• 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!

What are the benefits of guns?

manofknowledge said:
There are plenty of accidental shootings. Vehicle insurance doesn't cover intentional damage either.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part about homeowners insurance covering accidents? My homeowners covers my guns and I didn't even have to tell my insurance company that I own any. With 300 million guns and under 500 unintentional deaths per year, the risk is extremely low.
 
manofknowledge said:
No it's not. It is already on the books and has been since 1934. You can't make up your own facts.
Click to expand...

Just because it's on the books doesn't make it Constitutional.
 
manofknowledge said:
There are plenty of accidental shootings. Vehicle insurance doesn't cover intentional damage either.
Click to expand...

Just as there are plenty of accidents resulting in a hospital stay from pedestrians using a cell phone.
Vehicle insurance DOES cover intentional damage done to your car by someone else.
 
manofknowledge said:
No it's not. It is already on the books and has been since 1934. You can't make up your own facts.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It's unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the authority to infringe on the right to bear arms.
 
Into the Night said:
Irrelevant. It's unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the authority to infringe on the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Branch Davidians. If Congress passes a law and the Supreme Court does not strike it down it's Constitutional by definition. Saying it isn't is just making up your own facts.
 
manofknowledge said:
Tell that to the Branch Davidians. If Congress passes a law and the Supreme Court does not strike it down it's Constitutional by definition. Saying it isn't is just making up your own facts.
Click to expand...

Make an argument that federal gun control such as the 1934 NFA is properly constitutional.
 
TurtleDude said:
so was slavery and bans against inter-race marriages
Click to expand...

Those required an amendment to the Constitution and a Supreme Court decision to change. SCOTUS has upheld firearms regulations repeatedly. Even Joseph Scalia stated that rights defined in the constitution are not unlimited.
 
manofknowledge said:
Those required an amendment to the Constitution and a Supreme Court decision to change. SCOTUS has upheld firearms regulations repeatedly. Even Joseph Scalia stated that rights defined in the constitution are not unlimited.
Click to expand...

You do realize that in Heller SCOTUS overturned a gun ownership restriction. Likewise in McDonald and Caetano. Other than Miller, which was based on a flawed understanding of what is useful to a militia, SCOTUS has not repeatedly upheld firearms regulations.

They have stated that firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" and "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency to a well-regulated militia" are protected.
 
Rucker61 said:
You do realize that in Heller SCOTUS overturned a gun ownership restriction. Likewise in McDonald and Caetano. Other than Miller, which was based on a flawed understanding of what is useful to a militia, SCOTUS has not repeatedly upheld firearms regulations.

They have stated that firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" and "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency to a well-regulated militia" are protected.
Click to expand...

Clearly they have since the laws are still on the books. In the case of Heller, the Federal firearms act was not overturned but a local law within the District of Columbia was overturned.

The Caetano case overturned a state law involving stun guns. It also did not overturn the Federal Firearms Act.
 
manofknowledge said:
Clearly they have since the laws are still on the books. In the case of Heller, the Federal firearms act was not overturned but a local law within the District of Columbia was overturned.

The Caetano case overturned a state law involving stun guns. It also did not overturn the Federal Firearms Act.
Click to expand...

What is the "Federal Firearms Act"?
 
manofknowledge said:
Tell that to the Branch Davidians.
Click to expand...
They already knew. They were attacked unlawfully. They burned children alive doing it.
manofknowledge said:
If Congress passes a law and the Supreme Court does not strike it down it's Constitutional by definition.
Click to expand...
WRONG. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution of the United States or any State constitution.
manofknowledge said:
Saying it isn't is just making up your own facts.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy.

The only fact under discussion (you might want to learn what a 'fact' really means) is the Constitution of the United States.
 
manofknowledge said:
Those required an amendment to the Constitution and a Supreme Court decision to change. SCOTUS has upheld firearms regulations repeatedly. Even Joseph Scalia stated that rights defined in the constitution are not unlimited.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution.
 
manofknowledge said:
Clearly they have since the laws are still on the books. In the case of Heller, the Federal firearms act was not overturned but a local law within the District of Columbia was overturned.

The Caetano case overturned a state law involving stun guns. It also did not overturn the Federal Firearms Act.
Click to expand...

Repetitive argument fallacy. You've already made this argument and it was already answered.
 
manofknowledge said:
Clearly they have since the laws are still on the books. In the case of Heller, the Federal firearms act was not overturned but a local law within the District of Columbia was overturned.

The Caetano case overturned a state law involving stun guns. It also did not overturn the Federal Firearms Act.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Stun guns are an 'arm'. They are protected by the Constitution as well. No court has the authority to change the Constitution. Congress does not have authority to change the Constitution.
 
Into the Night said:
Irrelevant. Stun guns are an 'arm'. They are protected by the Constitution as well. No court has the authority to change the Constitution. Congress does not have authority to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that everyone gets to interpret the Constitution as they like and no one has any authority?
 
Rich2018 said:
What benefits would you think such a sign will generate ?
Click to expand...

For whom? You or the robber who's going to steal your **** or put a bullet between your eyes while you're raising your arm with your crowbar?
 
manofknowledge said:
So your argument is that everyone gets to interpret the Constitution as they like and no one has any authority?
Click to expand...

Only the States have authority over the Constitution of the United States. They own it. They ordain it.
 
The biggest benefit for me in the past was hunting. I use to hunt a lot when I was younger and we had a deep freezer full of meat throughout the year and saved A LOT of money regarding groceries. I've seen people make the argument for having check in stations have firearms available to rent, but that's spending way more money that one needs to over their lifetime.

For others, the benefit of having a gun is protection. There was a story awhile back about some guy that beat a door down and tried to enter the home even with the woman informing the person she had a gun and children inside. I'd say at that point its pretty beneficial as well.
 
Into the Night said:
WRONG. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution of the United States or any State constitution.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. Like any other government entity, they gave that power to themselves (Marbury vs. Madison 1803).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom