Sweet Deal
Any readers out there who are contemplating their first NFA purchase (like me) should be aware of this sweet deal: A Walther P22 with a TAC 65 Sound Suppressor and adapter for $398.
With an additional two bills for the illegal tax of a right paid to the Treasury (AKA, the NFA tax), cost is $598 + transfer fees.
April 21st, 2004 at 10:31 am
Very pretty. Ignorant ol’ me thought such things were completely illegal.
April 21st, 2004 at 4:18 pm
Why does anybody besides a Mafia hit man need one of these? What am I missing?
April 21st, 2004 at 4:33 pm
What’s need got to do with it?
Seriously, suppressors are used quite often in other countries just to be considerate of your neighbors (NZ, Switzerland come to mind). They even have suppressor only firing ranges. In those countries, suppressors don’t have the stigma they here.
Suppressors were regulated under the 1934 NFA because people used them to illegally hunt game on federal land during the depression, not because they were used in hits.
April 21st, 2004 at 4:58 pm
Ok, but who hunts with a silenced .22? And who needs to be target shooting in their suburban backyard where it might bother neighbors?
April 21st, 2004 at 5:12 pm
Geez, Bubba. Do I have to check with you to make sure I really “need” something every time I want to do it? Who made YOU the arbiter of need? Why should somebody have to demonstrate to you a need to do something?
Tell you what: You’re right. Nobody needs this.
Your move.
April 21st, 2004 at 7:28 pm
In Finland, and probably elsewhere in Europe, suppressed rifles are legal for hunting. In England, where you need reference letters from your doctor and pastor to get a firearms license required for high-end air rifles, suppressors are standard on such rifles.
Wisconsin is a Class III state, but the word is that neither my police chief nor sherrif will sign ATF paperwork. I have a shooting range on the third floor. It is currently used only with air rifles, but the bullet trap is rated for .22s. The echo up there overwhelms basic earplugs; a suppressor would let us get in a lot more plinking.
April 21st, 2004 at 10:04 pm
And who needs to be target shooting in their suburban backyard where it might bother neighbors?
That’s why i want to get one. I don’t need to but i do want to and, last i checked, i was at least under the illusion that i was free.
April 21st, 2004 at 11:01 pm
SKB: maybe not suburban, but rural, out in the county where discharging a firearm is legal. I live in the county, but it’s a subdivision with lots of other houses, and no backstop, so I don’t shoot, but sometimes wish I lived somewhere I could. Overall, though, my preference is live somewhere with sidewalks and parks.
April 22nd, 2004 at 10:37 am
You guys are funny. One innocent question and you go all Second Amendment on me. See, this is part of the gun PR problem. Every simple question isn’t an assault on liberties and the American way. Sheesh.
April 22nd, 2004 at 10:47 am
you go all Second Amendment on me.
Have to remember that one. I sense a meme coming.
Actually, what I take issue with is the characterization that needing something should be the basis for being allowed to have it. After all, I don’t need free speech.
April 22nd, 2004 at 2:07 pm
OK, let me try again. What “purpose” does a silenced .22 serve? If you live in such a densly populated area that the noise would bother someone you shouldn’t be using it there. Even if you did, wouldn’t a silencer change the ballistics and sighting so that practicing with it would not be of much use, so again, what purpose does it serve? But actually, I don’t really give a shit about silencers one way or another, so no need to answer. Apparently every question is an assault on liberties, etc. I get it. But you guys are losing some of us guys who want to be on your side on gun issues with the escalating “I don’t need an A-bomb but I want one so I have the right to own one” logic, which is the natural progression of your argument. Sorry, I’ll stop poking my nose where it doesn’t belong.
April 22nd, 2004 at 2:29 pm
Bubba, i’ve tried to answer your purpose question by telling you that it’s more convenient at ranges, more considerate to people who may be within earshot, etc. It eliminates the need for hearing protection is another. But at the end of the day, my answer is because it’s fucking cool. It’s neat. It’s a new toy.
i read a recent article on how many animal control units were going to silenced 22s for animal control to keep from disrupting urban areas. Other than that, and general niftiness, you got me.
And silencers do affect ballistics but not to the point where a gun is completely without inaccurate. We’re talking a few MOA. In fact, there many silenced ruger 10/22s on the market that put 10 through the same hole
Apparently every question is an assault on liberties, etc. I get it.
Point taken but I think you’ll see the assault on liberties approach grow. After all, gun owners have been subjugated to extensive unconstitutional regulation recently. No wonder it has escalated to the point where legitimate questions are viewed as attacks. Who can blame us?
But you guys are losing some of us guys who want to be on your side on gun issues with the escalating “I don’t need an A-bomb but I want one so I have the right to own one” logic, which is the natural progression of your argument.
I hope not but I think you’re right to an extent. gun folks are losing some of the moderate support they’ve had because when you talk about silencers and assault weapons, mainstream folks view you some McVeigh nut job who wants to shoot up abortion clinics. It’s a pity but I blame most of it on the media’s representation of such items (particularly assault weapons).
And no one is advocating having an A-Bomb.
Sorry, I’ll stop poking my nose where it doesn’t belong.
Poke away, I don’t mind.