Biden on Gun Control

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

A Vox opinion piece. Seriously.

 

[BULLDOG]

I used to be a proud member of the NRA too, but that was before their focus was moved from gun safety to the being sales wing for gun manufacturers.

Then you are an idiot because they have never been that. You Moon Bats suffer from being low information and you believe that shit fake news the Liberal media puts out.

I have a problem with the NRA nowadays because they are too willing to give away our rights. I am a Life Member but I don't support them any more. I support the GAO.

Sure they were. At one time The NRA was all about gun safety.

You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.

Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?

what an idiot,,,on the web site they list all of those,,,

The NRA says it has 5 million members. Its magazines tell another story.
Another mystery of NRA membership is its readership gap. Every NRA member receives a subscription to one of its flagship magazines, American Rifleman, American Hunter, or America’s First Freedom. (Shooting Illustrated was added to the lineup in 2016.) Yet there is a considerable difference between these publications’ circulation numbers and the NRA’s membership claims.



According to the most recent data from the Alliance for Audited Media, an independent group that verifies publishers’ circulation stats, the NRA’s three main magazines had a combined print circulation of 3.4 million in December 2017. Add the NRA’s estimate of Shooting Illustrated‘s circulation, and the figure comes to 3.7 million—a far cry from 5 million. So why aren’t a quarter of the NRA’s members getting their free magazines?

 

[Auld Phart]

Then you are an idiot because they have never been that. You Moon Bats suffer from being low information and you believe that shit fake news the Liberal media puts out.

I have a problem with the NRA nowadays because they are too willing to give away our rights. I am a Life Member but I don't support them any more. I support the GAO.

Sure they were. At one time The NRA was all about gun safety.

You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.

Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?

what an idiot,,,on the web site they list all of those,,,

The NRA says it has 5 million members. Its magazines tell another story.
Another mystery of NRA membership is its readership gap. Every NRA member receives a subscription to one of its flagship magazines, American Rifleman, American Hunter, or America’s First Freedom. (Shooting Illustrated was added to the lineup in 2016.) Yet there is a considerable difference between these publications’ circulation numbers and the NRA’s membership claims.



According to the most recent data from the Alliance for Audited Media, an independent group that verifies publishers’ circulation stats, the NRA’s three main magazines had a combined print circulation of 3.4 million in December 2017. Add the NRA’s estimate of Shooting Illustrated‘s circulation, and the figure comes to 3.7 million—a far cry from 5 million. So why aren’t a quarter of the NRA’s members getting their free magazines?

Only if they sign up for them.

I didn't, and never received a magazine from them

 

[progressive hunter]

Then you are an idiot because they have never been that. You Moon Bats suffer from being low information and you believe that shit fake news the Liberal media puts out.

I have a problem with the NRA nowadays because they are too willing to give away our rights. I am a Life Member but I don't support them any more. I support the GAO.

Sure they were. At one time The NRA was all about gun safety.

You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.

Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?

what an idiot,,,on the web site they list all of those,,,

The NRA says it has 5 million members. Its magazines tell another story.
Another mystery of NRA membership is its readership gap. Every NRA member receives a subscription to one of its flagship magazines, American Rifleman, American Hunter, or America’s First Freedom. (Shooting Illustrated was added to the lineup in 2016.) Yet there is a considerable difference between these publications’ circulation numbers and the NRA’s membership claims.



According to the most recent data from the Alliance for Audited Media, an independent group that verifies publishers’ circulation stats, the NRA’s three main magazines had a combined print circulation of 3.4 million in December 2017. Add the NRA’s estimate of Shooting Illustrated‘s circulation, and the figure comes to 3.7 million—a far cry from 5 million. So why aren’t a quarter of the NRA’s members getting their free magazines?

why dont you tell us,,

 

[Cosmos]

Planned Parenthood is the leading promoter of murder in this country. Why do you think murderers give them so much money?

You just have to spout something stupid every once in a while, don't you? Can't help yourself.

I dunno. The gun control and abortion issues have a lot of parallels. I think it's an apt analogy. Main difference being that there is not a Constitutional right to murder your child.

 

[Cosmos]

Then you are an idiot because they have never been that. You Moon Bats suffer from being low information and you believe that shit fake news the Liberal media puts out.

I have a problem with the NRA nowadays because they are too willing to give away our rights. I am a Life Member but I don't support them any more. I support the GAO.

Sure they were. At one time The NRA was all about gun safety.

You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.

Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?

what an idiot,,,on the web site they list all of those,,,

The NRA says it has 5 million members. Its magazines tell another story.
Another mystery of NRA membership is its readership gap. Every NRA member receives a subscription to one of its flagship magazines, American Rifleman, American Hunter, or America’s First Freedom. (Shooting Illustrated was added to the lineup in 2016.) Yet there is a considerable difference between these publications’ circulation numbers and the NRA’s membership claims.



According to the most recent data from the Alliance for Audited Media, an independent group that verifies publishers’ circulation stats, the NRA’s three main magazines had a combined print circulation of 3.4 million in December 2017. Add the NRA’s estimate of Shooting Illustrated‘s circulation, and the figure comes to 3.7 million—a far cry from 5 million. So why aren’t a quarter of the NRA’s members getting their free magazines?

Because they are distributed digitally, genius.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

In your head only.

If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?

Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.

US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub machine gun and rifle cartridges."
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.

Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.

The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".

According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.

When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.

The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".

To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.

The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.

Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.

As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.

Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.

And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.

 

[Flash]

Democrats have become real assholes, haven't they?

They haven't always been that screwed up. JFK use to be a proud member of the NRA.

The Democrat Party is a party of assholes and pussies now.

I used to be a proud member of the NRA too, but that was before their focus was moved from gun safety to the being sales wing for gun manufacturers.

Then you are an idiot because they have never been that. You Moon Bats suffer from being low information and you believe that shit fake news the Liberal media puts out.

I have a problem with the NRA nowadays because they are too willing to give away our rights. I am a Life Member but I don't support them any more. I support the GAO.

Sure they were. At one time The NRA was all about gun safety.

You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.

Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?

Their membership has declined in the last couple of years as many gun owners have become disgusted with them compromising on Constitutional rights. The NRA is embarrassed of that. I am a Life Member so I can't quit the organization. In addition I need the NRA Firearms Instructor and Range Officer certification. However, I don't contribute to them anymore. I contribute to a more aggressive gun rights organization.

By the way, speaking of industry support of course they have it. A vibrant gun industry is needed to support the right to keep and bear arms and many of the companies support the NRA. For instance, when I buy gun parts many of the distributors and producers have an option for a NRA roundup or contribution. Nothing wrong with that.

You are really confused about this just like you are confused about other issues. May I suggest that you pull your head out of your Libtard ass so that you don't look like an idiot whenever you post your Moon Bat dribble?.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Using your logic fully automatic weapons would be available and on the shelves at any gun shop. Is that the type of infringement you are talking about? Should fully automatic weapons be on the shelves and available at any gun shop?

Yes

 

[Shawnee_b]

Been almost a century since they tried banning booze, how did that work out?

over 7 million 'assault' weapons in private hands.

how many have been used to kill people?

(hint: according to Mother Jones, less than 50 in about 40 years)

Is that a good reason to ban them?

Realdave thinks assault weapons are the weapon of choice, he'll tell you that over and over but then he is an ignorant ass.

And WTF is an assault weapon? Fienstiens1994 definition? Oh yea, pistol grip, flash hider, detachable mag over 10 rounds. Funny when the ban sunsetted 2004 the Senate subcommittee said the ban had NO IMPACT. Actually from 1994 to 2004, crimes with "assault guns" went up from like 2.7% to 2.75 Fukin retards.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Biden's position on guns is irrelevant; Congress will never enact the measures some Democrats support.

Bidens position on anything is irrelevant, he needs Krevorkian.

 

[Shawnee_b]

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

It is to libs but then don't argue fact with an idiot or talk constitution since they think that's taking a shit or something.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

In your head only.

If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?

Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.

US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub machine gun and rifle cartridges."
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.

Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.

The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".

According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.

When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.

The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".

To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.

The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.

Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.

As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.

Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.

And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.

The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

You got a real prob with full auto. When has even ONE been used in a mass shooting. Ever shoot one? Awesome fun, I built them, legally.

 

[Shawnee_b]

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...

They have, look at some NYC laws

 

[BULLDOG]

I used to be a proud member of the NRA too, but that was before their focus was moved from gun safety to the being sales wing for gun manufacturers.

Then you are an idiot because they have never been that. You Moon Bats suffer from being low information and you believe that shit fake news the Liberal media puts out.

I have a problem with the NRA nowadays because they are too willing to give away our rights. I am a Life Member but I don't support them any more. I support the GAO.

Sure they were. At one time The NRA was all about gun safety.

You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.

Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?

Their membership has declined in the last couple of years as many gun owners have become disgusted with them compromising on Constitutional rights. The NRA is embarrassed of that. I am a Life Member so I can't quit the organization. In addition I need the NRA Firearms Instructor and Range Officer certification. However, I don't contribute to them anymore. I contribute to a more aggressive gun rights organization.

By the way, speaking of industry support of course they have it. A vibrant gun industry is needed to support the right to keep and bear arms and many of the companies support the NRA. For instance, when I buy gun parts many of the distributors and producers have an option for a NRA roundup or contribution. Nothing wrong with that.

You are really confused about this just like you are confused about other issues. May I suggest that you pull your head out of your Libtard ass so that you don't look like an idiot whenever you post your Moon Bat dribble?.

It's common practise for the NRA to count lifetime members as current members even after they have died.

 

[BULLDOG]

Using your logic fully automatic weapons would be available and on the shelves at any gun shop. Is that the type of infringement you are talking about? Should fully automatic weapons be on the shelves and available at any gun shop?

Yes

I'm sure 1 or 2 percent of the country agrees with you.

 

[Flash]

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

In your head only.

If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?

Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.

US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub machine gun and rifle cartridges."
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.

Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.

The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".

According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.

When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.

The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".

To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.

The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.

Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.

As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.

Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.

And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.

The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.

Of course you are a stupid confused Libtard that doesn't have a clue what "shall not be infringed" means. Everybody else knows that it means to not to infringe but you are confused about it like you are confused about many other issues. Like I said, pull your head out of your Libtard ass and you won't be so confused.

 

[progressive hunter]

You whine about the constitution until you agree with the trashing, huh?
You disingenuous moonbats make me sick

Common sense regulation won't effect my gun ownership or use or the ownership and use of any law abiding sane person. I can understand you crazy militia types, with all your conspiracy theory fears being concerned.

We lived for a few years under an assault weapon ban with no ill effects. Assault weapon ownership is like an opioid addiction using the weapons as the opioid of false security. None can defend the need in a civilian society.

Nobody can justify the need for an assault weapon. The best they can do is claim they fear some imagenary conspiracy theory enemy might attack them.

Its a constitutional and natural right.
Why do you hate freedom? I wish all you statists were born in another country ibstead of trying to ruin this one.

Using your logic fully automatic weapons would be available and on the shelves at any gun shop. Is that the type of infringement you are talking about? Should fully automatic weapons be on the shelves and available at any gun shop?

you really need to quit talking,,
I hate to break it to you but full auto's are on the shelves and available at most gun shops,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

You got a real prob with full auto. When has even ONE been used in a mass shooting. Ever shoot one? Awesome fun, I built them, legally.

Sure I've fired a fully auto. Unless you are in the military, they are nothing but a toy. It would be stupid to deregulate them.