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

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-vows-ban-assault-weapons-come-hell-high-water

honestly, this argument is stupid as hell. Banning assault weapons won’t do a dang thing. Murder is already banned and they still do it. They won’t turn in their weapons either because again they don’t care about laws. If they are willing to off themselves after committing murder what makes anyone think that they will turn in their guns?

Does Biden plan on going door to door to take them? that’s likely the only way to disarm the American people of so called assault weapons. And in that scenario I’m positive you will see problems. These are not just arms, they are private property that many treasure.

Also, being he has no legislative authority I’m curious how he thinks he is going to accomplish this. It’s not possible with a split congress.

 

Someone please explain to the class why they think a ban - federal or state - on 'assault weapons' will survive the inevitable trip to the USSC.

Explain to us how 'assault weapons' do not fall under the umbrella of "all bearable arms".

 

all the senile pawn of Soros and Bloomberg does with his rantings is to convince 100,000 more people to go out and buy another AR 15 and a case of magazines

 

The day the house passed the most recent AWB, I bought three PSA "Ghost Gun" AR lowers and 20 mags ( 10x5.56 10x.308 )

 

I wonder if they own stock in guns sometimes

 

Too bad uncle sniffy and gropey. The supreme Court already ruled that you can't do that.

 

I would say it doesn't even mean anything because assault weapon doesn't mean anything except for after an assault is committed so if a woman hits her husband in the head with a frying pan the frying pan is an assault weapon because it was used in an assault.

It's already banned to turn a weapon into it my salt weapon because it's already banned to assault people.

 

Why don't you try banning them and see if it works. If it doesn't work you can unban them again.

 

I'll try to give you several reason that Biden's most recent moronic brain fart won't work.

1. I'm sure that you remember that banning "assault weapons" has already been tried and was proven to be an unconstitutional failure because semi auto rifles (aka "assault weapons) are so rarely used in homicides.

2. Biden doesn't have thoughts. He simply reads what his handlers program him to say.

3. As others have noted, what Biden's handlers are proposing is unconstitutional and will further distract America's attention from effective crime fighting measures.

4. There are already millions of semi automatic rifles in circulation. Attempting to confiscate them all will simply cause more bloodshed and hostility toward those LEOs sent to collect them.

5.Attempting to ban semi-automatic rifles will simply create another violent and deadly Black Market for the drug cartels.

I'm sure you've heard that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
This is precisely an example of that time proven maxim.

Thanks,

 

Explain to us how 'Machine Guns' do not fall under the umbrella of "all bearable arms".

that said, it will never happen, not in our lifetimes

 

Typically a 'ban' refers to new sales, like it did back in -90s. It wont fly of course, but I guess its something he has to say to appease the part of Dem voters who demand bans.

 

We did that in 1994. No effect. They were "unbanned" in 2004.
So.... No.


Now then....
Please explain why you think a ban - federal or state - on 'assault weapons' will survive the inevitable trip to the USSC.
Please explain why you think 'assault weapons' do not fall under the umbrella of "all bearable arms".

 

It didn’t to the bump stock. So the door has been opened. I won’t rule anything out anymore.

 

That idiot can hardly walk and chew gum at the same time. How does he think he'll actually do that?

 

Points 1 to 3 are not reasons why it won't work, they are reasons why you don't want it to be done.

I agree with the rest. It's a waste of time trying to take weapons off gun-nuts. Don't worry, the next generation is losing interest in guns - so eventually it will be the will of the people.

I wouldn't worry too much. I'm sure you can still keep an arsenal large enough to raze a small City for some time into the future.

 

Regarding the last point, I'm pretty sure 'bearable arms' referred to the bearable arms of the time, not the machine guns of the future - and that these amendments were not designed to confer any single individual the ability to assemble an arsenal powerful enough to raze a small City.

 

The USSC discarded your argument 2 decades ago:

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.

If not "weapons of war", what firearms should the people who might constitute the "well regulated militia" have access to?

So, again:
Please explain why you think a ban - federal or state - on 'assault weapons' will survive the inevitable trip to the USSC.
Please explain why you think 'assault weapons' do not fall under the umbrella of "all bearable arms".

 

It won’t and they wouldn’t.

I don’t think (after “Heller”) they can be banned but, if they were they would/could never be unbanned no matter how inaffective the law.

 

Trump opened that door. Biden said "again", which sounds like he wants a repeat of the -90s ban. But like I said, its a comment he has to make to appease certain section of the Dem party, and he can say that now that GOP controls the House, which makes it impossible to implement.

He knows he can't since GOP controls the house, but he can say this today and later blame the GOP for preventing it. Its politics.

 

“Heller” included “current firearms in popular use”. And, not that it matters, but, “collector’s” are the last people you need worry about committing gun crime.

 

IMHO, it’s a foolish waste of political capital that does him, liberals, Democrats and real efforts to curb violence much, much more harm than good.

 

It's called "pandering".

 

Then it’s foolish pandering. It does no one and nothing any good, but does a lot of damage to any effort to do something substantive about violence and the social bankruptcy that is at the root of it.

 

I think the largest collector in the US has a blow-up doll for a partner. Not that it correlates with random shoot-ups. Still...

 

In other words - you have no meaningful response.
Typical.