Biden about to start a civil war.

[Clemson Goat]

- In remarks to reporters on the South Lawn last week, President Joe Biden hinted that he wanted to outlaw “high caliber” 9mm pistols.

Reports of the South Lawn presser show that President Biden suggested he wants to ban “high caliber” 9mm handguns. Biden also claimed a doctor once showed him an X-ray of a 22-caliber bullet lodged in a lung. He alleged the doctor said he could pull the bullet out and perhaps save a life. Biden then claimed that a lung could be blown out of the body by a 9mm round. Biden then wrongly stated The Second Amendment was never absolute.

 

[dpic73]

 

[DW4_2016]

unless you're killing kids and then there was nothing we could have done to prevent that.

 

[dpic73]

unless you're killing kids and then there was nothing we could have done to prevent that.

The 2nd amendment specifically says it's ok to kill kids with any weapon you choose.

 

[JoeBidenSniffsKids]

All I can say to Jim is good luck with that. Not gonna happen

 

[TigerGrowls]

Two out of context quotes. The 2nd Amendment has been decided in the courts already and its not going anywhere. Trying to make millions and millions of handguns illegal due to mag capacity is insanity.

Additionally the term weapons of war is a stupid slogan the left has adopted. All guns are made to injure/kill so thats stupid. Trying to limit magazine capacity to 10 or less is an ominous move by the dems. Most modern handguns have a 20 mag clip.

 

[yoshi121374]

Two out of context quotes. The 2nd Amendment has been decided in the courts already and its not going anywhere. Trying to make millions and millions of handguns illegal due to mag capacity is insanity.

Additionally the term weapons of war is a stupid slogan the left has adopted. All guns are made to injure/kill so thats stupid. Trying to limit magazine capacity to 10 or less is an ominous move by the dems. Most modern handguns have a 20 mag clip.

Thats completely wrong on handgun magazine size, almost no handguns have a standard magazine size with 20 rounds. Also show your ignorance calling it a clip.

 

[dpic73]

Two out of context quotes. The 2nd Amendment has been decided in the courts already and its not going anywhere. Trying to make millions and millions of handguns illegal due to mag capacity is insanity.

Additionally the term weapons of war is a stupid slogan the left has adopted. All guns are made to injure/kill so thats stupid. Trying to limit magazine capacity to 10 or less is an ominous move by the dems. Most modern handguns have a 20 mag clip.

You're arguing with two conservative Supreme Court justices? You know better because you read the Gateway Pundit? 😅

 

[yoshi121374]

You're arguing with two conservative Supreme Court justices? You know better because you read the Gateway Pundit? 😅

I'm sure that he has a law degree and has advanced legal experience right?

 

[DW4_2016]

I'm sure that he has a law degree and has advanced legal experience right?

Don’t forget about the COVID lab running in his garage

 

[TigerGrowls]

You're arguing with two conservative Supreme Court justices? You know better because you read the Gateway Pundit? 😅

So you are stating the 2nd amendment is on flimsy ground and ready to be rescinded?

 

[dpic73]

So you are stating the 2nd amendment is on flimsy ground and ready to be rescinded?

I didn't state anything. Just read what they both said and make up your own mind....err nevermind, the GWP decides what you believe...

 

[TylerHumpFrow13]

Here is a more applicable reading of 2nd amendment rights from Scalia and not in a meme. https://constitutioncenter.org/inte...tonin Scalia wrote the,the home,” Scalia said.

 

[dpic73]

Here is a more applicable reading of 2nd amendment rights from Scalia and not in a meme. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/on-this-day-a-divided-supreme-court-rules-on-the-second-amendment#:~:text=Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the,the home,” Scalia said.

And they are clearly referring to handguns here for defense of the home, which everyone agrees with. The opinions in the memes are referring to weapons that can quickly create mass casualties. Certainly a line must be drawn somewhere right? If they came out with a laser gun tomorrow that could take out 300 people with one pull of the trigger, should anyone be allowed to own that weapon?

This was the dissenting opinion in the article you attached:

"In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens questioned the majority’s logic. “The fact that the right to keep and bear arms appears in the Constitution should not obscure the novelty of the Court’s decision to enforce that right against the States. By its terms, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; read properly, it does not even apply to individuals outside of the militia context,” Stevens said.

 

[TylerHumpFrow13]

And they are clearly referring to handguns here for defense of the home, which everyone agrees with. The opinions in the memes are referring to weapons that can quickly create mass casualties. Certainly a line must be drawn somewhere right? If they came out with a laser gun tomorrow that could take out 300 people with one pull of the trigger, should anyone be allowed to own that weapon?

This was the dissenting opinion in the article you attached:

"In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens questioned the majority’s logic. “The fact that the right to keep and bear arms appears in the Constitution should not obscure the novelty of the Court’s decision to enforce that right against the States. By its terms, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; read properly, it does not even apply to individuals outside of the militia context,” Stevens said.

There is debate about whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to individuals or militias. Very clearly the founders, through their very actions in the American revolution among other actions and writings, believed that a non-federally sponsored militia is necessary to defend against tyranny, even ones on government. The founders in other places discussed the necessity of a people to keep their government in check, possibly through revolutionary means if it infringes upon certain inalienable rights.

This is clearly JPS dissenting opinion on the matter. Furthermore, I'm all for some regulation for the AR-15 but you should be able to own one if you meet age and training requirements. Also you are saying that this home defense is for handguns but that was the original point of this whole thread. That those handguns would be taken. So you admit that the whole premise of the thread is unconstitutional based on supreme court precedent.

 

[PawsFan_]

Biden then wrongly stated The Second Amendment was never absolute.

Hey Joe. Good luck amending the Bill of Rights.

 

[PawsFan_]

The 2nd amendment specifically says it's ok to kill kids with any weapon you choose.

So you are saying the 2nd Amendment makes abortion legal? Interesting.

 

[TylerHumpFrow13]

Here is an important quote from Jefferson who helped inspire the BofR. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Finally, reading several state amendments would lead one to believe that the intention of the writing of the 2nd amendment is to recognize that Madison was trying to blend the wording of some of the state conventions that said
MASSACHUSETTS

(October 25, 1780)

XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

AND


DELAWARE

(September 11, 1776)

18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

Many of the states also blended the two. The important thing to remember is that the idea of owning a firerm was recognized as preexisting, which Scalia agreed with. So a militia would be comprised of common able bodied men coming together with their OWN weapons not common people coming together and being provided weapons.

 

[PawsFan_]

There is debate about whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to individuals or militias. Very clearly the founders, through their very actions in the American revolution among other actions and writings, believed that a non-federally sponsored militia is necessary to defend against tyranny, even ones on government. The founders in other places discussed the necessity of a people to keep their government in check, possibly through revolutionary means if it infringes upon certain inalienable rights.

This is clearly JPS dissenting opinion on the matter. Furthermore, I'm all for some regulation for the AR-15 but you should be able to own one if you meet age and training requirements. Also you are saying that this home defense is for handguns but that was the original point of this whole thread. That those handguns would be taken. So you admit that the whole premise of the thread is unconstitutional based on supreme court precedent.

In state militias of old, INDIVIDUALS provided their arms and equipment when they joined the militia. The second amendment is very specific, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[TylerHumpFrow13]

In state militias of old, INDIVIDUALS provided their arms and equipment when they joined the militia. The second amendment is very specific, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I followed up with my thoughts in another post but I agree with you. Doesn't change the fact that there is debate. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is what causes debate.

 

[PawsFan_]

And they are clearly referring to handguns here for defense of the home, which everyone agrees with. The opinions in the memes are referring to weapons that can quickly create mass casualties. Certainly a line must be drawn somewhere right? If they came out with a laser gun tomorrow that could take out 300 people with one pull of the trigger, should anyone be allowed to own that weapon?

Since 1982 only 52 mass shooting events have used ANY SORT OF RIFLE.

Rifles aren't the problem.

 

[PawsFan_]

I followed up with my thoughts in another post but I agree with you. Doesn't change the fact that there is debate. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is what causes debate.

Just because someone creates a debate, doesn't mean it a valid argument. It simply shows a historical ignorance to the make up of a 18th and 19th century militia unit.

 

[PAWrocka]

Im a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, BUT ... I do agree with Scalia that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, i.e. there can be and should be regulation on what firearms the general population can and should own.

I DO NOT agree with Burger. His stated opinion on the purpose of the Second Amendment was for "state armies" and that "state armies" are the National Guard and that is considered a "militia" is 100% wrong. Its quite clear "the militia" applies to

(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.

soooo ya .... "the Militia" is NOT the "State Army"

 

[dpic73]

Since 1982 only 52 mass shooting events have used ANY SORT OF RIFLE.

Rifles aren't the problem.

Typical Republican, you don't give a sh*t about anybody else unless it happens to you. Tell those kids who smeared themselves with blood and played dead that we shouldn't care about assault rifles.

And you know damn good and well, any talk about reducing access to handguns is a complete non-starter. We should be focusing on something that has a chance of passing so that's what we should be focusing on. The problem is you don't want to do anything about the gun problem - period, so no need to waste time on this subject just so you can throw around some ridiculous red herrings.

 

[clempzenbill]

Passing more gun laws so mentally ill people can read them, decide not to illegally obtain a fireman and decide not to kill other people. Yah, that’ll work really really well I’m sure! Oh! Wait! We ALREADY HAVE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF GUN LAWS ON THE BOOKS. Criminals and mentally ill don’t give a shvt about gun laws. Most mass shootings occur in the states with the most stringent gun laws. That just came out in a new FBI crime statistics study.
All more gun laws will do is further devide the country and attempt to take away guns from people who don’t commit crimes with them. CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GET GUNS. THE CARTELS AND OUR WIDE OPEN BORDER WILL MAKE SURE OF THAT.
There are over 300,000,000 million guns in this country and they can’t stop anything else from being smuggled in so getting rid of guns is a totally unrealistic pipe dream. It would just make the cartels richer by creating a new illicit gun market and stratospherically increase crime by disarming citizens. Concealed carry laws drastically reduce violent crime everywhere they are passed. That is a statistical fact. In some US counties cwp holders have a lower arrest rate than police officers.
Over 100,000 people a year are dying from fentanyl now. Up 500% from 6 years ago. I’m sure all you leftists are going to DC and demonstrate against the porous Biden border policy allowing the vast majority of fentanyl into the country along with all the human trafficking and other drugs.
Oh and I’m sure you conveniently forget the fact that Trump tried to seal the border and the Demonrats did everything they could to fight it and stopped the border wall construction the day after they seized power. You people are desperately wicked hypocrites.

 

[dpic73]

Passing more gun laws so mentally ill people can read them, decide not to illegally obtain a fireman and decide not to kill other people. Yah, that’ll work really really well I’m sure! Oh! Wait! We ALREADY HAVE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF GUN LAWS ON THE BOOKS. Criminals and mentally ill don’t give a shvt about gun laws. Most mass shootings occur in the states with the most stringent gun laws. That just came out in a new FBI crime statistics study.
All more gun laws will do is further devide the country and attempt to take away guns from people who don’t commit crimes with them. CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GET GUNS. THE CARTELS AND OUR WIDE OPEN BORDER WILL MAKE SURE OF THAT.
There are over 300,000,000 million guns in this country and they can’t stop anything else from being smuggled in so getting rid of guns is a totally unrealistic pipe dream. It would just make the cartels richer by creating a new illicit gun market and stratospherically increase crime by disarming citizens. Concealed carry laws drastically reduce violent crime everywhere they are passed. That is a statistical fact. In some US counties cwp holders have a lower arrest rate than police officers.
Over 100,000 people a year are dying from fentanyl now. Up 500% from 6 years ago. I’m sure all you leftists are going to DC and demonstrate against the porous Biden border policy allowing the vast majority of fentanyl into the country along with all the human trafficking and other drugs.
Oh and I’m sure you conveniently forget the fact that Trump tried to seal the border and the Demonrats did everything they could to fight it and stopped the border wall construction the day after they seized power. You people are desperately wicked hypocrites.

Sound like you've been hitting the fentanyl pipe tonight gramps. Time to step away from the computer.

Trump signs bill revoking Obama-era gun checks for mental illness

The new law nullifies an Obama-backed rule that added people with mental illnesses to the national background check database.

www.nbcnews.com

Gov. Greg Abbott signs bill to allow Texans to carry handguns without a permit

House Bill 1927 allows anyone who can legally possess a firearm in Texas to carry a handgun in public without a permit. It goes into effect Sept. 1.

www.statesman.com

Governor DeSantis says Florida Legislature will pass 'constitutional carry' gun law

"Before I am done as governor, we will have a signature on that bill," Ron DeSantis said, reaffirming his support for an open carry law.

www.tallahassee.com

 

[firegiver]

So you are stating the 2nd amendment is on flimsy ground and ready to be rescinded?

You're kinda dumb, i think is what he's stating. The gun lobbies and your interpretation, which is really just what the gun lobby told you, is incorrect. Thats the point the justices are making. You just haven't read the actual amendment. Also, you lack historical context: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Facts are that access to guns has been further and further liberalized by the gun lobby and their money succeeding in getting justices in place on teh court and getting cases brought before them just look:
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370. The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of a Washington D.C. law which prohibited the possession of handguns. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.


Also, I bet you don't understand the racist themes that lead to the creation of the NRA nor what was going on in American civil rights at that time. Do you?