Joe Biden gets into testy exchange with man over gun rights

[JoeB131]

Well, the GOP play for the next eight months will obviously be "Joe is senile".

The Dems will be hammering on the virus and pointing at every bit of bad economic news.

Another uplifting, inspiring, impressive, intellectually powerful presidential campaign season.

Stormy Mac wants a campaign that appeals to his White Male Privilege instead of things people are concerned about.

 

[The Purge]

(Excerpt) Read more at noqreport.com ...

That's no excerpt. You copypasted the entire article except for the very last sentence.

Thief!

Personally, I find it very, very uncouth. Sheesh. Some people...

What are you talking about asshole, byline AFTER THE COMPLETE ARTICLE!

 

[The Purge]

Fuck, the easy answer is to kill all these 2nd amendment assholes. As we all know when the shit thit the fan these leftist scum will be the first along with ANTIFA that want to take out the patriots!

 

[2aguy]

Biden was 100% right. That guy was full of shit. The AR-15 and AK-47 should be banned. These weapons are designed for military use. They can be loaded and unloaded quickly. You can't have a mortar so why should you have military designed rifles.

Talking out of your ass?

AR-15 is not military weapon. AK-47 original is automatic, but for US sales is made semi-automatic, therefore not military weapon.

The civilian version is still basically the military one. There are a few changes to prevent it from firing automatically but that is it.

More commie lies. Civilian ARs are not milspec. Meaning they are made from different materials not designed for high rates of fire and less durable.

.

I suppose that is why these weapons are a mass-shooter's weapon of choice. You are the commie liar.

You don't know what you are talking about......mass public shooters use hand guns more than rifles, you doofus.....

 

[2aguy]

Specifically? Show me where.

"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."

you just showed it,,,thanks,,,

unless youre saying it was about hunting??/

I don't see "weapons of war" in the Amendment.

I see "arms".

and what are arms???
you would also have to understand the context of why they put the 2nd in there which was to repel any force that would threaten the country/constitution,,be kinda stupid to limit it to slingshots or flintlocks,,,

I think we have misunderstanding here. Bare with me here, it might be long to read.

Leftist use term "weapons of war" to say that citizens shouldn't have them. It's quite opposite.

In the 1930’s, several classes of firearms were banned. One of them was short barreled shotguns when man was arrested with a short barreled shotgun, and his case contended that short barreled shotguns were protected under the 2nd Amendment, and it ended up before the Supreme Court. The Court decided that only certain firearms were protected by the Second Amendment, and in order to show why a short barreled shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment, the Court had to establish "a criteria" for firearms that would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Essentially, they said "this can be banned", but "that can't be banned". Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the the majority opinion. Here is the pertinent citation:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power... [constitutional militia authority, Art I, Sec 8, C 15]

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
[emphasis added]

US v Miller
Justice James Clark McReynolds

The first highlighted phrase establishes a criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

The second highlighted phrase describes the criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense“.

These criteria seem as accurate as any description of “assault weapons”. In fact. when you think about “assault weapons”, they pretty much embody these criteria. So in essence, because they are “assault weapons”, they are protected. I think the Supreme Court will have little choice but to vacate an “assault weapons ban” as unconstitutional.

And to add, back in those days private citizens weren’t restricted to just guns, or even cannon, they could own actual warships, and with a privateer charter they could use those warships to attack foreign merchant shipping. In a way, US legalized piracy, if is done with government approval.

Yet tunnel rats in Nam used sawed off shotguns, go figure.

.

They were also used in World War 1.

 

[Likkmee]

I agree with banning AR-13's-16's...whatebbah.. I recommend people buy M14 national match rifles.
If ya want a 223/556 get a Galil

 

[MAGAman]

Awesome. We finally got a Democrat who is going to stand up to the fucking gun nuts.

The guy was full of shit. No one has proposed gun confiscation.

How do you propose stopping gun nuts without gun confiscation?

 

[Flash]

Biden was 100% right. That guy was full of shit. The AR-15 and AK-47 should be banned. These weapons are designed for military use. They can be loaded and unloaded quickly. You can't have a mortar so why should you have military designed rifles.

Talking out of your ass?

AR-15 is not military weapon. AK-47 original is automatic, but for US sales is made semi-automatic, therefore not military weapon.

The civilian version is still basically the military one. There are a few changes to prevent it from firing automatically but that is it.

More commie lies. Civilian ARs are not milspec. Meaning they are made from different materials not designed for high rates of fire and less durable.

.

Are you saying that except for the FCG and an extra 1.5 inches on the barrel my Colt 6920s are not milspec?

Not familiar with that model, what do the specs say? Is it the LE? Of course you're trying to play games, I was speaking of the run of the mill civilian ARs and you are talking special purpose builds. So stop trying to be cute, it only make you look stupid.

.

Yes, I was being "cute" and I apologize. Your point is valid. Unless they get a Class III civilians don't buy the same select fire M-16s that the Moon Bats call assault weapons. .

The Colt Model 6920 is essential the same model as the military contract M-4s. I have four of them. Made on the same equipment with the same specs. LEOs also buy them. The difference is that they have a 16 inch barrel instead of the military 14.5" and of course they are semi auto instead of burst fire.

Although your point is valid that civilians aren't allowed the same access to what the Moon Bats call "military type" assault weapons to me that is moot. In the Miller case the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected firearms in general use by the military.

All this distinction between military and non military is nothing more than a ridiculous talking point for the anti gun nuts.The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The crime should never be the possession of the arm but the crime done with the arm. The filthy ass Moon Bats want it to be a crime to posses arms.

 

[Mac-7]

The voter in Detroit accuses biden of planning to take guns and Sleepy Joe loses it

Joe Biden gets into testy exchange with man over gun rights - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)Joe Biden got into a testy exchange Tuesday with a worker in Detroit who falsely accused the former vice president of wanting to confiscate guns from Americans, a remark that caused the Democratic presidential hopeful to say the man was "full of s***."

Awesome. We finally got a Democrat who is going to stand up to the fucking gun nuts.

The guy was full of shit. No one has proposed gun confiscation.

Beto o’rourke did

and he’s the fake mexican biden proposes to be his anti gun czar

Watch: Joe Biden Pledges To Make Beto His Gun-Grabbing Czar

 

[Desperado]

This is the kind of Biden outburst that I hope happens on Saturday during the debate. Bernie you are so full of Shit your eyes are brown.

 

[progressive hunter]

doesnt matter since the 2nd was specifically for weapons of war,,,

Specifically? Show me where.

"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."

you just showed it,,,thanks,,,

unless youre saying it was about hunting??/

I don't see "weapons of war" in the Amendment.

I see "arms".

and what are arms???
you would also have to understand the context of why they put the 2nd in there which was to repel any force that would threaten the country/constitution,,be kinda stupid to limit it to slingshots or flintlocks,,,

I think we have misunderstanding here. Bare with me here, it might be long to read.

Leftist use term "weapons of war" to say that citizens shouldn't have them. It's quite opposite.

In the 1930’s, several classes of firearms were banned. One of them was short barreled shotguns when man was arrested with a short barreled shotgun, and his case contended that short barreled shotguns were protected under the 2nd Amendment, and it ended up before the Supreme Court. The Court decided that only certain firearms were protected by the Second Amendment, and in order to show why a short barreled shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment, the Court had to establish "a criteria" for firearms that would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Essentially, they said "this can be banned", but "that can't be banned". Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the the majority opinion. Here is the pertinent citation:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power... [constitutional militia authority, Art I, Sec 8, C 15]

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
[emphasis added]

US v Miller
Justice James Clark McReynolds

The first highlighted phrase establishes a criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

The second highlighted phrase describes the criteria for the protected class, “A firearm which is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense“.

These criteria seem as accurate as any description of “assault weapons”. In fact. when you think about “assault weapons”, they pretty much embody these criteria. So in essence, because they are “assault weapons”, they are protected. I think the Supreme Court will have little choice but to vacate an “assault weapons ban” as unconstitutional.

And to add, back in those days private citizens weren’t restricted to just guns, or even cannon, they could own actual warships, and with a privateer charter they could use those warships to attack foreign merchant shipping. In a way, US legalized piracy, if is done with government approval.

I noticed how you completely avoided the original context of the 2nd amendment and went with all the violations of it,,,

the 2nd amendment was specifically for weapons of war,,,just because some nazi fuck in congress and the supreme court managed to get things banned doesnt mean its right,,,

any ban or gun control laws are for tyranny and nothing else

 

[theHawk]

Old Joe is completely senile.

The new RWI talking point.

What about it? It’s so fucking obvious. But the retard left can’t acknowledge the obvious.

 

[dannyboys]

Joe ought to think twice about yelling threats at PEOPLE. SOME DAY ONE OF THESE P[EOPLE WILL TAKE JOE UP ON HIS CHALLENGE.
Imagine what would happen if Joe reacted that way he does to a world leader?
NBC Manipulates Video: Cuts Around Biden Threatening to Assault Autoworker

 

[imawhosure]

.....There's Uncle Joe, he's moving kind of slow.....at the junction!

Betcha 90% of the wet behind the ears Leftists, have absolutely no IDEA what you just referenced, lol!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I suppose that is why these weapons are a mass-shooter's weapon of choice. You are the commie liar.

Whether or not such a weapon is the choice of a mass shooter is wholly fucking irrelevant. The fact that you even mention mass shooter's choice shows me how fucking stupid you are.

Let us all be clear: I do not give a rats fuck what weapon a mass shooter chooses. I have a right to all firearms. The fact that you have temporarily banned machine guns is also fucking irrelevant.

We will have machine guns and you will fuck off.

So suck my butt and lick on my balls.

Machine guns or Valhalla.

We will have machine guns or we will (kill all of you homos and then) die and go to Valhalla trying.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have the right to machine guns.

The NFA will be repealed or reject as unconstitutional or we will kill all of you fuckers.

Machine guns or Valhalla

.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ukraine joe has dementia. He comes and goes. He's gone most of the time now. He makes the dead guy bouncing behind the boat look smart.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"You are actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns," the worker told Biden.

Biden replied: "You're full of sh**."

"I support the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment — just like right now, if you yelled 'fire,' that's not free speech," Biden continued. "And from the very beginning — I have a shotgun, I have a 20-gauge, a 12-gauge. My sons hunt. Guess what? You're not allowed to own any weapon. I'm not taking your gun away at all."

...

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...

Biden was 100% right. That guy was full of shit. The AR-15 and AK-47 should be banned. These weapons are designed for military use. They can be loaded and unloaded quickly. You can't have a mortar so why should you have military designed rifles.

You and Ukraine joe are both wrong. That's not surprising though.

 

[Flash]

These stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats get their panties all in a wad over what they call "assault weapons" when in fact, according to the FBI stats, they are very seldom used in crime. The great majority of gun crimes are committed among the criminal elements in the big city shitholes with cheap and stolen handguns and banning AR-15s won't change that at all.

 

[protectionist]

I'm pretty sure that denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity will not be accepted by the courts as an exception.

You misconstrued. We're not talking about denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity. We're talking about denying PURCHASING rights to people with invalid background checks (wherin that happens to be because of a ludicrous govt policy that mentions race/ethnicity). While race /ethnicity may have some involvement, nevertheless, the basis for the denial is invalid background check.

One must pass a background check to buy a gun. Not having lots of pertinent information in a background is not passing a background check, and thus the sale must not happen. The cause of the denial is background check insufficency.

Secondly, are you saying that you would sell a gun to someone like Nickolas Cruz ? You think that's OK ?

I thought you liberal guys were strong on background checks. Not any more ?​

I am not a liberal. It may be hard for you to understand, but just because someone disagrees with you about something does not make them a liberal.

You can try all the mental gymnastics you want. If the idea is to only deny minorities theirBut Constitutional rights, it’s not going to pass legal muster. Again, if you think the programs you are talking about are terrible, push to get rid of those programs. That, at least, has a chance of happening.

But that's not the idea, no matter how much you keep moving the topic to that idea.

Moving the topic? It's the title of your thread.

Further, you keep promoting the idea. An "invalid background check" is something you made up. Anyone could have committed crimes which went unreported. Neither you nor, importantly, the legal system can know who has or has not committed a crime if it isn't reported. In addition, not all young minorities in Broward county, or other areas with similar programs, will have committed unreported crimes. Despite that, you ask if all young minorities should be denied their Constitutional right, but say nothing about young whites.

And this is all based on the assumption that your claims regarding the PROMISE program are accurate. I find that less than likely. I also wonder if you consider students with disabilities and LGBTQ students (who are mentioned with students of color in the Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline for Broward) as part of the young minorities you seem to be all for denying the right to purchase a gun.

You seem to believe that assuming young minorities have committed crimes which went unreported, and should therefore be denied the right to keep and bear arms, is a valid idea. I suppose it might be, if one didn't feel the need to follow the Constitution.

As I said (twice now), the title only allows a few words. The topic is the title AND the OP, combined.

Some people have to be told 3 times.