US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by August

What I took from that is Biden thinks constitutionally guaranteed rights can be infringed upon. He's talked repeatedly about gun bans and other infringements. I don't buy at all that he was referring to law breakers.

When it comes to weapons bans yes we must be wary, IMO when given the opportunity government does tend to overreach in matters, especially emotionally charged ones. Banning a firearm just because it looks a certain way I think is an immature emotional argument. Those same people have no problem handing out medications like candy known to cause violent, homicidal, and suicidal thoughts and behavior to children and adults with access to firearms. That’s OK though because you know science loves you.

Look on the bright side even the mention of a ban and firearm sales skyrocket, it’s good for business.

I think most current bans of firearms are on foreign imports which is OK in my book, its good for American business

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by les green01

“I respect the culture and the tradition and the concerns of lawful gun owners, Biden said from the White House. “At the same time, the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute.”

Until they Amend the Constitution it is an absolute right for me to keep and bear arms.

Originally Posted by Dowly

He's 100% correct, so what's the problem?

Read the following excerpt from Biden to a reporter and see if you can spot the outright falsehoods He is basing his "gun Policy" on. The guy is a liar and an opportunist, not to mention his cognitive issues. I don't want him anywhere near "my Constitutional rights".

Q Sir, do you think there is anything different in how Republicans will approach the gun reform question now, given the circumstances?

THE PRESIDENT: Since I haven’t spoken to them, I don’t know. But my guess is, if they have — if they — yes, I think they’re going to have to take a hard look.

Q Is there one element — is it aid, is it red flag, is it some component that you think could be most successful now?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s hard to say because I have not been negotiating with any of the Republicans yet. And I deliberately did not engage in a debate about that with any Republican in — when we were down consoling the families in Texas. So I don’t — I don’t know what is the most — how far it goes.

I know that it makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds. I know it makes — and I know what happened when we had rational action before, back in — when the crime bill was — the law that got passed. It did significantly cut down mass murders.

And so there’s only one reason for something that can fire, you know, 100 shots.

I mean — and I’ll just conclude with this: Look, when I first started doing hearings on the issue of what rational gun laws should be, it was during a period when I was a senator and the death rate was going up. Not that many more people were being shot, but the death rate was up. And when I think of — I’m not sure, I think it was (inaudible) hospital in New York — whatever the largest trauma hospital is.

And I sat with a trauma doctor, and I asked him — I said, “What’s the difference? Why are so many people…” — and not that many more people were being shot. This is now 20 years ago, or 25 years. I said, “Why are they dying?” And they showed me x-rays. He 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 of — there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting. I mean, I just — and remember, the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute. You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weapons.

[Dowly]

I wasn't commenting his gun policy, only replying to what les_green01 said.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Until they Amend the Constitution it is an absolute right for me to keep and bear arms.



Read the following excerpt from Biden to a reporter and see if you can spot the outright falsehoods He is basing his "gun Policy" on. The guy is a liar and an opportunist, not to mention his cognitive issues. I don't want him anywhere near "my Constitutional rights".

Why can't you buy automatic weapons?

Mark Finchem who doesn't know anyone who voted Democrat has lost in Arizona.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/1...-2022-00064765

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Why can't you buy automatic weapons?

Mark Finchem who doesn't know anyone who voted Democrat has lost in Arizona.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/1...-2022-00064765

I give up, why can’t you buy an automatic weapon?

Last I checked depending on what state you live in it’s still a fairly simple process to legally own one.

[Buddahaid]

The point is there are restrictions.

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I've mentioned it before. According to your 2nd Amendment you are allowed to carry a weapon.

Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment can I read what kind of weapon it has to be. Which for me indicate that it's up to you to decide what kind of weapon you want. On the other hand it also give the government carte blanche to add law to your 2nd Amendment saying Americans are free to carry only 9 mm pistol. Owner of bigger gun has to go through exercise and other things(Here I'm thinking psychological test and other test)

Markus

That's because you think the 2nd amendment grants a right, it does not. It merely recognizes the PRE-EXISTING right with a pledge not to infringe upon it which would be exactly what the government would be doing with it's bans and qualifications and restrictions.

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

The point is there are restrictions.

Unconstitutional restrictions.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by August

Unconstitutional restrictions.

The second amendment says nothing about having to be a law abiding citizen. Do you then think it's unconstitutional to prevent convicted felons from owning?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

That's because you think the 2nd amendment grants a right, it does not. It merely recognizes the PRE-EXISTING right with a pledge not to infringe upon it which would be exactly what the government would be doing with it's bans and qualifications and restrictions.

Thank you Dave for enlighten me..Yes you are right I thought it grants you right to bear arms, but not what kind of weapon.

Markus

[Hawk66]

Sometimes I think for some people, carrying weapons or have the right to do so is one of the most important things to consider these days. I thought there are other challenges these days, but maybe I am plain wrong.

I am just asking myself if one cares about all the victims of shotguns in the same way, even if that is not considered in any law or Amendment or whatever.

Sure, there are other ways people get harmed or harm them self, legally.

Maybe the solution is just trying to correct ALL things ALL together, which are harming people - instead of blaming the other side not recognizing their protection of some devil's things ?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by MaDef

The guy is a liar and an opportunist, not to mention his cognitive issues

Now this comment is hard to argue against. Consider the largest age group of voters to turn out in 2022 were 18-29 year olds. Imagine if the court had struck down Biden’s unconstitutional and unilateral student loan forgiveness before early voting; before Election Day. Lots of young folks sent in ballots and went to the polls under the guise that their student debt was going to be forgiven.

In addition to liar and opportunist I would add Huckster to the list.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

The point is there are restrictions.

A purchase process is not a restriction, there are no federal laws preventing any law abiding citizen from purchasing them. Only restriction to prevent purchase or possession is placed on convicted felons.

I forgot besides convicted felons you now have to be at least 21 years of age. Those are restrictions.

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Thank you Dave for enlighten me..Yes you are right I thought it grants you right to bear arms, but not what kind of weapon.

Markus

You're welcome. There are those that would have us believe the federal government grants the rights enumerated in the constitution and that was a big fear among some of the founding fathers when the Bill of Rights was written, that others would take it that way for their own nefarious reasons.

[mapuc]

I have no comment to this. I just said to myself this page has to be posted in our US-politic thread.

Well only this comment-Guess you will disagree with what it says.

https://jonmcnaughton.com/last-suppe...lessed-nation/

Markus