Biden rails against access to assault weapons after recent spate of shootings

[ttwtt78640]

Yes it does if your going to claim that it represented an individual right rather than a collective right.

Nonsense. Now you are trying to assert that the meaning of “the right of the people to…” changed between the 2A and the 4A.

If the ‘founders’ had intended what you assert then they would have written “the right of the militia to…”, but they didn’t do that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Funny how the people who actually helped with the writing of constitution disagree with you.

But I am sure you know what they meant better then they did.

He’s clearly an expert on word usage since he wrote “if your going to” instead of “if you‘re going too”.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

CNN —
President Joe Biden said Thursday that he would work with Congress to “try to get rid of assault weapons” after a recent spate of shootings in the US.

“The idea (that) we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick, it’s just sick. It has no social redeeming value, zero, none. Not a single, solitary rationale for it,” Biden told reporters during a brief gaggle outside the Nantucket Fire Department in Massachusetts, where he greeted first responders.

Asked whether he would try to take action on guns, the president said, “I’m going to try. I’m going to try to get rid of assault weapons.” When pressed on whether he would try to do so during the lame duck session, he said, “I’m going to do it whenever – I’ve got to make that assessment as soon as I get in and start counting the votes.”

Now Biden wants to go after semiautomatic weapons. Biden makes this huge comment, which is all that matters in what he said. What does CNN do? Even though the quote is in the article, they completely ignore it. They act as if it's not even there. No mention at all about the significance of such a statement by the POTUS.

In fact, despite the headline, the majority of the article is about the possible railroad strike!

Per Joe Biden, allowing hunting rifles to be purchased is "sick."

According to Joe, there is not a single solitary reason for owning a Remington Model 7400 rifle.

Sickos.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Nonsense. Now you are trying to assert that the meaning of “the right of the people to…” changed between the 2A and the 4A.

If the ‘founders’ had intended what you assert then they would have written “the right of the militia to…”, but they didn’t do that.

The militia just refers to males of fighting age. That's the militia. The militia gets called up. They don't become the militia after being called up. They are the militia, which is why they get called up.

The equal protection clause requires that to be read in a non-discriminatory fashion, so men and women are all part of the militia. Fighting age starts at about 16.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The militia just refers to males of fighting age. That's the militia. The militia gets called up. They don't become the militia after being called up. They are the militia, which is why they get called up.

The equal protection clause requires that to be read in a non-discriminatory fashion, so men and women are all part of the militia. Fighting age starts at about 16.

OK, but if the militia (eligibility) age can have (or be given) a starting age then it can also have (or be given) an ending age. If that isn‘t enough to satisfy the ‘gun grabbers’, then other militia ‘eligibility’ criteria could be put in place by those who wish to restrict (infringe upon?) the 2A rights of (most of) the people.

 

[poppopfox]

Banning something for no good reason is always an issue.

What would a "good reason" be?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

OK, but if the militia (eligibility) age can have (or be given) a starting age then it can also have (or be given) an ending age. If that isn‘t enough to satisfy the ‘gun grabbers’, then other militia ‘eligibility’ criteria could be put in place by those who wish to restrict (infringe upon?) the 2A rights of (most of) the people.

Well, it's the "right of the people," so even people who aren't militia members have a second amendment right. The reason they have that right, is because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. In other words, the constitutional right is given to all. And the militia is a subset of all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What would a "good reason" be?

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you would consider to be a “good reason”.

Certainly not abuse by criminals committing homicide statistics, otherwise knives and/or handguns would be banned before (or along with) “assault rifles”. Yes, I realize that this will be called making a ‘slippery slope’ argument and that “mass stabbing” events are rare.

 

[poppopfox]

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you would consider to be a “good reason”.

You go first, you made the claim.

Certainly not abuse by criminals committing homicide statistics, otherwise knives and/or handguns would be banned before (or along with) “assault rifles”. Yes, I realize that this will be called making a ‘slippery slope’ argument and that “mass stabbing” events are rare.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, it's the "right of the people," so even people who aren't militia members have a second amendment right. The reason they have that right, is because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. In other words, the constitutional right is given to all. And the militia is a subset of all.

What I find even more odd, given the alleged importance of the 2A’s militia clause, is the assertion that the 2A was not intended to apply to ‘military style’ guns, ‘assault rifles’, ‘sniper rifles’ or ‘weapons of war’.

 

[Rucker61]

The structure of text of the 2nd Amendment is what is known an "absolute construction". An absolute construction is a secondary clause in a sentence that modifies the whole meaning of the main clause. This is a type of grammar originating from Latin. The absolute construction can form the first or last part of a sentence. Such clauses are not linked grammatically to the main clause, but are linked thematically. In Latin, in which many of the writers of the Constitution, particularly Virginians such as Jefferson were very well versed, an absolute construction is known as an"ablative absolute". In Latin, the ablative absolute explains the reason for the independent clause that follows in the sentence. The two parts form one single thought. So it's telling us the reason why the founding fathers felt it was necessary to state the stricture; “... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So the more expected or modern language of of that clause might read as; “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People who advocate an “originalist” approach to the Constitution need to understand the precise meaning of the words and grammar the writers of that document used in the 18th century. The two parts of the sentence cannot be separated, as they all too often are.

If p, then q implies nothing about q if ~p.

The state constitutions ratified concurrent with the Bill of Rights give us a clear understanding of the Founder's intent. The individual right to bear arms for self defense outside if militia service exists and is protected.

 

[rahl]

Removing a weapon is not disarming the populace, how's your machine gun working?

Machine guns are legal to purchase

 

[MrNiceGuy]

What I find even more odd, given the alleged importance of the 2A’s militia clause, is the assertion that the 2A was not intended to apply to ‘military style’ guns, ‘assault rifles’, ‘sniper rifles’ or ‘weapons of war’.

Or, the odd definitions of what constitutes a "weapon of war" which includes a standard issue sidearm handgun. That's a weapon of war, too.

 

[Rucker61]

What I find even more odd, given the alleged importance of the 2A’s militia clause, is the assertion that the 2A was not intended to apply to ‘military style’ guns, ‘assault rifles’, ‘sniper rifles’ or ‘weapons of war’.

Miller should have overturned NFA 1934, not protected it.

 

[Rucker61]

OK, but if the militia (eligibility) age can have (or be given) a starting age then it can also have (or be given) an ending age. If that isn‘t enough to satisfy the ‘gun grabbers’, then other militia ‘eligibility’ criteria could be put in place by those who wish to restrict (infringe upon?) the 2A rights of (most of) the people.

Jefferson was too old to serve in the militia, yet he owned firearms sometimes just carried for walks in the woods.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You go first, you made the claim.

Nope, but if you still think so then cite the post # in which I did so, otherwise I will accept your inaction as being your apology.

Crickets…

 

[Rucker61]

The militia just refers to males of fighting age. That's the militia. The militia gets called up. They don't become the militia after being called up. They are the militia, which is why they get called up.

The equal protection clause requires that to be read in a non-discriminatory fashion, so men and women are all part of the militia. Fighting age starts at about 16.

Given that National Coalition of Men v Selective Service was found for the Selective Service by thev5th Court of Appeals, equal protection may not suffice to require/allow women to be part of the militia.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Miller should have overturned NFA 1934, not protected it.

I agree, yet they were reluctant to try to get all of that (long standing) toothpaste back into the tube.

If the SCOTUS makes a very unpopular decision (no matter how logical or correct they deemed it to be) then they run the (real?) risk of having congress critters decide to allow packing the court. That’s also why I suspect that many cases are simply declined to be ‘reviewed’ by the SCOTUS - an odd (yet often used) SCOTUS power requiring no explanation at all.

 

[TomFitz]

Is this some sort of word jumble?

No, it was very clear. You got it too. You’re just trying to pretend you didn’t.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Jefferson was too old to serve in the militia, yet he owned firearms sometimes just carried for walks in the woods.

Obama was said to shoot “all the time”. Biden recommended firing two blasts from a (double barrel?) shotgun into the air if one suspected that a criminal (probably?) lurked nearby.

 

[rahl]

Why do you people continually insist on focusing solely on the part of the 2nd Amendment that comes after the comma?

grammar

 

[Rucker61]

Why do you people continually insist on focusing solely on the part of the 2nd Amendment that comes after the comma?

Because that's the subject and predicate.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because that's the subject and predicate.

Yep, but those are the parts which he doesn’t like “focusing on”.

 

[Paradoxical]

The structure of text of the 2nd Amendment is what is known an "absolute construction". An absolute construction is a secondary clause in a sentence that modifies the whole meaning of the main clause. This is a type of grammar originating from Latin. The absolute construction can form the first or last part of a sentence. Such clauses are not linked grammatically to the main clause, but are linked thematically. In Latin, in which many of the writers of the Constitution, particularly Virginians such as Jefferson were very well versed, an absolute construction is known as an"ablative absolute". In Latin, the ablative absolute explains the reason for the independent clause that follows in the sentence. The two parts form one single thought. So it's telling us the reason why the founding fathers felt it was necessary to state the stricture; “... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So the more expected or modern language of of that clause might read as; “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People who advocate an “originalist” approach to the Constitution need to understand the precise meaning of the words and grammar the writers of that document used in the 18th century. The two parts of the sentence cannot be separated, as they all too often are.

Wow! Wow! Wow! That is all I can say! Wow! If there ever was a post to prove my thesis that the New Left Wing World Order has become like Christian apologists with convoluted explanations of scripture that read like gobblygook but are presented as rational explanations of the bible, yours tops the list. It is nice to see a poster do this and show in brilliant just how desperate the left is to use Orwellian speak of ridiculous phrasing and illogic to persuade the masses that

"Yes, folks, 2 plus 2 really does equal 5"

 

[poppopfox]

If p, then q implies nothing about q if ~p.

The state constitutions ratified concurrent with the Bill of Rights give us a clear understanding of the Founder's intent. The individual right to bear arms for self defense outside if militia service exists and is protected.

Gives you a clear understanding maybe. There are SC justices who have given dissenting opinions on every pro gun ruling you've quoted in the past. If the understanding was "clear" the votes would have been 9 - 0.