Following the heinous attack that resulted in 400 injuries and 50 deaths at a Las Vegas concert venue, Hillary Clinton tweeted that she could not “imagine the deaths” that would have occurred if the gunman had used a “silencer.”
Her use of the word “silencer” is leftist-speak for suppressor. It is intended to give the impression that suppressors completely mute a gun–the way they appear to do in Hollywood movies–thereby silencing the gunshot altogether.
Clinton tweeted:
In reality, suppressors do not eliminate the sound of a gunshot. Rather, they muffle that sharp, ear-piercing wave released from the end of the barrel when a gun is fired. The sound of the gunshot remains but the suppressor removes the aspect of the sound that damages the ear.
Clinton’s tweet on suppressors comes as Congress weighs the Hearing Protection Act. That act is designed to remove the cumbersome requirements now governing suppressor sales so that law-abiding citizens can acquire them for hearing protection without bring fingerprinted, photographed, and paying a special tax to the federal government.
In her tweet she clearly tied her “what if” scenario to the NRA’s support of the Hearing Protection Act, yet one minute later she sent a tweet in which she blamed the NRA outright for the Vegas attack. In other words, the NRA is wrong if suppressors are deregulated and they are to blame if an attack occurs while suppressors are heavily regulated.
What do you think of this story? Scroll down to comment below!
.jpg)
.jpg)
