All Things Guns & Ammo

mac5155
Posts: 13839
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:47 pm

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby mac5155 » Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:50 pm

I think his point was (as is the case with almost all gun laws), the logic isnt sound. But anti gun folks just go back to the "why do you need them" argument.

An SBR is no more deadly than a handgun, and the Supreme Court has already ruled on them.

An SBR "being concealed" is not objective because concealed carry is already legal.

What other reason is there to outlaw a pistol brace? The gun is just as deadly as any other gun if pointed and fired at someone.

To borrow your car analogy, the law is more akin to someone who can't find the hood release in your car making laws about what kind of oil your mechanic can use in the motor.

Disclaimer: I don't debate for a living :lol:

Jim
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm
Location: Skating through traffic because I got hands!!!

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Jim » Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:53 pm

I think his point was (as is the case with almost all gun laws), the logic isnt sound. But anti gun folks just go back to the "why do you need them" argument.
That is literally what I am "arguing" and I am NOT anti-gun. However, I hold BOTH the "why do you need them" thought, AND the "Why are you banning them" thoughts. It is basically something if if allowed to be, would have zero impact on anyone's life or actual rights, and if it is something that is banned, would have zero impact on anyone's life or actual rights.

The ability to purchase various kinds of firearms is something that I practice. It is an anility that I would not want to go away. However, the arguments from this side of the line are more and more lacking in logic. So much so that even someone like me, who wants to have access to and continued ability to purchase, can easily dismiss and counter the "pro-gun" side of these arguments. Which is obviously not good.

It's like when you are having a discussion/debate about something, and someone "on your side" says something and you are like "Oh no, no, you need to just stop talking."

The vast middle of the population that doesn't really care one way or the other about these things sees this questionable argument made by the pro-lobby, realize that they are questionable, and will start to think "if they are this goofy about this, then maybe the rest of their platform is goofy too" and start to steer towards the anti-lobby.

Frankly, this has gone far off of the original comment though. What "right" is being denied by banning pistol braces? What is the actual difference between banning braces and taillight blackouts?

mac5155
Posts: 13839
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:47 pm

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby mac5155 » Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:58 pm

It's all a rouse anyway, IMO. The ATF essentially punted on this and will let the Biden admin handle this likely via executive order.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Shyster » Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:52 pm

That is literally what I am "arguing" and I am NOT anti-gun. However, I hold BOTH the "why do you need them" thought, AND the "Why are you banning them" thoughts. It is basically something if if allowed to be, would have zero impact on anyone's life or actual rights, and if it is something that is banned, would have zero impact on anyone's life or actual rights.

Taillights aren't constitutionally protected. Firearm ownership is constitutionally protected. That's the difference. When it comes to constitutional rights, the "why do you need to do that" questions are off the table. E.g.:

- Why do black men/women "need" to marry white men/women? Why can't they marry people of their own race?
- Why do Muslims/Christians/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists "need" to practice that specific religion? There are plenty of other religions they could choose.
- Why shouldn't we be able to ban certain speech that we don't like? There are plenty of other things to talk about.

I would also say that the burden of proof should be placed on those who want to ban / regulate something. As I pointed out, the whole rationale for banning pistol braces and even short-barrel rifles and shotguns is faulty. Those who advocate for banning them should have to explain what harmful impact they are having.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby tifosi77 » Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:23 pm

I still can't say I have ever had any level of understanding of the designation of 'pistol' pertaining to these ARs. It's totally arbitrary; and I'm sure no one ever fires an AR pistol with the brace in their shoulder pocket and their cheek welded. Unless they are on a boat with Shyster.

And I very much approach this from a Constitutional right perspective, moreso than anything inherent about firearms or the 2nd Amendment in particular. The whimsy with which some people approach the notion of abridging the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right should provoke scorn and worry imo.

Jim
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm
Location: Skating through traffic because I got hands!!!

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Jim » Thu Dec 31, 2020 7:57 pm

That is literally what I am "arguing" and I am NOT anti-gun. However, I hold BOTH the "why do you need them" thought, AND the "Why are you banning them" thoughts. It is basically something if if allowed to be, would have zero impact on anyone's life or actual rights, and if it is something that is banned, would have zero impact on anyone's life or actual rights.

Taillights aren't constitutionally protected. Firearm ownership is constitutionally protected. That's the difference. When it comes to constitutional rights, the "why do you need to do that" questions are off the table. E.g.:

- Why do black men/women "need" to marry white men/women? Why can't they marry people of their own race?
- Why do Muslims/Christians/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists "need" to practice that specific religion? There are plenty of other religions they could choose.
- Why shouldn't we be able to ban certain speech that we don't like? There are plenty of other things to talk about.

I would also say that the burden of proof should be placed on those who want to ban / regulate something. As I pointed out, the whole rationale for banning pistol braces and even short-barrel rifles and shotguns is faulty. Those who advocate for banning them should have to explain what harmful impact they are having.
I did mention that taillights do not have an Amendment, so that was addressed.

However, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that protects the "right" to own/use a pistol brace, and you do have rights to personal property (car), so it could easily be argued that it does match just fine with taillight-dressing rights. But interpretation of the 2nd amendment is it's own battle ground and not relevant to what I am discussing.

Sibe note, anti's get accused of falling to a "why do you need it" platform which is a weak platform, but pro's tend to fall to a "2nd Amendment" platform whis is frankly usually just wrong as well. But I wasn't trying to debate the 2nd amendment. I was trying to address the misguided defense of the pro side. Instead of addressing the problems, it's like and unattended firehose on full, just flopping and spraying all over the place. Which frankly has been shown here by no one commenting on what I an talking about, but instead shifting to strawman things as I predicted.

Jim: Pistol brace argument, really?
Response: 2nd Anemdment!!!
Reality: Facepalm

I literally point to it and put a spot light on it and... right on queue.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Shyster » Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:04 pm

However, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that protects the "right" to own/use a pistol brace

Says who? Why wouldn't pistol braces be covered by the 2A?
Instead of addressing the problems, it's like and unattended firehose on full, just flopping and spraying all over the place.
Other than "I don't think anyone needs one of those," what exactly is the problem with pistol braces? You clearly don't think anyone should be allowed to own one? Why?

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Shyster » Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:39 pm

Also, setting aside the legal and constitutional questions, pistol braces were originally created by USMC and Army veteran Alex Bosco, the founder of SB Tactical, after Bosco went shooting with a disabled combat veteran who had difficulty controlling the firearm they were shooting. Bosco created a brace to slide over the buffer tube with two wings that straddle the shooter’s forearm and a velcro strap to hold it in place. Bosco submitted the design to the BATF, which approved it and said it did not create an SBR. In 2014, the BATF issued a second determination that said that "firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR" because "Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon."

While not everyone who uses a pistol brace is disabled, they were originally designed for use by the disabled.

Jim
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm
Location: Skating through traffic because I got hands!!!

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Jim » Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:38 pm

However, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that protects the "right" to own/use a pistol brace
Says who? Why wouldn't pistol braces be covered by the 2A?
I don't want to argue the 2nd Amendment as I am not against ownership/etc... but the 2nd amendment is well documented so show me where pistol braces are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Take all of the time that you want. I'll even let you twist the wording in it to make it easier for you. Pistol braces are no more protected by the 2nd than a plastic lightsaber is. But again, the 2nd isn't the point of my original comment.
Instead of addressing the problems, it's like and unattended firehose on full, just flopping and spraying all over the place.
Other than "I don't think anyone needs one of those," what exactly is the problem with pistol braces? You clearly don't think anyone should be allowed to own one? Why?
Never said that, never even insinuated that. All that you just did was prove what you quoted of mine... counter argument flopping around. I even literally said that I do not understand the fight against them. But you chose to ignore that for the floppy hose style counter. Even saying "You clearly don't think anyone should be allowed to own one?" CLEARLY? Even though I said that I also hold the "Why are you banning them" thoughts. Just like your argument against my taillight analogy was that they "aren't constitutionally protected" even though I had already said that myself as well.

All you have done is support my actual point of the pro side being directionless, arguing against the inch because they'll take a mile, just flopping around spraying at anything.

My original comment was about not understand why it was a problem if they got banned, not understand why anyone would get in trouble if they were banned (for using them), not understand the fight to keep them legal. For clarity, I don't understand the want to ban them, but what right is being infringed upon if they did? How are our rights lessened by such a ban?

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Shyster » Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:05 am

I don't want to argue the 2nd Amendment as I am not against ownership/etc... but the 2nd amendment is well documented so show me where pistol braces are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
SCOTUS says that the 2A applies to arms that are in common use for lawful purposes. Pistol braces are a component of arms, and they are in common use for lawful purposes. Ergo, they are covered by the 2A.

You're "show me where" argument is inapposite. The 2A doesn't list doesn't include a comprehensive list of what is covered and what is not. It refers to "arms." Under your argument, rifles, shotguns, and handguns would all be unprotected by the 2A because none of those terms are explicitly listed.
All you have done is support my actual point of the pro side being directionless, arguing against the inch because they'll take a mile, just flopping around spraying at anything.
History demonstrates that if the pro-gun side does give an inch, the anti-gun side will take a mile. Moreover, why should the pro side have to give any inches in the first place? What would we get in return?
For clarity, I don't understand the want to ban them, but what right is being infringed upon if they did? How are our rights lessened by such a ban?
Why couldn't Rosa Parks just move to the back of the bus? I mean, how seriously were her rights being infringed by just walking a few more steps to the back-row seats? Why were her rights lessened by walking maybe four or five more steps? It's not like she was being asked to hang on the outside of the bus.

Jim
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm
Location: Skating through traffic because I got hands!!!

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Jim » Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:20 pm

I don't want to argue the 2nd Amendment as I am not against ownership/etc... but the 2nd amendment is well documented so show me where pistol braces are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
SCOTUS says that the 2A applies to arms that are in common use for lawful purposes. Pistol braces are a component of arms, and they are in common use for lawful purposes. Ergo, they are covered by the 2A.

You're "show me where" argument is inapposite. The 2A doesn't list doesn't include a comprehensive list of what is covered and what is not. It refers to "arms." Under your argument, rifles, shotguns, and handguns would all be unprotected by the 2A because none of those terms are explicitly listed.
If you don't comprehend the difference between "rifles, shotguns, and handguns" and non functional components in terms of "arms" then that is just... That is why the pro side fails. This is exactly what I have mentioned a few times about the random flopping as opposed to directed specifics. Throw as much as you can at the wall, maybe something will stick.

I'm going to use your "logic"... The taillight blackouts are protected by the constitution, by the 2nd amendment actually. I have a pistol, covered; the pistol brace is a component, covered; I need to get to the range which means use of my truck which makes it a component (a giant metal holster/carrycase), covered; taillight blackouts are a component, covered. Lawyered. :thumbdown: :face:

But again, I didn't want to argue the 2nd. I should have realized that that was the ONLY defense that the pro side has so I suppose this is all my fault in expecting better.

Jim
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm
Location: Skating through traffic because I got hands!!!

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Jim » Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:26 pm

Why couldn't Rosa Parks just move to the back of the bus? I mean, how seriously were her rights being infringed by just walking a few more steps to the back-row seats? Why were her rights lessened by walking maybe four or five more steps? It's not like she was being asked to hang on the outside of the bus.
By the way, this is just flat out asinine. Pathetic. Stupid. Comparing this to the pistol brace argument just shows that you are a fool.

This is one of those times that I mentioned when people that agree with your premise on the original topic are now like, "You need to stop talking."

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Shyster » Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:49 pm

If you don't comprehend the difference between "rifles, shotguns, and handguns" and non functional components in terms of "arms" then that is just... That is why the pro side fails. This is exactly what I have mentioned a few times about the random flopping as opposed to directed specifics. Throw as much as you can at the wall, maybe something will stick.

I'm going to use your "logic"... The taillight blackouts are protected by the constitution, by the 2nd amendment actually. I have a pistol, covered; the pistol brace is a component, covered; I need to get to the range which means use of my truck which makes it a component (a giant metal holster/carrycase), covered; taillight blackouts are a component, covered. Lawyered. :thumbdown: :face:
And you are obviously unfamiliar with the court cases that have held that firearms parts and accessories, including magazines and ammunition, fall under the meaning of "arms" in the 2A, which encompasses a broader concept than guns themselves. See, e.g., Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1114 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (magazines are covered); Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011)) (holding that the right to possess firearms implied a corresponding right to have access to firing ranges in order to train to be proficient with such firearms).

Your analogy doesn't work because the truck is not a component part of a gun. It is not attached to the gun or any part of a gun.
But again, I didn't want to argue the 2nd. I should have realized that that was the ONLY defense that the pro side has so I suppose this is all my fault in expecting better.
You still haven't explained what is wrong with pistol braces in the first place. Why should they be regulated?
Last edited by Shyster on Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Shyster » Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:52 pm

By the way, this is just flat out asinine. Pathetic. Stupid. Comparing this to the pistol brace argument just shows that you are a fool.

This is one of those times that I mentioned when people that agree with your premise on the original topic are now like, "You need to stop talking."

And you just resorted to name calling and ad-hominem attacks rather than making substantive arguments. Please note that I haven't called you names or ridiculed your arguments.

Jim
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm
Location: Skating through traffic because I got hands!!!

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Jim » Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:53 pm

But again, I didn't want to argue the 2nd. I should have realized that that was the ONLY defense that the pro side has so I suppose this is all my fault in expecting better.
You still haven't explained what is wrong with pistol braces in the first place. Why should they be regulated?

I never said that they did. Not once. You suggested that I said that before and I pointed out that you were wrong on that. How many times are you going to be wrong in this discussion?

Jim
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm
Location: Skating through traffic because I got hands!!!

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Jim » Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:06 pm

By the way, this is just flat out asinine. Pathetic. Stupid. Comparing this to the pistol brace argument just shows that you are a fool.

This is one of those times that I mentioned when people that agree with your premise on the original topic are now like, "You need to stop talking."

And you just resorted to name calling and ad-hominem attacks rather than making substantive arguments. Please note that I haven't called you names or ridiculed your arguments.
You didn't call me names because I didn't say anything asinine. You said something asinine. I compared the pistol brace debate to tail light covers as both are relatively needless add-ons, but things that people buy and use. You compared the pistol braces debate to Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks! You are an asshat. What you should have done is immediately retract your idiotic comparison but instead instead still drive forward and point fingers. The saddest this is you probably don't even understand. Clown.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Shyster » Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:12 pm

You:
I never said that they did. Not once. You suggested that I said that before and I pointed out that you were wrong on that. How many times are you going to be wrong in this discussion?
Also you:
Pistol braces could be 100% outlawed... I don't see what the actual problem is.

Pistol brace use could be punishable by death. I don't understand why one person would be in danger.
You posted yesterday that they should be "100% outlawed." In what world is that not a statement that pistol braces should be regulated?

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Shyster » Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:19 pm

I compared the pistol brace debate to tail light covers as both are relatively needless add-ons, but things that people buy and use. You compared the pistol braces debate to Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks! You are an asshat. What you should have done is immediately retract your idiotic comparison but instead instead still drive forward and point fingers. The saddest this is you probably don't even understand. Clown.
Sitting in the front of the bus, as opposed to the back, is a "relatively needless" action, and it is minimally intrusive to require someone to take a few more steps to move to the back of the bus. The analogy is apt because you are making an inconvenience argument; it would be minimally inconvenient to ban pistol braces, so no one should really object to such a trifling inconvenience. But the problem with that argument is actually the same for both Rosa Parks and pistol braces, as well as anyone else who would raise such an "inconvenience" argument to personal rights—namely, rights are not subject to needs/inconvenience arguments. Regardless of which right we are dealing with, whether the First, Second, Fourth, or Fourteenth, those arguments don't apply and have been consistently rejected when made.

mac5155
Posts: 13839
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:47 pm

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby mac5155 » Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:23 pm

:pop:

Jim
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm
Location: Skating through traffic because I got hands!!!

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Jim » Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:56 am

You:
I never said that they did. Not once. You suggested that I said that before and I pointed out that you were wrong on that. How many times are you going to be wrong in this discussion?
Also you:
Pistol braces could be 100% outlawed... I don't see what the actual problem is.

Pistol brace use could be punishable by death. I don't understand why one person would be in danger.
You posted yesterday that they should be "100% outlawed." In what world is that not a statement that pistol braces should be regulated?
Thank you for again proving my side of the discussion by quoting that I never said that braces should be banned at all, much less stating it "clearly" as you stated earlier. You are REALLY not doing well in this interaction. You are literally 0-for-total.

Do you not understand the difference between "could" and "should"?
You: "You posted yesterday that they should be "100% outlawed."" LITERALLY not what I said, LITERALLY not what you quoted. :face:

Jim
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm
Location: Skating through traffic because I got hands!!!

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Jim » Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:09 am

I compared the pistol brace debate to tail light covers as both are relatively needless add-ons, but things that people buy and use. You compared the pistol braces debate to Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks! You are an asshat. What you should have done is immediately retract your idiotic comparison but instead instead still drive forward and point fingers. The saddest this is you probably don't even understand. Clown.
Sitting in the front of the bus, as opposed to the back, is a "relatively needless" action, and it is minimally intrusive to require someone to take a few more steps to move to the back of the bus. The analogy is apt because you are making an inconvenience argument; it would be minimally inconvenient to ban pistol braces, so no one should really object to such a trifling inconvenience. But the problem with that argument is actually the same for both Rosa Parks and pistol braces, as well as anyone else who would raise such an "inconvenience" argument to personal rights—namely, rights are not subject to needs/inconvenience arguments. Regardless of which right we are dealing with, whether the First, Second, Fourth, or Fourteenth, those arguments don't apply and have been consistently rejected when made.
The fact that you are STILL pushing the comparison between pistol braces and Rosa Parks is disgusting.

You are an asshat clown. Period.

I'm actually going to add ignorant to that too, but which side of ignorant are you? Ignorant as is too stupid to see the difference, or ignorant as in you are aware of depth of the two situations, but you are so **** in the head that you actually think that they are on the same level? I'll let you pick. I find it amazing that you keep defending it.

Ignorant asshat clown.

dodint
Posts: 59158
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby dodint » Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:55 am

Stable Genius Jim.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby tifosi77 » Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:14 pm

This has been wildly entertaining.

"This fundamental right recognized in the Constitution is not on the same plane as this other fundamental right recognized in the Constitution, and therefore we can apply disparate levels of analysis in how government regulates them. Why? BECAUSE I SAID SO, DUMMY."

Wonderful.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Shyster » Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:31 pm

Man, i really wish I could use Jim's level of argumentation at work:

Me: "Your Honor, my opponent's arguments are asinine, and further, their lawyer is an asshat clown. Period."
Judge: "Well, you sure convinced me, counsel, what with the forcefulness of your insults. Judgment for Shyster's client!"
Me: "May I also add that he's ignorant too?"
Judge: "Oh, wow. An ignorant asshat clown? I'm so impressed with the quality if your arguments, I'm awarding you attorneys' fees."

:face:

Morkle
Posts: 23025
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

All Things Guns & Ammo

Postby Morkle » Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:57 pm

Why is Jim so aggressive?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dickie Dunn, Google [Bot] and 107 guests