Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.

That's clearly against the Second Amendment.

They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

And both are wrong and anyone doing that should be summarily executed.

 

[Dr Grump]

That is incorrect. Our civil liberties are still proving quite useful.



You'll have to get the government to form a militia, and then you'll need to join that militia.

So we agree. You should belong to a militia before being able to carry a firearm. That is exactly what the second says. Cool.

 

[Open Bolt]

So we agree. You should belong to a militia before being able to carry a firearm.

No. We don't agree.

You should belong to a militia before being able to carry a firearm. That is exactly what the second says.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. And the right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their home.

 

[bodecea]

Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Why don't you just go right out and say that you're trying to take our weapons away? He's completely got it backwards. It's not that there are certain weapons that people shouldn't purchase, it's that certain people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. It's just like how certain people can't drive (like me) and shouldn't drive. It doesn't mean that we should ban cars. I mean they already banned illegal drugs, and we've already seen how well that worked out.

Biden repeats debunked Second Amendment cannon claim, says 'no amendment is absolute'

President Joe Biden said Thursday that “no amendment is absolute” while discussing the Second Amendment and repeated a debunked claim that cannons were prohibited at the time the amendment was passed.

www.foxnews.com

Can you own a tank?

 

[Open Bolt]

Can you own a tank?

Yes.

But if you want the guns on the tank to be functional, you will need to acquire NFA transferable machine guns and register the main gun as a large bore destructive device.

NFA transferable machine guns are pretty expensive because there are so few of them. Registering the main gun as a large bore destructive device should be easy however, assuming there are no laws against them in your state.

 

[Dr Grump]

No. We don't agree.



That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. And the right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their home.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As long as they belong to a militia...

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

No, it doesn't.

The Second Amendment only protects the right to be in the militia and the right to own a gun.

The right to self defense might very well exist somewhere in the constitution, 9th Amendment, for example, but it's not in the 2A.

The whole point of law abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms is for self defense.

 

[Open Bolt]

As long as they belong to a militia...

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

 

[Dr Grump]

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

That's not what the second says....

 

[Open Bolt]

That's not what the second says....

Correct. The Second Amendment does not define the right to keep and bear arms. It merely protects the preexisting right from infringement.

 

[Dr Grump]

Correct. The Second Amendment does not define the right to keep and bear arms. It merely protects the preexisting right from infringement.

What preexisting right? Link please...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

President Biden is correct.

And Scalia agrees with him:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Open Bolt]

What preexisting right?

The right to keep and bear arms.

Link please...

"Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings."

Ceorl | Medieval, Feudalism, Manorialism | Britannica

Ceorl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were

www.britannica.com

"Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately AD 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the fyrd varied with the status of the individual, landholders receiving the heaviest fines and common labourers the lightest."

Fyrd | Anglo-Saxon, Mercian, Wessex | Britannica

Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately ad 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the

www.britannica.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.

That's clearly against the Second Amendment.

They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

no firearm was banned because of the NFA 1934 that act only placed a stamp act on short-barrel shotguns. BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT was not advised that short-barrel shotguns were used by the military.

 

[Open Bolt]

President Biden is correct.
And Scalia agrees with him:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”

That doesn't make it OK for people to violate the Second Amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

President Biden is correct.

And Scalia agrees with him:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

no, he's not correct idiot
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[Dr Grump]

The right to keep and bear arms.



"Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings."

Ceorl | Medieval, Feudalism, Manorialism | Britannica

Ceorl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were

www.britannica.com

"Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately AD 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the fyrd varied with the status of the individual, landholders receiving the heaviest fines and common labourers the lightest."

Fyrd | Anglo-Saxon, Mercian, Wessex | Britannica

Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately ad 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the

www.britannica.com

Oh, so you don't have any links, just a blurb from the EB explaining life in the UK 1000 years ago. Thanks...Yeah, didn't think there was any pre existing right written down in law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That doesn't make it OK for people to violate the Second Amendment.

No one said it did.

President Biden is correct that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ as affirmed by Scalia in Heller.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

no, he's not correct idiot
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

lol

Well, feel free to dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

lol

Well, feel free to dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

Idiot those were his words