Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress

[Dagosa]

It's a political bastardization of the term "Assault Rifle" which got its name from the Strumgewehr 44 (literally "Storm Rifle" means assault rifle).

Assault Rifle parameters include select fire, a mid-sized round, and a detachable magazine.

Select fire means being able to shoot semi-auto and full-auto or burst.

"Assault Weapons" means anything congress decides to ban, including grandpa's single fire shot gun.

That all sounds like fear mongering. In the military, even a weapon that’s not used in the semi auto mode, is still called an assault weapon. 90% of the military trading is in the semi auto mode. It’s still an assault weapon.

 

[Flash]

Wrong.
No one ever said that the Bill of Rights created rights.
The Bill of Rights instead are restrictions on the federal government mostly.
All law in democratic republics can ONLY be based on inherent rights, not anything arbitrary.
And no one can "give" any power to the judiciary.
That would be a circular fallacy, since you can not give that which you do not already have yourself.

Let me 'splain this to you since you are confused.

The Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is settled law that the States and Locals have to adhere to the Bill of Rights. That was established a long time ago.

Therefore if the Federal, State or Local government infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms then it is illegal.

 

[Dagosa]

The Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No it does not. Post the entire 2@ . That post is fraudulent.
There is one authority that is endowed with the authority by the constitution to be the final authority on the constitution, the SC. They have ALWAYS maintained the 2@ IS NOT ABSOLUTE and the rights in the bill of rights are ALL SUBJECT TO REGULATION.

I have proof.

 

[Dagosa]

There can NEVER be a definition of an "assault weapon" because that is a method of use of any firearm, and not the firearm itself.
For example, in the Revolutionary war period, the Blunderbuss was the main assault weapon, used for boarding parties.
During the Civil War, it was a pair of revolvers for cavalry.
During WWI, it was a short barreled pump shotgun for trenches.
With WWII, it was a carbine, because it fired a weak recoil, pistol bullet.
With Vietnam, they just went alloy on the frame and made the magazine larger.
But any pair of pistols can still be used as an assault weapon as effective as anything made.
Maybe even more so, since with 2 pistols, you can reload one while the other remain in use.
And there also will never be a way to prevent someone from cutting down a shotgun barrel.

The idea one has to buy a firearm already set as an "assault weapon", so that it can be controlled by legislation, is totally insane, and ignorant.

You’re rational as with all gunaholics, revolves around what happened 200 years ago. When the biggest “ claim to fame “ for use of a weapon, is the efficiency it can be used to mow elementary children down; that’s enough reason to question the gunaholic motivation. There is no reason for a non military people to have one, other then to commit crimes and kill numbers of people more efficiently.

Its the reason we already have federal laws that try to regulate these weapons and the gunaholics who support the easy access to all firearms to anyone.

 

[toobfreak]

I say fuck him and the whore he rode in on.

Does Kamela carry him standing, or on all fours?

 

[Pete7469]

Does Kamela carry him standing, or on all fours?

All fours, but still belly up.

 

[Open Bolt]

Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress

Biden is pretty goofy. Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.

Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.

Ban the public from machine guns,

That ban was implemented 88 years ago.

So who controls that organized militia and why don't the organized militia have a right to keep those firearms they carry?

At the moment there is no organized militia. This lack of a militia violates the Second Amendment if anyone cares.

Outside of a war zone, does a person REALLY need the ability to throw 30 rounds down range in less than 20 seconds?

It seems like it would be hard to fire a semi-auto that fast and still aim usefully.

But anyway, the police seem to think they need 30 round rifle magazines in civilized society. Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police have.

Maybe if one day the police decide that they no longer need 30 round rifle magazines for self defense, then there will be an argument that civilians don't need them either.

 

[Open Bolt]

Our well regulated militia are the guard units.

Actually no. The National Guard are sworn members of a standing army. That makes them the exact opposite of a militia.

An actual well regulated militia would only serve inside US territory. Militiamen would also have the right to take their military weapons home with them.

Universal background checks don’t take my gun rights away.

Don't be so sure. All the government needs to do is say that everyone with a certain eye color or hair color (or skin color) fails the background check. Then, if you have the wrong pigmentation, that means you start failing background checks.

In reality, the opposite occurs. American gun makers are arming the cartels. So you really are just throwing BS out there.

American guns are flooding into Mexico and wreaking havoc | Robert Reich

Mexico has tried almost everything to stop US-made guns from fueling cartel violence. So now it’s doing what any litigious American would do: suing

www.theguardian.com

Actually it is Robert Reich who is throwing BS out there.

America is the cartels' main source of FN-57 handguns. But the cartels get plenty of full-auto rifles from Venezuela and from the Mexican Army.

There is one authority that is endowed with the authority by the constitution to be the final authority on the constitution, the SC. They have ALWAYS maintained the 2@ IS NOT ABSOLUTE and the rights in the bill of rights are ALL SUBJECT TO REGULATION.

Regulation of fundamental rights is allowed only if the regulation can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

There is no compelling government interest in outlawing harmless features like pistol grips and flash suppressors.

There is no one definition of “ assault weapon” that’s common in all states. Some are, some aren’t. It would be a mistake to think so. Law enforcement and the military has a definition. Some state laws differ in what they want to accomplish. It would be a mistake to think a military or dictionary definition would be used for a. Proposed law. Like I said before, and I’ll repeat it. The workable ones are revisited and revised to list the firearms that are regulated or banned. Debate all you want. Until a law is actually written and a glossary for the law is decided, its all just conjecture.

When states concoct fraudulent definitions for the term "assault weapon" that doesn't mean that the true definition has changed. It merely means that those states have concocted fraudulent definitions.

Humpers are all in a tizzy cause their desire to play toy soldier is threatened. You guys are hilarious.

Not at all. People just don't want the Freedom Haters to steal their guns.

This whole militia nonsense started because the Freedom Haters were falsely saying that people only have the right to have guns if they are members of a militia.

Without that initial falsehood there would never have been a militia movement in the US.

You’re rational as with all gunaholics, revolves around what happened 200 years ago. When the biggest “ claim to fame “ for use of a weapon, is the efficiency it can be used to mow elementary children down; that’s enough reason to question the gunaholic motivation. There is no reason for a non military people to have one, other then to commit crimes and kill numbers of people more efficiently.
Its the reason we already have federal laws that try to regulate these weapons and the gunaholics who support the easy access to all firearms to anyone.

It's hard to tell what type of guns you are talking about here??

But regardless, people don't need to have a reason in order to have a given kind of gun. If there is no compelling government interest in restricting a given type of weapon, then people have the right to have it.

 

[Open Bolt]

The definition of an "assault weapon" does not mention anything about the rifle's round, accuracy, loading mechanism etc instead it concentrates on cosmetic things like pistol grips, flash suppressors and folding stocks.

Those aren't assault weapons. Don't let the Freedom Haters get away with pretending that they are.

Assault weapons were restricted from the general public 88 years ago.

Show me a single definition that isn't solely banning cosmetic doodads or limiting magazine size and that have to do with the round fired, the loading mechanism or any other aspect of the actual function of the weapon.

I can do that. But my definition will not make the Freedom Haters happy, since such weapons were already restricted from the general public 88 years ago.

Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

 

[Doc7505]

Biden is pretty goofy. Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.

Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.



That ban was implemented 88 years ago.



At the moment there is no organized militia. This lack of a militia violates the Second Amendment if anyone cares.



It seems like it would be hard to fire a semi-auto that fast and still aim usefully.

But anyway, the police seem to think they need 30 round rifle magazines in civilized society. Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police have.

Maybe if one day the police decide that they no longer need 30 round rifle magazines for self defense, then there will be an argument that civilians don't need them either.

~~~~~~
Indeed, you mention the FDR National Firearms Act of 1934.
See:

National Firearms Act of 1934 | Encyclopedia.com

NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934The first attempt at federal gun-control legislation, the National Firearms Act (NFA) only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt to ban either weapon, but merely to impose a tax on...

www.encyclopedia.com

Yet, each year since Democrats scream for total control of firearms in America regardless of the fact that it violates the U.S. Constitution and it Amendments, and what total control of firearms has done in Europe.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Biden is pretty goofy. Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.

Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.



That ban was implemented 88 years ago.



At the moment there is no organized militia. This lack of a militia violates the Second Amendment if anyone cares.



It seems like it would be hard to fire a semi-auto that fast and still aim usefully.

But anyway, the police seem to think they need 30 round rifle magazines in civilized society. Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police have.

Maybe if one day the police decide that they no longer need 30 round rifle magazines for self defense, then there will be an argument that civilians don't need them either.

Actually there is an unorganized militia. Which has no connection to the regular military or the national guard.

 

[52ndStreet]

People in the Ukraine need fully automatic assault rifles with 30 round magazines. They have been invaded by Russian throops.There is no way they should be banned.!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is stupid.
All people have an inherent right of self defense, so have the right to be armed.
There is no legal means of stopping them.
Even kids traditionally could and did grab the shotgun over the mantel when necessary.
The feds need to butt out.
They have ZERO jurisdiction.

Any fed, from the president on down, even suggesting any infringment should be publicly executed with the very weapons they propose to ban.

And I am bloodthirsty serious too.

 

[Dagosa]

Actually no. The National Guard are sworn members of a standing army. That makes them the exact opposite of a militia.

An actual well regulated militia would only serve inside US territory. Militiamen would also have the right to take their military weapons home with them.



Don't be so sure. All the government needs to do is say that everyone with a certain eye color or hair color (or skin color) fails the background check. Then, if you have the wrong pigmentation, that means you start failing background checks.



Actually it is Robert Reich who is throwing BS out there.

America is the cartels' main source of FN-57 handguns. But the cartels get plenty of full-auto rifles from Venezuela and from the Mexican Army.



Regulation of fundamental rights is allowed only if the regulation can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

There is no compelling government interest in outlawing harmless features like pistol grips and flash suppressors.



When states concoct fraudulent definitions for the term "assault weapon" that doesn't mean that the true definition has changed. It merely means that those states have concocted fraudulent definitions.



Not at all. People just don't want the Freedom Haters to steal their guns.

This whole militia nonsense started because the Freedom Haters were falsely saying that people only have the right to have guns if they are members of a militia.

Without that initial falsehood there would never have been a militia movement in the US.



It's hard to tell what type of guns you are talking about here??

But regardless, people don't need to have a reason in order to have a given kind of gun. If there is no compelling government interest in restricting a given type of weapon, then people have the right to have it.

National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and has specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933.

You don’t seem to know much about how the national guard is set up nor how it’s allowed by the constitution. You really don’t have a clue what their mission is. Any “militia” that has authority to act anywhere within the US, also has authority to work out side the the US. Why ? Because only the federal govt. can have that authority and also have the responsibility to protect all enemies BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Let’s get a clue. Your wish list has nothing to do with what is actually allowed by our constitution. THERE IS NO MILITIA other then guard units, with the authority to operate out side of TOWN LINES, let alone out side of a state. The guard units are under dual control; by the feds and each governor. Lets stop making foolish remarks.

Image: thenewamerican.com
All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. The majority of National Guard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a National Guard member.

National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dagosa]

Biden is pretty goofy. Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.

Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.



That ban was implemented 88 years ago.



At the moment there is no organized militia. This lack of a militia violates the Second Amendment if anyone cares.



It seems like it would be hard to fire a semi-auto that fast and still aim usefully.

But anyway, the police seem to think they need 30 round rifle magazines in civilized society. Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police have.

Maybe if one day the police decide that they no longer need 30 round rifle magazines for self defense, then there will be an argument that civilians don't need them either.

Really, you are amazingly uninformed about the militia. You never served did you ? Look it up instead of making up sht.
National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and has specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933.

 

[Pete7469]

Biden is pretty goofy. Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.

Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.



That ban was implemented 88 years ago.



At the moment there is no organized militia. This lack of a militia violates the Second Amendment if anyone cares.



It seems like it would be hard to fire a semi-auto that fast and still aim usefully.

But anyway, the police seem to think they need 30 round rifle magazines in civilized society. Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police have.

Maybe if one day the police decide that they no longer need 30 round rifle magazines for self defense, then there will be an argument that civilians don't need them either.

 

[scruffy]

No it does not. Post the entire 2@ . That post is fraudulent.
There is one authority that is endowed with the authority by the constitution to be the final authority on the constitution, the SC. They have ALWAYS maintained the 2@ IS NOT ABSOLUTE and the rights in the bill of rights are ALL SUBJECT TO REGULATION.

I have proof.

You have nothing.

Who cares what the robed idiots say? They think buildings are people and money is speech. They're stupid.

Defense of self and family is a natural right. Heller even said so. They're not going to take that away from me, no matter how many idiotic laws they pass.

You can bleat about regulation all you want, I'm just going to ignore you.

You need to go after the gang bangers FIRST, before you come after ordinary American citizens.

Don't like it? Tough. Too bad. Your bleating isn't going to change a single thing.

 

[Dagosa]

Who cares what the robed idiots say?

Typical of gunaholics. They completely dismiss the constitution they brag about. Hilarious. Can’t tell if you guys are ignorant or arrogant. Both…..

 

[Abatis]

Of course, you do understand that every Supreme Court decision concerning firearm regulations say…. People don’t have the “inherent“ right to possess a firearm or any of the Bill of Rights. You’re wrong conflating self defense with right to possess a firearm.. You just made up shit to conflate one with the other.

They don’t. There are no inherent rights in the bill of rights. Nine, nada nix.
Every Supreme Court decision had said so. No exceptions. I guess the Supreme Court has been wrong since the constitution was written.

What specifically are you arguing, saying "there are no inherent rights in the Bill of Rights"?

Are you saying that SCOTUS is silent on the origin of our rights, or that SCOTUS has consistently ruled that our rights were non-existent before the Constitution and are established / granted by government (e.g., the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights)?

Explain please, and feel free to offer some citations to specific SCOTUS decisons on this point, especially referencing the right to arms / 2nd Amendment!

 

[scruffy]

Typical of gunaholics. They completely dismiss the constitution they brag about. Hilarious. Can’t tell if you guys are ignorant or arrogant. Both…..

You miss the point. Entirely.

(Which is not at all surprising).

Our Constitution is exceedingly clear. It's written in plain, simple English.

It says: "shall not be infringed".

Now, you tell me - how hard is that to "interpret"?

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