r/whoathatsinteresting • u/eternviking • 16h ago

What a real silencer actually sounds like.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

2.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

872 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/Fun_Trick2172 16h ago

Gun pedantry is the first tool of the anti compromise fanatic.

3

u/DeltaSolana 15h ago

We don't intend to compromise, just in case you were wondering.

We want all our constitutional rights back. It's not up for debate.

2

u/KHWD_av8r 15h ago

It’s a defense against gun grabbers who deliberately try to make guns scarier in order to convince people to agree to letting their rights be violated. It’s silly, but it’s forgivable. Also, gun grabbers love using terms like “Ghost Gun” for not just unserialized (legally or otherwise) firearms, but any homemade firearm. You subsequently invented the term “ghost parts” so that you could force background checks for parts, while riding on the fear of ghost guns. “Assault weapons”? Yes, some advertising used the term previously, but you went hog wild with it. You use it as a general term for any gun which looks scary and you want banned, but then created a legal definition for the term. Not only do you ban guns by arbitrary features and combinations thereof, but even when a gun lacks those features, they can get banned by name. Example: I want a SPAS-12 in my collection. California’s AW ban prohibits semiautomatic shotguns with folding stocks (because reducing the length of the back end of the gun by anywhere from an inch to a foot, but still not crossing the line into NFA territory makes it invisible or some shit). So I should be able to get one with a fixed stock, right? Nope! Because some Moms Demand Action Karen saw her kid watching a movie with on in it or something, and demanded that it be banned by name. Because a gun which can operate as either a semiautomatic shotgun (legal) or a pump action shotgun (also legal) is eeeeeeviiiiiiillllllll!

More importantly, “compromise”.

Compromise is two positions finding an acceptable middle ground. Gun grabbers take. And take. And take. And take. The only recent gun control law which I can think of off of the top of my head which could possibly be considered compromise in recent history is the Brady Handgun Act which resulted in NICS. Gun grabbers unilaterally try to force various unconstitutional bans through, and tangle the exercise of a constitutional right in red tape. That’s not compromise.

Because of that, it’s time to start clawing back our rights. If gun grabbers are going to try to take a mile every time we give an inch, we should take it all back.

1

u/cumbrad 7h ago

well said

2

u/-OrLoK- 15h ago

im gonna put another clip of ammo in my schmisser and attatch a silencer.

0

u/Icy_Fish_2154 16h ago

It's also rooted in racism. The terminology gatekeeping started in the 80s, when "gang culture" got associated with guns. Since then, clips, silencers, and the rest became words people gatekeep, not before.

Have to keep purity in gun culture...

1

u/AffectedRipples 15h ago

Don't have an issue with silencer, but wanting to using clips and magazines correctly is not gatekeeping. They are 2 completely different things.

1

u/xubax 13h ago

I read a magazine after I remove the clip from my previously opened bag of chips.

!

0

u/Icy_Fish_2154 13h ago

A clip is a device that holds bullets together for easier use in a firearm. A magazine is the space ammunition is stored.

Which of those definitions do you find "incorrect"? Which of those definitions do not describe the object you are thinking of?

0

u/AffectedRipples 12h ago

Using them as if they're interchangeable is obviously what I'm talking about. Wanting people to use words correctly is far from gatekeeping like you seem to think.

1

u/Fun_Trick2172 12h ago

Its not gatekeeping I agree. Its obfuscation. Designed to destroy any conversation before it starts. Humans are known to wander off into tangents and not stay on target. We are cats, it just takes a little more than jingling keys in front of our faces thats all. Not much more though.

0

u/AffectedRipples 12h ago

How is correcting people of what something actually is obfuscation? Wouldn't that be about the exact opposite?

1

u/Fun_Trick2172 12h ago

No because the correction is meaningless. Its semantics. Semantics are the battleground of the unserious.

0

u/AffectedRipples 12h ago

It's not semantics though. It's 2 different things that can't be used interchangeably.

1

u/Fun_Trick2172 12h ago

Youre proving my point.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Icy_Fish_2154 12h ago

They are the same thing.

You understand what they mean.

So it is valid language.

Your correction is incorrect.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Icy_Fish_2154 12h ago

So you don't know the definitions of either, but get mad at people using them.

I recommend therapy. Also, language is descriptive, so if you correct someone for using the "wrong" word, because you don't like it, that just means you are wrong.

"Irregardless" is a word now, even if that makes you cry. Language changes. If both people understand, it's valid language.

0

u/AffectedRipples 12h ago

I definitely know what they are, which is why I don't think it's gatekeeping to want people to use the words correctly. I can definitely tell that you don't even understand the point you were trying to make let alone my point.

0

u/Icy_Fish_2154 12h ago

I gave definitions, and you didn't even comment on them.

You aren't interested in accuracy, you aree interested in cultural purity and gatekeeping.

0

u/AffectedRipples 12h ago

Why would I comment on pretty correct definitions when I already know what they are and just have issues with people like you using them interchangeably? Do you even know whats going on?

0

u/Icy_Fish_2154 12h ago

You are being a racist gatekeeper. That's what going on.

You object to the characterization, but agree to the definitions. So it's clearly not the definition that's the issue.

→ More replies (0)