Ironically in the Rittenhouse trial the prosecutor was complaining that he used standard fmj's because of over penetration. It doesn't matter what ammo is used, they will still try and paint you as the enemy.
@@binyamj lol ya he definitely did that too. But Kyle used full metal jacket rounds, and Binger said that he was being irresponsible for using them because they could go through people and hit others. I'm paraphrasing of course, but that was the general. The whole thing is just ridiculous.
As a person who was involved in a real life self defense situation back in 2014 here in Frisco, TX where 4 robbers broke into our home that we had just built from the ground up and only live there for about a month. I used my AR without a suppressor during this self defense situation and let me say, my ears and hearing was fine because of the adrenaline dump my body was going through. But as for my wife and my 3 kids??? Their hearing was damaged for a good 3 months. My wife had tinnitus (ringing of the hear) for about 3 months, while my 3 kid had tinnitus for about a month. I on the other hand wasn't going through any tinnitus because of the adrenaline dump. The worst part of the shooting was the fact that my wife and 3 kids ended up having hearing problems for a few months. If I could go back and do everything over again, I would have gotten a form 1 suppressor for my AR, or would have used my PCC shooting 124 grain 9mm hollow points. I now have about 10 form 1's and every rifle expect for my 3 Gun, USPSA PCC all have suppressors on them. This is a PSA for everyone, if you are single, then you don't need to use a suppressor, BUT if you do have family members, kids, wife, etc... THEN get a suppressor if your state allows NFA items, if your state does not allow NFA items, get yourself an PCC. 9mm rounds won't damage your ears like a unsuppressed .223/5.56 or any rife round.
I have a question sir, did your AR get confiscated by police? And we’re you able to get it back without much headache? I’ve heard/seen multiple stories about people’s legally owned firearms being taken and never given back to them even though they were the innocent party.
@@iFknLoveSwat considering that there is no record of such an event in 2014 or any other year and it's an event that one would consider big news... I call bullshit.
People owning NFA items as an ”investment” are the biggest reason the NFA will never be overturned. Their best interest is for them to be more and MORE restricted.
it would be an investment anyway because of the overall cost of an automatic gun in manufacture. Quit spouting shit when you have no clue what you're talking about.
@@cntrshot1 Talk about not knowing what you're talking about... Considering that all of the automatic weapons that aren't dealer samples have already been manufactured, no one is making those. So there is no manufacturing. You're an idiot. NFA items are not anymore difficult to manufacture than non-NFA items. If a short barrel designates an item as NFA, how is that anymore difficult to manufacture than a longer barrel? How difficult are suppressors to make? Come off your bullshit before trying to correct someone else who's opinion is valid and variable.
Simple answer.....yes. They need to be (and be seen as) more commonplace items. Especially suppressors. They are safety devices and should be treated as such. There is nothing about a suppressor when FACTS are weighed that makes the gun more dangerous. We deserve what we allow. They govern only with consent.
I think all guns made after 2020 should have to have suppressors. They are worried about everyone’s health and all maybe they should be concerned with folks hearing damage from shooting guns. If they all had suppressors wouldn’t they be safer effectively…
Tell that to a seasoned prosecutor and pack of liberal jurors. Tell them about our ear safety and our rights see if care. I myself dont want to be that guinea pig because there is a point to prove.
Suppressors are regulated because of Depression-era poachers, just like SBRs and SBSs are regulated because handguns were _intended to be regulated_ in NFA 1934. It's all infringement.
I am former US Army, and have permanent hearing damage as a result. If you have a suppressor / silencer I highly recommend you use it when firing any firearm inside a structure. Unless you want to have permanent ringing (tinnitus) and or loss of hearing for the rest of your life as a result. Not just for yourself, but for all of your family members as well within the structure at the time. I would love to see suppressors / silencers not only made nonNFA, and therefore cheaper, but made into a common accessory included as an option with any purchased firearm. A suppressor / silencer can save your hearing. And yet they still remain unavailable to me and others because of insane legislation and exorbitant prices due to unconstitutional and deliberate taxation to keep poorer people from having access to a simple safety device.
I've asked about the reason suppressors are NFA and the only reply I've gotten is that they can keep a firearm, when shot, from tripping a city's gunshot detection system. That seems like horseshit to me. Anyone else have a good reason that they are NFA? When's the last gang-bang shooting that occurred with a suppressor to avoid alerting the police? Which brings us full circle to the age-old question/statement, "if the bad guys have it, why can't I?"...I just don't think bad guys carry weapons with suppressors...
@@jonjonr6 I have no personal direct knowledge, but have been told large cities have audio systems for "hearing" gun shots. I know I've heard radio talk show hosts in Milwaukee discuss crimes detected on these systems...but again, I have no direct personal knowledge...Commenters on youtube have also told me that NFA suppressors are NFA because they can defeat these systems....
@@jfal104 found some info on eff. Apparently the leasing system is from a company called Shot Spotter. There are concerns of privacy, as the microphones are constantly recording, and when something resembling gunshots are refried, a human has to review the sounds and confirm. I saw a map of Minneapolis as an example of shirts for gunshots, along with lawsuits in Massachusetts and California where prosecutors we're requesting the records to submit as evidence to convict defendants of other crimes not related to gun violence. So, yes, apparently it's a real thing. Not surprising. We are not free. We live in a surveillance state.
@@jfal104 Silencers (what appears in the NFA and was the name Maxim used, although suppressor is more accurate) are on the NFA because the NFA was written by politicians and the NRA in response to the gangsters of the '30s. The NRA didn't see any practical, reasonable reason that gun owners should have machine guns, silencers, short-barrel shotguns, etc. and the legislation was written to reflect that. The fact that they were wrong is not likely to be corrected by politicians or bureaucrats.
Depends on the item. Suppressor yes, NFA full auto firearm...I would say no simply for the fact you may never get it back in the event you did have to use it.
Inside my home I will certainly have the suppressor mounted. Unlikely to have the time to spend seeking hearing protection. I realize its still concussive and loud but a full on exposure to full blast should be avoided
@@jonmeray713 Beats losing my ear drums. If they're in my house its justified, it wont be very long...either way shorter than going into the forever box.w
@@daflea66 trust me, your hearing loss would be minimal to the point you'd hardly notice. In fact, the ringing in your ears would likely trigger a boner every time you went to bed smiling thinking about the contorted faces of the men who will be your slaves in the afterlife.
suppressors or SBR's= YES transferables= NO, unless you're so rich that you dont mind risking never getting that $30k+ gun back. if transferables were the same price as a normal gun then yeah its a no brainer, but sadly they are not.
I think what needs to happen in court, on public TV (would have been nice if it happened during The Rittenhouse trial) is that someone has to make fun of these prosecutors. Openly mock them. Say something like"of course I was using hollow point bullets, you don't know that they are designed to be more effective. Do you not want me to use the most effective tool for the job?". Just ridicule them, have the witness do it, have the defense attorney do it. Mock them for not knowing anything about firearms, or for intentionally trying to sway an jury using twisted firearm facts.... Do it so publicly that no stupid prosecutor would ever try it again.
@@videodistro pray tell what Twitt are you referring to? Because no one stops them because of fear, they get away with it your statement is evidence of that. Please don't be coming insulting because other people have different opinions from you. Your opinion is not the only one, and you may just be wrong... In the Kyle Rittenhouse case you certainly would have been.
What's the point having something you're afraid to use? Of course I'd use one if I had one. Nothing I own will be registered though, so it's a moot point.
If you break this down and unpack it, my thinking goes in the following sequence. 1- The best gun/weapon/warrior-spirit attitude you can have is the one you are carrying at the moment of combat. 2-If you know that there will be blood, don't go. 3- If you must ,then take a rifle and some friends with rifles. 4-If you drop the hammer on someone, than you better be damn skippy. 5-You will not know what you will do at the decisive moment, but train, train, and train some more. 6-For every ten dollars spent on weapons and the gear, spend a dollar on decent doors and windows. 7- Adopt a security routine for your home, car, and family. 8- Get a dog. The dog shit will be worth it that one time he save your ass. 9-Study the law and have at least one on speedial. 10-Remember the K.I.S.S.A.S.S. principle. Keep It Simple, Safe. Avoid Stupid Situations. Bonus rule. Don't worry. When shit happens it will be a day later and a block away from where you were. Most people are decent folks and if you show respect and courtesy, than that usually what you have in return. I spent 34 years taking care of sick people from all walks of life and I found if you approach each and every one with respect and courtesy, even the scumbags, then most of the time they respond in kind.
Worth the dogshit, F'in right. Mine is taking me for walks every day, nothing like 2 1/2 miles with a backpack for a 64 year old. Oh, you mean as an alarm and possible defensive ally. Yes on that as well, nothing gets people off the porch faster than hearing my 80 pound dog bare his teeth from behind a closed door.
John Lovells “I want all my neighbors to hear” is not really the smartest. You don’t really want some random person that just hears shooting calling police cause who knows what they are saying to dispatch and then what dispatch relays to responding officers from that, determines how they are showing up. YOU, ideally want to be the one to call when the threat is stopped.
I wouldn't grab a machine gun, if I even had one. But a silencer seems to be very practical for defense. Who wouldn't wanna not ruin their hearing. I know a slick lawyer wouldn't see it that way.
Before that damn boating accident, i was planning on running a can on the AR that was my primary home defense weapon. Now all i have is a 12g maverick 88 security and a smith & wesson 686+
I literally just had this conversation with a coworker. What would an average person do in that situation, an average everyday person doesn’t have a machine gun, at least usually. A jury will think how they would handle the situation, that’s how the jury works
Because of the media on this topic I'd use a ruger #1 falling block single shot action... chambered in .416 remington magnum pretty sure it'll stop an intruder instantly
i have mixed thoughts on this. I have shot my fair share indoors and it is not pleasant to shoot without ear pro indoors. Especially when you are woken up in the middle of the night. Having a suppressor in that situation would be nicer than disorienting yourself and having your ears ringing from discharging your firearm.
We should not even have to ask the question. You life is threatened...a tank round should be legal. What we have to admit...our 2nd amendment right isnt about a single threat or intruder. Its about protecting ourselves against government. I dont care if your a felon or a priest. Its your right to defend your life at all cost. With frying pan or a grenade.
One two Eric’s waiting for you… Three four he’s crouched behind the door… Five six you better know who is on that Crucifix… Seven eight he stays up late… Nine ten you won’t make it to the State Pen!
It probably doesn't matter much. Once you are involved in any SD situation, standard protocol is for law enforcement to "temporarily hold" all of the firearms in your possession while determining the legal technicalities. Not a very streamlined process to get them back once taken, esp. if it goes through lengthy litigation.
This is a well known thing and criminals know this and will hit the same place more than once because they know that a tool has been removed when the cops came !
As somebody with hearing loss, I intend to protect what I have remaining. I have filed paperwork to get suppressors for our home defense firearms. In the meantime, just as I would prefer to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, my hearing would be an acceptable loss to preserve the life of myself or my loved ones.
If you use a suppressed firearm in self defense I think the police should allow you to detach and keep your NFA item before taking your firearm into evidence.
I was looking for a mag fed 10g semi(cant afford full auto obviously) and i didnt see any on any sites.. there could be some out there though. Itd be a sweet gun
@@finchrollah8656 I dont know of any off the top of my head, that would be pretty sweet. I personally want different type shotguns for different gauges, I have a 12 gauge pump and a single shot 410, I want a mag fed semi 20 gauge and a double barrel 10 gauge maybe a 16 gauge bolt action, we'll see what I want after I have all those shotgun wise.
How to protect your hearing. Have a pair of muffs beside your defensive weapon. Y'all store extra mags, a knife and whatever else, if you have time to grab that, you have time to put on a pair of muffs. I do get most people, myself included do feel like having a blown out ear drum is better than being dead... But again, if you have let's say a battle belt next to your bed, put a pair of muffs with it. You can still hear what's going on around you with them on and as well you can bypass the bullshit of buying a suppressor. Your neighbors may not like you, but they are probably going to be the ones to call the cops if you don't get to it first. Also, try to catch it on camera if you can with your phone so that way there's less confusion with the cops. If you have someone who's brave enough to stand behind you, have them hold the phone or camera and catch the footage.
Dumb.. if you put muffs on how the helll are you going to keep situational awareness and hear the intruder(s) reaching the last corner before your bedroom or kids bedroom. Please use your brain before commenting.
Also, catch them on camera with your phone? 😂 DUMB! While you or your partner has a phone in hand recording, the intruders will have their hands around both your necks.. you keep recording, I’m sure the homicide detectives will find the video and charge them with murder for putting both of you in the ground. Please use your brain before commenting.
Suppressed sbr is the way to go. 556 tends to not blast through all the houses in the neighborhood so its a good choice but it's so damn loud out of an sbr the suppressor is mandatory.
And if they somehow have any idea it might have been, and you removed it before the popo arrive......... Guaranteed to be used to prosecute you. Tampering with evidence.
I think it depends on where you live but for me, I would never use them for two reasons. One, because of the legal battle you'll have to deal with, as mentioned in the video. Two, any time the police take something, you almost never get it back. It always winds up disappearing somewhere and I'm almost certain that'll happen in the case of any firearm. I have firearms built out for that specific purpose, so that they're as close to stock as possible, but have the necessary function upgrades to get the job done. Something that's not a heavy investment, but will still get the job done.
You should be able to use any means to protect yourself inside your home and on your problem. You are protecting yourself by using a sound suppressor if you have to shoot indoors. Firing a firearm inside of your home will cause hearing damage.
I have done jury duty in a murder trial with self defense situation issues in it. It was informative, shocking and educational. I saw the prosecutor do exactly that with a Beretta 92 9mm, waving it around in the court room with the “Saddam Hussein” narrative, which was disgusting.
Is it worth losing your NFA items, YES. My family's safety and mine are more important than the best tool for the job. Would it suck if your NFA items were damaged or lost, well yeah but not nearly as much as hurting my own family in the process of trying to protect them. In court I would argue that I want the best and most effective way of stopping a threat from harming my family or my self, and I would make it a point to show/PROVE that everything I owned and used was all LEAGL to possess, and that my actions were justified under law, and since everything I did was lawful there was no law broken to be charged with. Like they were saying in the video, they will do everything they can to paint a picture of you being the bad guy because of what you used. All that is needed is a good lawyer that can articulate the argument that you have not broken any laws, and therefor can't be charged legally with committing any crime. The NFA is shameful, how can they discern a difference in the lawful ability to own any firearm with the ability to own a "NFA" item? You would think it goes without saying that if you can legally possess a firearm, how can they make any other judgment against you owning a legal "NFA" item? It's moronic to think that you need to pass a totally different background check process than it does for you to obtain any other firearm, It's simply a registry and taxation against your second amendment right's which I thought was suppose to be illegal.
Suppressor yes, sbr sure, but something that’s automatic, I’d say no. And not because I think it’s overkill and shouldnt be used, but because those are so limited already and would hate to have them locked up in some evidence locker. Save them for a bigger domestic threat.
Had to watch this because I registered my sbr to carry on duty because of the wishy washy brace deal with the atf even though I’ve talked to atf agents that say they don’t give a crap. First off I don’t trust the atf for obvious reasons and wouldn’t want to give a defense attorney anything against me.
In a gun fight having a noise suppressed weapon to use is an advantage as loud blasts decrease your hearing which has to be at its zenith in a gun fight. I saw officers in WW2 photos were equipped with Thompson subs and belts to carry extra mags. Eventually places like Cologne in WW2 had at least one GI slinging a Browning 30 cal to his shoulder and walking while strafing the area ahead of him and eventually hitting a car. Two bullets are better than one.
I get where they are coming from however its up to you to determine what battles you want to fight in court. NFA items have their place in SHTF or the "boogaloo" but for home defense its just another obstacle you have to overcome where as something like a plane old pump shotgun to lever gun is more than capable of defending your life and its far harder to demonize in court because they are always looking for an Anti 2A victory in court so giving them the least amount of ammo in said court battle is more ideal.
Should you use a NFA item to defend yourself? Trick question, there should be no such thing as a NFA item and people should use what they feel is the best tool for the job.
I’d use a suppressor for self defense, in my home. I live in a castle doctrine state, if someone kicks down my door at the end of the day they are breaking and entering. But I would not carry an NFA item in my car or person.
@@nedrain9044 Overall state police leaning unfortunately does predict local Law Enforcement…Where I live, I would have a good chance of recovering a weapon…Travel 10 miles north and the odds drop dramatically.
@@nedrain9044, yes, the laws in some states require that a firearm taken by police after a deadly force incident must be returned in the event that the user is not charged, cleared of charges, or acquitted in a trial (not convicted). Most (all?) of those are so-called red states.
No if it's a transferable machine gun. That will just enter the ATFs reference collection. But all else is fair game. The registry is closed for machine guns.
I applaud your video.. but.. at the end of the day a good shoot is a good shoot and a bad one is a bad one. If someone breaks into your house, chances are that never gets to a prosecutor.. Obviously exceptions exist to that.. I would have 0 problem using an nfa item to protect myself and my house.
The real problem here is that people are apprehensive about using a legally owned suppressor because they are worried about the implications of using a federally controlled firearm for self defense. They’re not trying to be some assassin. They simply don’t want to blow their eardrums out if they use a 5.56 SBR /AR pistol inside of their home. I just personally don’t want my family and myself to be completely deaf after I defend my home from jackasses who didn’t care about my family or home when they broke in to steal stuff and cause us great harm or death.
Practically speaking, I'd say "no". In a defensive shooting, the weapon becomes "evidence". Which means you won't see it again for a while. If ever. When you do get it back, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest "playing with it" happens frequently with nice firearms in police evidence. Everyone says it never happens, but why do clean guns come back dirty, with different optics, slings removed, etc. Also, no promise that it will be returned in the same condition- rust! This is a reason to use a decent but not a great firearm for defense. Also, NFA creates authorized user rules- yes, charging you at that point is entrapment. But this is the ATF.
An Indiana man in his 80s killed an intruder half his age at his front door. The prosecutor didn't file charges but he kept the man's .38 revolver since there is no statute of limitations on homicide and he was able to "get a gun off the street".
