Biden on Gun Control

[Penelope]

"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."
-------------------------------
your right, its says militias and arms, So since the NG has arms , no need for everyday citizens to have any guns, rifles or weapons which are considered arms.

The everyday citizen is the militia you stupid son of a b****

The militias keep the FBI up at night, they are the same as gangs.

Yep. THE LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD is the US Free Citizen. 96,000,000 gun owners, 300 million guns and about 1 trillion rounds of ammunition.

And that keeps the fbi up at night. You freaks.

as it should,,,let them know whos in control,,,

Who??

 

[toobfreak]

the 2nd doesnt mention guns you ignorant twit,,,it was for any arms needed to resist any threat,,,

"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."
-------------------------------
your right, its says militias and arms, So since the NG has arms , no need for everyday citizens to have any guns, rifles or weapons which are considered arms.

The everyday citizen is the militia you stupid son of a b****

The militias keep the FBI up at night, they are the same as gangs.

Yep. THE LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD is the US Free Citizen. 96,000,000 gun owners, 300 million guns and about 1 trillion rounds of ammunition.

And that keeps the fbi up at night. You freaks. Try and attack the government. See what happens, big men on the internet are usually pussies.

So you think it is a FREAK who faithfully follows the Constitution seriously.

The 2A isn't there to attack anyone. The 2A is there as a safety valve if we need DEFENDED.

 

[progressive hunter]

The everyday citizen is the militia you stupid son of a b****

The militias keep the FBI up at night, they are the same as gangs.

Yep. THE LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD is the US Free Citizen. 96,000,000 gun owners, 300 million guns and about 1 trillion rounds of ammunition.

And that keeps the fbi up at night. You freaks.

as it should,,,let them know whos in control,,,

Who??

the people you dumb twit,,,

 

[Penelope]

The militias keep the FBI up at night, they are the same as gangs.

Yep. THE LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD is the US Free Citizen. 96,000,000 gun owners, 300 million guns and about 1 trillion rounds of ammunition.

And that keeps the fbi up at night. You freaks.

as it should,,,let them know whos in control,,,

Who??

the people you dumb twit,,,

I dare you to break the law, we shall see, that will be your experiment. You will find out real quick, who is in charge.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yep. THE LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD is the US Free Citizen. 96,000,000 gun owners, 300 million guns and about 1 trillion rounds of ammunition.

And that keeps the fbi up at night. You freaks.

as it should,,,let them know whos in control,,,

Who??

the people you dumb twit,,,

I dare you to break the law, we shall see, that will be your experiment. You will find out real quick, who is in charge.

why would I break the law???

thats not an honest thing to do

 

[Aletheia4u]

All the Swamp creatures are distracting us from the primaries. They are sneaking in their own RINOs to fill in the empty spots. Alabama knows that Jeff is an enemy. But everybody is too busy focusing on the Dems instead of their own party.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...owdown-to-reclaim-his-old-alabama-senate-seat

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

There's nothing to interpret, unless one is engaged in obfuscating an issue. It's in plain English. Modern changes in definitions from the 18th Century are easily researched.

The SCOTUS was charged with weighing issues against what the Constitution says, not to redefine what plain English says.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

No they're not called The National Guard. They have name of the state they're stationed in in their name, and they report to Governor of the state they reside in, unless called for war of natural disaster.

The National Guard can be federalized with a sneeze, after which they answer to the President.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

we have over 100yrs of history proving both of them wrong,,,

Then you need to run out and get an amendment that will give you the authority to interpret laws instead of the supreme court. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

we have over 100yrs of history proving both of them wrong,,,

Then you need to run out and get an amendment that will give you the authority to interpret laws instead of the supreme court. Let me know how that works out for you.

show me where in the constitution its the job of SCOTUS to interpret what the constitution says??? their job is to determine if a law abides by the constitution,,,

you and they have it backwards,,,

the constitution is written in clear language and anyone that doesnt understand that should refrain form talking until they do,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Supreme court? I think it was appeals court.

However, they upheld the ban on automatic weapons, that are considered assault weapons.

Semi-automatics are not assault weapons, therefore they're not included in the ban.

Leftist solution? Change the definition and call every weapon an "assault weapon" and banning will be constitutional.

We were discussing whether it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate guns at all, since the constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in any way. "Shall not be infringed" means the same thing for a bb gun as it does for a fully auto 50 cal rifle. If the constitution allows regulation of one type, it allows regulation of all types. Try to keep up.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Supreme court? I think it was appeals court.

However, they upheld the ban on automatic weapons, that are considered assault weapons.

Semi-automatics are not assault weapons, therefore they're not included in the ban.

Leftist solution? Change the definition and call every weapon an "assault weapon" and banning will be constitutional.

We were discussing whether it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate guns at all, since the constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in any way. "Shall not be infringed" means the same thing for a bb gun as it does for a fully auto 50 cal rifle. If the constitution allows regulation of one type, it allows regulation of all types. Try to keep up.

and since the constitution doesnt allow for any regulation so the case is closed and SCOTUS is wrong,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

we have over 100yrs of history proving both of them wrong,,,

Then you need to run out and get an amendment that will give you the authority to interpret laws instead of the supreme court. Let me know how that works out for you.

show me where in the constitution its the job of SCOTUS to interpret what the constitution says??? their job is to determine if a law abides by the constitution,,,

you and they have it backwards,,,

the constitution is written in clear language and anyone that doesnt understand that should refrain form talking until they do,,,

You should go to Washington and tell them. Whining about it on a discussion board won't do you much good.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

we have over 100yrs of history proving both of them wrong,,,

Then you need to run out and get an amendment that will give you the authority to interpret laws instead of the supreme court. Let me know how that works out for you.

show me where in the constitution its the job of SCOTUS to interpret what the constitution says??? their job is to determine if a law abides by the constitution,,,

you and they have it backwards,,,

the constitution is written in clear language and anyone that doesnt understand that should refrain form talking until they do,,,

You should go to Washington and tell them. Whining about it on a discussion board won't do you much good.

whos says I'm not doing both???

and it makes your skirt bunch up, so thats enough for me,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

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

we have over 100yrs of history proving both of them wrong,,,

Then you need to run out and get an amendment that will give you the authority to interpret laws instead of the supreme court. Let me know how that works out for you.

show me where in the constitution its the job of SCOTUS to interpret what the constitution says??? their job is to determine if a law abides by the constitution,,,

you and they have it backwards,,,

the constitution is written in clear language and anyone that doesnt understand that should refrain form talking until they do,,,

You should go to Washington and tell them. Whining about it on a discussion board won't do you much good.

whos says I'm not doing both???

and it makes your skirt bunch up, so thats enough for me,,,

Whine all you want. Doesn't bother me.

 

[progressive hunter]

we have over 100yrs of history proving both of them wrong,,,

Then you need to run out and get an amendment that will give you the authority to interpret laws instead of the supreme court. Let me know how that works out for you.

show me where in the constitution its the job of SCOTUS to interpret what the constitution says??? their job is to determine if a law abides by the constitution,,,

you and they have it backwards,,,

the constitution is written in clear language and anyone that doesnt understand that should refrain form talking until they do,,,

You should go to Washington and tell them. Whining about it on a discussion board won't do you much good.

whos says I'm not doing both???

and it makes your skirt bunch up, so thats enough for me,,,

Whine all you want. Doesn't bother me.

I was stating facts not whining,,,

its you that keeps whining when youre proven wrong,,,

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

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.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Not the right of the militia, the right of the people

the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the sake of a well regulated Militia.

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.

Yeah, back then men were considered men at 13. They carried rifles, just like their fathers. Gee, you are on stupid twit to not know that.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Supreme court? I think it was appeals court.

However, they upheld the ban on automatic weapons, that are considered assault weapons.

Semi-automatics are not assault weapons, therefore they're not included in the ban.

Leftist solution? Change the definition and call every weapon an "assault weapon" and banning will be constitutional.

We were discussing whether it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate guns at all, since the constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in any way. "Shall not be infringed" means the same thing for a bb gun as it does for a fully auto 50 cal rifle. If the constitution allows regulation of one type, it allows regulation of all types. Try to keep up.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this.....Scalia, the Justice who wrote the opinion in the Heller decision also stated that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Supreme court? I think it was appeals court.

However, they upheld the ban on automatic weapons, that are considered assault weapons.

Semi-automatics are not assault weapons, therefore they're not included in the ban.

Leftist solution? Change the definition and call every weapon an "assault weapon" and banning will be constitutional.

We were discussing whether it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate guns at all, since the constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in any way. "Shall not be infringed" means the same thing for a bb gun as it does for a fully auto 50 cal rifle. If the constitution allows regulation of one type, it allows regulation of all types. Try to keep up.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this.....Scalia, the Justice who wrote the opinion in the Heller decision also stated that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628

I'm not sure why you are mumbling about guns from the 18th century. Those have nothing to do with what I'm discussing.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Supreme court? I think it was appeals court.

However, they upheld the ban on automatic weapons, that are considered assault weapons.

Semi-automatics are not assault weapons, therefore they're not included in the ban.

Leftist solution? Change the definition and call every weapon an "assault weapon" and banning will be constitutional.

We were discussing whether it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate guns at all, since the constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in any way. "Shall not be infringed" means the same thing for a bb gun as it does for a fully auto 50 cal rifle. If the constitution allows regulation of one type, it allows regulation of all types. Try to keep up.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this.....Scalia, the Justice who wrote the opinion in the Heller decision also stated that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628

I'm not sure why you are mumbling about guns from the 18th century. Those have nothing to do with what I'm discussing.

Oh...that's right....you are a moron....here...let me help you .....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
-------

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628