Biden vows to ban assault weapons 'come hell or high water'

[M14 Shooter]

Please tell us how you feel about abortion ?

Why?

 

[Failzero]

Why?

Keep the thread alive , so are you for 4th Trimester Abortion or are you Pro Life ???

 

[M14 Shooter]

Keep the thread alive , so are you for 4th Trimester Abortion or are you Pro Life ???

I can keep the thread alive quite well, thank you.

 

[Resnic]

Stupid. We need to just find the crazies and take their guns, everyone else should be good to go.

No. We need to treat criminals like criminals.

You can't just start going out and saying "well I think that person is crazy so let's take their guns". That is ripe for abuse and mishandling.

Sure some nutballs go out and shoot people but they pale in comparrison to what ghetto thug gang bangers do when it comes to gun violence.

First step is take people who go out and knowingly, willingly and intentionally kill others and you put them to death and throw the body in incinerator. No appeals, no life in jail, no death row. You go out and kill someone on purpose you're executed.

Then all the other criminals don't get bail, they are sentenced to the extent of the law, they serve their time in completion, and treated like criminals.

Thirdly to help eliminate the rest of gun violence you follow Switzerland. They almost always have the smallest amount of gun violence in Europe but they have own gun ownership that rivals America. So why the low gun crime?

1 Switzerland has very very very low diversity. That means everyone is a swiss citizen. So they look similar, speak the same language, all understand the customs, have a similar mentality and so on. Familiarity breeds a sense of calm and understanding in a society, people aren't on edge, they feel comfortable with others. You can't even become a citizen unless you pay a lot which shows you'll be a productive part of society and fluently speak the language.

2 Switzerland has a very high rate of employment and education and has a very solid healthcare system. People who work are more satisfied in life, people who have an education are higher functioning and don't go with baser instincts as often. Good healthcare means people are healthy and when you're healthy you have a better disposition in life.

3 they love their country, they dont hate it. When you love something you want to take care of it, you're more considerate of it, you want to see it do well and you have respect for it.


Basically we don't need so much fun control or gun bans and so on but we need to get rid of the bad elements of our society by a drastic amount.

 

[2aguy]

I can do that.

1. It might not, but legislators and Presidents are not in the habit of limiting their laws and EOs to only those who are certain to survive judicial review.

2. They do, but laws are not absolute. Even Constitutional Amendments have been regulated many times, especially when they conflict with public safety.

The trick, of course, is in the term "assault weapons." Because it has no clear definition, the first thing the proposed bill must do is define which weapons are covered, and if they can demonstrate that the ones covered are a significant danger, they not only can limit them, they should.

Which means it's up to them. If they say "all semi-automatic rifles," I imagine they'll lose.

Moron....the Supreme Court already ruled on this......these rifles are covered by the 2nd amendment

 

[Catsnmeters]

No. We need to treat criminals like criminals.

You can't just start going out and saying "well I think that person is crazy so let's take their guns". That is ripe for abuse and mishandling.

Sure some nutballs go out and shoot people but they pale in comparrison to what ghetto thug gang bangers do when it comes to gun violence.

First step is take people who go out and knowingly, willingly and intentionally kill others and you put them to death and throw the body in incinerator. No appeals, no life in jail, no death row. You go out and kill someone on purpose you're executed.

Then all the other criminals don't get bail, they are sentenced to the extent of the law, they serve their time in completion, and treated like criminals.

Thirdly to help eliminate the rest of gun violence you follow Switzerland. They almost always have the smallest amount of gun violence in Europe but they have own gun ownership that rivals America. So why the low gun crime?

1 Switzerland has very very very low diversity. That means everyone is a swiss citizen. So they look similar, speak the same language, all understand the customs, have a similar mentality and so on. Familiarity breeds a sense of calm and understanding in a society, people aren't on edge, they feel comfortable with others. You can't even become a citizen unless you pay a lot which shows you'll be a productive part of society and fluently speak the language.

2 Switzerland has a very high rate of employment and education and has a very solid healthcare system. People who work are more satisfied in life, people who have an education are higher functioning and don't go with baser instincts as often. Good healthcare means people are healthy and when you're healthy you have a better disposition in life.

3 they love their country, they dont hate it. When you love something you want to take care of it, you're more considerate of it, you want to see it do well and you have respect for it.


Basically we don't need so much fun control or gun bans and so on but we need to get rid of the bad elements of our society by a drastic amount.

I'm convinced. I know longer support Trump's plan for gun control. Thanks.

 

[Failzero]

I'm convinced. I know longer support Trump's plan for gun control. Thanks.

I no longer believe Biden’s “ will blow out a Lung “ absurdity

 

[Catsnmeters]

I no longer believe Biden’s “ will blow out a Lung “ absurdity

That's great to hear.

 

[2aguy]

I can do that.

1. It might not, but legislators and Presidents are not in the habit of limiting their laws and EOs to only those who are certain to survive judicial review.

2. They do, but laws are not absolute. Even Constitutional Amendments have been regulated many times, especially when they conflict with public safety.

The trick, of course, is in the term "assault weapons." Because it has no clear definition, the first thing the proposed bill must do is define which weapons are covered, and if they can demonstrate that the ones covered are a significant danger, they not only can limit them, they should.

Which means it's up to them. If they say "all semi-automatic rifles," I imagine they'll lose.

Yeah...the Supreme Court already ruled on this attack on the 2nd Amendment...

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.

------

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.

---