passes won't it eliminate hunting with guns on USFS property in NC, as it is against state law?
    Should you do more trail work?

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    I have not looked into if you would be allowed to use a suppressor on USFS land. Most Federal laws default to the state level laws. I know that is now the case with CCW laws in federal parks.

    I think one of the major misconceptions rolling around in here is that this change to existing law would NOT make it mandatory that you have a suppressor when you hunt. It will just allow you to use one of you own it.

    Also, owning a suppressor is a lengthy process. You have to submit a form to the ATF along with a $200 check to cover the excise tax, and undergo a 6 month background check before you can take possession of it. And they are not exactly cheap, esp. for a good one like posted in the vid on page 1. It goes for about $1000, give or take.

    So, I don't see many hunters lining up to buy one "just because" which makes all the hand wringing even funnier to me.

  106. #106
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    I'm not wringing my hands. I could not care less about this legislation and its outcome. I am simply curious about what the benefits are and to whom. That is all.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    I'm not wringing my hands. I could not care less about this legislation and its outcome. I am simply curious about what the benefits are and to whom. That is all.
    Read the article in the OP.

  108. #108
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by 2bfluid View Post
    I think you both need a silencer....

    Since noise suppression on guns is illegal in NC, it seems like a mute point.

    Make some thing better happen.

  109. #109
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,063
    Article states clearly "Contrary to popular belief, silencers and noise-suppression devices are legal in North Carolina—but the restrictions are daunting. State officials will have to modify some general statutes before the average hunter can begin using a silenced weapon."

    Nobody pissed about the taxes you have to pay for it?
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by man w/ one hand View Post
    Article states clearly "Contrary to popular belief, silencers and noise-suppression devices are legal in North Carolina—but the restrictions are daunting. State officials will have to modify some general statutes before the average hunter can begin using a silenced weapon."

    Nobody pissed about the taxes you have to pay for it?
    I am.

    But then again, i think the NFA of 1934 is totally and utterly unConstitutional.

    Even if you don't agree with that, the Hughes Amendment definitely is.

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    174
    Hunting with suppressed rifles in England has a long history. It's considered a courtesy to your neighbors.

    Shooting with a suppressed weapon also benefits the shooter because his/her hearing pretection requirement goes down signifigantly.

    Hunting, especially spot and stalk, requires all of your senses to be on point. You will lose a great deal by wearing hearing protection unless you fork out $3-5K for state of the art noise cancelling fitted electronic plugs. And even those aren't perfect.

    I know most these points were covered by AlphaJaguars.

    I also saw that one of the detractors laid out a few interesiting misconceptions.

    Just because you can hear a shot does not mean you have any idea where it came from. Anyone who has spent any time on the "two way" range can attest to that.

    Also, that .308 subsonic Lapua fired through a suppressed rifle would make a terrible and completely unethical hunting catridge at anything more than bow range.

    A standard supersonic hunting cartridge fired through a suppressed rifle will have much of the report removed but will still have a heafty crack as the projectile breaks the sound barrier as it leaves the barrel. Nothing you can do about that.

    Fear of a suppressed hunting rifle in my opinion is just that. It's like fearing the boogie man.

    Allowing an already legal firearm to be used to hunt will do nothing to public safety.

    Those very rare, poor, unfortunate souls accidentally shot during hunting season more than likely never heard the shot or if they did, they heard it after they were hit. Remember, most of the centerfire hunting calibers are supersonic. The bullet gets to its target before the sound does.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by Smudge13 View Post
    Hunting with suppressed rifles in England has a long history. It's considered a courtesy to your neighbors.

    Shooting with a suppressed weapon also benefits the shooter because his/her hearing pretection requirement goes down signifigantly.

    Hunting, especially spot and stalk, requires all of your senses to be on point. You will lose a great deal by wearing hearing protection unless you fork out $3-5K for state of the art noise cancelling fitted electronic plugs. And even those aren't perfect.

    I know most these points were covered by AlphaJaguars.

    I also saw that one of the detractors laid out a few interesiting misconceptions.

    Just because you can hear a shot does not mean you have any idea where it came from. Anyone who has spent any time on the "two way" range can attest to that.

    Also, that .308 subsonic Lapua fired through a suppressed rifle would make a terrible and completely unethical hunting catridge at anything more than bow range.

    A standard supersonic hunting cartridge fired through a suppressed rifle will have much of the report removed but will still have a heafty crack as the projectile breaks the sound barrier as it leaves the barrel. Nothing you can do about that.

    Fear of a suppressed hunting rifle in my opinion is just that. It's like fearing the boogie man.

    Allowing an already legal firearm to be used to hunt will do nothing to public safety.

    Those very rare, poor, unfortunate souls accidentally shot during hunting season more than likely never heard the shot or if they did, they heard it after they were hit. Remember, most of the centerfire hunting calibers are supersonic. The bullet gets to its target before the sound does.
    You get out of here with your facts!!

  113. #113
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by Smudge13 View Post
    Hunting with suppressed rifles in England has a long history. It's considered a courtesy to your neighbors.

    Shooting with a suppressed weapon also benefits the shooter because his/her hearing pretection requirement goes down signifigantly.

    Hunting, especially spot and stalk, requires all of your senses to be on point. You will lose a great deal by wearing hearing protection unless you fork out $3-5K for state of the art noise cancelling fitted electronic plugs. And even those aren't perfect.

    I know most these points were covered by AlphaJaguars.

    I also saw that one of the detractors laid out a few interesiting misconceptions.

    Just because you can hear a shot does not mean you have any idea where it came from. Anyone who has spent any time on the "two way" range can attest to that.

    Also, that .308 subsonic Lapua fired through a suppressed rifle would make a terrible and completely unethical hunting catridge at anything more than bow range.

    A standard supersonic hunting cartridge fired through a suppressed rifle will have much of the report removed but will still have a heafty crack as the projectile breaks the sound barrier as it leaves the barrel. Nothing you can do about that.

    Fear of a suppressed hunting rifle in my opinion is just that. It's like fearing the boogie man.

    Allowing an already legal firearm to be used to hunt will do nothing to public safety.

    Those very rare, poor, unfortunate souls accidentally shot during hunting season more than likely never heard the shot or if they did, they heard it after they were hit. Remember, most of the centerfire hunting calibers are supersonic. The bullet gets to its target before the sound does.
    Thank you for this post. This is what I've been asking alphajaguar for.

  114. #114
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post

    I have given kjlued every opportunity to cite any facts and/or statistics he can to support his position.
    Wow, your reading comprehension skills are just not there.

    Let's try this one more time.

    My position is that I like to know when shots are being fired around me, and their general proximity so I can make a decision for myself if I want to remain in the area.

    What other fvcking supporting facts do you need for me me to prove that?

    Geez
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Wow, your reading comprehension skills are just not there.

    Let's try this one more time.

    My position is that I like to know when shots are being fired around me, and their general proximity so I can make a decision for myself if I want to remain in the area.

    What other fvcking supporting facts do you need for me me to prove that?

    Geez
    Well, as I have stated before, I like to have actual FACTS to back up laws with.

    In other words, if a law doesn't do what it claims it does, get rid of it. See the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" and laws against CCW as prime examples.

    As such, your FEELINGS and OPINIONS, which have been shown to be nothing more than unfounded fears of the unknown, are no basis for a law.

    You getting your friends who have the same opinions to let your Reps know that you guys are opposed to this law?

    Because I am making sure mine know I am all for it.

  116. #116
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Well lawty-fvcking-da good for you.

    BTW, fyi not all laws are based on keeping people safe or on facts.
    Many laws are based on FEELINGS and OPINIONS and rightfully so.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Well lawty-fvcking-da good for you.

    BTW, fyi not all laws are based on keeping people safe or on facts.
    Many laws are based on FEELINGS and OPINIONS and rightfully so.
    Man, being wrong on this is really eating you up. You have gone from snide comments, to posting pics with "pithy" sayings, to cursing.

    Maybe you should go ride and take some aggression out on the trails.

  118. #118
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Is that why you are making snide comments?

    Just saying

    But I am glad you know that I am wrong about my personal feelings.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  119. #119
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    I think I should be able to legally smoke dope. Just sayin.

  120. #120
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    I think I should be able to legally smoke dope. Just sayin.
    I agree and I don't smoke it.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  121. #121
    Dig it!
    Reputation: 2bfluid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    712

    Re: "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    You can only do that in the green area, which is just the left side of the grey area. You need a green card to go with your gray card or you're liable to get sniped by a ranger with a suppressor. Then he might take your dope fully into the grey area and smoke it.
    Should you do more trail work?

  122. #122
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,935

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bfluid View Post
    You can only do that in the green area, which is just the left side of the grey area. You need a green card to go with your gray card or you're liable to get sniped by a ranger with a suppressor. Then he might take your dope fully into the grey area and smoke it.
    Too many rules. Colors, colors, colors.

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    I think I should be able to legally smoke dope. Just sayin.
    So do I.

  124. #124
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    Too many rules. Colors, colors, colors.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    315
    Tldr.

  126. #126
    thecentralscrutinizer
    Reputation: mopartodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,939
    Fine with me. I'm not in the woods (riding) during big game seasons anyway. If we are, then we are spooking the game, so why anyone would hunt next to a known MTB trail isn't too smart. I can understand people "wanting to know" there are hunters in the woods, but if they are hunting, especially for big game, you don't even know they are there alot of the time thanks to camo, blinds, tree stands, etc.
    2019 Giant Fastroad Advanced
    2019 Giant Anthem Advanced 1 29
    2020 Giant XTC Advanced 29
    2019 Surly Karate Monkey

  127. #127
    zod
    zod is offline
    Southern Fried mUni
    Reputation: zod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,125
    Wte

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: teddy pendergrass's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    32
    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)-72da7ede65f158e4c51e2a3b676648007b1db709.png
    walkPABA

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Pisgah View Post
    I believe the legislation has had its intended effect: Drive a wedge between otherwise agreeable people.
    And we have a winner!
    Correct - Just another in a loooong line of "wedge issue", and, like so many others, designed to keep regular folks distracted and arguing with each other while the plutocracy (there ain't no democracy) continues to stick it to us in the the you know where, (our "freedom" region). So stop bending over and go outside and ride.

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by zod View Post
    Wte
    You reppin' WorstTrailEver, where gunshots are often heard, or callin' out this thread, son?

  131. #131
    Fence guru
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    740
    I like vaginas

  132. #132
    zod
    zod is offline
    Southern Fried mUni
    Reputation: zod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by jstuhlman View Post
    you reppin' worsttrailever, where gunshots are often heard, or callin' out this thread, son?
    both

  133. #133
    IoC
    IoC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    imbedded
    "embedded," ffs.

  134. #134
    IoC
    IoC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I believe it means what it say is means, and the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms.
    Sounds like you read as well as you write.

    The entire Constitutional "no authority" argument is horseshit handed up by people with no knowledge of Constitutional law.

    First, our rights are suspended constantly in the name of public safety and other reasons. It's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a theater or school, despite the First Amendment.

    Second, precedent is well set for limitation of rights guaranteed. The Amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and can understandably be read many ways, two of which are common. Absolutists say it guarantees you can own any armament, and others interpret it to mean you simply have a right to bear arms, but there's no guarantee of what form they take.

    The Supreme Court's obviously in the latter camp: you're not allowed to own an ICBM.

  135. #135
    IoC
    IoC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by deeptroller123 View Post

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by IoC View Post
    Sounds like you read as well as you write.

    The entire Constitutional "no authority" argument is horseshit handed up by people with no knowledge of Constitutional law.

    First, our rights are suspended constantly in the name of public safety and other reasons. It's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a theater or school, despite the First Amendment.

    Second, precedent is well set for limitation of rights guaranteed. The Amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and can understandably be read many ways, two of which are common. Absolutists say it guarantees you can own any armament, and others interpret it to mean you simply have a right to bear arms, but there's no guarantee of what form they take.

    The Supreme Court's obviously in the latter camp: you're not allowed to own an ICBM.
    Is the word "fire" still in the dictionary?

    Can you, in fact, yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater if there is a fire?

  137. #137
    IoC
    IoC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    Can you, in fact, yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater if there is a fire?
    Derp - I mistyped. It's commonly illegal to falsely yell something like "Fire!" in a theater.

    To be more precise, it's illegal to use speech intended to cause "imminent lawless action," such as a riot.

    Point being: your rights are not absolute, and are suspended all the time for a variety of reasons.

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by IoC View Post
    Derp - I mistyped. It's commonly illegal to falsely yell something like "Fire!" in a theater.

    To be more precise, it's illegal to use speech intended to cause "imminent lawless action," such as a riot.

    Point being: your rights are not absolute, and are suspended all the time for a variety of reasons.
    No, the right to have the word "fire" in your vocabulary IS absolute. What also goes along with that absolute right, is the absolute RESPONSIBILITY to use the word appropriately.

    Maximum individual freedom, maximum individual responsibility. That is the ideal we should be striving for.

  139. #139
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Seriously dude?

    You have no absolute rights to free speech.
    If you did, you could say or print whatever you wanted without any worries of repercussions.

    Go try publishing that you want to kill the president and see what happens.

    And as far as the right to bear arms, it is not absolute and should not be absolute.
    If it was absolute, convicted felons and diagnosed mentally insane people would be allowed to posses fire arms unrestricted. You believe the 2nd amendment means just what it says and should be unrestricted then you believe EVERYONE including felons and the mentally insane should possess guns.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Seriously dude?

    You have no absolute rights to free speech.
    If you did, you could say or print whatever you wanted without any worries of repercussions.

    Go try publishing that you want to kill the president and see what happens.
    You obviously ignore the second have of my statement, so let me make it hared to miss. Maximum individual freedom, MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

    Let me use your example. I can SAY I want to kill the president, BUT I then have to accept the responsibility for the consequences of that.

  141. #141
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Well now you are in semantics.

    A person in a communist country with no freedoms of speech can still say whatever they want. We don't need to have a bill of rights to give us permission to say anything.
    The bill is there to protect that right of speech. Not to give you the freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Well now you are in semantics.

    A person in a communist country with no freedoms of speech can still say whatever they want. We don't need to have a bill of rights to give us permission to say anything.
    The bill is there to protect that right of speech. Not to give you the freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want.
    I will partially agree with you, but will stand by my statement that maximum individual freedom, maximum individual responsibility needs to be our goal.

    As far as what you can/cannot say WRT the 1st Amendment, have you read any of the political pieces from that era? WOW!!! People would go to jail for saying and publishing was was said and printed back then!

  143. #143
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I will partially agree with you, but will stand by my statement that maximum individual freedom, maximum individual responsibility needs to be our goal.
    You don't understand.

    You do have maximum freedom and the responsibility to use that freedom.
    But if you abuse that freedom, you will be punished.

    Absolute freedom of speech which is what you are trying to push for would mean that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want without worries of repercussions.

    No, we should not be striving for that.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    You don't understand.

    You do have maximum freedom and the responsibility to use that freedom.
    But if you abuse that freedom, you will be punished.

    Absolute freedom of speech which is what you are trying to push for would mean that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want without worries of repercussions.

    No, we should not be striving for that.
    You are so far off base from what I am saying it is not even funny.

    How do you possibly not grasp what maximum individual responsibility means? Are you actually as ignorant as your positions in this thread make you appear to be?

  145. #145
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    So enlighten us on your idea of "maximum individual responsibility" is and why we don't already have it?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    So enlighten us on your idea of "maximum individual responsibility" is and why we don't already have it?
    It's a very simple concept that you are very close to grasping, but you keep ignoring the first half of the equation. I will keep using the shouting fire in a crowded theater as an example.

    Maximum individual freedom, maximum individual responsibility means that I have the word "fire" in my vocabulary. It is not taken away from me, it is not taken out of the dictionary, I do not have duct tape over my mouth where I have to prove I won't yell it at the wrong time before I can use it. That is the freedom part.

    The responsibility part means that if I use it inappropriately - such as yelling it in a crowded theater when there is NOT a fire there, I must accept the consequences for using it wrong.

  147. #147
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Well you are right, it is a very simple concept but it is you that are getting close to grasping it.

    So explain why we don't already have it that?
    After all, you said "That is the ideal we should be striving for."

    Also explain why we need a bill of rights to protect that?
    I mean by your definition everyone in the world has absolute freedom of speech and absolute responsibility. Of course, their consequences will vary for varying reasons.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Well you are right, it is a very simple concept but it is you that are getting close to grasping it.

    So explain why we don't already have it that?
    After all, you said "That is the ideal we should be striving for."

    Also explain why we need a bill of rights to protect that?
    I mean by your definition everyone in the world has absolute freedom of speech and absolute responsibility. Of course, their consequences will vary for varying reasons.
    The major reason we are no longer close to that is Progressivism.

  149. #149
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Progressivism is a very broad term but no where in there does it take words away from you, take them out of the dictionary or duct tape your mouth shut.

    So what is your point?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Progressivism is a very broad term but no where in there does it take words away from you, take them out of the dictionary or duct tape your mouth shut.

    So what is your point?
    My point is maybe you should go do some studying on Progressivism, the cancer that is destroying the freedom this country once had. We are a shell of what the Founders created.

    Your answers are there, and will mean more to you if you find them yourself.

  151. #151
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    My point is maybe you should go do some studying on Progressivism, the cancer that is destroying the freedom this country once had. We are a shell of what the Founders created.

    Your answers are there, and will mean more to you if you find them yourself.
    Lol, you are destined for politics because all you do is toss up red herrings and straw man arguments.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Lol, you are destined for politics because all you do is toss up red herrings and straw man arguments.
    Please, enlighten me with the quote that is a strawman argument or a red herring.

  153. #153
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Maybe you should go back and read the thread. Your answers are there, and will mean more to you if you find them yourself.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2
    Sorry to interrupt on the banter guys, but I had to interject a few facts about suppressors. As an FFl holder and former range officer at a large outdoor shooting facility that included a exhibition range, I feel more qualified than most to comment on some of the misconceptions that many people have regarding many firearms and related accessories. My impression is that many people believe what they see in the movies to be factually correct regarding suppressors: with respect to their effectiveness. ANY modern centerfire rifle using standard hunting ammo has a supersonic projectile and thus cannot even come close to being made silent. The "sonic boom"(often referred to as the crack of the bullet) is loud enough that the report will travel farther than the bullet will in any forest. If someone lets loose with a suppressed .308 or 30/06 anywhere near, you will know.

    Videos are not capable of properly demonstrating how a suppressor works, the sound is far less muffled than the videos depict(because of how electronic mic' work). The video presented in this thread for evidence (the .308) clearly states they are using sub sonic ammo(unethical for hunting due to lack of energy and range), there is a good reason for it.

    As stated earlier, suppressors are far more common in Europe which has far more stringent laws than we do. In some countries they are an over the counter item not requiring even a fraction of the hassle and paperwork experienced here in the states. In many areas their use is even encouraged to help combat noise pollution, which I believe is the intended purpose here.

    Suppressors aren't just for Assassins,,, anymore.

    Allright you guys can carry on.

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,022
    All the more reason not to suppress the fire.

Similar Threads

  1. MC60 headshok "stuck" noise on rebound
    By jlself in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-25-2014, 09:04 AM
  2. Bandit 29 - rear suspension "knocking" noise?
    By Earthpig in forum Transition Bikes
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-31-2012, 01:24 PM
  3. Strange "slooshing" noise from rear brake
    By hankscorpio in forum Brake Time
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-10-2012, 05:56 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-25-2012, 07:54 AM
  5. 09 Talas 36 RC2, blown cartridge? Strange Noise "Video"
    By wantadhbike in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-15-2011, 02:51 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.