• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legalizing silencers, what could possible go wrong?

haymarket said:
The will of the people matters a great deal - at least to those of us who believe this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Click to expand...

And that government of the people, by the people and for the people is structured so the elected representatives, elected every two years and six years, are empowered by the People to make laws. That's what happened in 1934 and it's what's happening now.
 
calamity said:
It sure is if you are the target and the guy missed. :)
Click to expand...

I'd still be better off if he had a suppressor - I wouldn't be deaf and I'd have a larger target to grab.
 
calamity said:
It sure is if you are the target and the guy missed. :)
Click to expand...

another bit of dishonesty. there was no valid reason for the 1934 NFA and even less of a valid reason for suppressors being included.

instead of this stupid baiting, why don't you try to formulate a legitimate argument for making people pay a 200 dollar tax to own a suppressor when they can buy a 12 shot shotgun that a skilled operator can discharge 400 lethal projectiles in less than 3 seconds without a wait or fingerprints or a 200 dollar rape of one's rights
 
Rucker61 said:
I'd still be better off if he had a suppressor - I wouldn't be deaf and I'd have a larger target to grab.
Click to expand...

I doubt you are dealing with someone who understands those facts
 
haymarket said:
First you have to demonstrate what the will of the people is.
Click to expand...

Allowing the purchase of suppressors as Title1 firearms is the will of the people if the bill passes. That should be ample demonstration. If it is not the will of the people, either it will not pass or, if it does, these guys will lose re-election. Why should I have to tell you that...now you are just being silly.
 
Rucker61 said:
And that government of the people, by the people and for the people is structured so the elected representatives, elected every two years and six years, are empowered by the People to make laws. That's what happened in 1934 and it's what's happening now.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why then the laws passed or not passed do not always reflect overwhelming public support or opposition in the other direction?
 
BretJ said:
Allowing the purchase of suppressors as Title1 firearms is the will of the people if the bill passes. That should be ample demonstration. If it is not the will of the people, either it will not pass or, if it does, these guys will lose re-election. Why should I have to tell you that...now you are just being silly.
Click to expand...

Can you then explain then why laws passed or not passed by Congress directly fly in the face of the will of the people as demonstrated by reliable public opinion polls on certain issues?
 
haymarket said:
Can you then explain then why laws passed or not passed by Congress directly fly in the face of the will of the people as demonstrated by reliable public opinion polls on certain issues?
Click to expand...

Because we're not a Democracy, we're a representative Republic. Laws are made in accordance with the process outlined in the Constitution, not by polls.

For example, let's consider an assault weapons ban:

In U.S., Support for Assault Weapons Ban at Record Low | Gallup

Would have not been banned until 1994, then banned until 2005, then not banned. Oh, wait, banned again in December 2016

Poll: Majority backs assault weapons ban | TheHill

This one shows a different time period of banning:

Guns

...and yet a different poll result:

Most Now Oppose an Assault Weapons Ban; Doubts About Stopping a Lone Wolf Run High (POLL) - ABC News

Do laws just get turned on and off due to public will?
 
haymarket said:
Can you explain why then the laws passed or not passed do not always reflect overwhelming public support or opposition in the other direction?
Click to expand...

Because polls don't match representation in Congress. Should Congress only pass laws once a nationwide poll has been conducted, and decide who will vote to match that percentage?
 
haymarket said:
Can you then explain then why laws passed or not passed by Congress directly fly in the face of the will of the people as demonstrated by reliable public opinion polls on certain issues?
Click to expand...

Have not seen a poll on this. Have you?
 
BretJ said:
Have not seen a poll on this. Have you?
Click to expand...

I found one on DailyCaller and another on gunssavelives.com, but didn't bother to look at them.
 
Rucker61 said:
Because polls don't match representation in Congress. Should Congress only pass laws once a nationwide poll has been conducted, and decide who will vote to match that percentage?
Click to expand...

we wouldn't have gay marriage or abortion in many states if we had a democracy
 
Rucker61 said:
Because we're not a Democracy, we're a representative Republic. Laws are made in accordance with the process outlined in the Constitution, not by polls.

For example, let's consider an assault weapons ban:

In U.S., Support for Assault Weapons Ban at Record Low | Gallup

Would have not been banned until 1994, then banned until 2005, then not banned. Oh, wait, banned again in December 2016

Poll: Majority backs assault weapons ban | TheHill

This one shows a different time period of banning:

Guns

...and yet a different poll result:

Most Now Oppose an Assault Weapons Ban; Doubts About Stopping a Lone Wolf Run High (POLL) - ABC News

Do laws just get turned on and off due to public will?
Click to expand...

we are a democratic republic with a constitution.

When public support for universal background checks was approaching 90% just a few short years ago, Congress did not reflect the will of the people.
 
Rucker61 said:
Because polls don't match representation in Congress. Should Congress only pass laws once a nationwide poll has been conducted, and decide who will vote to match that percentage?
Click to expand...

That is the classic question - does Congress follow or does Congress lead. Menswear would be that normally it follows the money paid to it by special interests. And the people generally are not one of those.
 
BretJ said:
Have not seen a poll on this. Have you?
Click to expand...

I was not saying I have. I was referring to other polls of public opinion on other gun related issues like background checks.
 
haymarket said:
we are a democratic republic with a constitution.

When public support for universal background checks was approaching 90% just a few short years ago, Congress did not reflect the will of the people.
Click to expand...

True. Congress sometimes knows more about the laws than the people do. It's an unenforceable, ineffective, unnecessary law.
 
haymarket said:
That is the classic question - does Congress follow or does Congress lead. Menswear would be that normally it follows the money paid to it by special interests. And the people generally are not one of those.
Click to expand...

Congress does what it does to get re-elected. Since the majority of Congress at this time is Republican, they will do Republican things to keep Republicans and the independents who elected them to do Republican things happy.
 
calamity said:
You do know that a silencer makes the gun less accurate, and therefore renders the argument that target shooters and hunters need them to save their ears bull****. Correct?
Click to expand...

Really. Is that why all my sniper rifles I am issued shoot tighter groups and have a little higher muzzle velocity when shot with the can on vs it off.

You really should stop talking about things you obviously know nothing about.
 
calamity said:
A suppressor built right into the barrel, thereby eliminating any transition joints within the rifling tube, can be an asset since it reduces kick. But, now we are talking a whole different animal.
Click to expand...

You should notify the military. All our suppressed sniper guns need to be turned in. It's amazing you know more then actual snipers.
 
calamity said:
For enough money, an accurate joint which does not distort with heat can be designed and manufactured. But even that will change trajectory over time.

The article indicted the only reliable suppressor is a one-piece construction built into the barrel which needs to be replaced every so often. Carbon build up being the main issue.
Click to expand...
Funny how all my issues sniper rifles have detachable suppressors. And generally speaking both mount and can last longer then the barrel. I am sure this isn't just more you talking about things you don't know about know is it.
 
This has always been about "just another law". Silencers are easily made. Anyone with nefarious intent doesnt need to apply for a permit and buy a silencer for $1.2k a simple 70 dollar adapt turns any pil filter into a silencer but if you want to go totally cheap...a 2 liter bottle and 8 1 liter water bottles and some duct tape will do the trick. Also you can buy PVC pipe and stuff it with cotton balls, shredded cloth, shredded tennis balls...whatever.

 
TurtleDude said:
you obviously don't shoot much
Click to expand...

I live in a quiet area. Typically, I can hear gun fire a mile away and a train whistle five miles away, especially at night.
 
TurtleDude said:
another bit of dishonesty. there was no valid reason for the 1934 NFA and even less of a valid reason for suppressors being included.

instead of this stupid baiting, why don't you try to formulate a legitimate argument for making people pay a 200 dollar tax to own a suppressor when they can buy a 12 shot shotgun that a skilled operator can discharge 400 lethal projectiles in less than 3 seconds without a wait or fingerprints or a 200 dollar rape of one's rights
Click to expand...
Sounds like a reasonable tax to me.
 
braindrain said:
You should notify the military. All our suppressed sniper guns need to be turned in. It's amazing you know more then actual snipers.
Click to expand...

Staying at a Holiday Inn Express will do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom