Cars and motorcycles are registered by the state for the purpose of generating revenue.

Federal registration is a totally different issue. The only reason they want guns registered is so that later they know where to go to take them if they want to. You need to keep in mind our Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun or guns, it does not guarantee the right to own a motorcycle.

And, everyone is skipping right by the problem with the new requirements for stock braces for pistols. By the new definition it makes the pistol into a rifle, which then makes the pistol illegal because it makes the barrel too short. But, it isn't a rifle, it is still a pistol. There is no reason to try to make a gun less accurate, so their reason has to be something else. It isn't about safety, because greater accuracy means greater safety. So, what is the regulation about? It has to be about control, or taking guns away. There is no other justification for Biden's executive order. It makes pistols less accurate for some people, and it does not improve public safety.

It also isn't a problem where criminals are buying pistols and converting them to rifles. Most gun murders in the U.S. are done with pistols, not with pistols with braces or with rifles. So, once again the gun control advocates aren't even going after the guns or devices that might be a problem.

They are going after rifles, which constitute a small percentage of gun crimes, and they are going after pistol braces, which as far as anyone on this forum know have not even been used in any crimes at this point in time.

Think about it, Biden seems to think that putting a brace on a pistol makes it a rifle. If you were going to commit a crime and needed an accurate gun would you use a rifle, or would you put a brace on your pistol? Of course you would use a rifle unless you needed to conceal the weapon, in which case you would choose the pistol, but without the brace.

They clearly aren't trying to stop pistol braces to lower crime. Because they just aren't involved in crime.

Cars and motorcycles are registered by the state for the purpose of generating revenue.

Federal registration is a totally different issue. The only reason they want guns registered is so that later they know where to go to take them if they want to. You need to keep in mind our Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun or guns, it does not guarantee the right to own a motorcycle.

And, everyone is skipping right by the problem with the new requirements for stock braces for pistols. By the new definition it makes the pistol into a rifle, which then makes the pistol illegal because it makes the barrel too short. But, it isn't a rifle, it is still a pistol. There is no reason to try to make a gun less accurate, so their reason has to be something else. It isn't about safety, because greater accuracy means greater safety. So, what is the regulation about? It has to be about control, or taking guns away. There is no other justification for Biden's executive order. It makes pistols less accurate for some people, and it does not improve public safety.

It also isn't a problem where criminals are buying pistols and converting them to rifles. Most gun murders in the U.S. are done with pistols, not with pistols with braces or with rifles. So, once again the gun control advocates aren't even going after the guns or devices that might be a problem.

They are going after rifles, which constitute a small percentage of gun crimes, and they are going after pistol braces, which as far as anyone on this forum know have not even been used in any crimes at this point in time.

Think about it, Biden seems to think that putting a brace on a pistol makes it a rifle. If you were going to commit a crime and needed an accurate gun would you use a rifle, or would you put a brace on your pistol? Of course you would use a rifle unless you needed to conceal the weapon, in which case you would choose the pistol, but without the brace.

They clearly aren't trying to stop pistol braces to lower crime. Because they just aren't involved in crime.

Which is what happened with the outlawing of bumpstocks isn't it?

You have a choice, either lose the pistol brace, or have your combination of firearm with the pistol brace declared illegal.

If you can't fire a handgun without experiencing recoil, then that handgun isn't the correct handgun for you.

Decisions have consequences.

If you decided on the wrong handgun, then needed an "add-on" to try to steady your shot, then it's the wrong handgun for you.

I'm sorry that you don't agree with me, but you've got to be realistic about your choices.

As with cameras, a firearm has got to fit your hands, be the right physical weight, and do the job for which it was purchased, or that expensive firearm won't perform the way you intended it to, no matter how much money you spent on your purchase.

It becomes nothing more than a "GAS" attack.

Which is what happened with the outlawing of bumpstocks isn't it?

You have a choice, either lose the pistol brace, or have your combination of firearm with the pistol brace declared illegal.

If you can't fire a handgun without experiencing recoil, then that handgun isn't the correct handgun for you.

Decisions have consequences.

If you decided on the wrong handgun, then needed an "add-on" to try to steady your shot, then it's the wrong handgun for you.

I'm sorry that you don't agree with me, but you've got to be realistic about your choices.

As with cameras, a firearm has got to fit your hands, be the right physical weight, and do the job for which it was purchased, or that expensive firearm won't perform the way you intended it to, no matter how much money you spent on your purchase.

It becomes nothing more than a "GAS" attack.

You brought up cameras in a conversation involving firearms when you clearly know there is no correlation at all. The government is not regulating cameras but trying to regulate firearms, all types of firearms. You know as well as anybody else who has common sense that a pistol brace is not going to endanger anyone. Recoil is a problem for some people and so they take steps to mitigate some of that recoil. To hear you talk, those things that help a shooter with recoil should shoot smaller caliber firearms. But what about a recoil pad? What about a muzzle brake? Those help to reduce recoil and yet the government has not involved itself with those items. Why not?

You are also forgetting a pistol brace ALSO helps to add accuracy to a firearm. It is not all about recoil. Should not a person want to be more accurate in his shooting. Is that not a safety feature to hit your target and not someone else by accident. It would seem the shooting world wants to make the shooting sports safer and the government under Democratic leadership (now there is an oxymoron) wants to control the type of recoil reducer a person uses.

You present no convincing argument at all, just more Left Wing gun control bulls**t for no reason.

Dennis

I figured that I would add a link to pictures of pistol braces for those who would like a visual.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01QXDNHQ0FM_VN8Mw6eFnBtAKfJag:1623366925467&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=pistol+brace+pictures&client=tablet-android-samsung-nf-rev1&fir=ptsKZOCPqvnnyM%252CPiTIQtG9S15thM%252C_%253BXB97SGTclZXXHM%252CTRs6JX_eFlgfuM%252C_%253BbT1MAqzts3g_qM%252Cm4AMRZiUfttwiM%252C_%253BaH2q4rp_HG9ljM%252CCCRRkBglAvdCZM%252C_%253B7Z6ExdQ-mDAkVM%252CX59RxETPIdRqQM%252C_%253B9pjy6zZWOO4LyM%252CRFTCeTU9EjmgKM%252C_%253B89fmloF27mF7VM%252C4AWZdS0OefsshM%252C_%253B89P5qtBM_6UkkM%252C4ZcCa-vtS7RCpM%252C_%253Bcifxj9-Z1uaL1M%252C2jQFzD8k3A090M%252C_%253B6HJNf72c6CTxtM%252COdakzKsMigK9FM%252C_%253B-U4XkcqJTDdpYM%252CBvfh7fgjChcULM%252C_%253B0-CCS8oIc4PpIM%252CX59RxETPIdRqQM%252C_%253B18k36UNCDcevpM%252CLiODOZqXPRkLlM%252C_%253B_Fl_yEXhRBqDaM%252C4LGYoX1fTEhIBM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kTn733gUdypj6pCeyb6ZSoosLUufQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYrrqHmY7xAhWETd8KHWD-CzsQ7Al6BAgHEF4&biw=1205&bih=753&dpr=2.13

What is the purpose of most handguns?

Aren't they for personal protection?

How "accurate" does someone need to hit an assailant somewhere in their body to slow them down or stop them?

Yes, you can argue that a dead assailant can't hurt you any longer.

The torso presents the largest target on a body, if you can't k**l them with a single shot to the heart, a gut shot is the next best target. You don't need to be super accurate for a gut shot, there's a lot of room for a margin of error.

I don’t see the need for a pistol brace.

The only thing that I can think of where extreme accuracy is needed is for target shooting. Tight clusters of shots is a bragging right, nothing more.

Yes, law enforcement and military members need to "qualify" to maintain their jobs, but not the general public.

Which is what happened with the outlawing of bumpstocks isn't it?

You have a choice, either lose the pistol brace, or have your combination of firearm with the pistol brace declared illegal.

If you can't fire a handgun without experiencing recoil, then that handgun isn't the correct handgun for you.

Decisions have consequences.

If you decided on the wrong handgun, then needed an "add-on" to try to steady your shot, then it's the wrong handgun for you.

I'm sorry that you don't agree with me, but you've got to be realistic about your choices.

As with cameras, a firearm has got to fit your hands, be the right physical weight, and do the job for which it was purchased, or that expensive firearm won't perform the way you intended it to, no matter how much money you spent on your purchase.

It becomes nothing more than a "GAS" attack.