The REAL Reason That Democrats Want The Suppressor Tax

Hey, lean in her closer. I have a secret that I want to tell you, a secret that most Americans (and certainly most people in Washington, D. C.) don’t know. That secret?

What you call silencers aren’t actually silent, and that’s why they’re called suppressors.

See, suppressors help to reduce how loud shooting a gun is, and that’s why people who like suppressors want them: to protect their hearing.

But people ignorant of guns, whose ideas about guns come from Hollywood movies where the ammunition never runs out during a gun fight, you never have to reload, and suppressors make shooting a gun sound like a quiet puff of air instead of sounding like a gunshot.

(Yes, the John Wick movies are the exception to that rule.)

And it’s people who are ignorant about guns and suppressors who are upset about the idea that the tax may be removed.

Now, if being upset about removing that tax sounds silly to you, it is. But no matter how much Democrats and typical anti-2A politicians love taxes, the tax on suppressors isn’t really the issue for them. It’s a means to an end.

And that end that they’re seeking? Mark Chesnutt writes,

Some Democrats are distressed that the [suppressor] tax might be eliminated. And U.S. Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pennsylvania, is finally saying what most won’t say out loud—the main reason for the tax is to discourage people from buying the devices.

Why does she want to prevent you and I from getting our grubby little hands on suppressors?

Who knows? If I had to guess, I’d bet that she thinks that they’re silencers that magically turn guns into sniper weapons and that we would suddenly turn into assassination nation.

Never mind that that has never happened before.

But, hey, if your real goal is to prevent people from exercising their Second Amendment rights, any excuse will do, right?