Seems like a no-brainer.

I don't see myself as monolithic. My pro-RKBA stance is not closely embraced by the Democratic Party but the right involved is acknowledged. There are aspects of the party platform which I would change.

I am pro-liberty and freedom and see the most valuable role for government to be ensuring the rights of individuals are respected.

I am quite "liberal" on many issues and less so on others.

For example, I did not like the medical coverage available 10 years ago, I'm not thrilled with the ACA but it's better, I favor government medical for all.

I like the idea of making BGCs available to private individuals who want to sell their guns.

A question for you: What's you position on the OP topic of removing suppressors from the NFA restricted list?

and often misused. To me "liberal" is someone who supports individual liberty, as opposed to conservative or progressive.
Liberals are individualists, while conservatives and progressives are collectivists.
There are a lot of "conservatives" that are really classical liberals and don't know it.

lib·er·tar·i·an
1. an adherent of libertarianism.
2.Philosophy - a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

lib·er·tar·i·an·ism
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.


lib·er·al
1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
synonyms: progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical
2.concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.

I have no idea where you got it, but it describes neither accurately.
libertarians at the most extreme are anarchists. Some are right wing some are left wing. Noam Chomsky is an example of the latter.
https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=153694

Classical liberals are more likely to support EPA, some kind of universal health care, etc than libertarians.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarian

it doesn't mean it is correct or not over generalized.
you also skipped an important line

Please explain how liberalizing regulations on something that does not create externalities is illiberal?
If silencers are unregulated in UK, New Zealand, France most of Scandinavia, why would it be an issue here? Public ranges in France require them, as do some hunting areas in Norway and Finland.

Maybe you missed this in #6: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172201978#post6
I don't see myself as monolithic. My pro-RKBA stance is not closely embraced by the Democratic Party but the right involved is acknowledged. There are aspects of the party platform which I would change.

I am pro-liberty and freedom and see the most valuable role for government to be ensuring the rights of individuals are respected.

I am quite "liberal" on many issues and less so on others.

For example, I did not like the medical coverage available 10 years ago, I'm not thrilled with the ACA but it's better, I favor government medical for all.

I like the idea of making BGCs available to private individuals who want to sell their guns.

A question for you: What's you position on the OP topic of removing suppressors from the NFA restricted list?

or they would proudly reveal their politics. Just sayin'.

...not answering questions that are uncomfortable. Better to run away.

It silences nothing, it merely slows down the velocity of the escaping gas.

How proud you must be......

...doesn't want to allow mufflers on guns?

...which make the gun not fire.

He/she has to go after Democrats. Good strategy to pull ourselves from the abyss.

Given the havoc they've wreaked upon Democrats electoral chances in recent years, I'd say that our
responses have been more than polite-and far more gentle than they deserve, IMO.

A silencer, suppressor, or whatever you want to call it is usually the difference between 110dB and 90dB. Still loud. I'd recommend ear plugs just in case.

I have yet to see a cop in America whose duty pistol is fitted with a silencer. Maybe in SWAT, but that's about it.

Mounting silencers on hunting rifles might not be such a bad idea, especially when teaching kids how to shoot for the very first time in a sane, responsible environment. Finland has pretty tough gun control laws, but silencers for hunting rifles are unrestricted over there.

I've fired a pistol with and without a silencer courtesy of a fellow Democrat, and I thank him for the opportunity.

No real endorsement from me in this post one way or another - just some observations to keep in mind.

"I have yet to see a cop in America whose duty pistol is fitted with a silencer." is $. At approx. $3-400 per, that's a lot of scratch for a small, not counting a large dept. to lay out. A holstered sidearm, with suppressor attached, is considerably bulkier, considering all the other gear they are carrying.

as demand for suppressors is heavily restricted which limits free market competition.

free them up, competition increases as more companies will enter the market and increase supply.

Not sure of the quality, but it is a hell of a lot less complicated to build than a $200 rifle.

I'd like to have a couple. Shooting instruction is easier, as the bulky hearing protection isn't needed, esp. with .22.

I hope it passes ASAP.

Where noise suppressors are bought over-the-counter, and in some countries are required for hunting.

when it supports their particular project.