[Political Junkie Too]

Since you're the first to answer this, let me ask the question I wanted to pose here.

Are silencers "arms" or just accessories?

To be clear, I think anything is an "arm" that is needed to make the armament functional. That means that ammunition and clips are a part of the armament; without them the armament is non-functional.

I can't say the same thing about a silencer, though. The armament can still function without it, so I'm leaning towards saying that silencer bans are permitted as regulating the use of the armament without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

-PJ

[ClearCase_guy]

My opinion doesn't matter, but I think the point of the Second Amendment is that we can own implements that we deem necessary for self defense.

Going back to the First Amendment and issue of yelling “Fire!” in a theater — the essential right is untouched but the context, time, place, person, may justify a restriction.

Should someone in prison have a gun? A convicted felon? A mental patient with a history of violence? I can see reasonable restrictions on firearms based on context, time, place, person. But the essential right should be untouched.

I can have a gun. I would like a quiet gun. That may be my implement of choice. I see no grounds for banning quiet guns.