Biden vows to ban assault weapons 'come hell or high water'

The most recent argument from Illinois has been, no ****, that if a weapon is most useful in military service it's not an "arm" under the 2a therefore no 2a right is in fact implicated at all and they can do whatever they want to.

Hand to God, they've filed pleadings to that effect.

 

Just a point of accuracy. Semi-automatic rifles are NOT assault weapons. No soldier ever goes into battle carrying one.

 

Is that your new obsession? attacking gay people and straight people who do it in the butt?

 

I know.
And...they believe themselves to be correct.
They didn't just argue it, they believe it.

 

Thanks for the NPR link. Interesting.

My query is about the need for such high powered weaponry. I guess the US is going to do it differently.

 

no, it is called an analogy Ron. Gun banners claim they want to ban an item that has caused far less deaths over the last 40 years than anal sex has. So I asked them if they are really serious about SAVING LIVES, why aren't they attacking corn holing rather than AR 15s. I really don't care what two consenting adults do-be it anal sex or one buying an AR 15 the other is selling. I don't pretend to be in favor of CHOICE but want to ban stuff.

 

not in the last 50 years. I think the SKS might have been the last semi auto only standard infantry rifle, though some Gurkha regiments had semi auto only FN FAL battle rifles.

 

if hundreds of state, local and federal law enforcement agencies who operate purely in a civilian environment feel that such weapons are needed for their agents to defend themselves against criminals with, then certainly honest Private Citizens have just as valid a need for them as well.

 

You intend to enter high risk environments, such as raids and gang arrests? Interesting...

 

So the only rifle that could be considered an assault weapon he's the one that has select fire or fully automatic? Well someone needs to tell our idiot president that ownership of those was very strongly controlled back in 1986 in fact you can't possess one legally that was made after 1986. So if you get all the permits and you have about 40,000 then you can have an assault weapon.


I think Biden is referring to an AR-15 which is absolutely a semi automatic rifle. In fact all rifles that are not pump action bolt action lever action or single shot are semi-automatic.

 

You can't. The supreme Court has ruled multiple times.

Besides you can own a semi-automatic pistol and pistols are used far more in homicides in suicides than rifles. If you can have a semi-automatic pistol with a 500 round magazine and you can then you can have a rifle what applies to the lesser applies to the greater.

 

The thing is... Good ol' Joe knows that, and even if he is genuinely senile, and really doesn't know it, or the implications of the Heller and Bruen decisions, his handlers do, and they know that in light of those, an AWB is not going to pass muster. They know that.

So, all this is about is gearing up for the 2024 election cycle, and putting the same old divisive issue out on the table that we've been fighting about for decades know, over a political position that has been proven to accomplish nothing, but it makes for good campaign ads.

"My opponent wants your children to die in a hail of gunfire from the magic ghost gun that spits out 6,000 rounds per second, and can penetrate the reactive armor of an M1A1 tank" or some other such nonsense. I really hope SCOTUS ends up sanctioning some folks in CA, NY, NJ and elsewhere in their blatantly obvious efforts to find a loophole around Bruen, but that can't be done. Perhaps, however, if they put some folks in jail for Contempt of the Supreme Court, that might, maybe (but probably not) get the attention of those who would continue arguing the same old thing over and over again in an attempt to divide and conquer, with a wet dream of disarming the American public they know ain't happening.

They were foolish to allow the Bruen case to be decided by the Court, because a blind, deaf squirrel could have predicted the outcome years in advance, but I'm glad that it's finally put to bead save those few idiots still bleating like the sheep they are. Some of whom no doubt are already present in this thread, as I'm just getting started reading it.

I was going to post this exact same topic, but someone beat me to it, which is fine. I'm glad it's being discussed and have no ego to damage that I wasn't the first one out of the gate.

 

50 states... 50 different definitions of "assault weapon". And then there's the military definition which is different yet.

 

That's not how the law works. NYSPA v Bruin found that I don't have to show proper cause to exercise my right.

If I want one of these for her because I think it looks cool I have the right to own it if I wish.

 

Check out four boxes diner on YouTube. This is a lawyer I listen to and sometimes it takes a lot to hear and understand everything he says because he says a lot. But he talks about this sort of thing all the time.

I think what a lot of these people do is throw everything they have at the wall and see what sticks.

 

Actually, they don't. It's time for some adult supervision, and for people like the f-ing President of the United States to stand up and say, "Look folks, as much as I sympathize and even agree with the underlying idea and principal of what you want to do, in our Constitutional Republic, it's simply something that is not legally possible. We tried playing semantic games with the 'well-regulated militia' stuff, but even we knew going in that was a long shot that was unlikely to win the day, and it didn't. So, it's time to move on to more pressing issues that we actually have the authority to do something about."

It's virtually identical to the same sex marriage debate, something I was a staunch supporter of. Ultimately, it went before the Supremes, they ruled as even a casual reading of the 14th Amendment would require them to that it was a fundamental Constitutional right for same sex couples to wed, and it has been dropped from the national conversation. Sure, from time to time some religious nutter goes on a rant about it, but I don't hear pols from the right promising they will 'do something' about it, because they know and have accepted that battle is lost.

Even amongst the political right, it's become acceptable to a vast majority, so I'm not sure that would be a winning strategy even if someone went there, but because they know the score, they don't even bother.

The left should take a page out of that playbook and let's drop this and move on FFS. It's not even a situation of being down by 40 points with 20 seconds left on the game clock, the game clock is flashing double zeros... It's over, you lost, deal with that, and move on. They are not going to change their minds with yet another 'but what about this' argument.

 

Texas is officially a "2d Amendment Sanctuary" state along the lines of libs having "Immigration Sanctuary" states. If libs can ignore federal laws on immigration, we can defend the 2d Amendment against Biden's crazies.

TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!

 

Well there we go. As long as that's the prevailing attitude then the gun laws will go nowhere.

 

What federal laws are local governments required to enforce? Answer: None.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Gay marriage dropped from the conversation, because people realized it doesn't have any impact on anyone's lives, except those gays who wish to marry.

Abortion is supposedly a settled issue, but its a top topic in politics these days.

Its one of the top issues to many American's so their representatives can't just move on from it. That would be absurd. Why don't Republican's just move on from immigration and guns? They can't because those are top issues to their voters.

 

NYSRPA vs Bruin really. It's actually the Constitution that make sure such abusive laws go nowhere.

 

this is true but they are also limited by the Constitution. Denver can't require you to be Catholic. The federal government enforces federal law on States and locals.

But it's not really mostly what people are doing about the abortion law is freaking out about it for no real reason.

 

Right. And 'sanctuary city' means the locals will not enforce federal law in regards to immigration.

Its a political issue, and both parties still utilize it. They didn't move on from it.

 

None of that constitutional **** is worth the paper it is written on if there are not a substantial amount of people to keep the ball running. If you want to hide behind the constitution go for it. But really just a lot of Americans are gun nuts. And you have a lot of gun crime.

 

I don't think you can die from anal sex, but it was strictly forbidden in US for a long time and even carried the penalty of death.

 

that's not really constitutional issue I sanctuary City can't declare that everyone must attend to Catholic Mass because it violates the Constitution

Oh both parties try to pit you and me against one another. Right those have been telling you keep getting elected. But it's not an issue anywhere in the US you can get an abortion.