While one could argue that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants the ability to own firearms to every citizen, one must also remember that within that Second Amendment, which arms the militias as stipulated in Article 1 Section 8, these  militias  are to be well regulated. The Second Amendment is not limitless, just as the First Amendment is not limitless. There are limits to speech and religion when it causes harm to others, just as it should be with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. It should also be noted that the militias were to be formed and armed to be used by the government, not against (see also: Whiskey Rebellion).However, the gun industry alongside the gun lobby continuously seeks to change the meaning behind the Second Amendment to suit their needs and desire to make more profit. In their latest scheme at lobbying Congress, gun advocates are asking Congress to  repeal a Depression-era law that requires a months-long screening process for silencer buyers.   You know, because people need to make their guns quieter.Oh, but they don t call them  silencers,  they call them  suppressors,  and their reasoning for the need to get them to everyone is pure gold. Apparently, not only hunters need them, but so does everyone else  to protect from  hearing loss. Yep, you read that correctly, the gun industry is trying to rebrand these  suppressors as  hearing-protection accessories.  Republican Congressman Matt Salmon, from the great state of Arizona, who is clearly bought and paid for by the gun lobby, stated: If we have something that mitigates that kind of hearing loss, we ought to be encouraging it. How about less gun use. Or is that too obvious?Salmon s law, called the  Hearing Protection Act, seeks to  remove sound suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA), leaving them to be treated as ordinary firearms subject to the usual NICS check and Form 4473 for dealer sales. Common sense Democratic State Rep. Joe Mullery from Minnesota, said: What legitimate reason does a person have to be wandering around the streets of a big city with a silencer? None. There is no reason anyone should have a silencer unless they are in the military and need one for a specific task.And as the gun industry likes to point out that there aren t very many crimes committed with suppressors, they fail to realize that it s probably because they aren t regularly available and are harder to get, as they should be. That s the whole point. Thanks for making it for us. Now, if we could only do that for all guns. In Augusta, Maine, police chief Robert Gregoire said silencer-equipped gunshots may sound further away than a typical gunshot, making it hard to track hunters in unauthorized areas. Also, he now cannot block silencer sales for residents he suspects may not use them responsibly.A hunter himself, Gregoire said he saw little reason to encourage silencer use. I don t think they re necessary for home protection and I don t think they re necessary for hunting,  he said. source: The GuardianYet, Congressman Salmon, alongside 51 supporters of his  Hearing Protection Act,  are fighting alongside the NRA and the gun lobby to make silencers readily available for all guns and gun purchasers. Which isn t so much for the betterment of gun owners and society, but rather for the profit margins of the gun industry.It s sick, it s sad, and it s unnecessary.Featured image via Timothy Tsul (flickr)