• 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!

ATF strikes again - Forced reset triggers

I don't need an abortion or to marry another man. Why should anyone need these?

If licensing to own a firearm was unconstitutional would you still want to force everyone to do it?
What are you insured for?
Where in the constitution does it say "thou shalt not license"?

Liability, both personal and corporate. (you wouldn't believe what the corporate insurance costs for my business)
 
I was just wondering, because the last time it sounded like you were complaining about the availability of guns, it turned out you were just upset about security procedures at the airport.
Guns should indeed be more difficult to get. Notice, I don't say "impossible" nor do I say average Joe doesn't need one or that "assault rifles" (whatever those are) are bad or any of that other crap you kids alway accuse me of. I just think there should be more to it than "here ya go, kid. Have fun".
 
Where in the constitution does it say "thou shalt not license"?
For one, the Constitutional powers of the government don't come from what isn't in the Constitution, but what is expressly granted in the Constitution. I can't find any power to license a right, can you?

Second, in both Murdock v Pennsylvania and in Watchtower v Village of Stratton SCOTUS affirmed that it is unconstitutional to require licensing to exercise a right.
Liability, both personal and corporate. (you wouldn't believe what the corporate insurance costs for my business)
Liability insurance requirement

“Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts,” said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.


According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.


“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis.”


Many home insurance companies (like Amfam) don't increase premiums for gun ownership. In fact, they may not even require homeowners to disclose whether they own a firearm or plan on owning one in the future. The only way coverage would increase is if you select the aforementioned insurance rider for your collection.
 
Guns should indeed be more difficult to get. Notice, I don't say "impossible" nor do I say average Joe doesn't need one or that "assault rifles" (whatever those are) are bad or any of that other crap you kids alway accuse me of. I just think there should be more to it than "here ya go, kid. Have fun".

The last gun I bought, there was a criminal background check and a three day waiting period. I already possessed the permit required in this state to purchase or possess guns or ammunition.

It was the same way for the several guns I bought before that.

That's a little more than how you describe it.
 
Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts
I am well aware of that. I'm not talking about intentional shootings.
 
The last gun I bought, there was a criminal background check and a three day waiting period. I already possessed the permit required in this state to purchase or possess guns or ammunition.

It was the same way for the several guns I bought before that.

That's a little more than how you describe it.
Good for you! Now all you need is some insurance and a safe place to store it! You're almost what I'd consider a responsible gun owner.
 
Good for you! Now all you need is some insurance and a safe place to store it! You're almost what I'd consider a responsible gun owner.

Those requirements weren't of my doing, so they are irrelevant to my standing as responsible or not.

I'm glad you're thinking of my well-being, but my homeowners policy covers the loss of my guns. If it didn't, they wouldn't be that much of a financial loss to suffer.
 
Why would that guy want to aim at a marching band? They can't be that terrible.

How about someone pulling a 12 gauge pump 5-8 rounds of 00 buck from under their coat. Is that smiley?
I believe you've missed the point.
 
Those were the responsible ones.
Hmm, runaway inflation, Russia attacking its neighbor. Afghanistan pullout blotched. Noth Korea and Iran again acting out and developing nukes, energy dependent again, hundreds of thousands of dead from Covid. president without all his faculties, VP even worse.

That's what responsible people vote for?
 
Where in the constitution does it say "thou shalt not license"?

Liability, both personal and corporate. (you wouldn't believe what the corporate insurance costs for my business)
What's good for one right must be good for all rights. License for voting. To get it, you must meet the same requirements you need to buy a handgun. License to watch TV or listen to the radio. That will go well. With your apparent knowledge of the Constitution, it is highly unlikely you would be able to obtain a license to post on social media.
 
Last edited:
I believe you've missed the point.
The last marching band massacre I recall, the killer did his aiming with a Ford SUV. Too bad he didn't have to pass a background check to have that deadly piece of kit, eh?
 
Why not all rights that if removed or ignored could make guns harder to get or reduce gun violence?
All rights? Got a list.
There's no such right.
Because it's not specifically enumerated in the constitution?
I'd say that right is covered by this -
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.[1] The phrase gives three examples of the unalienable rights which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect. Like the other principles in the Declaration of Independence, this phrase is not legally binding, but has been widely referenced and seen as an inspiration for the basis of government.[2] (Source: Wiki)
 
Back
Top Bottom