Biden on Gun Control

[2aguy]

"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?

Most Americans favor stricter gun control.

Moron.....you don't inform the people about the issue, and they simply respond to the sound of the question.

They don't know we already have background checks.

They don't know that the democrat party is the main reason we have gun crime in democrat party controlled cities.

They don't know that gun free zones allow mass shooters to kill more people.

They don't know that magazine size has nothing to do with how many people are killed in mass public shootings...

If you actually asked accurate questions, they wouldn't support you....

 

[August West]

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

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

The Heller decision affirmed the government`s (we the people) right to regulate guns.
The Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think

 

[BULLDOG]

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

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

I ask again, is severe regulation of fully auto weapons infringment? The constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in the 2nd. If one can be regulated, they all can be regulated.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this is Heller. And yes, it is an infringement to have severe regulation on fully automatic rifles.

They are already regulated...you can't use them to commit crimes...if you do, you will be arrested.

We have all the laws we need to "regulate" the use of guns....you asshats want to use regulations to infringe on the Right to own and carry them.

So you think current regulation of fully automatic weapons is unconstitutional. I'm sure there are at least a dozen or more of people who agree with you.

 

[2aguy]

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

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

The Heller decision affirmed the government`s (we the people) right to regulate guns.
The Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think

Here is Scalia, the guy who wrote the opinion in Heller, and also his follow up in Friedman v Highland Park......

I don't think you know what you are saying when you talk about Heller...

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 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

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

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

The Heller decision affirmed the government`s (we the people) right to regulate guns.
The Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think

And a follow up case, Caetano v Massachusetts where the idea "dangerous and unusual," as a reason to regulate weapons was struck down....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron.....you don't inform the people about the issue, and they simply respond to the sound of the question.

They don't know we already have background checks.

They don't know that the democrat party is the main reason we have gun crime in democrat party controlled cities.

They don't know that gun free zones allow mass shooters to kill more people.

Actually, most Americans don't know how lax our gun laws are, or they'd be for making them even tighter.

You see, the real problem, every time a Second Amendment Hero shoots up a school or a theater or a concert...

(Pictured - Second Amendment Heroes)

... people ask, "how the hell did that person get a gun?!". The problem is, by the time the answer comes on, we've moved on to the next tragedy.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

The Heller decision affirmed the government`s (we the people) right to regulate guns.
The Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think

And a follow up case, Caetano v Massachusetts where the idea "dangerous and unusual," as a reason to regulate weapons was struck down....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Yet current regulation of fully automatic weapons is still perfectly constitutional. What part of the constitution makes fully auto weapons OK to regulate, but not any other type?

 

[OldLady]

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.

That was the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment.

Agreed

But they had restrictions on who could be in the militia.

That arrangement no longer exists and the Second Amendment is therefore no longer appropos.

No, because it gave the right to the people, women, men over the age of 45, etc.

as you yourself have stated.

"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.

"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.

? Where did that come from?

 

[RealDave]

OMG OMG OMG OMG They're taking our guns!!!! OMG OMG OMG

 

[August West]

OMG OMG OMG OMG They're taking our guns!!!! OMG OMG OMG

Time to buy more guns because Nation`s Real Assholes will tell them that Biden or Sanders is coming for them. Racist gun nuts were blowing all of their welfare money on guns and ammo when Obama was elected and they never did get the race riots they were drooling for. Fools and their money...

 

[Auld Phart]

OMG OMG OMG OMG They're taking our guns!!!! OMG OMG OMG

Time to buy more guns because Nation`s Real Assholes will tell them that Biden or Sanders is coming for them. Racist gun nuts were blowing all of their welfare money on guns and ammo when Obama was elected and they never did get the race riots they were drooling for. Fools and their money...

Real Assholes will tell them that Biden or Sanders is coming for them.

 

[August West]

OMG OMG OMG OMG They're taking our guns!!!! OMG OMG OMG

Time to buy more guns because Nation`s Real Assholes will tell them that Biden or Sanders is coming for them. Racist gun nuts were blowing all of their welfare money on guns and ammo when Obama was elected and they never did get the race riots they were drooling for. Fools and their money...

Real Assholes will tell them that Biden or Sanders is coming for them.

I`m not voting for Beto. Is he on the ballot in your state?

 

[Auld Phart]

OMG OMG OMG OMG They're taking our guns!!!! OMG OMG OMG

Time to buy more guns because Nation`s Real Assholes will tell them that Biden or Sanders is coming for them. Racist gun nuts were blowing all of their welfare money on guns and ammo when Obama was elected and they never did get the race riots they were drooling for. Fools and their money...

Real Assholes will tell them that Biden or Sanders is coming for them.

I`m not voting for Beto. Is he on the ballot in your state?

Considering Biden picked him to handle his Gun Control agenda, yes, he will very much be on the ballot in my state.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

I ask again, is severe regulation of fully auto weapons infringment? The constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in the 2nd. If one can be regulated, they all can be regulated.

you have yet to show where it allows for any regulation,,,

 

[rightwinger]

Biden is going to take your guns!

Better start stockpiling

already have

Don’t forget the bullets
Biden hates bullets

 

[rightwinger]

You'll find I am pro-common sense across the board. I generally don't agree with all the conspiracy theory crap though.

so using common sense what does this phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."...mean coming from the vantage point of common sense.

Let me know when you find it because I cant.

The founders would have done that to get an AK 47 instead of a musket.

 

[Auld Phart]

You'll find I am pro-common sense across the board. I generally don't agree with all the conspiracy theory crap though.

so using common sense what does this phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."...mean coming from the vantage point of common sense.

Let me know when you find it because I cant.

The founders would have done that to get an AK 47 instead of a musket.

AK 47?

no need, they could commission someone to make Puckle guns

The Puckle Gun or Defense Gun

 

[Penelope]

"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?

Most Americans favor stricter gun control.

Moron.....you don't inform the people about the issue, and they simply respond to the sound of the question.

They don't know we already have background checks.

They don't know that the democrat party is the main reason we have gun crime in democrat party controlled cities.

They don't know that gun free zones allow mass shooters to kill more people.

They don't know that magazine size has nothing to do with how many people are killed in mass public shootings...

If you actually asked accurate questions, they wouldn't support you....

Do you not remember that report a month ago, it say large mag over 10 rounds are the cause of mass shootings.

Here I'll remind of the study:
Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings

Bans on large-capacity magazines were also associated with fewer fatal mass shootings and fatalities

 

[rightwinger]

First thing Biden will do is take the guns

Then.....

Tear down the wall
Repeal Trumps tax cuts
Save the planet
Stack the Supreme Court
Drain the Swamp!

 

[Auld Phart]

"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?

Most Americans favor stricter gun control.

Moron.....you don't inform the people about the issue, and they simply respond to the sound of the question.

They don't know we already have background checks.

They don't know that the democrat party is the main reason we have gun crime in democrat party controlled cities.

They don't know that gun free zones allow mass shooters to kill more people.

They don't know that magazine size has nothing to do with how many people are killed in mass public shootings...

If you actually asked accurate questions, they wouldn't support you....

Do you not remember that report a month ago, it say large mag over 10 rounds are the cause of mass shootings.

Here I'll remind of the study:
Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings

Bans on large-capacity magazines were also associated with fewer fatal mass shootings and fatalities

Virginia Tech shooting - Wikipedia