I'd pay the $200 to cash and carry, no BS
I understand and sympathize with your view, but suppressors, stripped of Hollywood BS, are simply **safety** devices that reduce noise output by 30 db and nothing more. Having them on the NFA is irrational and is based on factual misinformation.
Look, how many people have you met **in person** who have had hearing damaged caused by firearms? For me, the number is well over 100, and probably over 200. Firearms are a serious danger to hearing and suppressors are the best way to reduce the epidemic of hearing damage within the shooting community.
No, hearing protection is. That's just a silly justification
Not silly, both should be an option decided by the individual using the firearm. I wear hearing protection at the range where it is practical. In the field, I want to be able to hear what's going on around me. I want to be able to hear the birds and squirrels as they can be a good source of information and add to the enjoyment of the hunt. Not blow a hunt because I couldn't hear the deer/hog/whatever approaching from the distance or because I was fumbling with ear plugs just before taking aim and firing. I also don't want to get bit by a rattlesnake because I couldn't hear it's warning as I walk past or reach down to pick up my empties from bird hunting.
As it stands now, I have to choose hearing protection or none while I hunt and I go with none for reasons above and then some. At some point I'll probably have to start yelling 'WHAT?!!!' while cupping my ears like my dad does because I opted for no protection and can't hear well. But, that's okay because by that point I will have a lot of successful hunts where I didn't get bit by the big ol' rattler.
I'm a big boy who can usually take care of himself and don't need government or others telling me what's best for 'my own good'. Let me live my life and I'll deal with the consequences, good or bad.