Biden, on video, lashes out at Detroit autoworker in profanity-laced gun dispute

Biden was unclear on that. Maybe, he means that thee may not possess more than 100 rounds of bullets.

 

Ok. Thanks. Thought maybe it made more sense to a certain audience. If that’s what he meant he’s pretty out of touch with a large demographic of voters. I don’t even know any Democrats that would want to be limited to 100 rounds of ammo. I’m liking Joe as the presumptive nominee. He makes me laugh.

 

Maybe he was referring to THIS:

Unlike the M16, which is fully automatic, the AR-15 is "semi-automatic," meaning a person has to pull the trigger for every shot. Most AR-15-type rifles are sold with a 30-round magazine, but it is possible to purchase after-market magazines with as many as 100 rounds. That means the speed with which you shoot is limited only by the speed at which you are able to pull the trigger. And that it's possible to keep firing up to 100 times before stopping to reload.

https://www.oregonlive.com/today/2016/06/4_things_you_need_to_know_abou.html

 

Could be. They have a history of foiling at least one mass shooting. Saved lives in the Aurora theatre shooting.

 

Biden said AR-14 to which there is no such thing. If he's ignorant about the guns, then why should we believe him on anything else gun related.

 

Biden’s hair hasn’t grown back

 

Don't believe him.
Don't vote for him.
Problem solved.

 

What is being debated are all of your statements that you have made in this conversation and all of them have been erroneous or dishonest depending on your motive. You just want to divert to just one subject and that one is still an erroneous non starter.

You said that you you were "confused" about my post and accused me of misstating the the conversation by leaving out facts about the conversation. Here is what you said about that:

1. In your post you said, "Nowhere in Biden's platform does he ever support taking away everyone's guns." Nobody said that the guy sadi that Biden supports "taking away everyone's guns". Why would you accuse me of misstating him on that?

2. You also said, "There is a good reason you chose not to include what that guy actually said and leave out the fact that the guy claimed Biden wanted to take away all our guns."
Again, the guy never said what you stated so I never "chose not to include what that guy actually said" as you accused me of. Why did you accuse me of misstating that?

3. You also stated that the person asking the questions of Biden said "the guy claimed Biden wanted to take away all our guns". He did not say that. Why did you say that he did?

After you address those previous accusations that you made to debate the subject we can move to whether the SCOTUS ruled that AR-15s are covered by the Second Amendment.

 

I didn't fail, you simply refuse to acknowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

There's some data. The difference between the US and the UK? Guns are readily available in the US at relatively low cost with little to no regulation. The result? The US has 120.5 deaths per 100,000 and the UK has 2.8 per 100,000.

They aren't because we made them illegal simply to own. We banned an entire class of bearable arms, something you claim we can't do. Again, IF there was not outright ban on bazookas, could I not have a picnic with one legally? Absolutely. But I can't. Why? Because we, as a society, determined that the ownership of a bazooka by citizens does more harm than good. So we banned them. It's that simple. You refuse to engage on this because you know you can't win. So just concede that it undercuts your argument as it's apparent.

Really? I have to google FOR you??

Here's the definition from the 1994 ban since you are incapable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Any weapon can be defined as part of a "class" of weapons. You are just making up a definition that has no legal basis. Bazookas are a class of weapon. They are also banned. See? You're class of weapon legal argument fails because you are ignoring the context of the ruling. You cannot cite specific precedent and then apply it generally. You also cannot cite precedent that applies to local government and declare it applicable to the federal government. There are different powers held by different governments. A local government, per the supreme court, cannot ban all pistols as that would infringe upon the rights of people to defend themselves which is a legal endeavor. However, there is nothing saying that my list of restricted specifications above is unconstitutional. There are several weapons in many so called classes that meet the specifications above and many in those same classes that do not. As such, the ban is specific to specification, not class. More over, the argument than an assault weapon is required for self-defense won't hold either. People have defended themselves with all sorts of weapons successfully. So there isn't anything you can say that would change that reality.

Let me sum it up this way. Guns are only designed to kill. Cite any other use for a gun. Traditionally legal purposes are ONLY hunting (killing) and self defense (killing). There is no other outcome a gun is designed to deliver. It's you are refusing to answer my questions. Bazookas CAN be used for hunting. Bazookas CAN be used for self defense. They may be less effective, but they can be used. If I choose to hunt deer with a bazooka, who are you to say I can't? What rational argument can you make that can't also be made against using a gun? If guns aren't designed for efficient killing, especially assault weapons, then we should immediately remove them from military service and replace them with what? You refuse to answer these questions because it undercuts your BELIEF that guns are more than they are. Tools for killing. It's OK to admit that's what they are. It doesn't change the fundamental right to gun ownership even if you do.

 

Of course you didn't catch it. You don't read posts and respond to them, you just rehash canned responses over and over. If you spent more time reading and less time translating to Latin, you would have.

But the real question, and if you can answer it without googling, is why aren't revolvers technically semi-automatics? They do provide the same result as a semi-auto, one shot per trigger pull, at least in a double action which is what most people buy these days when they buy revolvers. Outside of collectors, no-one is really into old fashioned six shooters.

OK, since you'll cheat anyway, the strict definition of a semi-auto is that is uses the gases from the previously fired round to eject the spent casing and ready the chamber to fire the next round. A double action revolver uses the pull of the trigger to rotate the barrel to fire the next round. The end result is you can fire either weapon as fast as you can pull the trigger. The manner of operation is irrelevant, whether you do it with springs or escaping gasses. Either way, a double action revolver gets you the same result as a semi-automatic pistol or rifle, you can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. That is the point, but yes, on a technicality, you can once again win. Watch me care...

 

It's really hard to say what Biden was saying...or for that matter talking about....he's really all over the place, tends to make no sense when he speaks and goes on rants laced with curse words often

 

Good job responding to the ONE sentence in the entire post...

Technically, you are correct, but as it turns out, being correct on this doesn't matter. A double action revolver, which is the revolver people buy today for self-defense purposes, not Wyatt Earp's six shooter, is one shot per pull of the trigger. HOW it accomplishes this technically makes it not semi-automatic, but the method by which is does this matters little and you know it. How do I know you know? Because if I said "we should ban weapons that you can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger," you would cite the double action revolver as evidence against such a statement. Lie and tell me I'm wrong.

You gun guys are all the same. Thinking that if someone isn't an expert, they have no say. That's just a means to escape the real point of guns. They are designed to efficiently kill. People or animals, either way, that's the purpose of the gun. That's why we invented them, to kill easier. And we invented them as means of war, not for hunting, that was just a side thing. So we invented them to more efficiently kill people. And they do that. We can make someone proficient in weeks with a gun. It took much longer with previous weapons to gain the same lethality. So, when it comes to allowing these killing devices in society, we should, by the simple logic a fire year old possess, restrict them.

 

I hear you.

And, I get it.

That said, his opponent (Trump) is a 24/7 "Gaffe Machine" (also).

So, I guess the Dems. want "to fight fire with fire".

But, yeah. As evidenced by the OP:

Joe can sometimes "snap".

 

es

There are gaffes and then there is mental cases.....Biden is mentally out of it

 

Maybe the Dems strategy is to hide him after Sunday's Debate, and then claim that he can't appear in public because of the Virus?

Then he can be "Weekend at Bernie's" before they resurrect him for the Fall debates?

Sounds like a plan.

Just WIN, Baby.

 

This is what the guy said:
"You are actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns."

Ending second amendment rights isn't simply adding gun control restrictions or banning certain types of guns. Ending second amendment rights means a complete gun ban. And he even says very directly that Biden wants to take away our guns.

So yes, that worker was lying about Biden. And that worker was full of ****. And yes, that worker was being completely disrespectful to a major political candidate and embarrassed himself.

You chose to exclude his statement from your OP, and instead only include Biden's response. Why would you include the response and not the initial statement that the response was for? Because you wanted to cherry pick the conversation to make Biden look bad.

 

I get why you're confused.....

 

You are wrong, a semi auto accomplishes 3 functions when pulling the trigger, it ejects the spent casing, reloads a new one and cocks the firing pin. It does not take an "expert" to know what a "semi automatic" is, just basic facts. You can say same it's the same, but it's not.

Wyatt Earp's "single action" six shooter is like a double action..,with only one difference, the trigger does not reset the hammer, you do it manually. Most double actions can also be fired in single action mode. I prefer it for it's accuracy, much lighter trigger pull.

I responded to your single sentence because that's all I wanted to. Especially in light of your boast "I am really smart". Might want to check your facts before making such a claim.

Many folks enjoy target shooting, the vast majority in fact. The more you know...

 

Uh, what is the end result of all this action? The same as a double action revolver. You want to get technical but the end result is the same just accomplished by a different method. Do you dispute that a double action revolver and semi-automatic weapon allow you fire one shot per pull of the trigger with no other action required? It's a yes or no question.

Yes, and it fires slower, correct? So again, my point is if you have to take time to reset the hammer, that's less people you can kill in that same amount of time. Hence we invented the double action revolver and also why semi-automatics were created, to increase killing efficiency. Feel free to respond yes or no there too.

Oh I still am very smart. You see, despite not having all the facts, I've already arrived at a conclusion I'm not leading you to arrive at. Of course you will no refuse because you see that in the end, my statements are still accurate. That is that a double action revolver and a semi-automatic accomplish the same goal, increased firing rate by automating the reloading and prep of the weapon to fire with just a pull of the trigger. So you can compliment yourself all you want, but you haven't disputed anything that matters in terms of the discussion I was having.

Do you know what target shooting is? It's teaching someone how to be a better marksman. You know, to kill better. Duh. But you're telling me that target practice isn't about killing? It's just a fun, recreational hobby? Then I don't need a constitutional amendment to protect a hobby, so let's repeal the second amendment as it's not needed. Unless you want to support my amendment for guitar playing or playing recreational soccer.

 

You ignored my post and choose to only debate one point and yet I did address this point and all you did was say, "did not". Is reading hard for you?

 

Biden has lost it.

 

Smart people dont make un informed comments, such as calling a revolver a semi auto. Or try to argue that guns are only for killing. I own a single action, muzzleloading revolver. I have fired it maybe 100 times. One round was lethal, to that feral hog we ate. The rest "killed" empty cans and paper targets, like the vast majority of guns do.

Millions of "assault" rifles, kill no one every day, across America. But those empty cans are in big trouble, mister!!!

 

Yes they do, it's called winning. That's what smart people do. You should try it one day.

Guns are only for killing. You practiced on the bottles to kill the feral hog. And further proof, would you use that gun to kill someone attacking you? If the answer is yes, then we all know the truth. You can lie to yourself if you must, but it's sort of sad.

So you failed to answer the questions put to you. If guns don't exist for self defense or defending the Union but for plinking bottles which is just a game that doesn't improve one's ability to kill, then why not repeal the 2nd amendment? It's just a hobby and they are just toys, per your own words.

 

What sort of person would NOT defend their self with the best tool if you were in mortal danger? A smart person uses the best tool for the job. Face it, you embarrassed yourself by saying revolvers are semi auto.

At this point, a truly intelligent person would simply admit being mistaken and stop digging that hole. Pride is a vice and humbleness allows you to say "I was mistaken".

I never said It's just a hobby and they are just toys, now you add a lie, on top of your erroneous statement.

 

Biden's position is quite clear, and everyone understands it - his claim that he respects the rights of gun owners and the 2nd Amendment is a lie.