The new argument is that silencers could help prevent hearing loss amongst gun owners, which'd be a fair point if A) ear protection hadn't existed since forever, and B) gun users were forced into taking up a hobby that involves explosive powder. This complaint formed the basis of two NRA-lobbied bills that would have made silencers much easier to purchase in any state where they aren't outright banned. There was also a completely unrelated bill about hunting and fishing on federal lands, because trying to sneak provisions into law is just good safety, and not an indication of how morally bankrupt our political system is.
The dumbest part is that experts still recommend wearing ear protection if your weapon is suppressed. These bills are aimed at hunters and sportsmen, who would be at an even greater risk of having their hearing damaged because, get this, repetitive mid-volume noises will screw you up as much as occasional earth-shattering noises. Not only this, but isn't the NRA supposed to, like, be against making it easier for criminals to shoot people? That's their whole schtick. How are the GGWG (good guys with guns) supposed to play hero when they're confusing a war zone with a backfiring engine? And wouldn't mass shooters have even more victims if fewer people heard them coming? This Virginia Tech survivor sure thinks so.
Good news: In the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in our nation's history, the NRA stopped campaigning for this issue and turned their attention towards banning bump stocks, a change of course which lasted nearly an entire news cycle.