The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Firearms Suppressors should be removed from the NFA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,229 times Debate No: 37000
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




First round accept.

Firearm suppressors should be removed from the National Firearms Act. They should not be regulated in any way that makes it difficult or bothersome for the average law abiding gun owner to obtain.

I propose the $200 tax stamp, the ridiculous Class III paperwork and waiting periods be removed all together.

BOP is on CON to prove that they should remain regulated or made illegal all together.



Thank you for starting this debate, never has the issue of gun control been more prevalent in the United States than in the wake of the horrors of gun violence that dominates the news with each event.

I will start by making a few definitions:
"Firearm Suppressors" - Any device that reduces the amount of sound produced when a fire are is operated.
"Removed from the National Firearms Act" - Stricken from the aforementioned act and therefore be permitted to be sold, traded and created without restriction on availability or price.

I look forward to debating you. Have a pleasant and civilized debt ate.
Debate Round No. 1


I accept your definitions.

“... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” 2nd Amnd.

When the NFA was put in place and to this day “infringes” on our rights to own and operate small arms as protected in the 2nd Amnd.

Suppressors are not “illegal” but they are very difficult and bothersome to obtain.

Under the NFA you must pay a $200 tax stamp for EACH suppressor. It’s not a one-time deal. For an accessory for a firearm to cost about as much to the firearm itself, is infringing on my right because it makes ownership cost prohibitive. An individual suppressor can run from around $500 to $1500. Have multiple firearms? $200 per suppressor is adding insult to injury.

Not only is the cost infringing but so is the waiting period. On average it takes 6 months to get your paper work cleared. Here is a link to a gun enthusiast forum where some report closer to 8 months. (1)

6-8 months is definitely an infringement. It’s almost as if the government makes the process as miserable as possible to deter people from getting them. That’s why I haven’t went and got a suppressor for my 9mm. There is zero reason that it should take that long when we have instant back ground checks. Why shouldn’t the same background check you get when you purchase your gun also apply to getting a suppressor?

Source (2) is a link detailing all the crap you have to go through in order to exercise a right that’s supposed to not be infringed.

Now, onto the purpose of a suppressor.

Suppressors do just what the name implies. It “suppresses” the sound of the gun being fired. Now, suppressing and “silencing” are two different things. Suppressors do not make guns inaudible. They simply reduce the decibels to less than damaging or debilitating levels. First video is an unsuppressed AR-15 at first, then he puts one on. Notice that the gun is still quite loud. So there is no “danger” of an Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook shooter) or an incident like the movie theater shooting in Aurora, being even more deadly because a “silencer” will allow them to not be heard. I have heard this argument before, as if people will not immediately start screaming when a shooting breaks out? Yeah no one will hear that.

Now here comes the question. Why should they be removed from the NFA? Well besides the fact that the NFA is incredibly burdensome and infringes on the 2nd Amendment, there are plenty of practical uses. It shouldn’t be burdensome to exercise the right to use something that itself is not dangerous.

1) In home defense

Many people don’t have experience shooting firearms so they don’t know just how loud they are. They get an idea from movies but it’s not the same as having a controlled explosion go off right in front of your face. Shooting guns without hearing protection is deafening. Well, you may say just wear ear protection. I’d agree. But that only applies to the gun range (even then guns are still REALLY REALLY LOUD).

If some bad guy invades your home, you don’t have the time to throw on hearing protection. In addition, a gun going off in close quarters will do more damage than in the open because the sound is amplified by bouncing off the walls. Never mind the fact that the ear protection will prevent you from hearing anything else that’s going on. This makes locating the bad guy in your home very difficult. This can be applied to hunting as well. Ear plugs and the like will also prevent you from hearing approaching animals and are cumbersome.

A suppressed semi-auto pistol can be very quiet. See second video. Notice that it’s still audible but it’s clear that it will do significantly less damage to your hearing. The other bonus to a suppressor is that you won’t get a huge blinding muzzle flash when fired in the dark. Imagine trying to defend your home at night if you missed your target. Congratulations, you’ve become Helen Keller with a gun... For me, home defense is the main reason why I want a suppressor.

I think that’s good for now. I will turn it over to CON.

Good luck.

See source 3 for the details and applications of suppressors. (3)






Zanderax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Looks like CON isn't interested in continuing. He hasn't been online in 6 days so I'm not going to waste my time postin a 2nd round argument.



Zanderax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Zanderax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sitara 3 years ago
The burden of proof is on both sides since you both are making claims.
Posted by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
I threw this together late last night so allow me to clarify. BTW I accept the definitions. I just assumed people would know.

As a libertarian I believe I should be allowed to do something unless you can provide a darn good reason for me not to. As a libertarian, I believe that small arms owner ship is an inalienable right. As a right, you better have a darn good reason to restrict my rights. ie make it illegal or keep it illegal. That's why I placed the burden on CON. I see he doesn't have a problem but if he does, it'll be shared. It pretty much is since we are arguing the opposite anyhow.
Posted by Zanderax 3 years ago
I am happy to accept the Burden of Proof. I think it provides more of a challenge and I love a good challenge.
Posted by TheEnigma 3 years ago
The burden of proof is actually on the pro, as he is the one proposing to change the current stance of the law. BOF is very important and placing it on the opposing teams shoulders does both of you a disservice. If you truly care about this subject, you need to be able to defend it the way you would need to under normal circumstances. .
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF...doesn't seem like anybody finishes debates anymore.