The EFF guide you linked has not been updated yet to reflect the Riley decision. Some of those answers need to be changed because they are incorrect now. The ACLU "Know Your Rights" manual does not appear to have been updated either, but it simply doesn't address the issue of cell phone searches incident to arrest at all.
A weapon intended for target practice, sport, or self defense has absolutely no need for a flash suppressor. This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the weapon, which I'd argue falls under what most would categorize as an assault weapon.
Aside from your apparent lack of knowledge about what different types of weapons and accessories are used for, your general premise is mostly correct. Flash suppressors are more useful in actual combat than in most other situations. That type of use is exactly what the Second Amendment explicitly protects. Target practice, sport, hunting, and defense from crime are merely secondary byproducts of having a "well regulated"* militia.
* "regulated" meant "equipped" at the time it was written - see DC v. Heller for a detailed analysis.
No, it didn't. That's SILICONE not silicon. I mean, come on. This is a technical article on a technical website. Can't we at least get basic chemistry right? Do you fill your car's gas tank with carbon? If there's one damn place on the internet where people can be expected to know enough about science to see the difference between a hard, shiny metallic element and a class of clear rubbery compounds that happen to contain that element, it should be here.
No wonder he made the right decision on this case.
Car audio competitors exceed 154dB all the time. That's not even close to the sound pressure levels achieved in world-class competitions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
That's 28.5dB louder than this testing facility, a factor of 707 times more power.
Decibels relative to what? Maybe not ambient...
Sound pressure level is measured relative to 1dB (duh), which is typically defined as 20uPa.