An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Silencer Business Booms as Deregulation Bill Looms | @HopeSeck @Militarydotcom https://t.co/Q4v7MUUV2p pic.twitter.com/2BPaR0OYI0— RealClearDefense (@RCDefense) January 23, 2017
Silencer Business Booms as Deregulation Bill Looms | @HopeSeck @Militarydotcom https://t.co/Q4v7MUUV2p pic.twitter.com/2BPaR0OYI0
Silencers are legal? Is it not suspicious that anyone would require a silencer? Do people want to protect their homes, their families and themselves in silence?
"Silencers are legal?"Wha????? ;)
Matt, you have to forgive my lack of knowledge regarding US firearms law. It just seemed more than a little strange. I know many countries allow possession of silencers but they are very highly regulated and very difficult to come by, and possession without a permit will result in a long prison sentence. The reason is that there can only be one possible motive for illegally possessing one: murder without immediately drawing attention to the fact. I made the erroneous conclusion that the US would have a similar law, although I see that only 8 out of the 50 states have made possession illegal while in the rest it is treated no different to the firearm itself and not requiring a special permit. Strange that the Sandy Hook mass murderer, or indeed all the mass shooters, didn't take advantage of the silencer laws.
Still makes a lot of noise:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXvMKD7tf9U
Still makes a lot of noise:Indeed -- they're silent only in the movies, except for that bit of "phoopt, phoopt" noise.
There is a very good reason to permit silencers for domestic use. Noise suppression for hunters and target shooters. Exposure to sudden sharp noise results in deterioration of hearing. We don't ban guns because they can be misused. We shouldn't be banning silencers because they can be misused either.Critics can object that shooters can use ear protection, which is true. But shooters would much prefer using silencers since wearing ear protection is a hassle in comparison. That's a mater for debate.This is a different issue from banning ownership of military equipment for which there is no evident civilian use.I do think that provision should be made for civilians to use military equipment in controlled situation if they choose and can pay the costs. This would be relatively easy to set up and supervise.
Tom, elsewhere I came across the same reasons that you've just given for allowing silencers: ear protection and hunters not wishing to disturb the sounds of nature with a huge bang, amongst other questionable explanations for silencers. But it is nevertheless an unusual state of affairs. If someone wants to shoot, they should put up with the noise. What's happened to rugged Americanism? Have Americans suddenly developed soft ears? Liberals should be pushing the rugged Americanism agains the GOPhers who want to pander to the delicate and soft-eared Americans of today! I don't think there's any reason to ban firearms. Military-style weapons are another matter entirely. Pistols, hunting rifles and shotgun are perfectly reasonable. Is there a reasonable explanation why a civilian should possess a Navy SEAL-style assault machine gun? I can't think of one. The constitution isn't being infringed if there are restrictions on the types of firearm that can be obtained and for all who possess firearms to obtain permits. That seems perfectly reasonable and perfectly in keeping with the second amendment, all of which may now in fact be the majority opinion in the US. "I do think that provision should be made for civilians to use military equipment in controlled situation..."A civilian army can cater for that! Two years national service for all, although try selling that to a generation who has grown up believing that someone else should fight the nation's wars while they play chickenhawk and wave the flag.
I am sympathetic to noise control, since a lost some hearing in my right ear, probably from a 5" naval gun. As a shooter (NRA sharpshooter and hunter) in my younger days, I appreciate gun uses desire for noise suppression. Of course there are tradeoffs to just about everything.Now the push is to end cash as a crime deterrent.Where does all this end?
Matt: "Still makes a lot of noise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXvMKD7tf9U"Shattering my illusions. That's what happens to a generation brought up on films and not the military, which is yet another reason for a civilian army! I'd happily spend a couple of years doing national service if in the process it would cut the military down to size and ensure wars of choice are done away with, rather than wars of absolute necessity. And if wars of choice can't be done away with, at least we can have the satisfaction of seeing the children of warmongering parliamentarians coming home in body bags.
Tom: "Where does all this end?"As of now, ask Italians of a certain vintage. We can faintly discern what the future is, and it's not bright.
As a non-USA citizen I find this sort of news curious, weird and disturbing at the same time too.I can see the argument in favour of them but it still weird as fuck. Anyway I never got the fetiche of Americans with guns. I support ownership of guns, or at least I'm not against it, but the fetish of stuff like this is beyond my comprehension, I mean, "silencers, wtf".Is like allowing having purchase of machineguns and military grade fire arms, it makes zero sense.
"I can see the argument in favour of them but it still weird as fuck."Thanks, Ignacio, for making my point a million times better than I did.
"As a non-USA citizen I find this sort of news curious, weird and disturbing at the same time too."LOL... that's why I post it.... ROW is like "huh?..." ;)
I do think that provision should be made for civilians to use military equipment in controlled situation if they choose and can pay the costs.Unless you're talking about a game like laser tag but played between one-percenters with live ammo, you are out of your gourd.
Now the push is to end cash as a crime deterrent.Is that the official line or did you make it up? They want to eliminate cash because they can't control it - especially in terms of tax. The rich have offshore tax havens, foreign investment credits, trusts, .... more dodges than you can count. Eliminating cash won't bother them one bit. Cash is the only tax break for the poor, who get virtually no service or representation. Debt collection of digital currency will insure that the poor starve to death as every cent they "own" is digitally snatched away by creditors. This is a return to the mining companies of the early 1900's. You work for the company, get paid in company chit which is only good at the company store and which is never enough to get you out of the hole. The very last thing I want is some government bureaucrat / corporation stooge reaching into my wallet.
And while I'm on a rant, economic crime is institutionalized in this country. And those who commit it are exempt from prosecution let alone investigation.
Matt, what does ROW mean?
Rest of the world.
Unless you're talking about a game like laser tag but played between one-percenters with live ammo, you are out of your gourd.National guards train on weekends. They have firing ranges. It's simple to provide civilians with the opportunity to use military weapons safely.
Now the push is to end cash as a crime deterrent.Is that the official line or did you make it up?Official line. But tax havens.yJoseph Stiglitz: US Should Dump Cash And Move To Digital Currenc/Quantifying the scale of the problem, Stiglitz said: “You can put it into the context of one of the big issues being discussed in Davos this year – the backlash against globalization, the darker side of globalization … The lack of transparency in global financial markets, the secrecy havens that the Panama Papers exposed, just reinforced what we already knew … There is a global framework for both corruption and tax evasion and tax avoidance.“The fact that you can hide ill-gotten gains so easily in these secrecy havens really provides incentives for people to engage in this activity as they can get the economic returns and then enjoy the benefits of those returns. If there were not these secrecy havens then the benefits from engaging in these kinds of illicit activity would be much diminished.”One of the countries that has not done enough to fight corruption is the US, Stiglitz went on to say, and one remedy could be to phase out cash and embrace digital currencies.“I believe very strongly that countries like the United States could and should move to a digital currency,” he said, “so that you would have the ability to trace this kind of corruption. There are important issues of privacy, cyber-security, but it would certainly have big advantages.”
Digital currency isn't going to fix a system where the rich pay a smaller percentage in tax on hundreds of millions in annual income than I do just for FICA. Tax dodging (among other things) has been enshrined into laws that benefit those who own the lawmakers. How quickly the Panama Papers faded from view, as if it was the only tax haven and everything has been fixed now. That's the real economy, and it's all digital, nobody is shipping train cars of cash around.
Post a Comment