Biden Position on Guns Is a Joke

[Harpy Eagle]

Golfing Gator supports banning magazines over 5 rounds.

Links please.

He's full of shit if he's trying to suggest otherwise.

You are full of shit till you provide links of me supports the banning magazines over 5 rounds

 

[j-mac]

Did I say he banned guns? No I did not.

But he did sign an EO banning an accessory for guns. If they can do it for one accessory, they can do it for more.

Ok, so what was “anti gun” in his EO?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ok, so what was “anti gun” in his EO?

But he did sign an EO banning an accessory for guns. If they can do it for one accessory, they can do it for more.

 

[j-mac]

But he did sign an EO banning an accessory for guns. If they can do it for one accessory, they can do it for more.

That’s not what you said though…you typed out “anti gun EO”….So that was a lie wasn’t it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That’s not what you said though…you typed out “anti gun EO”….So that was a lie wasn’t it?

No it was not, banning accessories for guns is being anti-gun.

Or would you be ok with the banning of any magazine over 10 rounds, those are just accessories.

How about banning scopes, those are just accessories.

How about banning some muzzles suppressors, those are just accessories.


Would you be good with Biden if he did those things or would you call him anti-gun?

 

[bripat9643]

read the thread.

I'm asking you, turd.

 

[bripat9643]

read the thread.

In other words, you're can't answer the question.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In other words, you're can't answer the question.

I have answered it in this very thread. Why should I type it all again just because you are too lazy to scan through 4 pages?

 

[bripat9643]

I have answered it in this very thread. Why should I type it all again just because you are too lazy to scan through 4 pages?

No you haven't

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No you haven't

see post number 19

 

[Abatis]

Trump signed an anti-gun EO that banned bump stocks. Now, I think that bump stocks are a joke and only a moron would use one, but this action by Trump set a precedent for future presidents to whittle away at gun rights via EOs

The above is bullshit; "fake news" and "alternate facts" . . .

For a decade (2008-2017) ATF reviewed many bumpstock designs (including ones exactly like those used in the Las Vegas shooting) and consistently ruled they do not change a semi-auto into a machine gun.

In the wake of Las Vegas it was Congress which asked ATF to review those previous reviews and decisions on bumpstocks.

That review and the final action of enacting the rule that relied on the ATF reversing many previous decisions, really lies at Obama's grant of power to the AG/DOJ delegating the power to redefine all definitions pertaining to arms in EO-13637, (2013). As the bumpstock final rule said (linked below):

• "The definition of "machinegun" in 27 CFR 447 .11, promulgated pursuant to the portion of section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778) delegated to the Attorney General by section l(n)(ii) of Executive Order 13637 . . . "

The bumpstock ban and all the bullshit that is pending right now, redefining the definition of frame and receiver, supposedly addressing "ghost guns" (effective date June 1) and the pistol brace rules AGAIN reversing years of ATF guidance, making millions of currently owned AR platform pistols into SBR's thus requiring NFA registration and tax, (effective date Aug 1), ALL depend on Obama's EO-13637, giving the DOJ the subjective power to redefine terms in law.

Here's some facts, Trump's EO never ordered the ATF to ban bumpstocks, it ordered the ATF to expedite their review (again, ordered by Congress, not the President) and finalize a rule for public comment -- it was, for all intents, a shit or get off the pot order . . .

Personally, I don't think Trump believed that a new rule would ever be approved and published (going by the history of the regulatory reviews).

The bumpstock final rule was the ATF stretching and overstepping its interpretive authority and it also served a political agenda; it put a cudgel in the hands of people like you, to beat Trump with, allowing people like you to stupidly define him as more anti-gun than Obama.

If you actually want to discuss the actual history of the final rule that banned bumpstocks keep your satements with in the facts. If you would like to actually review that factual history, it is recounted here:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5635249/Bump-Stock-Final-Rule.pdf

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The bumpstock final rule was the ATF stretching and overstepping its interpretive authority and it also served a political agenda; it put a cudgel in the hands of people like you, to beat Trump with, allowing people like you to stupidly define him as more anti-gun than Obama.

Trump was exceptionally talented at putting cudgels in people's hands, he just could not help himself.

As for Obama, I think he was a terrible POTUS but can you name some "anti-gun" things he did that were worse than this EO and Trump's talk about supporting Red Flag Rules?

 

[Abatis]

Trump was exceptionally talented at putting cudgels in people's hands, he just could not help himself.

But beating Trump with the "Trump was more anti-gun than Obama" stick is not legitimate, nor was it Trump that put that stick into anyone's hands. It was put in your hands by the DEMedia and whatever other shitbird leftists you listen to, whoever told you that Trump's EO banned bumpstocks.

All your fallacious statement above really says is that you willingly swallow and parrot bullshit for political gain and then try to divert attention from your error.

As for Obama, I think he was a terrible POTUS but can you name some "anti-gun" things he did that were worse than this EO and Trump's talk about supporting Red Flag Rules?

So you are now admitting your mistake, accepting that you have been corrected that it was Obama's EO that set the ATF administrative excess into motion that allowed bumpstocks (and now pistol braces and 80% receivers) to be banned, not any EO from Trump?

The gun control hopes and dreams of Obama (and Congress) was crushed by Heller. Democrats, when they gained power in 2009 didn't understand what Heller was or what it really did so they were effectively neutered. They still don't understand and have rested their hopes on woefully anti-constituional doctrine invented by the lower courts (just like the various "collective right" inerpretations, 1942-2008). Most Democrats remain blind to what is soon to happen.

After SCOTUS speaks in June in NYSRPA, the scheme used by the lower federal courts to sustain challenged "assault weapon" and LCM bans (the "two-step inquiry") will be invalidated, and all those decisions upholding those bans will all be reversed in short order.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But beating Trump with the "Trump was more anti-gun than Obama" stick is not legitimate, nor was it Trump that put that stick into anyone's hands. It was put in your hands by the DEMedia and whatever other shitbird leftists you listen to, whoever told you that Trump's EO banned bumpstocks.

All your fallacious statement above really says is that you willingly swallow and parrot bullshit for political gain and then try to divert attention from your error.

No, it was put there by Trump himself by both his actions and his words.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So you are now admitting your mistake, accepting that you have been corrected that it was Obama's EO that set the ATF administrative excess into motion that allowed bumpstocks (and now pistol braces and 80% receivers) to be banned, not any EO from Trump?

The gun control hopes and dreams of Obama (and Congress) was crushed by Heller. Democrats, when they gained power in 2009 didn't understand what Heller was or what it really did so they were effectively neutered. They still don't understand and have rested their hopes on woefully anti-constituional doctrine invented by the lower courts (just like the various "collective right" inerpretations, 1942-2008). Most Democrats remain blind to what is soon to happen.

After SCOTUS speaks in June in NYSRPA, the scheme used by the lower federal courts to sustain challenged "assault weapon" and LCM bans (the "two-step inquiry") will be invalidated, and all those decisions upholding those bans will all be reversed in short order.

Nope, no mistakes here. I pretty much agree with your take on the Dems, it is just your view of Trump where we differ.

 

[Abatis]

No, it was put there by Trump himself by both his actions and his words.

And that is just a partisan opinion. I have neither the desire to, or the illusion that I can alter your partisan opinion. I took exception to your statement of 'fact' that Trump's EO banned bumpstocks.

Nope, no mistakes here. I pretty much agree with your take on the Dems, it is just your view of Trump where we differ.

You don't know my view of Trump, only my supported statement that his EO did not "ban bumpstocks" and claims that it did are wrong, even if they are just "takes".

 

[g5000]

Here's what Joe Biden has repeatedly said he want to do about guns in America.

1. Ban what he calls "assault weapons"
2. Ban high-capacity magazines.
3. Hold gun Manufacturers "accountable"

Strike 1....Strike 2......Strike 3

First, according to the second amendment of the Constitution, the right to bears arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (exactly what Biden is proposing to do)

Second, I don't think Biden, or any of his leftist friends, clueless about guns, have any idea what they're talking about, when they loosely throw the phrase "assault weapons". I've heard some of them refer to the AR-15 rifle as an assault weapon , when it's just an ordinary rifle, that fires one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Third, unlike Biden's claim that high capacity magazines have no place in a civilized society, and his question of why there is a need for that, there easily could be a need. What if a whole gang of thugs show up in your front yard ? (let's say 10-15 of them). A 6 shooter wouldn't cover that.

Third, gun manufacturers have nothing to do with any of this. In addition to the guns possessed by police, there are far more guns in the hands of law-abiding people (with CCW permits), than there are criminals in possession of them. And you cant blame an inanimate object. Some people kill or injure others with a car. Wanna ban cars ? Some people are attacked with baseball bat. Wanna ban baseball bats ? Some people are killed with a kitchen knife. Wanna ban them ?

Lastly, banning assault rifles (whatever anybody defines that to be) or any kind of rifle, doesnt ,match up with the facts. Relatively, very few people are killed with rifles.

An assault weapons ban is theater for the rubes. However, the courts have rejected every challenge to assault weapons ban, including the 1994 federal ban.

As for "shall not be infringed", the Supreme Court has upheld several bans, including the machine gun ban signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

You can't own a nuke, either.

 

[g5000]

How about we just ban that st..st..st..stuttering fuck?

Thanks for showing your hatred of people with a handicap, bigot.

 

[g5000]

It’s just talk designed to inflame Rs and cons, and keep libs and Ds happy. O and Bubba did much the same thing. All three losers actually did nothing to limit the second amendment. It’s what they do, not what they say.

You’d think all Americans would see this well worn out scam.

The "gun grab" hoax is the best marketing ploy ever created by the gun manufacturing lobby.

OBAMAZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ! BUY MOAR!

HILLAREEZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ! BUY MOAR!

BIDENZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ! BUY MOAR!

I would not be the least surprised if the gun lobby contributes to the campaigns of Democratic candidates. They are great for sales.

 

[g5000]

The whole problem with the left is they just can't fathom that it is bad guys who shouldn't be running around loose in the first place who are committing most of the gun crimes, with many of those being convicted felons who shouldn't even have guns. The solution is to ban known bad guys from the streets, not to ban guns. For some unexplainable reason the left seem to believe that criminals will obey gun control laws when they consistently find out that criminals DON'T obey gun laws. It makes absolutely no sense.

Then why is the NRA opposing Biden's attempts to stop illegal gun trafficking?

President Biden Announces More Actions to Reduce Gun Crime And Calls on Congress to Fund Community Policing and Community Violence Intervention | The White House

Today, the Biden Administration is announcing additional actions to reduce gun crime and make communities safer. This plan builds on the steps the President has taken since the beginning of his Administration to stop the flow of guns being used in crimes, bolster federal, state, and local law...

www.whitehouse.gov