Biden Position on Guns Is a Joke

[Wickerthing]

Why is anyone even responding to you.

You continue to blame Trump for everything.
This is the CLASSIC Moral Narcissist's trademark

You're nothing but a delusion narcissistic assclown and NO ONE should be giving you the time of day.

Yet, you do. Strange! LOL

 

[Wickerthing]

You said.....

QUOTE......
What causes gun violence? Oh yeah.... Guns
END QUOTE

This is one of the most asinine things said this year.
So, airplanes cause airplane crashes then according to your apparently drug warped mind?

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

Do I get some sort of a ribbon or medal?

 

[Wickerthing]

I wouldn't call it a joke.
To me it's more of a threat to civility and personal safety, not to mention freedom

Sure it does. It protects the right to keep and bear arms from being infringed.

The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes.

Plus the rules of strict scrutiny apply for all fundamental rights regardless of their wording.



That would hardly be a plausible argument. A good measure of what is appropriate for defense against criminals is to look at what the police use for defense against criminals.

On the other hand, if the government were to set up a militia again, a good case could be made that RPGs are suitable for militia use.



Is name-calling really necessary?



I've never claimed that.

I do defend people's free speech rights to say that they are militia when they aren't, but I would never consider them to actually be militia just because they call themselves that.



There is nothing vague about it. The first half requires that the government always keep up a well regulated militia. The second half protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement.

The thing was originally tied to the concept of a militia. Even described a militia as a group of young men with the physical ability to act as a defending force. The amendment has been amended 17 times since 1791. Many constitutional experts still believe that the right to bear arms should and was always meant to describe a Militia.

 

[Open Bolt]

The thing was originally tied to the concept of a militia. Even described a militia as a group of young men with the physical ability to act as a defending force.

Tying the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia brings those rocket propelled grenades that you mentioned into the picture. Full-auto weapons as well.

The duties of the militia include repelling foreign invasions.

I'm more than happy to do that of course, but I'd rather get the courts used to enforcing Heller first. Then we can try to get the courts to start enforcing Miller too.

Many constitutional experts still believe that the right to bear arms should and was always meant to describe a Militia.

They are wrong. It is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms. The right is not limited to members of any military body.

 

[Wickerthing]

Tying the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia brings those rocket propelled grenades that you mentioned into the picture. Full-auto weapons as well.

The duties of the militia include repelling foreign invasions.

I'm more than happy to do that of course, but I'd rather get the courts used to enforcing Heller first. Then we can try to get the courts to start enforcing Miller too.



They are wrong. It is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms. The right is not limited to members of any military body.

Says you. But like I said, folks a lot smarter than me and you still believe that the two concepts were never meant to be separated.

 

[Open Bolt]

Says you.

No. Says the Constitution. It clearly says "the right of the people" not the right of the members of a particular military body.

Also says the legal history of the right to keep and bear arms. It was always the general populace who possessed the right to have guns.

But like I said, folks a lot smarter than me and you still believe that the two concepts were never meant to be separated.

Linking them is fine. I won't complain.

Linking them merely means that instead of weapons suitable for self defense, we have the right to have weapons suitable for repelling a foreign invasion.

That means grenades and bazookas and full-auto weapons.

 

[Wickerthing]

No. Says the Constitution. It clearly says "the right of the people" not the right of the members of a particular military body.

Also says the legal history of the right to keep and bear arms. It was always the general populace who possessed the right to have guns.



Linking them is fine. I won't complain.

Linking them merely means that instead of weapons suitable for self defense, we have the right to have weapons suitable for repelling a foreign invasion.

That means grenades and bazookas and full-auto weapons.

Again, that's one interpretation among many.

 

[Wickerthing]

Tying the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia brings those rocket propelled grenades that you mentioned into the picture. Full-auto weapons as well.

The duties of the militia include repelling foreign invasions.

I'm more than happy to do that of course, but I'd rather get the courts used to enforcing Heller first. Then we can try to get the courts to start enforcing Miller too.



They are wrong. It is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms. The right is not limited to members of any military body.

You're More Than Happy? Sounds like a dangerous mental condition.

 

[Wickerthing]

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.

And I would not expect that you have the intellectual ability to realize that you are using personal insults to make the case that they are childish.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I would not expect that you have the intellectual ability to realize that you are using personal insults to make the case that they are childish.

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.

 

[Open Bolt]

Again, that's one interpretation among many.

It has the advantage of being the only correct interpretation. The Constitution clearly lists repelling foreign invasions among the duties of the militia.

So when you talk about the militia, you are talking about the sorts of weapons that would be useful in repelling a foreign invasion.

 

[protectionist]

I wouldn't call it a joke.
To me it's more of a threat to civility and personal safety, not to mention freedom

Certainly is. Deep down, I keep thinking the Supreme Court will save us from these Biden stupidities.

 

[Wickerthing]

It has the advantage of being the only correct interpretation. The Constitution clearly lists repelling foreign invasions among the duties of the militia.

So when you talk about the militia, you are talking about the sorts of weapons that would be useful in repelling a foreign invasion.

And were the previous 17 amendments to that one also the only correct ones? When are you gonna admit that the 2nd Amendment is and has always been a work in progress?

 

[Open Bolt]

And were the previous 17 amendments to that one also the only correct ones?

I am not sure I understand what you mean. An amendment to the Constitution is neither correct nor incorrect. It simply is.

Now, individual people can have opinions as to whether they approve or disapprove of a given amendment, but that's not really the same thing as an amendment being correct or not.

When are you gonna admit that the 2nd Amendment is and has always been a work in progress?

Never, because that isn't true. The clear meaning has been cut and dried since the beginning.

And you are correct to tie the right to the militia. For now I'm content to merely press for the courts to start enforcing Heller. But once they start enforcing Heller I'm going to start pressing for them to start enforcing Miller as well.

 

[Wickerthing]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. An amendment to the Constitution is neither correct nor incorrect. It simply is.

Now, individual people can have opinions as to whether they approve or disapprove of a given amendment, but that's not really the same thing as an amendment being correct or not.



Never, because that isn't true. The clear meaning has been cut and dried since the beginning.

And you are correct to tie the right to the militia. For now I'm content to merely press for the courts to start enforcing Heller. But once they start enforcing Heller I'm going to start pressing for them to start enforcing Miller as well.

That makes no sense. But I guess it doesn't have to.

 

[Open Bolt]

That makes no sense. But I guess it doesn't have to.

Under the Heller ruling we get semi-autos with large magazines, but we don't get grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

Under the Miller ruling we get grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

Getting the courts to start enforcing Heller will be easier to do than getting them to enforce Miller.

But once the courts are enforcing Heller, there is no reason to not push further and try to get them to enforce Miller as well.

 

[Wickerthing]

Under the Heller ruling we get semi-autos with large magazines, but we don't get grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

Under the Miller ruling we get grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

Getting the courts to start enforcing Heller will be easier to do than getting them to enforce Miller.

But once the courts are enforcing Heller, there is no reason to not push further and try to get them to enforce Miller as well.

Are you out of your mind? I'm gonna use common sense and realize that when ya walk into a wall, stop walking or change direction. Hey! you'll be able to go dinosaur hunting!

 

[Open Bolt]

Are you out of your mind? I'm gonna use common sense and realize that when ya walk into a wall, stop walking or change direction. Hey! you'll be able to go dinosaur hunting!

I assume that it will be much more difficult to get the courts to agree to let everyone have grenades and full auto weapons.

But it's no reason not to try. I'd love to be able to shoot tin cans in my back yard with a submachine gun.

 

[Wickerthing]

I assume that it will be much more difficult to get the courts to agree to let everyone have grenades and full auto weapons.

But it's no reason not to try. I'd love to be able to shoot tin cans in my back yard with a submachine gun.

I've fired an M60 Machine gun in combat. It's no great thrill.

 

[Wickerthing]

Unless you're 11 years old, WTF is so thrilling about shooting a can? Still wanna? Buy a BB gun. Then you won't have to worry about what's down range from your target. That's just the problem with gun ownership based on age or the belief that the CONST. says ANYONE can. Far too many idiots and adults who never grew up will be in possession of a tool that will not just injure the user but will pose a threat to everyone around him/her. I'm sure you're a great, kind and somewhat sane guy but I don't want to have to trust that you are just because someone handed you a license. Once you experience what weapons like the M16 or AR15 can do to the human body, there's no longer any doubt to a sane person that weapons like these are indeed weapons of war and have no legitimate purpose beyond that. And the fact that one looks exactly like the other but one is capable of full auto and the other of semi auto means little when one can easily squeeze and fire at an amazing pace with the AR15. And now with these very large capacity clips, there is even less to distinguish one from the other. When I was in Vietnam in 68-69, clips beyond 20 rounds were scarce and the ones issued weren't truly 20 rounders. 18 was the number unless you wanted to jam frequently. So on full auto, a burst would empty that clip in about 1-2 seconds. Nobody in my squad used full auto, ever. But because they look similar, AR15's appeal to grown men who want to play soldier. That makes them deadlier to be in all but the most mature hands. The point I'm trying to make is that the differences between hunting rifles and weapons of war are blurred and someone who just wants to look COOL or a serious sportsman becomes blurred also. Those are the clowns that I worry about. The NRA types always accuse the left of wanting to take away ALL guns. But, truth be told, the right has no limit to the types of weapons or the types of people they believe are perfectly okay to own them.