Biden considering executive action to confiscate private firearms

[marvin martian]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just ignore the fool in office.

 

[marvin martian]

Just ignore the fool in office.

I suspect that's what most of us will do. Red Joe can take his executive order and stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

The founders recognized NO limitations. When the Bill of Rights was written it was not only legal, but common for private citizens to own artillery pieces and warships. SCOTUS was far more liberal when Clinton's "assault weapons" ban, which wasn't a ban at all was in place.

 

[Winston]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Evidently the part you don't understand is "to bear arms", not to bear any arms, not to bear assault rifles, not to bear arms with high capacity magazines. Truth is you stupid shits have made what was a collective right an individual right. And the word "arms", especially in colonial times, meant any form of self-defense. So, in the future, since it is an individual right, since it is not an unlimited right, since all you have to have is the right to bear arms for self-defense. Then constitutionally, as the second amendment is now interpreted, the government can limit that right to bear "arms" to stunguns.

Before Heller, you might have had a constitutional argument against the banning of assault rifles, but post Heller, you don't have a prayer.

 

[Stryder50]

I don't think it will succeed at this time but they will never give up. I do think they will have much more luck restricting ammunition and making it very expensive.

Psaki Says Joe Biden Considering Executive Action on Gun Control in Wake of Mass Shootings | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Joe Biden and the Democrat-controlled media wasted no time attacking the Second Amendment in the wake of two mass shootings.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

If it's the Gateway Pundit, it's FAKE NEWS!!!

About as "fake" as the Fox News link embedded in the OP link;
Biden considering executive action on gun control, Psaki says
But the president implored the Senate to pass House bills that would close background check 'loopholes'
...

Biden considering executive action on gun control, Psaki says

President Biden is considering executive action on gun control in the wake of two mass shootings in less than a week, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Winston]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

The founders recognized NO limitations. When the Bill of Rights was written it was not only legal, but common for private citizens to own artillery pieces and warships. SCOTUS was far more liberal when Clinton's "assault weapons" ban, which wasn't a ban at all was in place.

That is just stupid. Guns were banned in Dodge City, ever hear of the shootout at OK corral? What the hell do you think it was about. And the "shot heard round the world", the battle of Lexington and Concord, where were the British headed? To the damn armory, where citizens were REQUIRED, you got that buckwheat, REQUIRED, to store their guns. Mostly because they didn't want Indians to get them.

You flippin gun nuts have distorted history in order to make your arguments. Everyone had a gun, it is how they got their food. BULLSHIT. Hell, we traded guns with the Native Americans to get some damn corn. If you were a real hunter, a good hunter that could take game with an expensive ass long gun, you were RICH.

Oh everyone had guns. More bullshit. The gun that shot Fergunson off his horse at Kings Mountain was BORROWED, I know this because it belonged to my great, great, hell I don't know how many greats, grandfather. It sits in museum in Albermarle. And yeah, he was rich, from taking game, with that rifle. In fact, the rifle was legendary, among Native Americans and the colonists. Pretty hard to figure out how that could be if everyone had one, if everyone used them to hunt.

The reality is the colonists at Jamestown damned near starved to death. They even called it the starving times. And they were surrounded by wilderness that was absolutely teeming with game. Not only did they not have guns, they didn't even have dogs. Because I am here to tell you, I could take more game with a team of beagles than any of you wahoo's could with the most modern gun available.

And that is just it. Most you gun nuts are just that, nuts. I mean I have guns, and they all have a purpose. And I don't have a single gun in my house. They are all stored at the "armory", which is my parents house, in a hidden room. And I am quite sure I could out shoot all of you, handguns, rifle, or shotgun. I bird hunt with a .410 double barrel. If you know a damn thing about bird hunting you know what that means. I was eliminated at the regional level for the Olympics about forty years ago. I, and every one of my six kids, are Appleseed qualified. I doubt you know what that means either. But this much I do know, the founders never intended for guns to be for self-defense, for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have one, and they damn sure didn't anticipate assault rifles being used in mass killings.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

The courts would crush it

Which should indicate to any reasonable person that Biden wouldn't do it and the story is bogus.

If it was Harris then I would believe it but Biden knows there is no way he could do it!

 

[Rigby5]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

Wrong.
We had a ban only on the sales of new assault rifles that met certain criteria, such as pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, etc.
There NEVER was an assault weapons ban, and no guns previously purchased were confiscated or prevented from being sold.
All they had to do was make changes to meet the criteria.

 

[Rigby5]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Evidently the part you don't understand is "to bear arms", not to bear any arms, not to bear assault rifles, not to bear arms with high capacity magazines. Truth is you stupid shits have made what was a collective right an individual right. And the word "arms", especially in colonial times, meant any form of self-defense. So, in the future, since it is an individual right, since it is not an unlimited right, since all you have to have is the right to bear arms for self-defense. Then constitutionally, as the second amendment is now interpreted, the government can limit that right to bear "arms" to stunguns.

Before Heller, you might have had a constitutional argument against the banning of assault rifles, but post Heller, you don't have a prayer.

Wrong.
The goal of the founders was to have a country of citizen soldiers instead of a mercenary military they did not trust, so the 2nd amendment WAS about military grade weapons.
That is obvious.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to specifically prevent ANY and ALL federal jurisdiction over any weapons at all. That is because there were no police back then, more threats like natives and pirates, and because individuals also had to protect municipalities, states, etc., as well as their homes.

So the federal government can not legally limit arms in ANY way.
It simply is prohibited any jurisdiction at all over any weapons.

 

[Rigby5]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Evidently the part you don't understand is "to bear arms", not to bear any arms, not to bear assault rifles, not to bear arms with high capacity magazines. Truth is you stupid shits have made what was a collective right an individual right. And the word "arms", especially in colonial times, meant any form of self-defense. So, in the future, since it is an individual right, since it is not an unlimited right, since all you have to have is the right to bear arms for self-defense. Then constitutionally, as the second amendment is now interpreted, the government can limit that right to bear "arms" to stunguns.

Before Heller, you might have had a constitutional argument against the banning of assault rifles, but post Heller, you don't have a prayer.

Wrong.
The SCOTUS ruling in DC vs Heller in no way allows a federal assault weapons ban, and instead implies the opposite, that arms are an individual right.

{...
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]

Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.[3] This point was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

The founders recognized NO limitations. When the Bill of Rights was written it was not only legal, but common for private citizens to own artillery pieces and warships. SCOTUS was far more liberal when Clinton's "assault weapons" ban, which wasn't a ban at all was in place.

That is just stupid. Guns were banned in Dodge City, ever hear of the shootout at OK corral? What the hell do you think it was about. And the "shot heard round the world", the battle of Lexington and Concord, where were the British headed? To the damn armory, where citizens were REQUIRED, you got that buckwheat, REQUIRED, to store their guns. Mostly because they didn't want Indians to get them.

You flippin gun nuts have distorted history in order to make your arguments. Everyone had a gun, it is how they got their food. BULLSHIT. Hell, we traded guns with the Native Americans to get some damn corn. If you were a real hunter, a good hunter that could take game with an expensive ass long gun, you were RICH.

Oh everyone had guns. More bullshit. The gun that shot Fergunson off his horse at Kings Mountain was BORROWED, I know this because it belonged to my great, great, hell I don't know how many greats, grandfather. It sits in museum in Albermarle. And yeah, he was rich, from taking game, with that rifle. In fact, the rifle was legendary, among Native Americans and the colonists. Pretty hard to figure out how that could be if everyone had one, if everyone used them to hunt.

The reality is the colonists at Jamestown damned near starved to death. They even called it the starving times. And they were surrounded by wilderness that was absolutely teeming with game. Not only did they not have guns, they didn't even have dogs. Because I am here to tell you, I could take more game with a team of beagles than any of you wahoo's could with the most modern gun available.

And that is just it. Most you gun nuts are just that, nuts. I mean I have guns, and they all have a purpose. And I don't have a single gun in my house. They are all stored at the "armory", which is my parents house, in a hidden room. And I am quite sure I could out shoot all of you, handguns, rifle, or shotgun. I bird hunt with a .410 double barrel. If you know a damn thing about bird hunting you know what that means. I was eliminated at the regional level for the Olympics about forty years ago. I, and every one of my six kids, are Appleseed qualified. I doubt you know what that means either. But this much I do know, the founders never intended for guns to be for self-defense, for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have one, and they damn sure didn't anticipate assault rifles being used in mass killings.

Wrong.
Guns were not at all banned in Dodge city.
Cowboys visiting were required to turn in their guns while drinking and gambling.

And the shoot out in the OK Corral was in Tombstone AZ, NOT Dodge city, and was over arrests for cattle rustling.
And no, most people had their own guns and were encouraged to have their own guns.
There were armories, but only for a few arms for those who could not afford their own.

Guns varied greatly in price and quality, with Kentucky long rifles being very expensive.
But almost everyone had some sort of firearm.

You are totally wrong about Jametown. They were well armed. But hunting requires skills besides a firearm.
{... EVOLUTION OF FIREARMS AT JAMESTOWN: 1607--matchlocks with some wheel locks and snaphaunces. 1609--John Smith reports 300 muskets [matchlocks], snaphaunces and firelocks [wheel locks] at Jamestown. 1611--Martiall Lawes--all musketeers must carry muskets and officers, including sergeants and corporals, must carry snaphaunces or firelocks. ...}

Your view of history is totally inaccurate warped.

After WWI, they were trying to sell Thompson Machine guns in magazines for $25.
Access was plentiful, and had nothing to do with why there were few shootings back then.
There were fewer shootings because the government was less corrupt, unfair, etc.

 

[toobfreak]

Then so is:

• Newsweek
• Politico
• CNN
• Fox
• Breitbart, and
• The Washington Times

The last three are fake as hell, but Gateway Pundit is the fakest of them all.

Ofanny, how can the story be TRUE in one publication but FAKE in the other.

How can a publication be FAKE if they publish TRUE stories.

Are you at all aware that we were talking about the NEWS STORY, not the PUBLISHER reporting it? And that you have gone from arguing ON THING to arguing something TOTALLY DIFFERENT in the same thread?

 

[BrokeLoser]

I don't think it will succeed at this time but they will never give up.

I do think they will have much more luck restricting ammunition and making it very expensive.

Psaki Says Joe Biden Considering Executive Action on Gun Control in Wake of Mass Shootings | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Joe Biden and the Democrat-controlled media wasted no time attacking the Second Amendment in the wake of two mass shootings.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Good for Sleepy Joe.

Democrats:
“Please Father Government, please deprive me of the rights gifted by our great framers, please protect us filthy Liberals from ourselves by controlling us via unconstitutional legislation.”

Republicans:
“We need to keep guns out of the hands of dark Democrats if we want to solve our gun problems.”

 

[Claudette]

I don't think it will succeed at this time but they will never give up.

I do think they will have much more luck restricting ammunition and making it very expensive.

Psaki Says Joe Biden Considering Executive Action on Gun Control in Wake of Mass Shootings | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Joe Biden and the Democrat-controlled media wasted no time attacking the Second Amendment in the wake of two mass shootings.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Can't succeed. The 2nd sees to that.

 

[NoNukes]

I don't think it will succeed at this time but they will never give up.

I do think they will have much more luck restricting ammunition and making it very expensive.

Psaki Says Joe Biden Considering Executive Action on Gun Control in Wake of Mass Shootings | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Joe Biden and the Democrat-controlled media wasted no time attacking the Second Amendment in the wake of two mass shootings.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Good for Sleepy Joe.

Democrats:
“Please Father Government, please deprive me of the rights gifted by our great framers, please protect us filthy Liberals from ourselves by controlling us via unconstitutional legislation.”

Republicans:
“We need to keep guns out of the hands of dark Democrats if we want to solve our gun problems.”

It is probably too late to deal with the gun problem. Americans just have to get used to mass shootings. And it appears that they have.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Any action he could take through an EO would be extremely limited and sure to be challenged in court. More and more Presidents no matter the party seem to think the power of the EO is unlimited.

It will be completely ignored by the State of Texas, except for Ken Paxton, who will sue the fuck out of Quid Pro.

 

[Winston]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

The founders recognized NO limitations. When the Bill of Rights was written it was not only legal, but common for private citizens to own artillery pieces and warships. SCOTUS was far more liberal when Clinton's "assault weapons" ban, which wasn't a ban at all was in place.

That is just stupid. Guns were banned in Dodge City, ever hear of the shootout at OK corral? What the hell do you think it was about. And the "shot heard round the world", the battle of Lexington and Concord, where were the British headed? To the damn armory, where citizens were REQUIRED, you got that buckwheat, REQUIRED, to store their guns. Mostly because they didn't want Indians to get them.

You flippin gun nuts have distorted history in order to make your arguments. Everyone had a gun, it is how they got their food. BULLSHIT. Hell, we traded guns with the Native Americans to get some damn corn. If you were a real hunter, a good hunter that could take game with an expensive ass long gun, you were RICH.

Oh everyone had guns. More bullshit. The gun that shot Fergunson off his horse at Kings Mountain was BORROWED, I know this because it belonged to my great, great, hell I don't know how many greats, grandfather. It sits in museum in Albermarle. And yeah, he was rich, from taking game, with that rifle. In fact, the rifle was legendary, among Native Americans and the colonists. Pretty hard to figure out how that could be if everyone had one, if everyone used them to hunt.

The reality is the colonists at Jamestown damned near starved to death. They even called it the starving times. And they were surrounded by wilderness that was absolutely teeming with game. Not only did they not have guns, they didn't even have dogs. Because I am here to tell you, I could take more game with a team of beagles than any of you wahoo's could with the most modern gun available.

And that is just it. Most you gun nuts are just that, nuts. I mean I have guns, and they all have a purpose. And I don't have a single gun in my house. They are all stored at the "armory", which is my parents house, in a hidden room. And I am quite sure I could out shoot all of you, handguns, rifle, or shotgun. I bird hunt with a .410 double barrel. If you know a damn thing about bird hunting you know what that means. I was eliminated at the regional level for the Olympics about forty years ago. I, and every one of my six kids, are Appleseed qualified. I doubt you know what that means either. But this much I do know, the founders never intended for guns to be for self-defense, for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have one, and they damn sure didn't anticipate assault rifles being used in mass killings.

Wrong.
Guns were not at all banned in Dodge city.
Cowboys visiting were required to turn in their guns while drinking and gambling.

And the shoot out in the OK Corral was in Tombstone AZ, NOT Dodge city, and was over arrests for cattle rustling.
And no, most people had their own guns and were encouraged to have their own guns.
There were armories, but only for a few arms for those who could not afford their own.

Guns varied greatly in price and quality, with Kentucky long rifles being very expensive.
But almost everyone had some sort of firearm.

You are totally wrong about Jametown. They were well armed. But hunting requires skills besides a firearm.
{... EVOLUTION OF FIREARMS AT JAMESTOWN: 1607--matchlocks with some wheel locks and snaphaunces. 1609--John Smith reports 300 muskets [matchlocks], snaphaunces and firelocks [wheel locks] at Jamestown. 1611--Martiall Lawes--all musketeers must carry muskets and officers, including sergeants and corporals, must carry snaphaunces or firelocks. ...}

Your view of history is totally inaccurate warped.

After WWI, they were trying to sell Thompson Machine guns in magazines for $25.
Access was plentiful, and had nothing to do with why there were few shootings back then.
There were fewer shootings because the government was less corrupt, unfair, etc.

No, the Thompson retailed for $200 in 1921, with a 20 round stick magazine. So pretty much everything else you have posted is bullshit too. Yes, Heller made the second amendment an individual right, not a collective right, so what the hell is all this talk about collective defense..

And yeah, there were plenty of guns at Jamestown at the beginning. But like I said, they traded them to Indians for corn. That pretty much negates two things. First, the whole hunting bullshit. Second, the whole defense bullshit. Why would you trade a weapon you were depending upon to protect you from the people you thought you needed protection from? I mean DU HUH.

And no, not everyone had some type of firearm. If everyone had firearms why did the Overmountain men have to borrow "arms" from eighty year old men? You live in a damn fantasy world that bears no relationship whatsoever to the real world. And unfortunately, you got a whole damn bunch of kooks that will help you engage in that fantasy.

 

[Winston]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

The founders recognized NO limitations. When the Bill of Rights was written it was not only legal, but common for private citizens to own artillery pieces and warships. SCOTUS was far more liberal when Clinton's "assault weapons" ban, which wasn't a ban at all was in place.

That is just stupid. Guns were banned in Dodge City, ever hear of the shootout at OK corral? What the hell do you think it was about. And the "shot heard round the world", the battle of Lexington and Concord, where were the British headed? To the damn armory, where citizens were REQUIRED, you got that buckwheat, REQUIRED, to store their guns. Mostly because they didn't want Indians to get them.

You flippin gun nuts have distorted history in order to make your arguments. Everyone had a gun, it is how they got their food. BULLSHIT. Hell, we traded guns with the Native Americans to get some damn corn. If you were a real hunter, a good hunter that could take game with an expensive ass long gun, you were RICH.

Oh everyone had guns. More bullshit. The gun that shot Fergunson off his horse at Kings Mountain was BORROWED, I know this because it belonged to my great, great, hell I don't know how many greats, grandfather. It sits in museum in Albermarle. And yeah, he was rich, from taking game, with that rifle. In fact, the rifle was legendary, among Native Americans and the colonists. Pretty hard to figure out how that could be if everyone had one, if everyone used them to hunt.

The reality is the colonists at Jamestown damned near starved to death. They even called it the starving times. And they were surrounded by wilderness that was absolutely teeming with game. Not only did they not have guns, they didn't even have dogs. Because I am here to tell you, I could take more game with a team of beagles than any of you wahoo's could with the most modern gun available.

And that is just it. Most you gun nuts are just that, nuts. I mean I have guns, and they all have a purpose. And I don't have a single gun in my house. They are all stored at the "armory", which is my parents house, in a hidden room. And I am quite sure I could out shoot all of you, handguns, rifle, or shotgun. I bird hunt with a .410 double barrel. If you know a damn thing about bird hunting you know what that means. I was eliminated at the regional level for the Olympics about forty years ago. I, and every one of my six kids, are Appleseed qualified. I doubt you know what that means either. But this much I do know, the founders never intended for guns to be for self-defense, for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have one, and they damn sure didn't anticipate assault rifles being used in mass killings.

Wrong.
Guns were not at all banned in Dodge city.
Cowboys visiting were required to turn in their guns while drinking and gambling.

And the shoot out in the OK Corral was in Tombstone AZ, NOT Dodge city, and was over arrests for cattle rustling.
And no, most people had their own guns and were encouraged to have their own guns.
There were armories, but only for a few arms for those who could not afford their own.

Guns varied greatly in price and quality, with Kentucky long rifles being very expensive.
But almost everyone had some sort of firearm.

You are totally wrong about Jametown. They were well armed. But hunting requires skills besides a firearm.
{... EVOLUTION OF FIREARMS AT JAMESTOWN: 1607--matchlocks with some wheel locks and snaphaunces. 1609--John Smith reports 300 muskets [matchlocks], snaphaunces and firelocks [wheel locks] at Jamestown. 1611--Martiall Lawes--all musketeers must carry muskets and officers, including sergeants and corporals, must carry snaphaunces or firelocks. ...}

Your view of history is totally inaccurate warped.

After WWI, they were trying to sell Thompson Machine guns in magazines for $25.
Access was plentiful, and had nothing to do with why there were few shootings back then.
There were fewer shootings because the government was less corrupt, unfair, etc.

Fantasy world.

According to the Earps' version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, defied a lawful order to hand over their weapons and drew their pistols instead. The Cowboys maintained that they raised their hands, offered no resistance, and were shot in cold blood by the Earps. Sorting out who was telling the truth was difficult then and remains so to this day.

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NoBueno]

The courts would crush it

We had an assault weapons ban before. There is no constitutional right to possess an assault rifle, nor is there one guaranteeing capacity of rounds.

There is no Constitutional prohibition, either.