• 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 Safety

apdst said:
That's why I like double/single action semi-autos, with an external hammer placed on half-****, for a carry piece
Click to expand...

A CZ P-01 was my winter carry for five years, trying out the P-10c for a while.
 
joko104 said:
I never carry CCW in a holster because I carry highly concealable "pocket" guns. Previously it was feather weight Ruger LCP .380. Drop it in your pocket and no one knows it's there. The ballistics of a .380 is not THAT inferior to an 9mm at very close range. With a holster you have to wear a jacket or shirt not-tucked in. Don't care to do that all the time to hide a pistol or revolver.
Click to expand...

Noted. Personally, I carry my LCP in a DeSantis Pocket holster. Less lint gets into the action. Also, unlike "loose" pocket carry, the grip is always in the same position, and there is less "printing".

https://www.desantisholster.com/SUPER-FLY
 
VanceMack said:
I have 2 of their carbines...the 9mm and a 45. Fantastic guns. I wouldnt trust my life to a Hi Point handgun. All of my carry handguns are Glocks and Rugers. Full disclousre...I HAVE a HP 9mm handgun. Its probably 20 years old...Ive shot the hell ut of it...and it simply doesnt break. If it did..I could send it to HP and they would fix it for free or send me a new one. I wanted to hate it, but I cant. I get why someone that doesnt have a ton of cash would buy one.
Click to expand...


I use the hipoint 40 on my boat. If something’s going over it’s going to be the hipoint. Anyone wondering why you need a gun on a boat. You don’t but it’s more humane than beating the fish to death for 20 minutes
 
Chillfolks said:
I use the hipoint 40 on my boat. If something’s going over it’s going to be the hipoint. Anyone wondering why you need a gun on a boat. You don’t but it’s more humane than beating the fish to death for 20 minutes
Click to expand...
Sure...you ask why someone might need a gun on a boat NOW.....

_72804307_72804304.jpg

In all seriousness...I agree with all of the critiques about Hi Points except their reliability. I dont believe the Hi Points have any more reliability concerns than any other weapon, have seen these little beasts go through some of the most rigorous tests known to man, and keep on shooting. In fact its kind of ironic the extreme measures people take to see if they can get a HP to fail. I am not a proponent of HP...the only pistol of theirs that I bought I literally bought used for 60 bucks. All I can say about it is that it has NEVER failed. I shoot with a lot of different people and they all talk trash about it, all shoot it, all say the same thing...I dont care if it does shoot just fine, its still a piece of **** and I would never own one. OK then.

As for their carbines...those things are beasts...and they are awesome. The ONLY complaint I have about them is that even with the Redball extended magazine, they are still only really useful with their 9 round factory single stack mags.
 
VanceMack said:
Sure...you ask why someone might need a gun on a boat NOW.....

View attachment 67251860

In all seriousness...I agree with all of the critiques about Hi Points except their reliability. I dont believe the Hi Points have any more reliability concerns than any other weapon, have seen these little beasts go through some of the most rigorous tests known to man, and keep on shooting. In fact its kind of ironic the extreme measures people take to see if they can get a HP to fail. I am not a proponent of HP...the only pistol of theirs that I bought I literally bought used for 60 bucks. All I can say about it is that it has NEVER failed. I shoot with a lot of different people and they all talk trash about it, all shoot it, all say the same thing...I dont care if it does shoot just fine, its still a piece of **** and I would never own one. OK then.

As for their carbines...those things are beasts...and they are awesome. The ONLY complaint I have about them is that even with the Redball extended magazine, they are still only really useful with their 9 round factory single stack mags.
Click to expand...

I’ve had a few reliability issues but I’m putting junk ammo in a gun I don’t clean like I should. I don’t think your concealing in any fashion and would hate to think I had to carry it around. However I will say the weight of the gun really helps cut down on recoil so my wife actually enjoys shooting this gun over my other 40s
 
No rule 1 every gun is loaded, treat it as such. I would NEVER keep a gun in my waistband I kind of like my bits where they are.

I have always wondered about the though process when people put a gun in their waistband, I'm going to put something that can kill someone in my waistband and point it toward my junk.
 
LRG said:
Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

On the face of it, if the government can required a permit to exercise a right, then that right can be arbitrarily denied or heavily restricted by the government. That makes it a privilege.

From a Constitutional perspective, that power to charge a fee to exercise a right is not specifically enumerated. From a legal review perspective, charging a fee to exercise a right is unconstitutional - See Watchtower v Village of Stratton and Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama: “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
 
Rucker61 said:
On the face of it, if the government can required a permit to exercise a right, then that right can be arbitrarily denied or heavily restricted by the government. That makes it a privilege.

From a Constitutional perspective, that power to charge a fee to exercise a right is not specifically enumerated. From a legal review perspective, charging a fee to exercise a right is unconstitutional - See Watchtower v Village of Stratton and Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama: “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
Click to expand...

I’ not in full agreement with your rational. And I further I disagree that Stratton and Shuttlesworth are applicable to the issue of gun ownership. But let’s assume that there’s no monetary charge to obtain a permit. Do you support requirements such as classes, background checks and fingerprints as a condition precedent to obtain the permit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LRG said:
I’ not in full agreement with your rational. And I further I disagree that Stratton and Shuttlesworth are applicable to the issue of gun ownership. But let’s assume that there’s no monetary charge to obtain a permit. Do you support requirements such as classes, background checks and fingerprints as a condition precedent to obtain the permit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be a permit required to exercise a right.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If one can exercise their right to vote then why not also the right to possess and carry a gun?
Click to expand...

To exercise the right to vote you have to register. Further, the exercise of the right to vote does not lead to the dangers that owning and carrying firearms can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LRG said:
To exercise the right to vote you have to register. Further, the exercise of the right to vote does not lead to the dangers that owning and carrying firearms can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

More danger exists from passing restrictive laws (mandating that only criminals or government agents may be armed) than by simply possessing a gun. The 2A is not a right to fire a gun and has never been used a defense against "gun crime". Voting has led to converting possession of legally owned (purchased?) gun into a crime based on its magazine capacity.
 
LRG said:
So you believe that we shouldn’t have driver licenses?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't believe that driving is a right.
 
LRG said:
To exercise the right to vote you have to register. Further, the exercise of the right to vote does not lead to the dangers that owning and carrying firearms can.
Click to expand...

The right to keep and bear arms isn't dangerous - abusing that right is.

Edit: Sometimes you don't have to register to vote to be allowed to vote.

"Automatic voter registration is gaining traction quickly in the states. Since March 2015, twelve states plus the District of Columbia have authorized the policy. Automatic registration makes two transformative, yet simple, changes to the voter registration process: Eligible citizens who interact with government agencies are registered to vote unless they decline, and agencies transfer voter registration information electronically to election officials. "

Automatic Voter Registration and Modernization in the States | Brennan Center for Justice
 
LRG said:
To exercise the right to vote you have to register...
Click to expand...

Why should you have to register to vote ?

Why can't Social Security records and numbers be used to automatically register everyone ?
 
Rucker61 said:
The right to keep and bear arms isn't dangerous - abusing that right is.

Edit: Sometimes you don't have to register to vote to be allowed to vote.

"Automatic voter registration is gaining traction quickly in the states. Since March 2015, twelve states plus the District of Columbia have authorized the policy. Automatic registration makes two transformative, yet simple, changes to the voter registration process: Eligible citizens who interact with government agencies are registered to vote unless they decline, and agencies transfer voter registration information electronically to election officials. "

Automatic Voter Registration and Modernization in the States | Brennan Center for Justice
Click to expand...

Yes automatic VOTER REGISTRATION.

Being pedantic gets you so far. Obviously, the state has a DUTY to protect its citizens from violence. It’s a compelling state interest. The abuse of the second amendment right has much more dire consequences than abusing the right to vote. That’s the point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rich2018 said:
Why should you have to register to vote ?

Why can't Social Security records and numbers be used to automatically register everyone ?
Click to expand...

It’s still registration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ttwtt78640 said:
More danger exists from passing restrictive laws (mandating that only criminals or government agents may be armed) than by simply possessing a gun. The 2A is not a right to fire a gun and has never been used a defense against "gun crime". Voting has led to converting possession of legally owned (purchased?) gun into a crime based on its magazine capacity.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry. I don’t follow your argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LRG said:
Yes automatic VOTER REGISTRATION.

Being pedantic gets you so far. Obviously, the state has a DUTY to protect its citizens from violence. It’s a compelling state interest. The abuse of the second amendment right has much more dire consequences than abusing the right to vote. That’s the point.
Click to expand...

There are still limits on the power of the state to restrict a right in protecting its citizens. As you note, it's the abuse of the right, not the existence of the right, that has lethal consequences. Focus on the abuse, not the lawful exercise of the right.
 
LRG said:
It sure is. Paul v. Virginia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The 1869 Paul v Virginia, the one overturned by United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association?
 
Rucker61 said:
There are still limits on the power of the state to restrict a right in protecting its citizens. As you note, it's the abuse of the right, not the existence of the right, that has lethal consequences. Focus on the abuse, not the lawful exercise of the right.
Click to expand...

Focus on the abuse? Explain.


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