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

[VanceMack]

This post has implications that are horrible.

What has you wringing your hands?

 

[VanceMack]

I assume this is another Biden misstatement, there is no way in hell that even the Democrats would try to ban purchases of all semiautomatic weapons.

"They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body. So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting," Biden added. "Remember, the Constitution was never absolute. You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed," Biden said. "You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry."

 

[The Mark]

"They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body. So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting," Biden added. "Remember, the Constitution was never absolute. You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed," Biden said. "You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry."

That's not an argument against semiautomatic weapons though.
It's just an argument against certain power levels of firearms.

 

[Rucker61]

That's not an argument against semiautomatic weapons though.
It's just an argument against certain power levels of firearms.

It's a quotation full of untruths.

 

[The Mark]

It's a quotation full of untruths.

I said nothing about how true or accurate the argument was.

 

[Rucker61]

I said nothing about how true or accurate the argument was.

That was the purpose of it being quoted, though.

 

[The Mark]

That was the purpose of it being quoted, though.

To highlight it so it could be judged for accuracy and truth?

 

[VanceMack]

That's not an argument against semiautomatic weapons though.
It's just an argument against certain power levels of firearms.

The bigger problem is that he is in a position to press laws about a subject that he literally knows nothing about. The weapons ban law that the house just worked on was filled with the same problems. You cant govern on rhetoric...especially horribly poorly understood rhetoric.

 

[The Mark]

The bigger problem is that he is in a position to press laws about a subject that he literally knows nothing about. The weapons ban law that the house just worked on was filled with the same problems. You cant govern on rhetoric...especially horribly poorly understood rhetoric.

Which is why no one does.

Even Trump, who outwardly appeared to govern on rhetoric alone, bowed to the pressure from various interests he felt beholden to.

 

[Indlib]

So how do we identify "the crazies"? I think the Walmart shooter should have had a huge red flag on his shoulders. Why could he, legally, buy a gun?

Not sure. It was Trump's idea. I'm sure he has a plan but it is in a room with his healthcare plan.

 

[Indlib]

Well trump is an idiot so there is that. But I noticed there are plenty of others on here supporting doing just that.

An idiot but a useful idiot nonetheless, at least from my perspective.

That was the moment I knew that Trump supporters don't care about anything but Trump; not America, not the constitution, just Trump.

Imagine Trump claiming we should bypass due process and take guns before going to the court and from the 2nd amendment loving right...crickets.

It's a cult.

 

[braindrain]

An idiot but a useful idiot nonetheless, at least from my perspective.

That was the moment I knew that Trump supporters don't care about anything but Trump; not America, not the constitution, just Trump.

Imagine Trump claiming we should bypass due process and take guns before going to the court and from the 2nd amendment loving right...crickets.

It's a cult.

Well most trump supporters are idiots as well.

It’s telling though that there are numerous call from left leaning posters and politicians that recommend bypassing due process and I don’t see you having a problem with that.
Just seems like you care when it is trump doing it.

 

[TomFitz]

Here we go with trying to demonize someone by bringing up Trump.
TDS is a serious condition

Thanks for the confirmation. None of the far right ever cared about CNN at all, until your fuhrer decided to make them the target of his television media attacks.

He couldn’t attack Fox, because they fawn and scrape before him.

And MSNBC would have laughed out loud at him on the air, with Rachel Maddox leading the charge.

So he attacks CNN, the one that is closest to being neutral, and the one with the smallest US audience.

He got to promote his hate the media trope.

 

[Paradoxical]

Thanks for the confirmation. None of the far right ever cared about CNN at all, until your fuhrer decided to make them the target of his television media attacks.

He couldn’t attack Fox, because they fawn and scrape before him.

And MSNBC would have laughed out loud at him on the air, with Rachel Maddox leading the charge.

So he attacks CNN, the one that is closest to being neutral, and the one with the smallest US audience.

He got to promote his hate the media trope.

Rachel Madcow? Seriously dude? OMG!

 

[Lovebug]

Not sure. It was Trump's idea. I'm sure he has a plan but it is in a room with his healthcare plan.

It was a serious question.

 

[Anthony60]

High muzzle velocity, semi automatic, high magazine capacity, based on military design.
I'm not playing the game you are starting. There is no reason for this style of weapon to be made available to citizens.

Sounds perfect for home defense, sport shooting, etc... Not sure what game you think is being played though. But, whatever. Of course, there is plenty of reason for citizens to have these, and other weapons.
I'd be quite suspicious of a government that wanted to disarm the citizens. Now, that's something to worry about.

 

[Hypothetical]

You don't have to take my word for it. Constitutional historians fully back what I had posted.

Interpretation: The Second Amendment | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Second Amendment by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

"Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation)."

I am not sure what part you are asserting... it is merely showing the 2 differences of opinion from federalists and anti federalists at the time, yet it clearly states that the 2nd amendment was accepted and that "(citizens) although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation)".

all that says is that the anti federalists got no break form the 2nd in curtailing the military power of the federal government.

case law to date has mostly affirmed the right of citizens to bear arms as well, so I am not sure what you are asserting here that differs from what I stated.

 

[TomFitz]

Rachel Madcow? Seriously dude? OMG!

Sure! Donald Trump couldn’t lay a glove on her.

 

[TomFitz]

Sounds perfect for home defense, sport shooting, etc... Not sure what game you think is being played though. But, whatever. Of course, there is plenty of reason for citizens to have these, and other weapons.
I'd be quite suspicious of a government that wanted to disarm the citizens. Now, that's something to worry about.

Yes, living in fear of something nobody i actually proposing must be tough.

Nobody talks more about ”gun grabbers” than gun nuts. They need to fear of imaginary “gun grabbers” to feed their fear and paranoia.

 

[FreeStorm84]

President Biden was quoted as saying:

“The idea (that) we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick

So my semi-auto Canik 9mm should be illegal? Ooooookkkaaaaaayyyyyy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's not an argument against semiautomatic weapons though.
It's just an argument against certain power levels of firearms.

It’s an argument to ban certain guns based on their criminal abuse - which types of guns varies, depending on which crime(s) Biden is thinking about at the moment, but the premise is the same. Biden wants to ban guns, but sees doing so one type of gun at a time as being a ‘moderate’ way of doing so.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So how do we identify "the crazies"? I think the Walmart shooter should have had a huge red flag on his shoulders. Why could he, legally, buy a gun?

Which Walmart shooter and based on what?

 

[MTAtech]

Which Walmart shooter and based on what?

You're right, there were a number of them.

Factbox-Walmart shootings: Episodes of gun violence at retail chain

Nov. 22, 2022: A Walmart employee killed six people and wounded several others before fatally shooting himself at a store in Chesapeake, Virginia, authorities said. U.S. President Joe Biden called it another horrific and senseless act of violence, adding: "We must take greater action." Aug. 3...

news.yahoo.com

Nov. 22, 2022: A Walmart employee killed six people and wounded several others before fatally shooting himself at a store in Chesapeake, Virginia, authorities said. U.S. President Joe Biden called it another horrific and senseless act of violence, adding: "We must take greater action."

Aug. 3, 2019: A far-right gunman killed 23 people in a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, in what federal authorities said was a hate crime. Patrick Wood Crusius, then 21, posted a manifesto with anti-immigrant and white nationalist themes before targeting Latinos in the attack, authorities said.

July 30, 2019: Days before the El Paso massacre, a suspended Walmart employee killed two co-workers and wounded a police officer at a store in Southaven, Mississippi.


Nov. 1, 2017: A gunman walked into a Walmart in Thornton, Colorado, a suburb of Denver, with a handgun and killed three people standing in a checkout line. A motive was never established.

Aug. 5, 2014: Two police officers fatally shot an unarmed Black man, John Crawford III, who was holding a BB gun he had picked up off the shelf. A grand jury declined to indict the officers.

June 8, 2014: Married couple Jerad and Amanda Miller murdered two police officers at a Las Vegas pizzeria before heading to a nearby Walmart, where they killed an armed customer who tried to intervene.

 

[Paradoxical]

I am not sure what part you are asserting... it is merely showing the 2 differences of opinion from federalists and anti federalists at the time, yet it clearly states that the 2nd amendment was accepted and that "(citizens) although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation)".

all that says is that the anti federalists got no break form the 2nd in curtailing the military power of the federal government.

case law to date has mostly affirmed the right of citizens to bear arms as well, so I am not sure what you are asserting here that differs from what I stated.

In previous debates I had on this topic, liberals would say that the people couldn't defend against tanks and missiles and the firepower of today's military. That may be true for a little while but whatever government tried to destroy an uprising with that sort of firepower would not last long and they know it. Soon, there would be people getting together and finding out where the leaders are in government and the military and killing them and their families with their firearms, No one in the military or government would be safe if they decimated cities and humans. This is what a government is secretly afraid of. They know they can't kill everyone because there are more civilians than there are military people. It would result in a civil war that would destroy America.

You and I both know that a government that knows the people are unarmed can do pretty much what it wants to. See Australia, Canada, Venezuela, China, NK, and others. The government needs to fear the citizens instead of the citizens fearing its government.

 

[Paradoxical]

Sure! Donald Trump couldn’t lay a glove on her.

That you love Rachel Maddow sAys all anyone need know.