• 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!

Bill to remove short barreled rifles from NFA.

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
7,675
Reaction score
3,083
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm personally skeptical about it passing after what happened to the hearing protection act and national reciprocity for carry permits, but I'd thought it'll be a nice topic to discuss. I personally don't see any issue with. We already have AR pistols with arm braces that can act like a stock so the NFA is mostly defunct anyway is this regard.
 
It would be great if it passed, but it won't. The Democrats and most Republicans would never vote for it.
 

Leftist wussies are scared to death of guns and stupidly think making guns illegal will force thugs to lay their guns down like good little boys.
 

Can you cite the actual legislation? It would be nice to see what the bill actually says.
 
marke said:
Leftist wussies are scared to death of guns and stupidly think making guns illegal will force thugs to lay their guns down like good little boys.
Click to expand...

Again you make it political, no-one is scared of guns par se, merely what allowing a (virtually) unrestricted supply of guns causes in terms of death and maiming.
 
Rich2018 said:
Again you make it political, no-one is scared of guns par se, merely what allowing a (virtually) unrestricted supply of guns causes in terms of death and maiming.
Click to expand...

Please.

Okay.. please explain how if my rifle barrel is 15 and 1/2 inches its appreciably more dangerous than when my rifle barrel is 16 inches.

.
 
jaeger19 said:
Please.

Okay.. please explain how if my rifle barrel is 15 and 1/2 inches its appreciably more dangerous than when my rifle barrel is 16 inches.

.
Click to expand...

It's not, and I didn't say it was.

I guess the government wants to draw the line somewhere and a restriction of rifle barrel lengths probably affects restrictions on shotgun barrel lengths.

You may be OK with a very short length shotgun barrel but I am not OK with that.
 

Why?

Is it more deadly?
 
It's actually much safer, at least in a home defense situation. In some instances, trying to use any kind of "long gun" becomes problematic in close quarters, thus a shorter barrel might just ensure that you get the important shot at the right time.

I think they need to relax the rules about sawed off shotguns, too.

Respectfully,
Checkerboard Strangler - lefty gun owner
 

I can keep that sawed off shotgun Santa brought me?
 
Rich2018 said:
That's not what I meant.

Sawed-off shotgun - Wikipedia


This is what I mean
Click to expand...

Like I said and has been told to you a gazillion times: they aren't illegal to own...

 
Maccabee said:
I'm personally skeptical about it passing after what happened to the hearing protection act and national reciprocity for carry permits,
Click to expand...
We still can get national reciprocity and the hearing protection act passed, especially if Trump gets elected for a 2nd term.
 

Why not? A longer barreled shotgun is particularly more dangerous at long ranges.
 
They SHOULD pass it. The laws as currently constituted are just...dumb.

This is perfectly legal with no special provisions



and this is also perfectly legal with no special provisions



But THIS is illegal without a tax stamp and a permit.

 
Fledermaus said:
Why?

Is it more deadly?
Click to expand...

Rich hates legal gun ownership. He won't support any law that makes it easier for people to own guns. No rational reason for it. He just hates people being able to own firearms.
 
DebateChallenge said:
We still can get national reciprocity and the hearing protection act passed, especially if Trump gets elected for a 2nd term.
Click to expand...

Reciprocity is very important because this mish-mosh of competing and differing state regs is the height of stupidity.
A law abiding gun owner WANTS TO BE law abiding.
What a surprise!!

How can they be with a withering maze of ridiculous state and even intra-state regulations that cannot possibly be reconciled.
I don't mind so much if they set the standard high. If I have to study, practice, train and keep everything squeaky clean, I'll do it.

But I never want to have to feel the way I felt driving back from Tulsa Oklahoma to California with my legal pistol stored in the back compartment of our van. These days, if you're a senior traveling across country with a disabled wife, it might be pretty important to have protection with you...protection you can actually USE.

I shouldn't have to worry about my right to keep a piece stored where I can access it in an emergency to protect my wife.
I am squeaky clean, I am well trained, I am sane and rational and I do abide by the law.
And if I pass the smell test in one state, it should be good enough for all fifty.
After all, most if not all states now have no problem with reciprocity when it comes to traffic violation fines and warrants, do they?
 
Do you know that this weapon is PERFECTLY legal with no tax stamp or provisions?



As is this



?
 
TurtleDude said:
Rich hates legal gun ownership. He won't support any law that makes it easier for people to own guns. No rational reason for it. He just hates people being able to own firearms.
Click to expand...

Okayfinewhatever but what truly makes no sense is the fact that, even if you pose a clear case of "him or me" and "HIM" is an armed criminal who has made it clear they intend to kill you, Rich STILL objects to the notion that you might exercise your "right to stay alive".

Sorry Rich, if it's him or me, I will always vote for ME, and if that means "him" is so evil and so stupid that they want to risk their life by threatening mine, so be it. The choice to die belongs to "him" because I made my choice to survive by any means necessary.
 
Rich2018 said:
Again you make it political, no-one is scared of guns par se, merely what allowing a (virtually) unrestricted supply of guns causes in terms of death and maiming.
Click to expand...

What is the price of freedom? If God-fearing Americans can volunteer to go to war overseas and risk their lives to protect Americans at home you would think weenies at home would be willing to take some risks to guaranteed the 2nd amendment rights of those God-fearing Americans when they return home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…