Biden on Gun Control

[progressive hunter]

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

dont mind her,,, she just like whining about stuff shes wrong on,,

 

[BULLDOG]

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

I see you are still confused about what I said, or are just lying because that is what you always do. I never advocated for an out right ban on those weapons, but for common sense regulations. Quit accusing me of things I never said you lying gun nut.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

dont mind her,,, she just like whining about stuff shes wrong on,,

If you can't counter what I said, just make up shit and claim I said it. That's what most gun nuts do. That's what that 2 guy is trying to do.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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?

Beto o'dourke ...gun czar lol. Good luck with that mr biden

 

[progressive hunter]

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

dont mind her,,, she just like whining about stuff shes wrong on,,

If you can't counter what I said, just make up shit and claim I said it. That's what most gun nuts do. That's what that 2 guy is trying to do.

are you still whining???

dont you have some knitting to do??
if not the kitchen still needs cleaning,,,

 

[bullwinkle]

Let me know when you find it because I cant.

Isn't there something in there about a well REGULATED militia?

 

[Ame®icano]

"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.

And what have I said?

 

[progressive hunter]

Let me know when you find it because I cant.

Isn't there something in there about a well REGULATED militia?

its says one is needed or a secure state,,,its the qualifier for the other part that says the right of the people shall not be infringed,,

a militia would be pointless if the people werent armed,,,

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Only, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating arms. If you look what the intent of 2nd Amendment is, than people should have right to all arms that state has, in order to to protect themselves from the tyrannic state.

 

[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.

Only, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating arms. If you look what the intent of 2nd Amendment is, than people should have right to all arms that state has, in order to to protect themselves from the tyrannic state.

The constitution doesn't directly mention most things that it has authority over. You need to get a 7th grade civics book to figure out how all that works.

 

[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.

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.

Only, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating arms. If you look what the intent of 2nd Amendment is, than people should have right to all arms that state has, in order to to protect themselves from the tyrannic state.

The constitution doesn't directly mention most things that it has authority over. You need to get a 7th grade civics book to figure out how all that works.

you honestly just said that out loud,,,

you ever read the 10th amendment??

you need to get your head out of your ass,,,

 

[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.

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.

Only, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating arms. If you look what the intent of 2nd Amendment is, than people should have right to all arms that state has, in order to to protect themselves from the tyrannic state.

The constitution doesn't directly mention most things that it has authority over. You need to get a 7th grade civics book to figure out how all that works.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Only, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating arms. If you look what the intent of 2nd Amendment is, than people should have right to all arms that state has, in order to to protect themselves from the tyrannic state.

The constitution doesn't directly mention most things that it has authority over. You need to get a 7th grade civics book to figure out how all that works.

Like what, give few examples, it shouldn't be a problem since you're fresh from 7th grade.

 

[Ame®icano]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To me, the 9th Amendment is equally important as 10th, because it's protecting us from federal government and courts to create powers that don't exist in the Constitution, and than clarifying it with 10th Amendment.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Only, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating arms. If you look what the intent of 2nd Amendment is, than people should have right to all arms that state has, in order to to protect themselves from the tyrannic state.

The constitution doesn't directly mention most things that it has authority over. You need to get a 7th grade civics book to figure out how all that works.

Like what, give few examples, it shouldn't be a problem since you're fresh from 7th grade.

Really? The constitution is consulted to determine governing rules for everything from gay marriage rights to cell phone frequencies.

 

[progressive hunter]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To me, the 9th Amendment is equally important as 10th, because it's protecting us from federal government and courts to create powers that don't exist in the Constitution, and than clarifying it with 10th Amendment.

I agree,,,its amazing what it all says when you just take time to read it,,,

bulldog should try it sometime

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Only, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating arms. If you look what the intent of 2nd Amendment is, than people should have right to all arms that state has, in order to to protect themselves from the tyrannic state.

The constitution doesn't directly mention most things that it has authority over. You need to get a 7th grade civics book to figure out how all that works.

Like what, give few examples, it shouldn't be a problem since you're fresh from 7th grade.

Really? The constitution is consulted to determine governing rules for everything from gay marriage rights to cell phone frequencies.

Point to the Constitution where gay "marriage", or any marriage is responsibility of Federal government.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Only, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating arms. If you look what the intent of 2nd Amendment is, than people should have right to all arms that state has, in order to to protect themselves from the tyrannic state.

The constitution doesn't directly mention most things that it has authority over. You need to get a 7th grade civics book to figure out how all that works.

Like what, give few examples, it shouldn't be a problem since you're fresh from 7th grade.

Really? The constitution is consulted to determine governing rules for everything from gay marriage rights to cell phone frequencies.

Point to the Constitution where gay "marriage", or any marriage is responsibility of Federal government.

The constitution doesn't directly address gay marriage, like it doesn't directly address most of the things it has authority over. The supreme court makes the determination if the wording encompasses and allows all those things. You didn't already know that?
Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[progressive hunter]

Only, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating arms. If you look what the intent of 2nd Amendment is, than people should have right to all arms that state has, in order to to protect themselves from the tyrannic state.

The constitution doesn't directly mention most things that it has authority over. You need to get a 7th grade civics book to figure out how all that works.

Like what, give few examples, it shouldn't be a problem since you're fresh from 7th grade.

Really? The constitution is consulted to determine governing rules for everything from gay marriage rights to cell phone frequencies.

Point to the Constitution where gay "marriage", or any marriage is responsibility of Federal government.

The constitution doesn't directly address gay marriage, like it doesn't directly address most of the things it has authority over. The supreme court makes the determination if the wording encompasses and allows all those things. You didn't already know that?
Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right

by god do I have to pay for a constitution class for you???

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

look up what the word delegated means,,,