I don’t mind having controls there. I don’t like the how Oregon is choosing to implement controls. If I lived in Oregon I’d oppose the how not the what.
The article’s reference to Missouri’s repealed presents another way. Missouri had a rule that required presenting proof of a background check. That allowed someone to get a short term license to buy/borrow guns from private individuals. With technology it wouldn’t be all that hard to have a voice response/web site to check current status of that permit if something changes. That simplifies the process (you no longer need to coordinate having both parties physically in place with the dealer) and likely saves cash since the dealer can be expected to charge for their time, each and every transfer. Oregon at least gets credit for having thought of exceptions to loan weapons while hunting and at ranges.
A suppressor eliminates the part of the noise coming from the muzzle. It does nothing with the supersonic crack from the bullet. The noise is dramatically reduced, particularly for the hunter themself. It’s useful for a lot more types of hunting than varminting.
Norway has extremely strict regulation on handguns, and using the “self defense” argument for acquiring a gun is a sure-fire way to have your application rejected. OTOH, getting a licence for a hunting or sporting long gun is quite easy, and suppressors for rifles are not regulated. Go to any rifle range, and at least some 10%, if not more, of the hunting rifles you see will be suppressed. For two good reasons (the hunter’s left ear and the hunter’s right ear)
The purpose of suppressors is to reduce noise. I don’t know how in the same sentence you acknowledge that they reduce noise, but then conclude there is no point to it.
The quote you reference lists three things:
[ul]
[li]reducing hearing loss[/li][li]proximity to residential areas[/li][li]varmint hunters[/li][/ul]
But you conclude your initial declaration that isolates the benefits to varmint hunters to be true, without acknowledging the other items mentioned in what you quoted, as well as the previous statement that suppressors do in fact accomplish their goal - reducing noise.
Hey, I’ve got an idea! Why don’t pro-gun people write sensible gun regulations and get them passed, thereby pre-empting us whacko libruls who don’t know what we’re talking about with respect to guns anyway?
Good idea! They have in 40 out of 50 states that are shall issue, and in 6 of those the states have enacted constitutional carry. Seems sensible to me.
I’ve instituted a similar sensible alcohol-control measure in my life, in which I drink as much as I friggin’ want any time I want, and damn what anyone else thinks.
I mean, if that’s not control, I don’t know what is.
in deference to Bone’s notion of “control,” I’ve stated that I will drink as much as I want any time I want and that includes while driving through a school zone next to a church on Easter Sunday. And fuck all you namby-pamby anti-alcohol pussies because that’s my God-given right!
Oh right - what was the rate of homicide being committed by people legally carrying concealed vs the incidence of people dying in alcohol related vehicle accidents?
But by all means, drink as much as you want at home.
If Americans did not have the right to carry assault weapons when shopping at Kroger then what would stop the King of England from coming in, filling his cart up with dozens of items, and paying for them at one of the ten items or less checkout lanes?
