Biden proposes banning vast majority of all guns.

[TNHarley]

Implying that YOU are a REAL MAN because you choose not to own semi-automatic weapons?

People that say that usually depend on others to defend their families.
Not really sure thats a "real" man...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, they should not ban the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, they should ban the manufacturing of them, except for military uses.

Sorry - no.
"All bearable arms"
- USSC.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Assault rifles were used in four of the five worst mass shootings,

This is false.

and that is misleading, the Vegas shooting, which tops the list, is considered full auto because of the use of the bumpstock.

This is also false.

For home self-defense, an assault rifle is damn near useless.

An AR pistol or carbine in a major pistol caliber is ideal for home defense.
Better than a shotgun in almost every situation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most of the guns criminals have are stolen, from stupid shit gun nuts.

This is false.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly what laws can the WH enforce??

The executive branch - the White House - enforces ALL the laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't need an amendment to pass laws against particular guns. You have the right to bear "arms", you don't have the right to bear any arms. Scalia even said that in the Heller decision.

"All bearable arms"
What firearms are not bearable arms?

But yesterday I posed a question, "What is the purpose of the second amendment? Why is it in the Bill of Rights? And not a single damn gun nut has been able to answer that question.

To secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms so, among all of the other reasons a person might have for a firearm, the people shall always have access to the weapons necessary to for a well-regulated miltia.
Simple,. eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow, I mean just, "Wow". So Constitutional protected rights can never be overturned? Seriously, I mean you are stupid enough to make that claim just months after Rowe was overturned? Miller WAS the standard, after Heller that is no longer the case.

In the 1939 case, United States vs. Miller, the court stated in a unanimous decision that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia and that it “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” In reversing this precedent in the Heller case, the 2008 Supreme Court justices drastically changed how American citizens interact with guns.

This is a lie.
Heller did not reverse Miller it expanded it.
Prior to Heller, the 2nd amendment was held to only to protect the right to own and use firearms that had some reasonable relationhsip to th epreservation of the well-regulated militia - Heller expanded this to 'all bearable arms".

 

[M14 Shooter]

The second amendment was never about self-defense, until Heller. It was always about a militia...

The right of the people.
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The people.
As the right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, and there is no right to serve in the militia, the right to keep and bear arms must include the use of a firearm outside service of same.
This includes the right to use a firearm in self-defense, the most very basic purpose for a firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That standard...until Heller was in regards to the militia
Cruikshank and Miller both ruled on the 2A in regards to it's need relating to the militia

Nowhere in either case does the court hold, or opine, that the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms rests on an individual's relationhip with the militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And interesting that you mention McDonald, which utilizes the due process clause of the 14th amendment to prevent states from nullifying the second amendment and reversed Cruikshank. Interesting because that is precisely the justification for the ruling in Rowe v. Wade. So now McDonald can be attacked.

The obvious difference here:
The right to keep and bear arms is specifically referenced in the constitution.
The right to an abortion is not.
Apples and oranges.

 

[M14 Shooter]

From Scalia, "small arms in common use AT THE TIME", so those are the only weapons that are protected by the second amendment. Semi-automatics are not in that genre. Assault weapons most certainly are not.

Yours is a willful mis-interpretation of Heller.
Scalia:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Jaxson]

You stupid little Snowflakes don't give a shit about children. You never have.

You support the murder of almost a million American children each year as a method of birth control.

You support the welfare state that perpetuates poverty among children.

Your filthy Democrats in the big city shitholes will not enforce existing criminal laws that puts children at risk every day.

What you give a shit about is taking away the right to keep and bear arms from Americans because you fear they are a threat to your agenda of turning this country into a Socialist shithole.

Be honest for a change.

I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem. Better luck next time.
But you don't mind schoolchildren getting shot regularly, and you call ME names. lol.

 

[Flash]

I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem. Better luck next time.
But you don't mind schoolchildren getting shot regularly, and you call ME names. lol.

No you are not a Libertarian. If you think you are then you are confused and don't know what the word means.

There is no Libertarian in the world that would support restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Jaxson]

More parents killed school age children than rifles

I bet you a tenner that you can't back that up properly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you're not bothered by mass murder of schoolchildren, people at malls...

What makes you say that?

 

[Jaxson]

No you are not a Libertarian. If you think you are then you are confused and don't know what the word means.

There is no Libertarian in the world that would support restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Which makes you wrong twice in a row, because I'm one of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look, I have a hunting rifle, a good one. wtf do I need anything else for? I mean ok, maybe a handgun for home protection, but other than that, we don't need that other shit. At least real men don't.

Why do you think your perception of need has any bearing on how other people exercise their rights?

 

[Jaxson]

What makes you say that?

The way you hang onto the 2nd for dear life shows that your guns matter to you more than schoolchildren getting shot at school.

 

[Jaxson]

Why do you think your perception of need has any bearing on how other people exercise their rights?

Because schoolchildren need us adults to do something concrete. I'm up for it, are you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. Military grade weapons shouldn't be sold to ordinary people.

What do you think "military grade" means and why do you think "ordinary" people shoudl not have them?