Biden on Gun Control

[Billy_Kinetta]

You have laws already that the Federal, State and Local agencies refuse to use, so why give you more when LEO will just never enforce them?

Two instances in Florida where LEO failed it duty to enforce laws they had already, so tell us Bully, which new regulations will lower firearm deaths and if they fail to do so what will be your excuse?

Laws against drunk driving don't stop drunk drivers killing people, but they are still worth while.

We already have laws regulating who can and can not buy firearms, so how many more do you need before you realize LEO will never enforce those laws?

I disagree, and we can discuss that in a minute, but for now, are you willing to admit regulation and infringement are not the same?

They can be, dependent upon application. Regulate is defined as to control, direct or adjust. An example of regulate is for a committee to make rules that control trade in an area.

Infringement is defined as the action of limiting or undermining something. In other words - controlling, directing or adjusting.

You should be telling that to the supreme court. I don't think they agree with you.

Sometimes, they don't agree with the Constitution.

 

[satrebil]

Joe Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control efforts

"Joe Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control efforts"



That's sure to win him the votes of thousands of gun owners.

Right?

Doesn't sound bad to this gun owner.

Then I suggest you take all your firearms down to your local police station and turn them in.

 

[OldLady]

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

You already said that.

I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.

and people STILL don't seem to understand.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course it is about the militia, or that clause would not precede the words you love to quote out of context.

Then why didn't they write the Right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, instead of the PEOPLE?

(Psst, they didn't, they gave that right to the people, not the militia)

Because the militia IS the people. There was no standing army or militia. God you're acting thick.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

That is too broad a subject to fully discuss on the open board. If you are really interested in what I think, then IM me.

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Quit quoting half of the pertinent sentence. That is dishonest. Of course, we all know what the part says that you left out.

What part that is missing, makes it dishonest? If anything, it backs up his point.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Since we no longer have a militia and have no need for one, the right is no longer necessary either.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Quit quoting half of the pertinent sentence. That is dishonest. Of course, we all know what the part says that you left out.

What part that is missing, makes it dishonest? If anything, it backs up his point.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Since we no longer have a militia and have no need for one, the right is no longer necessary either.

Actually you are wrong as usual...

National Guard along with Reservists are the Regulated Militia of today, so the Amendment words still hold.

I wish people would actually study what they are discussing before making asinine comments!

 

[Auld Phart]

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

You already said that.

I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.

and people STILL don't seem to understand.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course it is about the militia, or that clause would not precede the words you love to quote out of context.

Then why didn't they write the Right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, instead of the PEOPLE?

(Psst, they didn't, they gave that right to the people, not the militia)

Because the militia IS the people. There was no standing army or militia. God you're acting thick.

Because the militia IS the people.

only select portions of it, as you stated yourself.

Just think, if only militia were allowed firearms, the Burr/Hamilton duel would have never happened.

They were both over 45, too old to belong to a militia.


You've destroyed your own argument

 

[satrebil]

You just stated it yourself.

"all able bodied men between 16 and 40-ish were required to come to regular training sessions and bring their own guns."

by YOUR logic, males under the age of 16, over the age of 40ish, and women were not allowed to own weapons.

the 2nd gave it to ALL

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

You already said that.

I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.

and people STILL don't seem to understand.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course it is about the militia, or that clause would not precede the words you love to quote out of context.

For the UMPTEENTH TIME:


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

------------------------

Why do you leftists keep making this stupid argument? Incessantly screeching about "militia" does not make it so. You're wrong. You've always been wrong. You will always be wrong.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Quit quoting half of the pertinent sentence. That is dishonest. Of course, we all know what the part says that you left out.

What part that is missing, makes it dishonest? If anything, it backs up his point.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Since we no longer have a militia and have no need for one, the right is no longer necessary either.

Actually you are wrong as usual...

National Guard along with Reservists are the Regulated Militia of today, so the Amendment words still hold.

I wish people would actually study what they are discussing before making asinine comments!

Ummm ...

They are called The NATIONAL Guard, not the STATE militia.

Grok?

 

[TNHarley]

Also, considering context of the amendment, we needed to keep govt in check. As long as there is a govt, there is a second. Unless you pass a constitutional amendment.
Nobody ever wants to do that though because the majority of the country arent limp wristed statists

If we disagree with our elected officials our Founders wanted us to shoot them? I`m amazed at the stupid shit you people are being fed. What do you think our government would be doing to us if there were no armed citizens? Seriously, what are your fears?

Yes disagreements should end in a shootout.
Dumbfuck

 

[BULLDOG]

Broad?

I've always found the 2A to be narrow and succinct.

"shall not be infringed" can't be any clearer and narrower.

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

With rare exceptions, Americans don't own fully automatic weapons.

Why do you think that is?

I am asking the same question. There is no reason why Americans shouldn't have fully automatic weapons.

By the way, with long bursts you're wasting the ammo.

Yet the supreme court as well as the NRA have both determined that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them that way.

 

[BULLDOG]

And you have to go through a lot of paper work.

The left would ban water guns if they knew they could get away with it...

Every weapon can be used for defense or offense. Only difference, we keep and bear arms for our defense from them.

Their ultimate goal is to change the definition and name every weapon an "assault weapon", so they can take it away. It start with semi-auto, later with hand guns, and we gonna end up like UK, where you need to show ID to buy butter knife.

I'm sure you can still get a butter knife without an ID at a gun show.

Still trolling?

Directly responding to what is posted is not trolling. I will admit discussing ID requirements for a butter knife is absurd, but the one that brought it up is more guilty of trolling than I am.

the mention of butter knives was in reference to the UK.

I seriously doubt they have gun shows there

Doesn't mattter if they have gun shows in the UK. The post I was responding to was suggesting WE would end up needing to show an ID to purchase a butter knife. Saying something you don't like to hear is not trolling, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[Papageorgio]

They should ban any and all magazines that carry more than 10 shells, and enforce it to make sure you only allowed 1 to buy every 15 years , if you lose it to bad.

Thank goodness that won’t happen.

 

[BULLDOG]

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

With rare exceptions, Americans don't own fully automatic weapons.

And you have to go through a lot of paper work.

The left would ban water guns if they knew they could get away with it...

Every weapon can be used for defense or offense. Only difference, we keep and bear arms for our defense from them.

Their ultimate goal is to change the definition and name every weapon an "assault weapon", so they can take it away. It start with semi-auto, later with hand guns, and we gonna end up like UK, where you need to show ID to buy butter knife.

I'm sure you can still get a butter knife without an ID at a gun show.

You're sure? Right...

Have you been on any gun show in UK?

The discussion is about guns here, isn't it?

 

[JustAGuy1]

"Joe Biden has a lot of political debt to pay off in exchange for today’s many endorsements. One of those payoffs goes to the absolutely crazy Beto O’Rourke.

Biden will hire Beto O’Rourke to take our guns and work on climate change. Beto promised to take our guns forcibly. Don’t forget, Biden is the ‘moderate’ in the Democrat race.

The fake Hispanic had a very extreme gun confiscation plan. O’Rourke said he would force people to participate in his proposed gun buyback/confiscation and he wanted every gun imaginable.

During one rally while he was still in the running, Beto was asked if he would take our guns, and he said, “Hell, yes! we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” That caused consternation among his fellow Democrats who refuse to tell the truth about their ultimate goals."

'Moderate' Biden promises Beto will handle his gun confiscation program
'Moderate' Biden promises Beto will handle his gun confiscation program

The Dems seem very desperate to lose this election

 

[BULLDOG]

And you have to go through a lot of paper work.

The left would ban water guns if they knew they could get away with it...

Every weapon can be used for defense or offense. Only difference, we keep and bear arms for our defense from them.

Their ultimate goal is to change the definition and name every weapon an "assault weapon", so they can take it away. It start with semi-auto, later with hand guns, and we gonna end up like UK, where you need to show ID to buy butter knife.

I'm sure you can still get a butter knife without an ID at a gun show.

Still trolling?

Directly responding to what is posted is not trolling. I will admit discussing ID requirements for a butter knife is absurd, but the one that brought it up is more guilty of trolling than I am.

Nope. My post explains what happens when government take control over your rights. In UK, it's illegal to sell ANY knife to person under 18, which requires everyone to show ID when purchasing one, even a butter knife.
You can still buy them online without ID, but you're required to pick it up from the store, where you have to show the ID.

So, instead of brainlessly yapping, you should read a little and inform yourself. Troll.

All that is interesting, but your remark was about some imagined "ultimate goal" concerning purchase of weapons here, unless you were intentionally being off subject.

 

[BULLDOG]

Laws against drunk driving don't stop drunk drivers killing people, but they are still worth while.

We already have laws regulating who can and can not buy firearms, so how many more do you need before you realize LEO will never enforce those laws?

I disagree, and we can discuss that in a minute, but for now, are you willing to admit regulation and infringement are not the same?

They can be, dependent upon application. Regulate is defined as to control, direct or adjust. An example of regulate is for a committee to make rules that control trade in an area.

Infringement is defined as the action of limiting or undermining something. In other words - controlling, directing or adjusting.

You should be telling that to the supreme court. I don't think they agree with you.

Sometimes, they don't agree with the Constitution.

Sometimes you disagree with their interpretation of the constitution. Fortunately, that job was given to the supreme court. It would take an ammendment to assign that job to some anonymous poster on the internet.

 

[OldLady]

You already said that.

I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.

and people STILL don't seem to understand.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course it is about the militia, or that clause would not precede the words you love to quote out of context.

Then why didn't they write the Right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, instead of the PEOPLE?

(Psst, they didn't, they gave that right to the people, not the militia)

Because the militia IS the people. There was no standing army or militia. God you're acting thick.

Because the militia IS the people.

only select portions of it, as you stated yourself.

Just think, if only militia were allowed firearms, the Burr/Hamilton duel would have never happened.

They were both over 45, too old to belong to a militia.


You've destroyed your own argument

Actually, you have pretty much ignored the entire point of my argument and morphed it into an asinine "what if."

I can read, pretty well, actually. I know what the Second Amendment says and the right of the people to be armed is directly attributable to the need for a civilian population trained, armed (with their own weapons) and ready to call upon at a moment's notice. That was the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. That arrangement no longer exists and the Second Amendment is therefore no longer appropos. But I've already said that, so I quit trying to get through to you.

 

[OldLady]

No, the LOGIC here is that the Founders did not want a standing army and they continued the civilian militia as it had been prior to the War. For that reason, to keep the "militia" armed, yes, they needed the right to keep and bear arms. For men of a certain age, it was required.

and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,

Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.

You already said that.

I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.

and people STILL don't seem to understand.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course it is about the militia, or that clause would not precede the words you love to quote out of context.

For the UMPTEENTH TIME:


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

------------------------

Why do you leftists keep making this stupid argument? Incessantly screeching about "militia" does not make it so. You're wrong. You've always been wrong. You will always be wrong.

Thanks for that. I assumed the Second had been upheld or you guys wouldn't keep screaming about it, but I never saw it in writing before.

I disagree with the S.C. on this, then.

 

[Auld Phart]

I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.

and people STILL don't seem to understand.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course it is about the militia, or that clause would not precede the words you love to quote out of context.

Then why didn't they write the Right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, instead of the PEOPLE?

(Psst, they didn't, they gave that right to the people, not the militia)

Because the militia IS the people. There was no standing army or militia. God you're acting thick.

Because the militia IS the people.

only select portions of it, as you stated yourself.

Just think, if only militia were allowed firearms, the Burr/Hamilton duel would have never happened.

They were both over 45, too old to belong to a militia.


You've destroyed your own argument

Actually, you have pretty much ignored the entire point of my argument and morphed it into an asinine "what if."

I can read, pretty well, actually. I know what the Second Amendment says and the right of the people to be armed is directly attributable to the need for a civilian population trained, armed (with their own weapons) and ready to call upon at a moment's notice. That was the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. That arrangement no longer exists and the Second Amendment is therefore no longer appropos. But I've already said that, so I quit trying to get through to you.

and does not negate they gave the right to bear arms to the people.

 

[jillian]

Joe Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control efforts

"Joe Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control efforts"


That's sure to win him the votes of thousands of gun owners.

Right?

Smart people have other issues besides guns

oh right