• 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?

BretJ said:
Because there is always hope logic and rational thought will prevail and suppressors will be removed from the NFA. Pot might even become as legal as alcohol.
Click to expand...

Like it is here. We picked up $200M in tax revenue last year for schools.
 
TurtleDude said:
I see rather than making a rational argument for the status quo (you cannot) we get this lame ass BS from you
Click to expand...

There are lots of laws I do not like. The suppressor law is not one of them. What's your beef?
 
TurtleDude said:
once again-the current version of Calamity is mad about pot laws so he wants to keep a stupid law harassing gun owners in place because he apparently thinks not enough of them are mad about laws against weed and blow
Click to expand...

Calamity has been mad at nutty Republicans since GW Bush sent soldiers to die in Iraq. You know that. Sad thing is the Republicans are getting nuttier by the day. This attempt to lift the restrictions on suppressors is just another example of that fact.
 
calamity said:
There are lots of laws I do not like. The suppressor law is not one of them. What's your beef?
Click to expand...

it violates the second and tenth amendments. its stupid has no valid reason and the only people supporting it are those who have hard ons for gun owners over political issues
 
calamity said:
Calamity has been mad at nutty Republicans since GW Bush sent soldiers to die in Iraq. You know that. Sad thing is the Republicans are getting nuttier by the day. This attempt to lift the restrictions on suppressors is just another example of that fact.
Click to expand...

yeah as I said, your dishonesty is patent You have no argument in favor of the law other than it pisses off people whose politics you don't like. you're just trolling gun owners because you think we are all against weed, buggery, abortion and other stuff you want to be legal
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah as I said, your dishonesty is patent You have no argument in favor of the law other than it pisses off people whose politics you don't like. you're just trolling gun owners because you think we are all against weed, buggery, abortion and other stuff you want to be legal
Click to expand...

I do find it odd that you all want every weapon under the sun to be legal but argue for big government to haul people out of their beds, monitor their sexual proclivities, police their wombs, and jam some backwards religious dogma down our children's throats. So, yeah, I guess it is political, for both sides.
 
calamity said:
Calamity has been mad at nutty Republicans since GW Bush sent soldiers to die in Iraq. You know that. Sad thing is the Republicans are getting nuttier by the day. This attempt to lift the restrictions on suppressors is just another example of that fact.
Click to expand...

That may be your opinion and you are welcome to it, but you still have avoided explaining why you think it is nutty with any rational explanation.
 
BretJ said:
That may be your opinion and you are welcome to it, but you still have avoided explaining why you think it is nutty with any rational explanation.
Click to expand...

Because we do not need "quiet" guns.
 
calamity said:
I do find it odd that you all want every weapon under the sun to be legal but argue for big government to haul people out of their beds, monitor their sexual proclivities, police their wombs, and jam some backwards religious dogma down our children's throats. So, yeah, I guess it is political, for both sides.
Click to expand...

Define "you all" .....Pretty goofy assumption. Now you are just flinging poop and seeing if it sticks. Unfortunately, you are way off Target.
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
Define "you all" .....Pretty goofy assumption. Now you are just flinging poop and seeing if it sticks. Unfortunately, you are way of Target.
Click to expand...

You all voted for it.
 
calamity said:
Because we do not need "quiet" guns.
Click to expand...

So? We do not need pot or alcohol, yet the cost to our country in lives and tragedies is infinitely greater than guns or suppressors. "Need" is irrelevant.
 
haymarket said:
I was not born until 49 and can find nothing about that. What do you have?
Click to expand...
You're the one making a big deal about it being necessary that the will of the people support removing restrictions from people easily buying suppressors. I would assume you'd have some notion of the will of the people in 1934 to support your argument.
 
BretJ said:
The will of the people was to find work and feed their families. Some went so far as to poach game and shoot other people's livestock. Some with suppressed firearms.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from? What is your source that people in the Thirties were hunting for food and using silencers in the process?
 
Moon said:
You're the one making a big deal about it being necessary that the will of the people support removing restrictions from people easily buying suppressors. I would assume you'd have some notion of the will of the people in 1934 to support your argument.
Click to expand...

What about my answer so seems to confuse and befuddle you causing you to repeat the same question in apparent desperation from a lack of anything else?
 
haymarket said:
Where are you getting this from? What is your source that people in the Thirties were hunting for food and using silencers in the process?
Click to expand...

Google is your friend. Search for NFA, silencers, poaching as a start. Learn why suppressors were added to the NFA. You will even find a few left leaning links that relate the history....But I do not believe for a second that it will make a difference. What with you having spent the night in a Holiday Inn Express...
 
BretJ said:
Google is your friend. Search for NFA, silencers, poaching as a start. Learn why suppressors were added to the NFA. You will even find a few left leaning links that relate the history....But I do not believe for a second that it will make a difference. What with you having spent the night in a Holiday Inn Express...
Click to expand...

I am asking YOU to support YOUR claim of fact. I am NOT interested in a wild goose chase to prove you right or wrong.
 
haymarket said:
I am asking YOU to support YOUR claim of fact. I am NOT interested in a wild goose chase to prove you right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Your choice. That's the history. Put up or shut up.
 
BretJ said:
Your choice. That's the history. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Yes - put up or shut up is exactly what I am asking you to do with your own claims of alleged fact.

My CHOICE as you put it into ask YOU to support YOUR claims YOU made in YOUR post by supplying YOUR evidence. That is how debate works when YOU make a claim of fact.
 
haymarket said:
Yes - put up or shut up is exactly what I am asking you to do with your own claims of alleged fact.

My CHOICE as you put it into ask YOU to support YOUR claims YOU made in YOUR post by supplying YOUR evidence. That is how debate works when YOU make a claim of fact.
Click to expand...

Except you make no attempt to support your view. If you are that interested in debating this subject YOU would perform a little due diligence and discover the facts yourself. That is also part of debate. Too bad if it hurts your sensibilities.
 
haymarket said:
What about my answer so seems to confuse and befuddle you causing you to repeat the same question in apparent desperation from a lack of anything else?
Click to expand...
What desperation? You're the one making an argument you won't or can't support, which is pretty much par for the course with you.
 
Moon said:
What desperation? You're the one making an argument you won't or can't support, which is pretty much par for the course with you.
Click to expand...

Funny how he holds others to a standard he will not hold himself to eh? I know a few people like him in my professional community. They puff out their chests and crow alot but not very well respected.
 
calamity said:
I do find it odd that you all want every weapon under the sun to be legal but argue for big government to haul people out of their beds, monitor their sexual proclivities, police their wombs, and jam some backwards religious dogma down our children's throats. So, yeah, I guess it is political, for both sides.
Click to expand...

more complete dishonest BS. where do you get off telling such blatant lies about my positions.
 
BretJ said:
Except you make no attempt to support your view. If you are that interested in debating this subject YOU would perform a little due diligence and discover the facts yourself. That is also part of debate. Too bad if it hurts your sensibilities.
Click to expand...

YOU made YOUR own claim of fact. I am asking YOU to support YOUR claim.

Neither I nor any other human being are obligated to raise so much as a little finger to alleviate you of he burden that is 100% upon you and nobody else when you make a claim of fact.
 
Moon said:
What desperation? You're the one making an argument you won't or can't support, which is pretty much par for the course with you.
Click to expand...

What argument are you referring to exactly. Quote me saying what you claim I will not support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom