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

A ban would not get rid of ANY of them as none of the bans include confiscation of existing weapons.
That is, they do not do anything to reduce access to existing weapons.

 

If you already know about it, why would you need to ask an off topic question?

 

And legally speaking employing a firearm is per se using deadly force.
You're supposed to be a former lawyer, you should know that.

There is not any need to play such foolish word games with grabbers. YES guns kill people, YES that's perfectly legal.
By engaging with them the way you do, by playing the word game, you give the impression that if they WERE designed to kill people that would be a killer for your argument.
Which its not, but it still gives ignorant spectators that idea.
Its actively harmful and I want you to stop doing it.

 

By employing per se deadly force.
See my above post to turtle, the same logic applies to you.

Again: That you can use if for target shooting doesn't make shooting a gun at someone in self defense anything but using deadly force. Self defense with a firearm is employing deadly force, the purpose of deadly force is to kill whether you're ultimately successful or not. You playing the game with them makes it seem like if the purpose was to kill it would be wrong or illegal. Its not, stop giving that impression as it is actively harmful.

 

The police have no duty to protect you, or to attempt to prevent a crime in progress. They are civilians, regular citizens, not magical creatures.

Further: Nice that you move the goal posts. First its no one, then its but they're the police. Where are you going next?

 

I ask to see what you have to say about it. Its not off topic at all. People here are talking about "inherent rights" and others go "YEA, ITS INHERENT MAN" and offer court cases to back it up.

So what do you think about felons / criminals rights to carry guns? Most people agree some restrictions are acceptable.

 

I agree.

I agree.

I do not agree. The purpose of deadly force is to stop a dangerous attack.

I don't see the harm. Since killing isn't the purpose of self defense, I don't see how it matters to self defense whether purposeful killing is wrong or illegal or not.

And actually, shooting someone with the goal of killing them instead of with the goal of stopping a dangerous attack probably is illegal.

 

If you knew Bruen, you would understand its on the party wishing the restriction to prove up an historic analog in place at the time of the founding. So if you'd like it, prove it up the same way the DOJ has to.
Leaving that aside let me give you the spoiler alert:
Felons were not divested of the right to keep and bear arms outside of being actually in prison or given the death penalty.
So that's going to go the way the NFA is about to go, and for the same reason.

The "poor moral character" laws that existed, barred people based on race, politics, or religious affiliation and so are unconstitutional and not useful as analogs, a fact already ruled on in open court.

What I think about it is that its unconstitutional to divest a person not seized under the 4th amendment of their right to keep and bear arms. IF they're so dangerous, don't let them the **** out. You don't get to make them a 2nd class citizen, that's not supported by the text.

 

Again: If you have a right to use deadly force, you have a right to kill them with that use of deadly force at that moment. Ergo, self defense with deadly force is, LEGALLY SPEAKING, per se about killing someone whether or not you're successful. Period.
Playing mealy mouthed word games that imply your opponent is correct is strategically a poor ****ing choice, church it up all you'd like.

Again: If you're using deadly force and that's legal, per se at that moment you have a right and a reasonable necessity to take their life. Otherwise employing deadly force would be illegal.
There are several instances where you have a right to employ a level of force that the law considers per se an attempt on that person's life to employ. Without the legal justification of necessity (ie self defense) the action taken is murder of one sort or another (as manslaughter is for accidents and you can't be self defending by accident as self defense is a purposeful act) or an attempt at same which you may plead down to agg assault with a deadly weapon.

 

Your can limit your comments to Bruen, but I don't see the need for that given the fact that its not the topic here.

People like Scalia have already answered my question, and the answer is that 2A it not limitless. It is fine to prevent violent criminals, mentally ill etc from owning guns. Practically everyone agrees, as did the founders, since gun control was surprisingly strict during those days.

On the contrary, warning shots etc are illegal in many States. If you shoot someone in the leg, its best to say you aimed for the middle and missed, because a warning shot, or shooting someone's toe off can indicate you didn't really fear for your life and it can weaken your self defense claim.

A woman in Florida was sentenced to 15 years for firing a warning shot on a wall to scare off an ex boyfriend. The FL law changed after that, but many States still have such laws.

 

It's going to take a lot more than you think. First, you're going to need 2/3rds of both the House and Senate, and then 38 of the 50 State Legislatures have to approve an Amendment cancelling the 2nd. And after that all but impossible task is accomplished, you'd have to kill any 9th and/or 10th Amendment arguments that the RKBA exists even if the 2A has been repealed, which is not a stretch case.

Nobody breathing today, including the ones born just since I started typing this will be alive to see that happen.

 

Go read Bruen and tell me it doesn't say what I just said. Prove me wrong.

I don't recall Scalia being alive for Bruen. Was he a spooky ghost?

Warning shots are definitely illegal and if it wasn't required to kill them you should not be using deadly force.

Well for the warning shot she made after she went to the car and then came back. If it had just been a warning shot in situ, she'd have had a better shot at arguing she 'missed' and was just confused and scared when questioned by police. Since she left and came back it was just too much.

 

the tenth amendment argument has been gaining steam as justices realize that what FDR did was blatantly unconstitutional --now many-such as the late great Scalia-noted that they would not overturn New Deal violations of the tenth amendment if that would lead to social upheaval (Medicare, Social Security etc) but the court has been increasingly reticent in expanding the commerce clause nonsense-5 justices held that Obamacare was not constitutional as a CC power-Roberts screwed the pooch with his inane tax argument that was directly in contradiction with what the Obama SG's office lawyers argued

 

Well, the Florida law today (since 2015) allows for warning shots.

No, Scalia was not a ghost. His words are as valid today as they were when he issued them, and they do not contradict Bruen ruling. Of course in a free country you are free to disagree with Scalia. I said before and I say again. Some restrictions are ok and some others go too far.

 

Really? Par for the course for Florida Man to do something bone deep stupid like the Euros do,.

Yes, he was certainly a spooky ghost when Bruen was passed, and your dicta from Heller that's not part of the ruling has no precedence setting effect.
Per Bruen, only those restrictions in place at the time of the founding which are not otherwise unconstitutional. State restrictions are unconstitutional post 14th amendment as the 2nd is incorporated.
None of the 'low moral character' laws pass muster, because they targeted by race, political affiliation, and religion (this has already been tried by NY and NJ post BRUEN and they got their cocks slapped) which is otherwise unconstitutional.

The only restrictions that can skate Bruen are those facing the currently incarcerated which is covered by 4th amendment seizure ffs.

 

No, but don't worry. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

Yes dude, Scalia was demonstrably dead when Bruen was heard. FFS. IDK why you're fighting something that's demonstrable fact.
Its weird.

 

Its like talking to a wall. We know he was dead, we already talked about that. However that is 100% irrelevant, because it does not invalidate his words, and neither do they contradict any ruling after his death. Clearly you have not understood the ruling you keep talking about.

Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]

 

That's nothing compared to what your side would consider the nightmare scenario on this topic, and that is this... Right now, today, if you have a 3d printer and the skills to use it, you can print out a 3d-printed plastic gun. I wouldn't shoot one, but if they're made well, and out of the right kind of plastic, they might be safe long enough to shoot a few mags before it went boom. But, within 5-10 years 3d printers will be printing using metals, and when that happens, everyone with enough money to buy one, and knows how to use it, will be able to print themselves a gun at home. One that nobody will even know of it's existence. Of course, out of mine, only one is even hypothetically traceable to us, as it was bought at an FFL, 2 others were private party purchases, and the rest I inherited from my dad, along with several thousand rounds of ammo. I had no idea he even owned one, much less as many as he did, so he surprised me there.

When that happens, even people in Australia will be able to make themselves whatever they want. Freedom will not be held back.

 

There are so many cases going through the motions right now, this one somehow flew under my radar. Do you know what the name of the case was?

 

I think with these discussions you needed to define ending and winning. Subjugation is as much a psychology as a reality. Obviously if the carpet bombed from a distance there will be a little that those in the ground can do about it. If the populous will never surrender (unless mowed to bits) then you can never really "win".

I would hope that the US army would do a better job than the Afghan army, lol. But I take your point.

I have never heard of Ruby ridge. Thanks it was an interesting read

 

This might be a weird concept to you but we are really not that interested in getting our hands on firearms.

 

Carpet bombing from a distance becomes very difficult when the bomber crews come home from their first mission and find their runway destroyed or their family has disappeared. Or when the politician giving them orders disappears or the family of the politician disappears. Or their bomber blows up in mid air because mr. flight crew that prepped the aircraft had HIS family bombed last time around. Or it blows up on takeoff because some grunt on the ground with a stinger doesn’t like the idea of massacring US citizens. Or when one of the bomber crews decides they have more disdain for a prominent resident of DC than some schmuck in Ohio with an AR-15 the prominent DC resident doesn’t like.

The US army failed to subdue peasants in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I’m not an American exceptionalist based on race or birthright, but when it comes to armament, tactics, knowledge of supply lines etc. of the US military, the US peasant outperforms the Afghan peasant just based on inherent familiarity with all aspects of the internal workings of the US military.

Ruby Ridge was a sore spot as it was all over weapons most folks see no sense in regulating anyway. Then Waco happened also based on weapons the Fed didn’t like. Since Waco, when the Fed shows up staged to kill more citizens, armed citizens show up from all over to ensure there won’t be a one sided massacre again. So far it has been effective.

Our government didn’t give up massacres when massacring indigenous folks went out of style like your government did. Ours just moved on to massacring different demographics. I watched them kill a bunch of women and children needlessly at Waco when I was in high school. The distrust of government run by fools and willingness to stand up to tyranny in this country didn’t form in a vacuum.

And the pattern of it most often revolving around firearms the Fed doesn’t like isn’t lost on anyone either. Many feel the Fed has already shown itself to be the violent aggressor when more diplomatic and lawful approaches could have been taken. Especially when organizations like the ATF, Justice Department, etc. are completely unapologetic about things like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

 

That's your choice. But that's not the point. What is also at issue is why you're even here, talking about what's going on in a place where we are just about as far away from you as it's possible to get, and you don't have suffrage to begin with.

Rest assured, there are plenty of people who are interested in getting their hands on firearms, even in your neck of the woods. What you are missing is all the laws in law books in the world won't prevent it. We're arguing about passing laws that are illegal to pass, but even if they were a-ok, it won't change a thing.

It's just whistling past a graveyard.

 

Ha. You're talking about a nasty Civil war, without set lines of delineation. I guess you could say under that context war doesn't work because there is no enemy other than yourself. The only context in which I see that happening is a post-apocalyptic one. Basically the military would become a corrupt, semi- lawless gang. The issue would be individual survival rather than upholding the law. Soldiers belong to the group with the fancy badge and uniforms.

Sure, but the Taliban are pretty hardcore. Combat experience. FYI It pains me to dish the American military because I think many of them are great guys.

Oh, your Feds (Frontline) are hardcore. And the CIA. Hollywood wasn't built on fiction alone.

I'm sure this video summarises the attitude and culture you're talking about:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/police-shooting-video-arizona.html


I'm actually a bit afraid of your police as well. More than the military even. Most in the military are young and get out early. Cops - especially in certain jurisdictions - are hardened & cynical over many generations. But I've met some lovely ones. It's a mixed bag.

I'm not at all afraid of the police in Melbourne. Our Feds are scary as well but they just don't go anywhere near the general public. We're talking about bikie raids and hardened crims, drug dealers with tats and *caches of guns. The general public doesn't care what it takes to apprehend them.

*not consider a cool or reasonable thing in Australia