• 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!

Get rid of SBR Law: Especially for Pistol Caliber

Phys251 said:
Turtle, let me ask you two questions:

1. How likely is it that one citizen can cast one vote at the ballot box and, by doing so, kill another human? Just by that one single vote?
2. How likely is it that one citizen can fire one bullet at another human and, by doing so, kill them? Just by that one single fired bullet?
Click to expand...

How likely is a person willing to commit murder, or any other crime while armed, to be detered by a law making possession of a gun illegal?

That question is important because on the one hand you wish to let folks still deemed so dangerous, that merely having access to a gun is considered worthy of a felony charge, roam freely among us but, on the other hand, you say that they have paid their debt to society. To try to enforce that nonsense you then want the rest of society to jump through all manner of hoops to make that plan seem to work when we all know that it does not.
 
Rucker61 said:
So felons should be permanently denied access to any tool that can be used for lethal violence?
Click to expand...

Only the scariest of them. ;)

Of course, the most efficient method of doing so was deemed to have been to lock them up in the first place. They either are or are not later safe to allow to roam freely among us.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
Some infringements are necessary. That's not a part of the constitution the Founders intended to be taken absolutely literally.
Click to expand...

And you know this how?
 
Phys251 said:
Turtle, let me ask you two questions:

1. How likely is it that one citizen can cast one vote at the ballot box and, by doing so, kill another human? Just by that one single vote?
2. How likely is it that one citizen can fire one bullet at another human and, by doing so, kill them? Just by that one single fired bullet?
Click to expand...

the choice of politicians has probably killed far more people than legal gun owners in a civilian environment. but if you can TRUST a felon to help elect a president, we should Trust them to own a gun. if someone cannot be trusted to merely possess a firearm legally, they probably shouldn't be walking our streets unsupervised
 
spud_meister said:
Some infringements are necessary. That's not a part of the constitution the Founders intended to be taken absolutely literally.
Click to expand...

I think I am going to just laugh at that bit of stupidity since that argument has been raised before and pretty well flushed down the porcelain pipe
 
Rucker61 said:
So felons should be permanently denied access to any tool that can be used for lethal violence?
Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:
How likely is a person willing to commit murder, or any other crime while armed, to be detered by a law making possession of a gun illegal?

That question is important because on the one hand you wish to let folks still deemed so dangerous, that merely having access to a gun is considered worthy of a felony charge, roam freely among us but, on the other hand, you say that they have paid their debt to society. To try to enforce that nonsense you then want the rest of society to jump through all manner of hoops to make that plan seem to work when we all know that it does not.
Click to expand...

Neither of these responses answer my questions. Try again.
 
TurtleDude said:
the choice of politicians has probably killed far more people than legal gun owners in a civilian environment. but if you can TRUST a felon to help elect a president, we should Trust them to own a gun. if someone cannot be trusted to merely possess a firearm legally, they probably shouldn't be walking our streets unsupervised
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the overall effect. I'm talking about one single vote vs. one single shot. Now answer my questions.
 
Phys251 said:
I'm not talking about the overall effect. I'm talking about one single vote vs. one single shot. Now answer my questions.
Click to expand...

its a stupid question. obviously one shot. but its still a stupid question.

you either are a citizen again or you are not
 
Phys251 said:
Neither of these responses answer my questions. Try again.
Click to expand...

It is obvious that firing a gun (which is not protected by the 2A in any manner) can kill. The 2A is a right of the people to keep and bear (own and carry) arms (guns) - it is not right to simply do as you please when firing said gun.
 
TurtleDude said:
its a stupid question. obviously one shot. but its still a stupid question.

you either are a citizen again or you are not
Click to expand...

I think it's very telling that you're not willing to answer my questions. And you can play the "liberty" card all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that thousands of Americans die every year from gunfire.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is obvious that firing a gun (which is not protected by the 2A in any manner) can kill. The 2A is a right of the people to keep and bear (own and carry) arms (guns) - it is not right to simply do as you please when firing said gun.
Click to expand...

But gun controllers would say that easy access to guns makes the firing of guns more likely. (To which anti-gun-controllers would say that it's easy to get a gun illegally, and this is where I point out that we need to crack down on straw purchases...)
 
Phys251 said:
I think it's very telling that you're not willing to answer my questions. And you can play the "liberty" card all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that thousands of Americans die every year from gunfire.
Click to expand...

you don't read very well and i said one shot but its a stupid question and most of those who die from gunfire are suicides or felons. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING the Dems scheme to pass concerning guns is either a realistic way of controlling crime or is even intended to do so. rather the scheme is designed to placate the slow witted masses who want easy answers to tough issues and to harass conservative gun owners and the NRA for political reasons.

now why don't you tell me what your view is on felons getting their rights back
 
Phys251 said:
But gun controllers would say that easy access to guns makes the firing of guns more likely. (To which anti-gun-controllers would say that it's easy to get a gun illegally, and this is where I point out that we need to crack down on straw purchases...)
Click to expand...

The only way to crack down on lying on form 4473 (already a felony) is to prosecute all of those that do so. Of course, that means putting more non-violent folks in jail while doing nothing to stop violent folks from soliciting straw buyers or obtaining guns not via FFLs. It is not illegal for me to buy a gun and (reasonably?) later sell that gun inside my state.

What the "crack down" folks seem to really want is a rigorous tracking (registration?) system for all guns (and any transfer of said guns) and to shift (some of?) the blame from those that actually commit a violent crime with a gun to those that "enabled" them to get "access to" a gun. Why that applies to guns and not any other weapon, vehicle or tool later used by a "known" criminal is baffling. If we already know who the bad, crazy and dangerous folks are then why not just keep them locked up? Making lists of them, letting them roam freely among us and having everyone check to see if a gun buyer (or seller?) is one of them upon each gun transfer is ridiculous.
 
Phys251 said:
Turtle, let me ask you two questions:

1. How likely is it that one citizen can cast one vote at the ballot box and, by doing so, kill another human? Just by that one single vote?
Click to expand...

Zero
2. How likely is it that one citizen can fire one bullet at another human and, by doing so, kill them? Just by that one single fired bullet?
Click to expand...

Very, very small.

So what?
 
TurtleDude said:
I think I am going to just laugh at that bit of stupidity since that argument has been raised before and pretty well flushed down the porcelain pipe
Click to expand...

So you don't believe age restrictions to be a reasonable infringement?
 
Phys251 said:
But gun controllers would say that easy access to guns makes the firing of guns more likely. (To which anti-gun-controllers would say that it's easy to get a gun illegally, and this is where I point out that we need to crack down on straw purchases...)
Click to expand...

What would it take to have "not easy access"? How would you measure that?
 
Rucker61 said:
What would it take to have "not easy access"? How would you measure that?
Click to expand...

Easy access to firearms is just what it says. Ex., it's under your bed and you can quickly pick the thing up.
 
spud_meister said:
So you don't believe age restrictions to be a reasonable infringement?
Click to expand...

I believe the several states have the legitimate power to prevent minors from buying firearms, carrying firearms in public unsupervised or so forth. I do not believe the federal government has any such proper power/ So if say Texas or Wyoming believes a sixteen year old should be able to buy a shotgun then its legitimate for Texas or Wyoming to set 16 as the age one can buy such a weapon. If NY doesn't think anyone too young to be drafted should be able to buy a gun than that is NY's prerogative

the federal government has no business telling the states that even men or women old enough to fly a machine that could wipe out a whole block of Manhattan in 4 seconds, cannot legally buy a handgun.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Oh, i live in Texas and here is legal to have the mini Draco
645208m2_ts.jpg


And short berral shotguns is just that they are considered blunderbuses. Not legal to carry but legal to have and fire at appropriate facilities.

The judge is considered a .45 revolver. That's legal to carry.
Click to expand...
I have one of those as well...except I modded it to include a front rail system with pistol grip and laser with flashlight and strobe. Its a rifle caliber handgun and its legal. Putting a stock on it changes the qualification to a Short Barrelled Rifle, illegal without a permit. They make wrist stabilizers that keep it legal as a pistol...unless the brace is shouldered. There is some debate about whether shouldering the brace changes the qualification of the weapon. ATF initially said no, then an emphatic yes. But tit looks like they are backing off that ruling.

'Ban' really isnt the right word as pretty much anyone can get a permit to own the SBRs. But people shouldnt have to.
 
Phys251 said:
Turtle, let me ask you two questions:
1. How likely is it that one citizen can cast one vote at the ballot box and, by doing so, kill another human? Just by that one single vote?
Click to expand...
That is easy. It's very likely if that person is able to vote and his gun rights restored(barring being a violent felon that just happened to use a firearm in his crime) he/she will vote in a responsible way. In my state people are slowly being left defenseless because an wacko anti gun governor got voted in along with house and senate.It seems that the term "felon" is a catch all one size fits all.Leaving only the "decent"people able to vote.
Can one vote kill?Yes.
2. How likely is it that one citizen can fire one bullet at another human and, by doing so, kill them? Just by that one single fired bullet?
Click to expand...
Very likely, no argument. Not sure why this question is relevant.Maybe you think that person might be a "felon" because he stole a candy bar or something. A very big paint brush.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
I believe the several states have the legitimate power to prevent minors from buying firearms, carrying firearms in public unsupervised or so forth. I do not believe the federal government has any such proper power/ So if say Texas or Wyoming believes a sixteen year old should be able to buy a shotgun then its legitimate for Texas or Wyoming to set 16 as the age one can buy such a weapon. If NY doesn't think anyone too young to be drafted should be able to buy a gun than that is NY's prerogative

the federal government has no business telling the states that even men or women old enough to fly a machine that could wipe out a whole block of Manhattan in 4 seconds, cannot legally buy a handgun.
Click to expand...

So an 8 year old should have the right to purchase a Micro Uzi within Washington DC?
 
spud_meister said:
So an 8 year old should have the right to purchase a Micro Uzi within Washington DC?
Click to expand...

who should decide the age-certainly not the federal government. BTW DC home rule is considered a federal action. so maybe you ought to pick another city or state
 
VanceMack said:
I have one of those as well...except I modded it to include a front rail system with pistol grip and laser with flashlight and strobe. Its a rifle caliber handgun and its legal. Putting a stock on it changes the qualification to a Short Barrelled Rifle, illegal without a permit. They make wrist stabilizers that keep it legal as a pistol...unless the brace is shouldered. There is some debate about whether shouldering the brace changes the qualification of the weapon. ATF initially said no, then an emphatic yes. But tit looks like they are backing off that ruling.

'Ban' really isnt the right word as pretty much anyone can get a permit to own the SBRs. But people shouldnt have to.
Click to expand...

I don't own a mini Draco i did some work for a friend on his. Stripping and blueing as well as sealing the wood. I had to shoot of course. And 7.62mm is everywhere. It was fun. But i liked the Thompson sub machine gun better.
 
beerftw said:
I knida gree on the felons being restored rights, But I believe in the punishment needs to fit the crime. How I see it if you committed a non violent crime, you should retain your right to vote and right to firearms. If you committed voter fraud, then your right to vote and only that should be taken away upon serving time,.

For firearms I believe the same, if the person abused that right in an unlawful waym then they can have that right removed, I do hate though the people who went to federal prison for whatever crime like selling a dime bag 20 years ago being told they can not own a firearm, the blanket restriction of rights needs to end and the only rights that should be removed for criminals are the ones they abused unlawfully.
Click to expand...

I think we need a broad definition for rights removal. Specifically harsh on gang/racketeering crimes. Those are a major problem and being involved in organized crime and getting busted for a non violent crime doesn't mean you should legally be able to purchase a gun. You associated with violent felons...you do the time as well. But I think the law makes provisions there too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
spud_meister said:
So an 8 year old should have the right to purchase a Micro Uzi within Washington DC?
Click to expand...

8? No. At 18? Yes. It is a pistol caliber weapon. 9mm. It shouldn't logically be under the same classification as a rifle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom