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

[rahl]

Care to add some context?

While true, your point is misleading.

uh, my point was crystal clear. You can go and purchase a machine gun today if you want one.

 

[Rucker61]

No good reason?

Maybe read the news once in a while.

Shall we pareto the number deaths by cause and work our way down?

Shall we accept there isn't any bill in Congress to actually reduce the number of any particular class of firearms due to a "ban"?

 

[dcsports]

No, it specifically proves my statement that crimes involving banned weapons went down when they were banned. Read what follows, it changes nothing about the statement.

Truth hurts doesn't it.

lol. You certainly are working to avoid the truth here. Take care.

 

[Rucker61]

No, it specifically proves my statement that crimes involving banned weapons went down when they were banned. Read what follows, it changes nothing about the statement.

Truth hurts doesn't it.

They didn't go away, and the number of AR-15s increased every year. How did crime involving those weapons go down?
What was the reduction in mass shootings involving AR-15s because of the ban?

 

[TomFitz]

You can stop right here. The independent clause is the important part of the sentence. It can exist without the dependent clause. The reverse is not true.

Independent Clause

An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. An independent clause is a sentence.

Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz.
Dependent Clause

A dependent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb but does not express a complete thought. A dependent clause cannot be a sentence. Often a dependent clause is marked by a dependent marker word.

Independent and Dependent Clauses - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University

owl.purdue.edu

Interesting, but not important.

DC v Heller:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

If this is in the Heller decision, the conservatives on the court need some history lessons.

The Second Amendment exists because the states feared a Federal government with a large standing army. Neither the Federal government, nor any of the states could afford to field an army.

So the custom of local militias was enshrined in the Constitution. And the cost of arming them was passed to the militia members.

Of course, in those days, the sort of weapons commonly sold at gun shows did not exist, and were well beyond the technology of the day.

so, the dependent clause, which has been the law for over 100 years should still be the governing principle, dispute the inaccuracy of the court’s interpretation of it.

 

[Rucker61]

If this is in the Heller decision, the conservatives on the court need some history lessons.

The Second Amendment exists because the states feared a Federal government with a large standing army. Neither the Federal government, nor any of the states could afford to field an army.

The very year that the Militia Acts were passed the Federal government increased the funding for our standing army.

So the custom of local militias was enshrined in the Constitution. And the cost of arming them was passed to the militia members.

Of course, in those days, the sort of weapons commonly sold at gun shows did not exist, and were well beyond the technology of the day.

The Court has held that “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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Caetano v Massachusetts

Multi-shot firearms in existence at ratification:

Belton repeating flintlock, 1777
The Drehling 8-shot, matchlock revolver, circa 1580.
German oval-bore, .67-calibre rifle that fired 16 stacked charges of powder and ball in a rapid "Roman candle" fashion, circa 1600 (manufacturer/inventor unknown).
1625 German-commissioned, breech loading wheellock, with metal cartridges.
The six-or-twelve shot, 17th century, Kalthoff Repeaters.
Lorenzoni and Cookson Flintlock Repeating Pistols, in 7-shot and 9-shot versions, circa 1680.
The Cookson Repeating Rifle (Lorenzoni System), circa 1680: a 12 shot, lever-action breech-loading, repeating flintlock.
The Puckle gun, circa 1718, a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multi-shot revolving cylinder, designed for shipboard use to prevent boarding. Could hold 11 preloaded rounds in a cylinder, and advertised to "fire 63 shots in 7 minutes."
Griffin Breech-loading Flintlock Musket, 1740
I Pendrill Flintlock Breech-loading Rifle, 1760.
Bunney of London four Barreled "Duck's Foot" Flintlock Pistol, 1780.
Flemish 3-barrel, tap-action, .54 bore pistol, 1780.
The rapid-fire, Ferguson Rifle, breech-load flintlock, patented 1777, which improved upon the breech-loading rifle created and patented in 1721 by Isaac de la Chaumette
Girardoni Air Rifle, circa 1780: 22 round magazine, .46 caliber air rifle.

Electronic communication and data storage devices in existence at ratification:

{null set}

Does this mean that the 1st and 4th Amendment protections don’t apply to your cell phone?

so, the dependent clause, which has been the law for over 100 years should still be the governing principle, dispute the inaccuracy of the court’s interpretation of it.

Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.


The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.


In 1982 the Senate published a bipartisan report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

In 1990 in US v Verdugo-Urquidez SCOTUS affirmed: "...it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

 

[mrjurrs]

uh, my point was crystal clear. You can go and purchase a machine gun today if you want one.

No you can't, in that you may buy it today but you won't get it today. Additionally, your statement is incorrect because not everyone who applies will get one.

 

[mrjurrs]

lol. You certainly are working to avoid the truth here. Take care.

And you are unable to deny the truth (except by lying).

 

[Rucker61]

No you can't, in that you may buy it today but you won't get it today. Additionally, your statement is incorrect because not everyone who applies will get one.

My wife bought an iPhone 14 this weekend but she won't get it until January.

 

[rahl]

No you can't, in that you may buy it today but you won't get it today.

Uh, you can go and purchase a machine gun today. This is not in any way debatable. You have to wait to take possession of it until your form 4 comes back, but depending on the store/range, you can shoot it as soon as you purchase it.

Additionally, your statement is incorrect because not everyone who applies will get one

If you can legally purchase a handgun, you can legally purchase a machine gun. There are, I believe 2 states which prohibit entirely, class 3 firearms, but I could be wrong about that. I am going off memory on that one.

So, nothing I said was incorrect.

 

[mrjurrs]

Uh, you can go and purchase a machine gun today. This is not in any way debatable. You have to wait to take possession of it until your form 4 comes back, but depending on the store/range, you can shoot it as soon as you purchase it.

If you can legally purchase a handgun, you can legally purchase a machine gun. There are, I believe 2 states which prohibit entirely, class 3 firearms, but I could be wrong about that. I am going off memory on that one.

So, nothing I said was incorrect.

Oh yes it is. For example, only 37 states allow it to happen. You would also have to previously been approved to buy it today, so for example, you can't get fingerprinted in a day. These permits do not follow the same path as regular firearm permits.

So most of what you said is incorrect.

 

[Anthony60]

Exactly, models of guns can be highly restricted without any real harm to the gun owners.

No, not exactly.

 

[Rucker61]

Oh yes it is. For example, only 37 states allow it to happen. You would also have to previously been approved to buy it today, so for example, you can't get fingerprinted in a day.

I have fingerprints on file at Silencer Shop, and keep a pair of hard copies at home for just in case. I also have a digital copy of my photo for the applications.

These permits do not follow the same path as regular firearm permits.

So most of what you said is incorrect.

I have eight NFA items. How many to do you have?

The process:

I contact the seller in the ad below and arrange a wire transfer of $42000.
My LGS fills out and submits a Form 3 to transfer the G3 to the LGS. This takes about a week.
The seller ships to my LGS.
Meanwhile I fill out the eFile Form 4. This takes about 30 minutes, including attaching the digital photo, and submit it electronically.
I then mail my fingerprints to the ATF.
When the G3 arrives at my LGS they notify, and ask if I want to go shoot it.
I say yes, they meet me at the Pawnee on Friday afternoon.
Everyone gets to shoot it, they take it back to the shop.
Continue for one year until the Form 4 is approved.

 

[Rucker61]

Exactly, models of guns can be highly restricted without any real harm to the gun owners.

I consider the infringement of any rights harmful enough to be protested and opposed.

 

[TomFitz]

The very year that the Militia Acts were passed the Federal government increased the funding for our standing army.

The Court has held that “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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Caetano v Massachusetts

Multi-shot firearms in existence at ratification:

Belton repeating flintlock, 1777
The Drehling 8-shot, matchlock revolver, circa 1580.
German oval-bore, .67-calibre rifle that fired 16 stacked charges of powder and ball in a rapid "Roman candle" fashion, circa 1600 (manufacturer/inventor unknown).
1625 German-commissioned, breech loading wheellock, with metal cartridges.
The six-or-twelve shot, 17th century, Kalthoff Repeaters.
Lorenzoni and Cookson Flintlock Repeating Pistols, in 7-shot and 9-shot versions, circa 1680.
The Cookson Repeating Rifle (Lorenzoni System), circa 1680: a 12 shot, lever-action breech-loading, repeating flintlock.
The Puckle gun, circa 1718, a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multi-shot revolving cylinder, designed for shipboard use to prevent boarding. Could hold 11 preloaded rounds in a cylinder, and advertised to "fire 63 shots in 7 minutes."
Griffin Breech-loading Flintlock Musket, 1740
I Pendrill Flintlock Breech-loading Rifle, 1760.
Bunney of London four Barreled "Duck's Foot" Flintlock Pistol, 1780.
Flemish 3-barrel, tap-action, .54 bore pistol, 1780.
The rapid-fire, Ferguson Rifle, breech-load flintlock, patented 1777, which improved upon the breech-loading rifle created and patented in 1721 by Isaac de la Chaumette
Girardoni Air Rifle, circa 1780: 22 round magazine, .46 caliber air rifle.

Electronic communication and data storage devices in existence at ratification:

{null set}

Does this mean that the 1st and 4th Amendment protections don’t apply to your cell phone?



Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.


The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.


In 1982 the Senate published a bipartisan report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

In 1990 in US v Verdugo-Urquidez SCOTUS affirmed: "...it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

That may be. I have no idea why you think the Militia Act is important.

The nation increased the budget of the War Department primarily for the purpose of funding the constructions of forts in major American ports.

Ft Sumpter, Fort Monroe and Fort McHenry were part of that program.

The US did not raise a large standing army. Your claim notwithstanding.

Repeating text from the Heller decision doesn’t negate my point. The Heller decision is the law. I don’t care much for it. Tossing out the militia language of the Amendment, as the Heller decision did, is IMO not correct.

However, it’s the law.

Thus, barring the reversal of Heller, which is unlikely even in the intermediate future, other means must be found to protect the public from its most dangerous and irresponsible elements.

Of course, it would be much cheaper and more reliable if we simply took their guns away, and relegated gun ownership to people who have proven to behaved responsibly, (by being trained and getting a license, just like a car!), and to register guns (just like cars).

 

[Rucker61]

That may be. I have no idea why you think the Militia Act is important.

The timing of the first laws regarding the Congress's power to "organize, arm, and discipline" the militia occurred the same year that Congress, increasing the size of the standing Army from 700 in the First American Regiment to an authorized force of 5,190. Over 4,000 troops were actually enlisted. This doesn't seem like the acts of a government opposed to a standing army.

The nation increased the budget of the War Department primarily for the purpose of funding the constructions of forts in major American ports.

Ft Sumpter, Fort Monroe and Fort McHenry were part of that program.

"The Legion of the United States was a reorganization and extension of the Continental Army from 1792 to 1796 under the command of Major General Anthony Wayne. It represented a political shift in the new United States, which had recently adopted the United States Constitution. The new Congressional and Executive branches authorized a standing army composed of professional soldiers, rather than relying on state militias.[1]

The Legion was primarily formed in reaction to multiple defeats in the Ohio country in 1790 and 1791, and to assert U.S. sovereignty over U.S. borders in the western territories and Great Lakes regions. "

Kochan, James (2001). United States Army 1783–1811. Men-at-Arms Series. Osprey Military. pp. 13–15. ISBN 1-84176-087-0.

The US did not raise a large standing army. Your claim notwithstanding.

I guess we can differ on the meaning of large.

Repeating text from the Heller decision doesn’t negate my point. The Heller decision is the law. I don’t care much for it. Tossing out the militia language of the Amendment, as the Heller decision did, is IMO not correct.

However, it’s the law.

That and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee.

Thus, barring the reversal of Heller, which is unlikely even in the intermediate future, other means must be found to protect the public from its most dangerous and irresponsible elements.

Of course, it would be much cheaper and more reliable if we simply took their guns away, and relegated gun ownership to people who have proven to behaved responsibly, (by being trained and getting a license, just like a car!), and to register guns (just like cars).

Given that we aren't going to do what you're suggesting, and that the current status is unacceptable, it's the white space between the two positions that can be interesting enough for discussion.

 

[RF667799]

That may be. I have no idea why you think the Militia Act is important.

The nation increased the budget of the War Department primarily for the purpose of funding the constructions of forts in major American ports.

Ft Sumpter, Fort Monroe and Fort McHenry were part of that program.

The US did not raise a large standing army. Your claim notwithstanding.

Repeating text from the Heller decision doesn’t negate my point. The Heller decision is the law. I don’t care much for it. Tossing out the militia language of the Amendment, as the Heller decision did, is IMO not correct.

However, it’s the law.

Thus, barring the reversal of Heller, which is unlikely even in the intermediate future, other means must be found to protect the public from its most dangerous and irresponsible elements.

Of course, it would be much cheaper and more reliable if we simply took their guns away, and relegated gun ownership to people who have proven to behaved responsibly, (by being trained and getting a license, just like a car!), and to register guns (just like cars).

Sigh.

The distinction between ownership of a motor vehicle, and use of the public highways to operate a motor vehicle has been explained hundreds of times. But the conflating continues.

Why not just say you want gun owners trained and licensed, rather than add in that nonsense "just like a car"?

The idea of background checks is that they do deny ownership to people who have proven themselves irresponsible or untrustworthy. I support them for the possession of both guns and motor vehicles.

 

[Rucker61]

Sigh.

The distinction between ownership of a motor vehicle, and use of the public highways to operate a motor vehicle has been explained hundreds of times. But the conflating continues.

Why not just say you want gun owners trained and licensed, rather than add in that nonsense "just like a car"?

I mean, neither car registration or licensing are there for crime control; registration is there to raise revenue. Gun training and licensing would just make more competent active shooters.

Of course, a cynical man might suggest that gun registration and licensing would be there to reduce the number of lawful citizens from exercising a protected right.

 

[TomFitz]

The timing of the first laws regarding the Congress's power to "organize, arm, and discipline" the militia occurred the same year that Congress, increasing the size of the standing Army from 700 in the First American Regiment to an authorized force of 5,190. Over 4,000 troops were actually enlisted. This doesn't seem like the acts of a government opposed to a standing army.

"The Legion of the United States was a reorganization and extension of the Continental Army from 1792 to 1796 under the command of Major General Anthony Wayne. It represented a political shift in the new United States, which had recently adopted the United States Constitution. The new Congressional and Executive branches authorized a standing army composed of professional soldiers, rather than relying on state militias.[1]

The Legion was primarily formed in reaction to multiple defeats in the Ohio country in 1790 and 1791, and to assert U.S. sovereignty over U.S. borders in the western territories and Great Lakes regions. "

Kochan, James (2001). United States Army 1783–1811. Men-at-Arms Series. Osprey Military. pp. 13–15. ISBN 1-84176-087-0.

I guess we can differ on the meaning of large.

That and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee.

Given that we aren't going to do what you're suggesting, and that the current status is unacceptable, it's the white space between the two positions that can be interesting enough for discussion.

Just so long as the discussion is serious. Not the usual ritual from gun defenders about mental health. And then some huffing and puffing from the politicians. The news cycle ends and the GOP winds up opposing money for mental health, as they‘ve always done.

 

[Rucker61]

Just so long as the discussion is serious. Not the usual ritual from gun defenders about mental health. And then some huffing and puffing from the politicians. The news cycle ends and the GOP winds up opposing money for mental health, as they‘ve always done.

For me, any discussion on mental health centers in the serious lack of mental health care providers. No amount of funding will address that shortage for the short or perhaps even long term.

 

[TomFitz]

Sigh.

The distinction between ownership of a motor vehicle, and use of the public highways to operate a motor vehicle has been explained hundreds of times. But the conflating continues.

Why not just say you want gun owners trained and licensed, rather than add in that nonsense "just like a car"?

The idea of background checks is that they do deny ownership to people who have proven themselves irresponsible or untrustworthy. I support them for the possession of both guns and motor vehicles.

Ironic, isn’t it! The gun/car comparison usually comes from gun advocates!

 

[Noodlegawd]

It is a felony if someone is injured or killed.

Double standard. If Dems were proposing that it should be a felony to put a pistol grip on a rifle, but only if someone is injured or killed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The bolded is a careless and pessimistic remark, you should have prefaced it with imo (in my opinion).

That would be a waste of words, as it's obvious that's my opinion.

To you.

Did you look deep enough?

Yes.

Show me.

2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2016 Nice truck attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Virginia Tech shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Luby's shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

University of Texas tower shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another divergent car analogy. How about we compare a hand held pistol grip weapon to a vehicle that is also designed as a weapon, like an M1 Abrams or an APC? Are those banned for civilian use?

Because what something is supposedly "designed for" is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Noodlegawd]

No good reason?

Maybe read the news once in a while.

Show me a news article that explains why we should make it a felony to put a pistol grip on a rifle.

 

[TomFitz]

For me, any discussion on mental health centers in the serious lack of mental health care providers. No amount of funding will address that shortage for the short or perhaps even long term.

OK,

The pattern is the same

Mass shooting occurs.

Shooter, is a disaffected loser growing up amongst people who have a lot of guns.

He’s mentally ill.

Cue calls from the gun crowd for more funding for mental health.

”Discover” that there aren‘t enough resources available.

Elect not to provide more funding for mental health.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

About once every three or four weeks these days. Actually, more than one a day.

Or we could go on trying to pretend this is normal.

 

[RF667799]

Ironic, isn’t it! The gun/car comparison usually comes from gun advocates!

I think I've seen it used equally on both sides. It's used slightly differently on each side, though.

Anti-gun rights advocates usually say something on the order of, "Guns should be regulated just like cars!"

Then upon examination, they decide that isn't what they want after all. Or they deflect to something else in an attempt to avoid the examination of the model they just proposed.