Biden Position on Guns Is a Joke

[Open Bolt]

What do you mean by "Constitutional carry" ? You mean OPEN carry (not concealed) ?

Constitutional carry means carry without a license being required. Like in Vermont.

The term is usually used to refer to concealed carry, but I don't see why it could not also refer to unlicensed open carry.

I'm not sure how the term was coined. One moment no one used the term. And then the next moment from out of the blue suddenly everyone was using it.

 

[Open Bolt]

Remington caved for 73 million dollars.

Surprising they didnt appeal this to the Supreme Court.

Yes it is; they signed their own death warrant.

Old Remington's liability insurers caved. Neither the old nor the new Remington paid a dime.

As for why the liability insurers caved, who knows. If I owned stock in one of those insurers, I'd be really pissed off right now.

But they're owned now by a leftist investment company and not by actual sportsmen, let alone by actual gun rights advocates.

I think you have that backwards. The old Remington (that was sued, and whose insurers paid) was owned by an investment company and not actual sportsmen.

The new Remington is supposed to be owned by actual sportsmen. I do not know if they have a gun rights focus too (I suspect probably not publicly, but maybe privately). But they do seem to be actual sportsmen from what I've read about them.

 

[Open Bolt]

There's only one legitimate level of scrutiny for constitutional challenges: absolute scrutiny. Either a thing violates the Constitution or it does not.
Given limited time and resources, a court might not choose to hear a case but if they do hear the case then they do not have constitutional authority to ignore or create exceptions to the Constitution.

Do you mean Strict Scrutiny?

 

[Open Bolt]

Yes they do and not you or any private citizen has a use for them other than your ego.

If you and they know what assault weapons are, why do you and they harp endlessly on weapons that were already outlawed for the general public 88 years ago?

Really, what makes it automatic is how fast you can pull the trigger. You are desperate for justifications

AR-15s are not automatic. They are only semi-auto.

No American is desperate for justifications. We already know that we do not have to justify our rights.

But the point being, your scenario is virtually impossible. If there where that many you'd be dead before you got your gun.
Expecting something that had never happened and unlikely to ever happen, is not justification.

No justification is required. If we choose to have a gun for that situation, that's nobody else's business.

A well armed militia does not include or mention your right to shoot people in a group.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms includes it.

Youre wrong again. They are partly responsible for selling weapons to idiots who don't need them.

No, you are wrong again. Americans don't have to convince you of our need. And there is nothing wrong with selling Americans the sorts of weapons that we have a Constitutional right to have.

Furthermore, the gun manufacturer was prosecuted and found guilty over the sandy hook massacre. Get some facts boy

So far you are the fact-free one. The gun manufacturer was neither prosecuted nor found guilty.

So that's a justification? Youre getting more desperate.

No one on the gun rights side is feeling desperate. And no one on the gun rights side has to justify ourselves, so you may as well stop hoping for justification.

Thats a pathetic argument.

No it isn't.

There's simply no comparison. Guns are made for one thing. To kill. Cars are not.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. But it's not true.

Defensive guns are made to rapidly incapacitate.

Sport guns are made for striking unliving objects.

That is why they are not necessary for your average garden variety idiot who gets one because he can.

Progressives really do hate civil liberties. Necessity could not be less relevant.

The 2nd has been taken completely out of context and promoted by the nra and republican party.

Progressives are the only people who take the Second Amendment out of context.

it is not a protect right to own a container full of guns you never use.

You are wrong about people never using their guns.

You are also wrong about the Second Amendment not protecting people's right to own guns. It clearly says the right of the people to keep arms.

Its says "a well armed militia".

No it doesn't. It says right of the people.

Nothing else.

Wrong. There is a whole second half that talks about the right of the people.

You are not part of any militia.

Irrelevant. We are part of the people. And it is the people who have the right to keep arms, and the right to use them in self defense.

I said you don't need that many guns or assault rifles and you don't.

We don't have to need them. We have the right to have them.

Who cares? It can fire a lot if bullets very quickly.

So can many other guns.

Youre be childishly pedantic with your justifications.

No one here is offering any justification.

All the scenarios you suggest you need guns for are bullshit.

No one has said anything about needing guns.

If be surprised if you used every one once a week for their designed purpose.

That's our business.

You have them for testosterone reasons.

Not necessarily. But if so, that's still our business.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yep, that's what it says, but remember that people back then talked a little differently than they do today.

How A Comma Gave Americans The Right To Own Guns

The Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s ban on hand guns, the strictest gun control law to date, because of a comma.

www.businessinsider.com

Look at his quote again.

What he wrote in his post is NOT what the Second Amendment says.

 

[Open Bolt]

The Supremes say it's fine.

No they don't. And if they had said that, they would be wrong.

It is never OK to violate people's civil liberties.

I'll go with the Supremes thanks.

The Supreme Court says that it is wrong for you to violate people's civil liberties.

And a ban on new military style

Military style weapons were all but outlawed some 88 years ago.

Are you joining Biden in not being able to comprehend what century it is?

Nobody's coming for any guns lol,

That's because the NRA won't let you.

they might ban new sales, you jackasses will have to get by with the 20 million already around....

The NRA will not let you do that either.

 

[Colin norris]

If you and they know what assault weapons are, why do you and they harp endlessly on weapons that were already outlawed for the general public 88 years ago?



AR-15s are not automatic. They are only semi-auto.

No American is desperate for justifications. We already know that we do not have to justify our rights.



No justification is required. If we choose to have a gun for that situation, that's nobody else's business.



The right of the people to keep and bear arms includes it.



No, you are wrong again. Americans don't have to convince you of our need. And there is nothing wrong with selling Americans the sorts of weapons that we have a Constitutional right to have.



So far you are the fact-free one. The gun manufacturer was neither prosecuted nor found guilty.



No one on the gun rights side is feeling desperate. And no one on the gun rights side has to justify ourselves, so you may as well stop hoping for justification.



No it isn't.



Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. But it's not true.

Defensive guns are made to rapidly incapacitate.

Sport guns are made for striking unliving objects.



Progressives really do hate civil liberties. Necessity could not be less relevant.



Progressives are the only people who take the Second Amendment out of context.



You are wrong about people never using their guns.

You are also wrong about the Second Amendment not protecting people's right to own guns. It clearly says the right of the people to keep arms.



No it doesn't. It says right of the people.



Wrong. There is a whole second half that talks about the right of the people.



Irrelevant. We are part of the people. And it is the people who have the right to keep arms, and the right to use them in self defense.



We don't have to need them. We have the right to have them.



So can many other guns.



No one here is offering any justification.



No one has said anything about needing guns.



That's our business.



Not necessarily. But if so, that's still our business.

I don't care how many guns you have or how you pathetically justify them.
You have no use for half your weapons other than ego to show your gun nut mates. Its a fact.

 

[Open Bolt]

I don't care how many guns you have or how you pathetically justify them.

You don't get it. I never justify myself. I never have to.

You have no use for half your weapons other than ego to show your gun nut mates. Its a fact.

You don't know that. But even if it's true, that's my business.

 

[Colin norris]

You don't get it. I never justify myself. I never have to.

Thats what i said you parrot.

You don't know that. But even if it's true, that's my business.

I know I'm right and so do you. Dont give me that mealy mouthed excuse.
You have them for your pretend protection. Do you carry them all when you go shopping? Home of the brave ay? You wimp.

 

[Open Bolt]

Thats what i said you parrot.

No it isn't. You said I had tried to justify myself. I never do that.

I know I'm right and so do you. Dont give me that mealy mouthed excuse.

Why do you keep falsely accusing me of offering excuses?

I do not offer any excuses at all.

You have them for your pretend protection. Do you carry them all when you go shopping? Home of the brave ay? You wimp.

I'm certainly braver than you are.

And if I ever have to protect myself, there will be nothing pretend about it.

 

[Open Bolt]

You guys tried to over thrown a constitutionally sanctioned election.

Trying is nothing. Barack Obama actually pulled it off. He stole Michigan's presidential primary in 2008.

KInd of ridiculous argument. Democrats wanted all questionable votes to be recounted.

Then they shouldn't have wasted so much time recounting only the Gore-heavy precincts.

The court only got involved because of the time constraint. The full recount would have taken too long.

That's because the left wasted so much time trying to count only the specific precincts where Gore had the heaviest support. By the time they gave up on that, there was no time left for a full and fair recount to take place.

 

[Open Bolt]

Specifically, the second amendment says that the right to bear arms in a well organized militia cannot be infringed upon. It doesn't say that the country should be allowed to become dodge city.

The Second Amendment says a lot more than that. The right of the people to keep arms for example.

If you don't know that to be the truth, then you have never read the second amendment.

If you read the Second Amendment you see that there is also something there about the people keeping arms.

It was the Gun Lobby that has been convincing people that the second amendment says anyone can have a gun.

No, it was more the hard fact that the Second Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms before it, does say that the people have the right to have guns.

The actual wording is this: “As part of a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

No it isn't. That isn't even remotely the actual wording of the Second Amendment.

Bullshit. An individual cannot be a well regulated Militia.

Who cares? It is not the militia that has the right to keep and bear arms, but the people. And an individual can be part of the people.

The NRA has been selling the bogus idea that anyone can have a gun since the late 19th century.

Progressives hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but no. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights are bogus.

What is well regulated about guns through the mail or at gun shows?

That's a weird question. It suggests that you have no idea what "well regulated" means.

"Well regulated" meant that a militia was so well armed and well trained that they were a highly effective fighting force.

And it got that way because of misinterpretation of the second amendment along with lobbying by groups like the NRA.

Progressives are the only people who misinterpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

America has too many weapons.

Nonsense.

They are too available.

Our civil liberties mandate their availability.

There's no double talking around the fact that countries with fewer weapons have less crime.

Fake news. That isn't even remotely a fact.

Compare Japan stats to US stats for instance.

There are plenty of countries with widespread gun ownership and little crime. Switzerland for example.

An AR15 can be converted easily to mimic an M16. Fully automatic.

Only if you have the special parts to do such a conversion. Parts that are illegal if you don't have a license to make or sell machine guns.

That can't be done with a hunting rifle etc.

Sure it can. The AR-15 is a hunting rifle.

You have 30 AR's ? What are you paranoid about?

It is unlikely that he is paranoid about anything at all.

And BTW your interpretation of the second amendment is just that, opinion. It will be challenged in the future, you can bet on it.

Not as long as people keep voting for Republicans so as to prevent the progressives from abolishing our freedom.

You are just another gun nut idiot who thinks it makes him taller or some shit. It doesn't. It makes you look like what you are, A child trying to look like a bad ass. Again, you're not. Now, piss off!

Freedom Haters sure don't like it when people embrace freedom.

 

[Open Bolt]

"Guns didn't murder anyone. People commit murders, guns are just a tool and a very efficient one for the job."
That illogical argument has been used extensively by the NRA and gun manufacturers to justify sales and ensure profits.

The fact that an argument is inconvenient for your position does not make that argument illogical.

But what they refuse to acknowledge is that in a real sense: "People with guns kill other people."

People without guns kill people too. They just use different weapons, and then the victim is just as dead as if they were killed with a gun.

They try to whitewash that fact and spread the lie that availability of guns has nothing to do with gun deaths.

No lie. Statistics show that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

The day that the gun lobby commits to help stop school shootings they may have some legitimacy.

The gun lobby is legitimate now. That's why they always defeat you when you try to violate people's civil liberties.

And there are no laws regarding any buyer being made to prove that they are part of a regulated militia.

That's because such laws would be unconstitutional.

Gun people keep talking about how the thinking that went into the adoption of the second amendment cannot be applied to today in America.

We say nothing of the sort.

That's just the fuckin' point! The founders could never have imagined the proliferation of guns and/or the resultant violence that would ensue in a nation so flooded with guns. They expected that American leaders would have that little problem taken care of as society and circumstances changed over time.

Actually lots of people had guns back then too.

Tell that to the parents of those killed by AR 15's in schools.

They'd be just as dead if they were killed with a bomb.

See, that's the problem. You idiots won't even consider a ban on assault weapons or banana clips.

You're in the wrong century. Assault weapons were all but banned some 88 years ago.

30 round rifle magazines are appropriate for self defense, so we do have the right to have those.

It's just justification after justification.

Not really. If there is one thing that gun owners never do, it's justify ourselves to anyone.

The same people who will say that they understand that freedom of speech does not logically include yelling fire in a crowded theater, will put no limit on weapons of war

That's not true. Weapons of war were all but banned some 88 years ago.

and argue that they are trying to take away your handguns.

It is wrong of progressives to try to outlaw handguns.

Somewhere there is a middle ground.

Not with progressives. They want to violate our civil liberties, and that is the only thing that progressives care about. The only thing that can be done is to oppose them relentlessly at every turn.

Why are you righties so fuckin' paranoid? What a way to live. THEY are coming for us. They are coming for our guns! They They They. Why so uptight? Not healthy.

No one is being paranoid. We just are not going to let our rights be violated.

And how many students would be saved with knives and not guns being used when some nut blows a fuse?

Hard to know. My guess: probably not very many. Knife massacres can be pretty bloody.

And why assume that a non-gun massacre would be conducted with knives? Maybe bombs would be used.

So now your argument is that we shouldn't worry about assault weapons in schools because it could have been bombs? You have the nerve to call Liberals brain dead? That's why it's so much fun to expose you knuckleheads for who and what you are.

We shouldn't worry about assault weapons in schools because assault weapons were all but banned some 88 years ago.

But yes. Without guns, people who are bent on mayhem will consider bombs.

So we arm teachers with M16's? THAT'S YOUR BRILLIANT IDEA?

No. The same semi-auto-only AR-15s that the police use will do just fine in a teacher's hands.

Talked about the problems of the untrained and mentally ill and the ease at which they can have access to weapons of war.

Not very easy at all, considering the heavy restrictions placed on them some 88 years ago.

It's not very likely that any mentally ill person has had access to a weapon of war in the US for the past 88 years.

Talked about the proliferation of guns and it's relation to crime.

There is no relation at all according to statistics.

 

[Open Bolt]

One of the latest in the school shootings was done by a kid whose parents left it out and even encouraged their idiot son to practice with it. Those parents would fall into the category of legal possessors of firearms. Precisely why there needs to be stricter background checks

Since they were legal to own guns, stricter background checks would not have prevented them from having guns.

and there needs to be more control over who gets one and what their situation is and the fuckin' sheer numbers

Unconstitutional. People have the right to have guns.

and types out there in circulation.

Unconstitutional. If there is no justification for outlawing a type of weapon, then people have the right to have it.

There's a case where a little infringing could have saved some kid's lives.

Infringing is not allowed.

Well, I've got a full day ahead of me so I'll let you tough guys with your penis extensions (guns) dream about growing up.

Women always tell me that the reason why they cheat on their progressive husbands is because progressive men have such tiny penises.

Show me a one man militia. Idiots.

Why do you keep talking about the militia? The right to keep and bear arms is held by the people.

Again, show me a one man militia.

Again, why do you keep talking about the militia? The right to keep and bear arms is held by the people.

Why would the founders even include the terms Militia and Regulated if what was meant was that everyone can bear arms.

Because there are two parts of the Second Amendment. One mandates that the militia be well regulated. One mandates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

And the term "being necessary to a free state." How does that square with an individual?

That is in the militia part of the amendment, not the people part of the amendment.

Well, isn't that special. News for ya though Tex, no matter how many guns y'all have it won't make yer dick any bigger.

I wonder if the reason why progressive men have tiny penises is because having a tiny penis causes people to hold progressive viewpoints, or if holding progressive viewpoints causes people to have tiny penises.

It is probably a combination of both. People with tiny penises develop progressive viewpoints, and then those progressive viewpoints cause their penises to get even smaller yet.

Just trying to keep up with you racists.

The only racists here are progressives. I think it is their tiny penises that make progressives such racists.

Your lame attempts at insults don't work on me. So, stow it.

That's pretty bold. It was you who started talking about people's penises.

 

[Open Bolt]

Typical BS about "They're trying to take away all of our guns!

No BS. You have talked about outlawing 30 round magazines.

What we are saying is that there should be extensive vetting and training in the use and the safe storage of guns.

No, you say much more than that.

We are also saying that you don't need an assault weapon to ward off threats in your home.

Assault weapons were all but banned some 88 years ago. People aren't talking about using assault weapons for self defense. They mean using guns like the AR-15 for self defense.

And that the misuse and the care and control has to be strictly enforced. Too often they wind up in the hands of lunatics or kids with severe mental problems.

Since assault weapons were restricted some 88 years ago, not one assault weapon has ever ended up in the hands of someone with mental problems.

To own a gun should come with very serious responsibility.

OK.

It's not an all or nothing thing.

It is when progressives insist on violating our civil liberties for no reason.

It's let's try to limit the astounding amount of guns out there.

Never!

There has to be some middle ground somewhere.

Not when progressives are involved. It's always an all or nothing assault on our civil liberties whenever there are progressives.

If the matter was a settled issue and so clear, there wouldn't have been a 5-4 decision in 2008.

It was a split decision because progressives always want to violate the Constitution.

What the Second Amendment says and means is entirely clear. Progressives just don't like what it says.

It will be revisited at some point and with the proliferation of guns, there may be a diffent take on it. Somethings gotta give.

So in other words, everyone keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump), because progressives mean to abolish our freedom and civil liberties if they ever get the power to do so.

When decisions that effect everyone are settled along party lines, they deserve to be revisited. Just as it was in 08.

In other words, a vote for a progressive is a vote to abolish America's freedom.

But you fully support the second amendment as settled law of the land while touting states rights on abortion. Very convenient.

One is in the Constitution.

One is not.

Guess which is which?

it was Justice Stephens I believe who wrote a dissenting opinion on the second amendment citing the terminology of "militia" it was a close call and as I said, it will be revisited. So, upheld doesn't mean permanence.

This is why it is important to always vote for Republicans no matter what. Progressive candidates mean to enslave us.

 

[Wickerthing]

No BS. You have talked about outlawing 30 round magazines.



No, you say much more than that.



Assault weapons were all but banned some 88 years ago. People aren't talking about using assault weapons for self defense. They mean using guns like the AR-15 for self defense.



Since assault weapons were restricted some 88 years ago, not one assault weapon has ever ended up in the hands of someone with mental problems.



OK.



It is when progressives insist on violating our civil liberties for no reason.



Never!



Not when progressives are involved. It's always an all or nothing assault on our civil liberties whenever there are progressives.



It was a split decision because progressives always want to violate the Constitution.

What the Second Amendment says and means is entirely clear. Progressives just don't like what it says.



So in other words, everyone keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump), because progressives mean to abolish our freedom and civil liberties if they ever get the power to do so.



In other words, a vote for a progressive is a vote to abolish America's freedom.



One is in the Constitution.

One is not.

Guess which is which?



This is why it is important to always vote for Republicans no matter what. Progressive candidates mean to enslave us.

Perfect example of the paranoia that Gun Nuts have. Enslave you? Attacks on the constitution? You're just another Trumper spreading nonsense. The right created bogeymen and you sucked it up because you're an indoctrinated fool. That shit is mental enslavement. It's hateful, paranoid babies like you that become gun crazy and shoot up schools and deny that there's a problem.

 

[Rigby5]

It is important for honest people to defend against the dishonest.
There are 2 groups of dishonest people.
One group is comprised of individuals who are thieves, extortionists, murderers, rapists, etc.
The other group is comprised of gangs who are the organized dictators, tyrants, aristocrats, etc.
We need weapons to defend from both, and since the organized gangs have the latest military weapons, so do we.
If you can not trust the general population with the latest military weapons, then forget a democratic republic, because then you certainly can NOT trust the police or military with them.
And preventing average people from access to the latest military weapons ensures a dictatorship in a short period of time.

 

[Rigby5]

Perfect example of the paranoia that Gun Nuts have. Enslave you? Attacks on the constitution? You're just another Trumper spreading nonsense. The right created bogeymen and you sucked it up because you're an indoctrinated fool. That shit is mental enslavement. It's hateful, paranoid babies like you that become gun crazy and shoot up schools and deny that there's a problem.

I disagree.
The tendency towards corruption that leads to dictatorships is ever present.
All past governments have always all become corrupt, if they last long enough.

The constitution has already been attacked to the point it is almost useless.
For example, the BATF, DEA, FDA, etc. are entirely and totally illegal.
Those are supposed to all be totally under state control and not federal at all.
And the political process has been totally corrupted, with the 2016 election being between the 2 most unbelievably bad candidates of all history.

And it is foolish to bring up school shootings.
Obviously there will always be unstable individuals, but the solution is always to simply identify and treat them early on.
The idea of trying to secure any dangerous tech is absurd, and impossible.
A firearm can shoot a dozen at most, while if they were smart enough to use arson or explosives, they could easily murder hundreds, and your silly legislation would be useless.

Sorry, but you are the one who is being mislead by propaganda.
No one sane should want a government separate from the people and more powerful than the people, ever.
The founders did not even want a standing paid military, and instead preferred unpaid volunteers.
That likely is a much better idea.
Powerful governments are always the biggest threat we will ever have to defend against.

 

[Dagosa]

Trying is nothing. Barack Obama actually pulled it off. He stole Michigan's presidential primary in 2008.



Then they shouldn't have wasted so much time recounting only the Gore-heavy precincts.



That's because the left wasted so much time trying to count only the specific precincts where Gore had the heaviest support. By the time they gave up on that, there was no time left for a full and fair recount to take place.

A plethora of made up ca ca.

 

[Wickerthing]

I disagree.
The tendency towards corruption that leads to dictatorships is ever present.
All past governments have always all become corrupt, if they last long enough.

The constitution has already been attacked to the point it is almost useless.
For example, the BATF, DEA, FDA, etc. are entirely and totally illegal.
Those are supposed to all be totally under state control and not federal at all.
And the political process has been totally corrupted, with the 2016 election being between the 2 most unbelievably bad candidates of all history.

And it is foolish to bring up school shootings.
Obviously there will always be unstable individuals, but the solution is always to simply identify and treat them early on.
The idea of trying to secure any dangerous tech is absurd, and impossible.
A firearm can shoot a dozen at most, while if they were smart enough to use arson or explosives, they could easily murder hundreds, and your silly legislation would be useless.

Sorry, but you are the one who is being mislead by propaganda.
No one sane should want a government separate from the people and more powerful than the people, ever.
The founders did not even want a standing paid military, and instead preferred unpaid volunteers.
That likely is a much better idea.
Powerful governments are always the biggest threat we will ever have to defend against.

Oh! You disagree? I'm devastated! LOL