NRA Launches anti-Biden Attack Ads

[Waddy]

So pathetic how the right-wing organizations like the NRA, Liberty University, and trump count on their members and voters' stupidity to make themselves rich at their members and voters expense.

The modern GOP is the haven for snake-oil salesman - that's why trump has such a high approval rating within the current GOP - they're lambs being led to their slaughter.

And Democrats like getting it in the ass, they're so damn dumb. Bunch of sheep. Run by Antifa and other terrorist organizations. The majority of Democrats have never met a payroll, or paid income taxes, or built anything. Welfare queens. Takers, not makers. Democrats suck.

 

[lurchadams]

And Democrats like getting it in the ass, they're so damn dumb. Bunch of sheep. Run by Antifa and other terrorist organizations. The majority of Democrats have never met a payroll, or paid income taxes, or built anything. Welfare queens. Takers, not makers. Democrats suck.

So I take it you won't be voting for Biden?

 

[Rucker61]

So I take it you won't be voting for Biden?

Going out on a limb with that guess, aren't you?

 

[Redwing]

It's you who need to switch off Faux News.

1. Democrats don't control the rioters
2. No one's coming for your guns.

Bless your little heart.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[lurchadams]

Bless your little heart.

I feel sorry for you.

I know, believing in facts, not right-wing propaganda takes effort an intelligence. Life would be so simple if I got all my "information" from a washed-up, criminal reality star. I almost envy you.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I have already demonstrated, in Trump's own words, his absolute hatred for the Second Amendment.

His words are meaningless. His actions have strongly supported the Second Amendment.

His Executive Order banning bump stocks was also a violation of the Second Amendment.

I don't see how. Such a device does not seem terribly useful either for militia duties or for self defense.

Or are you not familiar with the phrase "shall not be infringed" from the Second Amendment?

Keep in mind that laws against weapons that are not appropriate for civilians or militiamen do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Trump is as much of a threat to the US Constitution as Biden, perhaps even more. Trump has already stated that he is willing to violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments in order to illegally seize firearms. As I demonstrated from Trump's own mouth. What more proof of Trump's anti-Second Amendment do you need?

His words are meaningless. His actions have strongly supported the Second Amendment.

Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.

Check out the reality of his actions defending and supporting the Second Amendment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"in common use for lawful purposes" is the appropriate measuring stick for determining what weapons are protected for civilian use.

I agree, but I think there are limits to the use of target shooting as a lawful purpose.

Target shooting weapons that are no more dangerous than self defense weapons or hunting weapons would certainly be covered by the Heller ruling.

But I don't think that setting up target shooting competitions for weapons that are substantially more dangerous than self defense weapons or hunting weapons would then give the more-dangerous weapons coverage by the Heller ruling.

The Republicans held the Senate and the White House. It would have been impossible to for the Democrats to have passed any laws on gun control.

It would be hard for the Republicans to keep this control if they had not given in on bump stocks.

True enough. That wasn't the case here.

Mr. Trump is appointing justices who will vote to apply Strict Scrutiny to the Second Amendment.

Mr. Biden if he is elected will appoint justices who will allow the Second Amendment to be wantonly violated.

Interesting claim in that Caetano v Massachusetts affirmed that the relative danger of a weapon has no bearing on whether it can be banned.

They said that the level of danger posed by guns in common use for lawful purposes cannot justify banning them.

They did not forbid banning weapons that are substantially more dangerous than guns in common use for lawful purposes.

Bump fire isn't illegal and can be performed with string, rubber bands and belt loops. Why aren't those banned?

Because progressives know nothing of guns and don't realize that such a thing is possible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your guns are safe.

Only because gun rights advocates will prevent Mr. Biden from taking our guns if he is elected.

He's certainly going to try if he is elected. We'll be ready for him though.

trumpublicans and the NRA are just trying to scare you in order to create another "run on guns" panic.

They are telling the truth about what Mr. Biden will try to do if he gets the chance.

This will be a windfall for gun and ammo manufacturers which is the trick gun nuts fall for every time a Democrat is elected president.

Pointing out facts and reality is not a trick. Joe Biden would be bad news without gun rights advocates to defeat him.

No one's coming for your guns.

Joe Biden is certainly going to try if he is elected, just like Barack Obama tried when he was elected.

Just like with Barack Obama though, Joe Biden will be defeated if he gets the chance to try.

 

[Rucker61]

Keep in mind that laws against weapons that are not appropriate for civilians or militiamen do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Are automatic weapons not appropriate for militiamen? US v Miller would seem to indicate that they are.

Laws that infringe on classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes do indeed infringe the right to keep and bear arms. See DC v Heller and Caetano v Massachusetts.

I agree, but I think there are limits to the use of target shooting as a lawful purpose.

You can certainly believe that, but you can't support that.

Target shooting weapons that are no more dangerous than self defense weapons or hunting weapons would certainly be covered by the Heller ruling.

But I don't think that setting up target shooting competitions for weapons that are substantially more dangerous than self defense weapons or hunting weapons would then give the more-dangerous weapons coverage by the Heller ruling.

You're welcome to provide all of the supporting documentation you can find. How do you measure "substantially more dangerous" objectively?

It would be hard for the Republicans to keep this control if they had not given in on bump stocks.

What control? Do you really think that the Senate is protected by the EO of Trump?

Mr. Trump is appointing justices who will vote to apply Strict Scrutiny to the Second Amendment.

Mr. Biden if he is elected will appoint justices who will allow the Second Amendment to be wantonly violated.

And this was the reason Trump got elected in the first place; he's screwed the pooch so badly since that he's really hurt his chances at re-election, and it's likely that the Senate will fall, too.

They said that the level of danger posed by guns in common use for lawful purposes cannot justify banning them.

They did not forbid banning weapons that are substantially more dangerous than guns in common use for lawful purposes.

You should reread Caetano. The "relative dangerousness" has no impact on "in common use for lawful purposes".

Because progressives know nothing of guns and don't realize that such a thing is possible.

I won't go into the consequences of that here.

 

[Waddy]

So I take it you won't be voting for Biden?

I'm not sure yet. I like being entertained, and I get bored easily. Biden could be even more entertaining than Trump. I'm just afraid his handlers will put him into the assisted care facility soon after he's elected and I'll have to listen to that bytch Harris drone on and on for four years.

 

[TurtleDude]

I know, believing in facts, not right-wing propaganda takes effort an intelligence. Life would be so simple if I got all my "information" from a washed-up, criminal reality star. I almost envy you.

Did you believe Biden's claim that he met with the survivors of that Florida school shooting when he was the VP? Even though it happened in 2018, as the father of one of the victims noted last night?

 

[lurchadams]

Did you believe Biden's claim that he met with the survivors of that Florida school shooting when he was the VP? Even though it happened in 2018, as the father of one of the victims noted last night?

Did you hear trump's claim that he has an excellent brain and hires only the best people? If you want to trade lies and idiotic things said by either candidate, I'm betting I can come up with more trump's in 3.5 years that you can with Biden's in 4 decades!

 

[TurtleDude]

Did you hear trump's claim that he has an excellent brain and hires only the best people? If you want to trade lies and idiotic things said by either candidate, I'm betting I can come up with more trump's in 3.5 years that you can with Biden's in 4 decades!

is that a roundabout way of admitting Biden lied?

 

[EnigmaO01]

IF they are, (and I'm not saying they are)then I would rather see all that money they made off of me make them filthy ass rich then I would be dead. You tend not to come back from that. You have been listening to the Merchants of Death Bunch.



Toggle Almendro' twit flick? Well it's not that far wrong. At all.

Here's the home of a past president of the NRA that profited handsomely and is hot water with the law over his bilking of the organization. This doesn't bother you?

 

[EnigmaO01]

His words are meaningless.

Wow isn't that the truth about Trump!

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Here's the home of a past president of the NRA that profited handsomely and is hot water with the law over his bilking of the organization. This doesn't bother you?

It doesn't bother me. What I'm concerned with is how effective the NRA is at protecting my rights.

I like the new ad campaign.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Are automatic weapons not appropriate for militiamen? US v Miller would seem to indicate that they are.

Unfortunately the government is violating the Constitution and not maintaining a proper militia, so currently there are no militiamen to assert their rights to these weapons.

However, militiamen if they existed would have the right to the real thing, not a crude approximation of the real thing. Bump stocks are only a crude approximation of a full-auto weapon.

Laws that infringe on classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes do indeed infringe the right to keep and bear arms. See DC v Heller and Caetano v Massachusetts.

Yes, but I don't count bump stocks as being in common use for lawful purposes.

You can certainly believe that, but you can't support that.
You're welcome to provide all of the supporting documentation you can find.

I define lawful purposes for a civilian as: hunting, self defense, and target shooting with a weapon that has the same lethality as a hunting/self defense weapon.

How do you measure "substantially more dangerous" objectively?

I look at how lethal hunting and self defense weapons are, and compare that to the lethality of other weapons.

If a weapon is much more capable of massacring a large group of people, then I would consider that weapon to be more dangerous.

What control? Do you really think that the Senate is protected by the EO of Trump?

I don't think Mr. Trump and the Republicans are in as much peril as the media is trying to portray.

However, whatever position the Republicans are in currently, they would be in a worse position if the Democrats were hammering them on the bump stock issue right now.

And this was the reason Trump got elected in the first place; he's screwed the pooch so badly since that he's really hurt his chances at re-election, and it's likely that the Senate will fall, too.

I don't see how Mr. Trump has done all that bad.

You should reread Caetano. The "relative dangerousness" has no impact on "in common use for lawful purposes".

Right, but it can have an impact on weapons that are not in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[Rucker61]

Unfortunately the government is violating the Constitution and not maintaining a proper militia, so currently there are no militiamen to assert their rights to these weapons.


However, militiamen if they existed would have the right to the real thing, not a crude approximation of the real thing. Bump stocks are only a crude approximation of a full-auto weapon.

I really don't know why you think you can just make stuff up.

The Constitution granted Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. Congress, using this authority, has passed five Militia Acts since ratification of the Bill of Rights to regulate the militia. Current law on militia regulation is 10 USC 246.

U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Whatever Congress decides the militia is according to the powers enumerated to Congress in the Constitution is "proper". Your opinion doesn't enter into it.

Yes, but I don't count bump stocks as being in common use for lawful purposes.

I define lawful purposes for a civilian as: hunting, self defense, and target shooting with a weapon that has the same lethality as a hunting/self defense weapon.

And I checked the Constitution again, and some random guy on the internet wasn't given any powers over the Bill of Rights. According to the Supreme Court, "dangerous and unusual" is conjunctive, meaning a class of weapons has to be both dangerous and unusual to be unprotected by the Second Amendment; in Caetano, the opposite of "unusual" is "in common use for lawful purposes", which was quantified in Caetano as "hundreds of thousands sold". That figure was later reduced to 64,890 in Malony v Singa. Sales of bump stocks exceed that figure and were thus in common use.

I look at how lethal hunting and self defense weapons are, and compare that to the lethality of other weapons.

If a weapon is much more capable of massacring a large group of people, then I would consider that weapon to be more dangerous.

And again, your opinion means nothing compared to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS. The shooter at Virginia Tech killed 30 people with handguns, one of which was a .22; a year later, SCOTUS affirmed that handguns are indeed protected by the Second Amendment. The shooter in the Cumbria shooting killed 12 people and wounded 11 more using a 5 shot bolt action .22 rifle and an antique 12 bore double barrel shotgun. I've seen cowboy action shooters fire 25 shots in 18 seconds using firearms invented in the 19th century.

However, whatever position the Republicans are in currently, they would be in a worse position if the Democrats were hammering them on the bump stock issue right now.

Right. The Senate Republicans had zero to do with the ban by Trump.

Right, but it can have an impact on weapons that are not in common use for lawful purposes.

And the types of firearms currently sold in the US that aren't in common use for lawful purposes is a very small set of firearms indeed.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I really don't know why you think you can just make stuff up.

I don't think you will be able to establish that I've made anything up.

The Constitution granted Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. Congress, using this authority, has passed five Militia Acts since ratification of the Bill of Rights to regulate the militia. Current law on militia regulation is 10 USC 246.

U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Whatever Congress decides the militia is according to the powers enumerated to Congress in the Constitution is "proper".

That is incorrect. The Constitution specifies certain things about the militia that can only be overruled by a constitutional amendment.

The mere fact that the Framers clearly hoped that the militia would be an alternative to a standing army means that a standing army does not count as the militia.

The Constitution specifies that the only federal role of the militia is to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

The Constitution specifies that the militia's officers are to be appointed by the states, and that the states are in charge of training the militia.

The Second Amendment specifies that militiamen get to keep their weapons instead of having them stored in a government armory.

The only part of that mess that you quoted that might even come close to fitting the Constitutional requirements for the militia are state guards. But not one state in the union has organized their state guards into an armed fighting force that might be plausibly considered a militia. Most state guards are completely unarmed.

Let me know when state guardsmen are allowed to buy their own machine guns on a Form 10.

Your opinion doesn't enter into it.

I didn't state an opinion. I merely pointed out reality.

Reality is always relevant.

And I checked the Constitution again, and some random guy on the internet wasn't given any powers over the Bill of Rights.

So your proclamations about what the Bill of Rights means are invalid?

According to the Supreme Court, "dangerous and unusual" is conjunctive, meaning a class of weapons has to be both dangerous and unusual to be unprotected by the Second Amendment; in Caetano, the opposite of "unusual" is "in common use for lawful purposes", which was quantified in Caetano as "hundreds of thousands sold". That figure was later reduced to 64,890 in Malony v Singa. Sales of bump stocks exceed that figure and were thus in common use.

Actually what Alito and Thomas said was: "stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country".

Emphasis added by me.

And again, your opinion means nothing compared to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS.

Your opinion about bump stocks means just as little as my opinion does.

The shooter at Virginia Tech killed 30 people with handguns, one of which was a .22; a year later, SCOTUS affirmed that handguns are indeed protected by the Second Amendment. The shooter in the Cumbria shooting killed 12 people and wounded 11 more using a 5 shot bolt action .22 rifle and an antique 12 bore double barrel shotgun. I've seen cowboy action shooters fire 25 shots in 18 seconds using firearms invented in the 19th century.

Notice how the massacre that used bump stocks was much deadlier?

Right. The Senate Republicans had zero to do with the ban by Trump.

They are politically much better off because of it.

And the types of firearms currently sold in the US that aren't in common use for lawful purposes is a very small set of firearms indeed.

Probably so. But bump stocks were part of that small set.

 

[Rucker61]

I don't think you will be able to establish that I've made anything up.

"Unfortunately the government is violating the Constitution and not maintaining a proper militia"

We can stop right here. The government has done exactly what the Constitution empowers it to do.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The government has done exactly what the Constitution empowers it to do.

That is incorrect. The Constitution does not empower the government to not have a militia.

 

[TurtleDude]

Unfortunately the government is violating the Constitution and not maintaining a proper militia, so currently there are no militiamen to assert their rights to these weapons.

However, militiamen if they existed would have the right to the real thing, not a crude approximation of the real thing. Bump stocks are only a crude approximation of a full-auto weapon.



Yes, but I don't count bump stocks as being in common use for lawful purposes.



I define lawful purposes for a civilian as: hunting, self defense, and target shooting with a weapon that has the same lethality as a hunting/self defense weapon.



I look at how lethal hunting and self defense weapons are, and compare that to the lethality of other weapons.

If a weapon is much more capable of massacring a large group of people, then I would consider that weapon to be more dangerous.



I don't think Mr. Trump and the Republicans are in as much peril as the media is trying to portray.

However, whatever position the Republicans are in currently, they would be in a worse position if the Democrats were hammering them on the bump stock issue right now.



I don't see how Mr. Trump has done all that bad.



Right, but it can have an impact on weapons that are not in common use for lawful purposes.

where do CIVILIAN police factor into your somewhat restrictive view of the second,

 

[Glitch]

And the types of firearms currently sold in the US that aren't in common use for lawful purposes is a very small set of firearms indeed.

I also fail to find where the Second Amendment restricts firearms to those "in common use for lawful purposes." I do know, however, the Second Amendment does state flat out that our individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Any restrictions on any man-portable weapon, firearm or otherwise, is an infringement of the Second Amendment. There is none of this nonsense about only firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" that the Supreme Court made up out of thin air. The Supreme Court is attempting to impose their own unconstitutional restrictions, and I'm not buying it for a second.

 

[CLAX1911]

So pathetic how the right-wing organizations like the NRA, Liberty University, and trump count on their members and voters' stupidity to make themselves rich at their members and voters expense.

The modern GOP is the haven for snake-oil salesman - that's why trump has such a high approval rating within the current GOP - they're lambs being led to their slaughter.

Funny how Democrats do the exact same thing but get a free pass.

Guess I'll have to go by policies and actions.

 

[Rucker61]

I also fail to find where the Second Amendment restricts firearms to those "in common use for lawful purposes." I do know, however, the Second Amendment does state flat out that our individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Any restrictions on any man-portable weapon, firearm or otherwise, is an infringement of the Second Amendment. There is none of this nonsense about only firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" that the Supreme Court made up out of thin air. The Supreme Court is attempting to impose their own unconstitutional restrictions, and I'm not buying it for a second.

I'm not selling it. You're living with it though.

 

[Rucker61]

That is incorrect. The Constitution does not empower the government to not have a militia.

We have a militia. See 10 USC 246. You don't like that, run for Congress and change the law.

 

[Eriech]

Here's the home of a past president of the NRA that profited handsomely and is hot water with the law over his bilking of the organization. This doesn't bother you?

Looks a lot like Biden's home who likewise profited handsomely from elected positions.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk