Biden on Gun Control

[progressive hunter]

Yet current regulation of fully automatic weapons is still perfectly constitutional. What part of the constitution makes fully auto weapons OK to regulate, but not any other type?

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

in violation of the 2nd amendment,,

 

[Ame®icano]

Point to the Constitution where gay "marriage", or any marriage is responsibility of Federal government.

The constitution doesn't directly address gay marriage, like it doesn't directly address most of the things it has authority over. The supreme court makes the determination if the wording encompasses and allows all those things. You didn't already know that?
Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

I ask again, is severe regulation of fully auto weapons infringment? The constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in the 2nd. If one can be regulated, they all can be regulated.

Let me ask you... Can your "free speech" right be regulated?

Yes. The most common example of regulation of free speech is you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Who regulates it? Government? Where did you get that, Comedy Central?

 

[BULLDOG]

The constitution doesn't directly address gay marriage, like it doesn't directly address most of the things it has authority over. The supreme court makes the determination if the wording encompasses and allows all those things. You didn't already know that?
Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

I ask again, is severe regulation of fully auto weapons infringment? The constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in the 2nd. If one can be regulated, they all can be regulated.

you have yet to show where it allows for any regulation,,,

Why do you think I should have to show you that? Regulation does exist. You can ignore that fact only with great effort. I can only assume that constitutional scholars with much more education than random anonymous posters on some message board, such as you and I, have determined that the constitution does allow for it. If you disagree, then you are either nuts or very retarded.

I dont need a higher education to read simple english,,,

and dont forget you are also an anonymous poster on some message board,,
thing is I have facts in the constitution to back up what I say and all you have is your opinion,,,

and before you come back with your constitutional scholars BS just remember they also said slavery was legal until it wasnt,,,

Yes, and at the time, society agreed it was acceptable. It was wrong then too, but still acceptble. As society changes, so does what is acceptable, as well as the laws that reflect that. Society is always in the middle of great changes, and our laws will always reflect those changes. If you have facts showing the supreme court to be wrong, you should hop on a bus today to go tell them, or you could go the tinfoil hat and sign on the street corner rout. I think you will have equal success either way.

 

[BULLDOG]

The constitution doesn't directly address gay marriage, like it doesn't directly address most of the things it has authority over. The supreme court makes the determination if the wording encompasses and allows all those things. You didn't already know that?
Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

I ask again, is severe regulation of fully auto weapons infringment? The constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in the 2nd. If one can be regulated, they all can be regulated.

Let me ask you... Can your "free speech" right be regulated?

Yes. The most common example of regulation of free speech is you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.

but you can yell fire in a crowded theater you dumb kunt,,,

You can also build a fully automatic rifle in your garage and sell it without registration. Breaking the law doesn't invalidate legal regulation.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet current regulation of fully automatic weapons is still perfectly constitutional. What part of the constitution makes fully auto weapons OK to regulate, but not any other type?

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

in violation of the 2nd amendment,,

According to some anonymous gun nut on the internet.

 

[August West]

[
The Heller decision affirmed the government`s (we the people) right to regulate guns.
The Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think

The government does not have rights, it has powers.
the fact certain regulations are constitutionally acceptable does not mean ALL regulations are constitutionally acceptable.
So.. what's you point?

My post was directed toward a person screeching about gun regulations and infringement. no one said anything about ALL regulations being constitutionally acceptable. A bit paranoid are you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
The Heller decision affirmed the government`s (we the people) right to regulate guns.
The Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think

The government does not have rights, it has powers.
the fact certain regulations are constitutionally acceptable does not mean ALL regulations are constitutionally acceptable.
So.. what's you point?

My post was directed toward a person screeching about gun regulations and infringement....

Yes...
And my response is directed at the idea that the fact certain regulations are constitutionally acceptable does not mean ALL regulations are constitutionally acceptable.
Surely, you agree.

 

[BULLDOG]

The constitution doesn't directly address gay marriage, like it doesn't directly address most of the things it has authority over. The supreme court makes the determination if the wording encompasses and allows all those things. You didn't already know that?
Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

I ask again, is severe regulation of fully auto weapons infringment? The constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in the 2nd. If one can be regulated, they all can be regulated.

Let me ask you... Can your "free speech" right be regulated?

Yes. The most common example of regulation of free speech is you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Who regulates it? Government? Where did you get that, Comedy Central?

Freedom of speech - Wikipedia
Legal systems sometimes recognise certain limits on or to the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and freedoms, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property. In Europe, blasphemy is a limitation to free speech.[23][24][25][26] Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the "harm principle" or the "offence principle". Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[27] Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example speech codes at state schools.

 

[Ame®icano]

Yet current regulation of fully automatic weapons is still perfectly constitutional. What part of the constitution makes fully auto weapons OK to regulate, but not any other type?

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

In your head only.

If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?

Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.

US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub machine gun and rifle cartridges."
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.

Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.

The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".

According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.

 

[Flash]

That asshole Biden is just as big a gun grabber as that Mini Mike shithead.

Nobody that owns a firearm would ever vote for that sonofabitch and there are many gun owners in the US, like well over a 100 million.

 

[2aguy]

That asshole Biden is just as big a gun grabber as that Mini Mike shithead.

Nobody that owns a firearm would ever vote for that sonofabitch and there are many gun owners in the US, like well over a 100 million.

Any vote, for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....

 

[progressive hunter]

It does, however, state explicitly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed......

I ask again, is severe regulation of fully auto weapons infringment? The constitution doesn't differentiate between types of arms in the 2nd. If one can be regulated, they all can be regulated.

you have yet to show where it allows for any regulation,,,

Why do you think I should have to show you that? Regulation does exist. You can ignore that fact only with great effort. I can only assume that constitutional scholars with much more education than random anonymous posters on some message board, such as you and I, have determined that the constitution does allow for it. If you disagree, then you are either nuts or very retarded.

I dont need a higher education to read simple english,,,

and dont forget you are also an anonymous poster on some message board,,
thing is I have facts in the constitution to back up what I say and all you have is your opinion,,,

and before you come back with your constitutional scholars BS just remember they also said slavery was legal until it wasnt,,,

Yes, and at the time, society agreed it was acceptable. It was wrong then too, but still acceptble. As society changes, so does what is acceptable, as well as the laws that reflect that. Society is always in the middle of great changes, and our laws will always reflect those changes. If you have facts showing the supreme court to be wrong, you should hop on a bus today to go tell them, or you could go the tinfoil hat and sign on the street corner rout. I think you will have equal success either way.

the 2nd isnt a law,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Yet current regulation of fully automatic weapons is still perfectly constitutional. What part of the constitution makes fully auto weapons OK to regulate, but not any other type?

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

in violation of the 2nd amendment,,

According to some anonymous gun nut on the internet.

your insults just prove you have nothing else...

 

[Flash]

That asshole Biden is just as big a gun grabber as that Mini Mike shithead.

Nobody that owns a firearm would ever vote for that sonofabitch and there are many gun owners in the US, like well over a 100 million.

Any vote, for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....

Democrats have become real assholes, haven't they?

They haven't always been that screwed up. JFK use to be a proud member of the NRA.

The Democrat Party is a party of assholes and pussies now.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet current regulation of fully automatic weapons is still perfectly constitutional. What part of the constitution makes fully auto weapons OK to regulate, but not any other type?

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

In your head only.

If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?

Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.

US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub machine gun and rifle cartridges."
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.

Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.

The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".

According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.

When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet current regulation of fully automatic weapons is still perfectly constitutional. What part of the constitution makes fully auto weapons OK to regulate, but not any other type?

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

in violation of the 2nd amendment,,

According to some anonymous gun nut on the internet.

your insults just prove you have nothing else...

Insult? But you are an anonymous gun nut on the internet. A pretty dumb one too.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet current regulation of fully automatic weapons is still perfectly constitutional. What part of the constitution makes fully auto weapons OK to regulate, but not any other type?

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

In your head only.

If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?

Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.

US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub machine gun and rifle cartridges."
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.

Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.

The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".

According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.

The only thing you know about me is that I disagree with you on the constitutionality of regulating arms. The supreme court agrees with me.

 

[BULLDOG]

That asshole Biden is just as big a gun grabber as that Mini Mike shithead.

Nobody that owns a firearm would ever vote for that sonofabitch and there are many gun owners in the US, like well over a 100 million.

Any vote, for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....

Democrats have become real assholes, haven't they?

They haven't always been that screwed up. JFK use to be a proud member of the NRA.

The Democrat Party is a party of assholes and pussies now.

I used to be a proud member of the NRA too, but that was before their focus was moved from gun safety to the being sales wing for gun manufacturers.

 

[progressive hunter]

Does term "self defense" ring a bell?

You don't need assault weapons for self defense. Machine gun, or fully automatic rifle are assault weapons. Semi-automatic AR-15, regardless of how "scary" looking is, is not an assault weapon.

But they are still subject to being regulated..

in violation of the 2nd amendment,,

According to some anonymous gun nut on the internet.

your insults just prove you have nothing else...

Insult? But you are an anonymous gun nut on the internet. A pretty dumb one too.

I'm not a gun nut,,,and the only dumb one is you that cant read simple english,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

That asshole Biden is just as big a gun grabber as that Mini Mike shithead.

Nobody that owns a firearm would ever vote for that sonofabitch and there are many gun owners in the US, like well over a 100 million.

Any vote, for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....

Democrats have become real assholes, haven't they?

They haven't always been that screwed up. JFK use to be a proud member of the NRA.

The Democrat Party is a party of assholes and pussies now.

I used to be a proud member of the NRA too, but that was before their focus was moved from gun safety to the being sales wing for gun manufacturers.

how can you call me dumb after that dumb statement???
the NRA is the leader in gun safety in this country