• 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!

Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity since Parkland shooting

This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of most home security experts. If your goal is home defense, you don’t need a cache of 300 semi automatic rifles to do it. If you do, you are doing something very wrong.

You're lying because most real home security experts will tell you that each home situation is different. It is like saying most medical experts recommend surgery, without specifying the disease or malady the patient suffers. BTW I am a "home security" expert and a former firearms instructor for my component of the DOJ. And in some cases handguns are the preferred home defense weapon-especially in a home where the prime defender may have to leave where he is in the home to gather or protect children or invalids. However, in other cases, a semi auto rifle is a far better choice. Why don't you tell me-so those of us who actually understand this issue-where a rifle is a better choice, where a shotgun is a better choice. AND WHY
 
I would agree with you 100% here. And thank you for being willing to hear and understand the other side of the argument. I think if more people approached the situation from your perspective, this debate would be much less intractable.

But that still doesn’t help me understand the level of paranoia on any reasonable regulations on these dangerous tools.
Closing the gun show loopholes, placing some reasonable limits on magazine capacity, regulations on certain types of bullets, etc...

People need cars and trucks as well. But there are lots of regulations on what kind of cars and trucks can be sold so that they are street legal. There is licensing and registration and training requirements and vision tests and doctors clearances For people who are suspected to be impaired, etc...

You can’t tell me that guns are more safe than cars and we should have no regulations whatsoever on them.

The argument I hear from many people here is that “I am a good driver and responsible gun owner, so there should be no laws whatsoever on those things. You can see why it might be a little puzzling to hear this. It doesn’t make sense.

more nonsense. We gun owners fully support laws that punish the irresponsible or criminal use of firearms. Almost all of us support laws that deny people adjudicated too dangerous or too likely to misuse a gun, from owning them. I have never met a gun owner that is against laws that say prevent the discharge of weapons in crowded urban areas (unless it is an emergency situation) or say laws that prevent someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol from brandishing or discharging firearms./

what we oppose are stupid laws that are clearly designed to limit the now legal and objectively non-harmful actions of lawful gun owners. Crap like "assault weapon bans", magazine limits, waiting periods to buy guns, or burdensome training requirements. All stuff that has no application to criminals
 
I would agree with you 100% here. And thank you for being willing to hear and understand the other side of the argument. I think if more people approached the situation from your perspective, this debate would be much less intractable.

But that still doesn’t help me understand the level of paranoia on any reasonable regulations on these dangerous tools. Closing the gun show loopholes, placing some reasonable limits on magazine capacity, regulations on certain types of bullets, etc...

Very few people disagree with having any regulations on firearms - the prohibitions on felons, for one. By "closing the gun show loophole", I assume you refer to instituting a national level "universal" background check system that would require some percentage of private sales and transfers to require a background check that can only be performed by an FFL, and is easily bypassed by criminals. The Department of Justice has acknowledged that without a reduction in straw purchases and an easy gun transfer process that an UBC won't be effective, and that without comprehensive registration it can't be enforced. The background check takes time to process, and takes both sales and employee time away from an FFL. For that reason some won't even process private transfers in the states that have UBCs and others charge upwards of $50 to process the transfer. The current bill, HR8, doesn't even place an upper limit on the fees an FFL can charge. The most egregious harm of an UBC, other than the complete lack of ability to enforce it, stems from criminalizing an action that does not harm society - that of transfers between non-prohibited persons. It should not be a crime to transfer a firearm to someone who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Magazine capacity restrictions aren't based upon science but feelings, and there is nothing to suggest that a limit will have an impact on the homicide rate or mass shootings. What you don't seem to understand is that the government is not authorized under the Constitution to restrict the arms of the People, and that any precedent set by a magazine capacity restriction law would have no legal lower bound; ie, the maximum capacity limit can continue to be lowered if someone thinks that a number lower than ten is "reasonable". There was nothing to ever suggest that ten was "reasonable"; it's a made up number, and thus any other number is equally valid. Denver, CO said 20 was the right number; Colorado said 15; California said 10; New York tried 7 and a legislator in Oregon is pushing for 5. You may think I'm embracing the slippery slope fallacy, but feel free to plot those numbers on a graph, and refer to Nancy Pelosi's position on how a slippery slope is part of the strategy.

I am curious on what type of bullet you wish to regulate. Can you elaborate?

[/QUOTE]
 
I would agree with you 100% here. And thank you for being willing to hear and understand the other side of the argument. I think if more people approached the situation from your perspective, this debate would be much less intractable.

But that still doesn’t help me understand the level of paranoia on any reasonable regulations on these dangerous tools. Closing the gun show loopholes, placing some reasonable limits on magazine capacity, regulations on certain types of bullets, etc...

People need cars and trucks as well. But there are lots of regulations on what kind of cars and trucks can be sold so that they are street legal. There is licensing and registration and training requirements and vision tests and doctors clearances For people who are suspected to be impaired, etc...

You can’t tell me that guns are more safe than cars and we should have no regulations whatsoever on them.

The argument I hear from many people here is that “I am a good driver and responsible gun owner, so there should be no laws whatsoever on those things. You can see why it might be a little puzzling to hear this. It doesn’t make sense.

lies like that don't make sense. find me a gun owner who is against laws that prevent people from shooting pigeons in Central park with a shotgun or a high powered rifle. Find me a gun owner against laws banning 12 year old kids from being able to buy handguns or carry them to school. The problem is-you are not reasonable when it comes to gun rights-you think we should not be able to own semi auto rifles and that all we need are handguns for home defense. then you pretend the laws you want are reasonable and if we oppose your concept of "reasonable" we are being "unreasonable"
 
When all you have is a hammer, all you see is nails.

When all you have in life is your gun, all you see is conflict, fear, hatred, and warfare.

This is not just a personal opinion because I don’t like guns. Large studies have shown this.

The "weapons effect" | Psychology Today

Who says guns are the only thing we have for security?

What a limited consideration. If you are involved at all with guns, you learn about situational awareness, other means of protection like pepper spray, home security, etc etc etc.

How about this: "If you are so involved in gun control that you only see guns and not individuals & circumstances, then restricting guns is the only thing you can ever try to use to fix all society's problems."

How do you think that will work out? Let us know please, it seems to be your perspective...just as you are projecting onto gun owners.
 
please show me where i said that?
dishonest is dishonest. if you can't be honest in what we are talking about have a nice day.

Ok, so what the hell are you saying?
 
Ok, so what the hell are you saying?

I said it in my posts you need to go back and read.
they are quite clear and precise.
 
You're lying because most real home security experts will tell you that each home situation is different. It is like saying most medical experts recommend surgery, without specifying the disease or malady the patient suffers. BTW I am a "home security" expert and a former firearms instructor for my component of the DOJ. And in some cases handguns are the preferred home defense weapon-especially in a home where the prime defender may have to leave where he is in the home to gather or protect children or invalids. However, in other cases, a semi auto rifle is a far better choice. Why don't you tell me-so those of us who actually understand this issue-where a rifle is a better choice, where a shotgun is a better choice. AND WHY

Sure.

 
more nonsense. We gun owners fully support laws that punish the irresponsible or criminal use of firearms. Almost all of us support laws that deny people adjudicated too dangerous or too likely to misuse a gun, from owning them. I have never met a gun owner that is against laws that say prevent the discharge of weapons in crowded urban areas (unless it is an emergency situation) or say laws that prevent someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol from brandishing or discharging firearms./

what we oppose are stupid laws that are clearly designed to limit the now legal and objectively non-harmful actions of lawful gun owners. Crap like "assault weapon bans", magazine limits, waiting periods to buy guns, or burdensome training requirements. All stuff that has no application to criminals

So we can leave nuclear arms free for all too, and only prosecute if anyone uses them in an unsafe manner. Does that sound reasonable to you?

These guns you are talking about are not designed for home safety nor for hunting. They are designed to protect against mobs and riots in the street and battlefield situations. The average person has as much business having these for home defense as they do a nuke.

Look, I know you are big gun enthusiast and collector and have encyclopedic knowledge of firearms. No one is out to get your guns. But this paranoia about losing high capacity clips and waiting an extra day to buy a gun, or regulating some of the crazier kinds of bullets out there, just seems very odd. If you are not on some mental health or terrorist watchlist, or not interested in specifically being free to buy cop killer bullets, why such intransigence? It doesn't make sense. It just seems like paranoia. And it's putting the public health in danger.

And don't resort to the usual "the only reason you are harassing gun owners is because liberals hate the way gun owners vote politically." That's a cop out of the debate.
 

Who is Justin Peters?

He is a correspondent for Slate, a contributing writer for the Washington City Paper, a former editor at the Columbia Journalism Review, and the founding editor of Polite.

He is an improviser and comedian who performs nationwide as the taller half of the duo From Justin to Kelly.

He is the co-founder of Countdown Theater and the Countdown Improv Festival.

He is one of the biggest money losers in game show history.

You can follow him on Twitter or email him at justintrevett at fastmail dot fm. His literary agent is Todd Shuster of Aevitas Creative Management.

Missing: Home security expert.
 
So we can leave nuclear arms free for all too, and only prosecute if anyone uses them in an unsafe manner. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Are they in common use for lawful purposes? Can a person even own the raw materials to make one? Again, nukes aren't 2A issue.

These guns you are talking about are not designed for home safety nor for hunting. They are designed to protect against mobs and riots in the street and battlefield situations. The average person has as much business having these for home defense as they do a nuke.

The first semiautomatic rifle in the US was made in 1903, in .22 LR. It wasn't designed as military rifle. The first semiautomatic centerfire rifle in the US was the Remington Model 8, designed for hunting. The .224 caliber bullet was first used in the .220 Swift, in 1935, for hunting. The .223 Remington was based on the .222 Remington, a hunting cartridge. The Remington model 760, a hunting rifle, was sold to civilians before the M16 was used by the US military. The Remington Model 8 used a removable box magazine that held up to 15 rounds.

There is nothing unique to the AR-15, other than the bayonet lug, that wasn't used in a hunting rifle before ever being used in an M16 or AR-15.

Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms:

1. Long distance shooting. Service Rifle - Civilian Marksmanship ProgramCivilian Marksmanship Program

2. Competition - News | 3 Gun Nation

3. Practice – for long distance or competition

4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame.

5. Varmint hunting - .204 Ruger

6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - Finally, 4 AR-Style Rifles Chambered for Big Game Hunting | Field & Stream

7. Self-defense. - Ultimate .300 Blackout Ammo Test - Shooting Times

Look, I know you are big gun enthusiast and collector and have encyclopedic knowledge of firearms. No one is out to get your guns. But this paranoia about losing high capacity clips and waiting an extra day to buy a gun, or regulating some of the crazier kinds of bullets out there, just seems very odd. If you are not on some mental health or terrorist watchlist, or not interested in specifically being free to buy cop killer bullets, why such intransigence? It doesn't make sense. It just seems like paranoia. And it's putting the public health in danger.

I already own guns. Why should I have to wait a day, or 10 days, or up to a month with some current laws? The government is not empowered to restrict the number of rounds that a magazine can hold, nor would it make any appreciable difference to the crime rate.

What are "cop killer" bullets? You do know that armor piercing bullets for handguns are already illegal, right?

And don't resort to the usual "the only reason you are harassing gun owners is because liberals hate the way gun owners vote politically." That's a cop out of the debate.

No, you're pushing for laws that won't work and aren't Constitutional because your understanding of guns and the law is lacking.
 
Last edited:

The Slate is a far left rag sheet. Who wrote that article? Justin Peters has no discernible biography other than being a left wing NYC writer for the slate. In other words-zero credibility. And that article is an OPINION Piece and is filled with complete bovine excrement claiming AR-15s aren't really useful for home defense and will over penetrate walls. When a novice writes crap like that, we who understand the issue laugh
 
Who is Justin Peters?

He is a correspondent for Slate, a contributing writer for the Washington City Paper, a former editor at the Columbia Journalism Review, and the founding editor of Polite.

He is an improviser and comedian who performs nationwide as the taller half of the duo From Justin to Kelly.

He is the co-founder of Countdown Theater and the Countdown Improv Festival.

He is one of the biggest money losers in game show history.

You can follow him on Twitter or email him at justintrevett at fastmail dot fm. His literary agent is Todd Shuster of Aevitas Creative Management.

Missing: Home security expert.

Yeah, he's a professional leftwing advocate. He has no credentials in any area that would count in this discussion and most of that article is his opinion.
 
Yeah, he's a professional leftwing advocate. He has no credentials in any area that would count in this discussion and most of that article is his opinion.

That post was an actual description from his own website. I would have responded to what he wrote in his article, but there were just too many errors.
 
That post was an actual description from his own website. I would have responded to what he wrote in his article, but there were just too many errors.

He clearly made no attempt to actually understand what he was writing about. Here is the thing people like him miss. Private Citizens are the first people to normally encounter armed and/or violent criminals. These citizens don't choose the time and place, and rarely have armed backup almost immediately available. AR 15 style rifles are extremely popular with CIVILIAN police. The twit who wrote that article doesn't even address that fact-Firearms that are useful for CIVILIAN police to use for self defense against armed criminals are EQUALLY useful for OTHER civilians to use in the same way.
 
You will never see strong gun control in terms of having people turn in their legally owed firearms. The reason you will not is because the democrats realize that if they were ever able to confiscate private citizens legal guns then democrats would never win another election.
 
He clearly made no attempt to actually understand what he was writing about. Here is the thing people like him miss. Private Citizens are the first people to normally encounter armed and/or violent criminals. These citizens don't choose the time and place, and rarely have armed backup almost immediately available. AR 15 style rifles are extremely popular with CIVILIAN police. The twit who wrote that article doesn't even address that fact-Firearms that are useful for CIVILIAN police to use for self defense against armed criminals are EQUALLY useful for OTHER civilians to use in the same way.

I keep a double barrel shotgun for home defense. Looking at those two barrels gives an intruder something to think about.
 
When all you have is a hammer, all you see is nails.

When all you have in life is your gun, all you see is conflict, fear, hatred, and warfare.

This is not just a personal opinion because I don’t like guns. Large studies have shown this.

The "weapons effect" | Psychology Today

Bravo! :2wave:

But actually, it's more like large studies conducted by liberal psychologists with a agenda.

My side arm never once made me seek conflict, hate, fear, or otherwise.
 
I keep a double barrel shotgun for home defense. Looking at those two barrels gives an intruder something to think about.

I have a FnH SLP-1 shotgun. 9 round magazine. Might not look as intimidating as a double barrel (I was a pretty highly ranked SASS "cowboy" shooter at one time and was good with the old double barrel btw) but far more effective against multiple invaders.
 
When all you have is a hammer, all you see is nails.

When all you have in life is your gun, all you see is conflict, fear, hatred, and warfare.

This is not just a personal opinion because I don’t like guns. Large studies have shown this.

The "weapons effect" | Psychology Today

When all you have as an answer, for every problem, is more government and less freedom, we end up with more government, less freedom, and the many problems remain.
 
I have a FnH SLP-1 shotgun. 9 round magazine. Might not look as intimidating as a double barrel (I was a pretty highly ranked SASS "cowboy" shooter at one time and was good with the old double barrel btw) but far more effective against multiple invaders.

I just loaded about 300 .300 Blackout subsonics with Hornady 220 AMAXs yesterday. I don't know from intimidating, but I do know what I like.
 
Back
Top Bottom