Biden calls 9mm ‘high-caliber weapons,’ suggests banning them

And if there isn’t?

What did I say that you are taking issues with?

 

Thank you for showcasing the constitution is not absolute. Biden is correct and you agree with him.

 

There's an awful lot of supposed CCW Dems around here that havn't weighed in on this issue of whether the most common CCW round should be banned or not.

...I wonder why?

Surely they understand that if the 9mm goes, so to goes the .38, .357, .40, .45...

What the hell are they carrying if not one of those?

 

Yeah you can't that's not constitutional absolutism it's knowing how to read.

But not what you are trying to claim is absolute.

It's absolute freedom of speech to be allowed to slander others.

Find me someone that's pro slander. Also find me someone that thinks individuals should be allowed to own nuclear warheads.

I won't hold my breath.

 

We don’t have to amend it — the courts have routinely ruled that the right to bare arms is not absolute. “Assault rifles” have already been banned once. Semi-automatic ones are currently restricted. Background checks are common place.

The foundation already exists to implement solutions.

 

Uh, do what?...lol

 

*It unconstitutionally exists*

Just as the right to abortion *unconstitutionally exists*

 

The court can't change the Constitution.

 

I have several handguns and a very Springfield .300 blackout that I love although I don’t get to shoot it much. No, it shouldn’t be. None of them should be banned

It should require registration, licensing and training however.

 

I love that you think you should get to have a right to weapons when women shouldn’t even have a right to their bodies.

 

So how is he acting like a King by voicing his beliefs?

 

Do you approve of the practice of overruling the constitution via bureaucratic regulatory fiat for all things, or just guns?

For example, do you think the way weed has been 'regulated' at the federal level has been done in a constitutionally and democratically legitimate manner?

 

It’s not their body, it’s a babies body. And it’s not about what I think, it’s about what the constitution says and it never grants the right to abortion. It’s a states issue as per the tenth amendment

 

And in the next few days the Supreme Court will overturn NY’s overly restrictive gun rules, further expanding upon their individual right interpretation since Heller.

 

The founders were implicit in their writings that the militia was to be trained. I have not yet have one person even attempt to argue that they actually meant all ”arms” should be completely unregulated.

Even the individuals that successfully made weed illegal acknowledged it wasn’t. I do support weed being made fully legal but regulated.

 

Forcing a woman to remain pregnant should fall under cruel and unusual punishment.

And no — the baby is feeding off the woman. Would it make you feel better if the fertilized cells were vacuumed out and left on a “peach tree dish”? Then you could successfully argue it is the “babies” body.

No one has the right to the life or organs of another. Even leaving humans do not have that right, why should a unconscious bundle of unformed cells?

 

Full auto firearms are not banned.

 

The president doesn't make laws.

 

True. And I agree with the founders on this. Unfortunely its my experience (having been involved with a state militia that requested training direction and was completely ignored) that TPTB are entirely uninterested in training the militia. As far as I can tell, the only interest fedgov and most state govs have with the militia would be the power to order it to disarm and disband, which the founders did not want to happen and arguably put preventative measures into the constitution (the 2A) to prevent from happening.

Given that US Code effectively defines 'the militia' as all adult US residents, what training requirements do you think 'the militia' (being all adult US residents, not just those intent on bearing arms) should be subject to?

It seems to me that's precisely what they meant. They did however build a process into the constitution that we could quite easily use to constitutionally restrict things like nukes and biological weapons that everyone (including me) will readily agree should not be sitting on our shelves at home, and thus would be easy to obtain the majority required for a constitutional amendment to that affect, which is how I believe they meant for such restrictive 'regulation' to be done.

Thats not really an answer to the question though. Do you believe the methods by which weed was 'regulated' (effectively banned) were constitutionally and democratically legitimate? I ask because most of our gun regulations were implimented via precisely the same methods used to effectively ban weed.

 

He shouldn't be voicing his beliefs as a servant. He is in a certain role in his beliefs are irrelevant

 

Basic firearms training, safety — stuff like that.

Weed wasn’t really regulated though, it was banned.

I don’t agree regulation should mean banned

 

Oh wow, when did you come to this as I haven’t seen you be an advocate for removing the speech of public servants over the last presidential term.

 

I'm not sure I recall any former president educating the upheaval of the Constitution this administration tried to do that with your dhs kgb nonsense. And it seems there is an attack on gun dealers who hold the FFL.

So it isn't just him voicing an opinion stating his intent to steal our rights.

You people don't surprise me there were people that voted for Adolf Hitler there is always people that want to be subject to dictators

 

Oh so it isn’t that public servants should shouldn’t be able to express their thoughts — only those that you disagree with. Interesting.

You still haven’t indicated how him expressing an opinion makes him a king?

How are FFL dealers being attacked? I have a friend that holds an FFL and I haven’t heard about this — we haven’t spoken in a few weeks due to work loads so that could be it.

It is fascinating that you equate people calling for common sense gun regulations such as expanded background checks, minimum age limits, licensing and training to voting for Hitler. That is such a huge leap in logic that I don’t even know how to respond to it.

Also, gun control in Germany was done by the Weimar Republic, the government that preceded Hitler’s, to comply with the Treaty of Versailles of 1919. Hitler deregulated weapons in the 1930’s.

 

No it's when they express their thoughts through taking away freedoms.

I never will because that wasn't my claim. But feel free to make as many strawman fallacies as you want.

Having their licenses revoked. The increase in licensure revocation has increased 500% since the ass clown took office. And during his vice presidency there was the fast and furious scam. But be blinded by your partisanship

Being uninformed isn't an argument.

Interesting that you are calling stupidity common sense.

"I want more power so let citizens have guns" is something no dictator in history ever said.

Go BS the gullible.

"To conquer a nation, first disarm is citizens." - Adolf Hitler. Bet he disarmed Poland.