Biden Enjoys Armed Protection While Fighting to Disarm Americans

[Zzyzx_Road]

Remember, Obama had a Republican and a pro-lifer (two different folks) in his administration so the Democrats seemed more open to those views. Now with Trump, he has an amalgamation of yes men and toadies who must support all of his views.

Remember Obama called them “bitter clingers”. That didn’t go over very well.

 

[JonNC]

Ask the NRA about explosives. It blocked indentifiers in TNT. Is that a firearm?

The SCOTUS limits firearms to their definition.
If the NEA considers it a firearm, a claim I have not read, they are welcome to their opinion.

Well, there is hunting, too.

Not mentioned in the second, but certainly part of the overall reasoning for protection of the right itself.

The NRA says its a right for citizens to be armed to oppose the government.

That’s what the intent of the framers was. That is the intent of a well regulated militia.

The second amendment says nothing about self-defense. “Self-defense”’ in the second amendment in Heller and McDonald was sort of judicial activism, but conservatives won’t admit that.

Not according to the framers. Self defense and the security of a free state go hand in hand.
Judicial activism would be the silly claim that the second only covers muskets, or the ahistorical argument that the militia is the National Guard, or the dangerous notion that the tight only exists when government gives permission.

 

[JonNC]

Sir, I posted on a gun forum for years and “free loader” was the nicest thing said of me. The gun rights enthusiasts brook no alternative viewpoints.

Good for you. That’s your anecdotal experience and I have mine. There is a difference between differences of opinion and opposition to the second. Which did you present?

 

[Nepperhan]

There is a difference between differences of opinion and opposition to the second. Which did you present?

I’m a hunter. Which do you think?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

There is a difference between differences of opinion and opposition to the second. Which did you present?

I’m a hunter. Which do you think?

Your posts sound like opposition.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1. the right to keep and bear arms provides no right to harm others outside of self defense.

Here’s a question for you. Does the right to keep and bear arms provide the right to intimidate or threaten without actually using the weapon in an illegal manner?

 

[JonNC]

Here’s a question for you. Does the right to keep and bear arms provide the right to intimidate or threaten without actually using the weapon in an illegal manner?

Threaten and intimidate whom? An intruder in your home? Absolutely!
Is simply carrying a firearm an act of intimidation? No.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Here’s a question for you. Does the right to keep and bear arms provide the right to intimidate or threaten without actually using the weapon in an illegal manner?

Threaten and intimidate whom? An intruder in your home? Absolutely!
Is simply carrying a firearm an act of intimidation? No.

I am referring to protesters who brandish weapons to the steps of a state capitol. Do we have to wait until they actually pull the trigger?

 

[JonNC]

I am referring to protesters who brandish weapons to the steps of a state capitol

Did they threaten anyone? If they did, law enforcement should deal with them.

Do we have to wait until they actually pull the trigger?

Did they threaten anyone? Do you confiscate a car before someone drinks and drives?
Do you punish any crime before it happens.

Having a firearm is not a crime. It isn’t even a threat, necessarily. In fact, it is a protected right. Threatening someone without cause can be a crime. Using it to harm without cause is.

 

[Cathoholic]

It seems like a redefinition of intimidate to me.

I agree with you JonNC.
If they have broken no laws forget about it.

“Intimidation” can be interpreted by some people in society as others merely includes owning and carrying firearms.

We all saw the hystrionic stories about how America was falling into “the wild west” when C&C laws were being enacted.

It was all a baloney shoot.
We see the same type of emotional hystrionics with the corona panic and global warming.

Yes there are real issues with all three. But let’s not invent more issues and exploit the issues for political gain.

More and more people are seeing through that and the left is increasingly frustrated because the old playbook is not wirking as well anymore.

That’s WHY they can control social media, the press, the Universities, big tech, etc. and still struggle to win an election.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I am referring to protesters who brandish weapons to the steps of a state capitol

Did they threaten anyone?

Well, you tell me. If a group of white guys drives slow past a house where black people live and casually wave a noose out the side window and laugh, are they threatening the black family?

 

[JonNC]

Well, you tell me. If a group of white guys drives slow past a house where black people live and casually wave a noose out the side window and laugh, are they threatening the black family?

So here comes the race bait.
Change it. If a group of black guys drives slow past a house where white people live and casually wave a noose out the side window and laugh, are they threatening the white family?

Is a noose a gun?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So here comes the race bait.

Context is everything. There are times when walking down the street carrying a rifle is not intimidating to anyone else. And there are times when it is treating, even when no explicit threat is voiced. When shouting protesters are carrying guns and yelling at the police who are keeping order, they are acting in a threatening manner. It reflects very poorly on the millions of decent gun owners who would not think of doing such a thing. I find it extraordinary that you feel it is necessary to defend them.

 

[Nepperhan]

Your posts sound like opposition.

Your post sound like there is some implicit orthodoxy in gun ownership.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

. . . .

Isn’t the object of having a set of gun control regulations to cut down on gun violence and gun deaths? Yes? Then logically the biggest . . . return on investment . . . is to go where the problem is the worst. But the gun control proponents never want to talk about inner city shooters. Not when it is so much easier to target law abiding citizens.

@LeafByNiggle would rather talk about drive-by race bait scenarios than actually talk about inner city shooters. One of many examples of deflection and moving the goalposts.

So let me ask a question: do all lives count?

If the answer is yes, then why the greater concern for law abiding citizens in law abiding neighborhoods and the lesser concern for the inner city shooters? The corollary being: why the lack of concern for inner city shooting victims?

Now Leaf will say that’s a complex problem that will take more than just gun control laws and for once I will agree. It took decades to get to the current state of affairs and it will take years if not decades to change them. But that doesn’t excuse Leaf’s lack of desire to go there when the easy (and politically correct) solution is right here: let’s add some more laws for the law abiding and while we’re at it, let’s bait the gun rights folks. To be clear, Leaf isn’t the only one who thinks this way, this mindset is so common among the gun control proponents that the act of deflection regarding inner city shooters is nearly automatic.

I can live with the background checks. I can live with the TSA. What I refuse to accept is the lack of desire to seriously look at the inner city shooters. All lives count.

 

[Nepperhan]

The problem with inner city gun violence can be traced to lax gun control measures in some states where gun shows and straw buyers allow for multiple purchases of guns which end up on ghetto streets. Its like the Mexican drug trade where illegal drugs end up in America. Neither guns nor drugs are manufactured in the ghetto.

Further, there is much protest against gun violence and gun users in those communities being harmed by the violence, said protesters who could only be called leftists. These efforts include programs to reduce gun violence. People outside of those communities rarely know of those efforts.

Cranking up criticism of communities experiencing gun violence problems is blaming the victim.

Will gun legislation end illegal gun sales and violence? Probably not; no more than anti-abortion laws will end abortion.

 

[JonNC]

Context is everything.

No. Race seems to be everything.

There are times when walking down the street carrying a rifle is not intimidating to anyone else. And there are times when it is treating, even when no explicit threat is voiced.

Depends on the person viewing it. That’s why it is protected, because some people would deny the right.

When shouting protesters are carrying guns and yelling at the police who are keeping order, they are acting in a threatening manner.

So now shouting should be forbidden, too?
Did they point or use the firearm in a threatening manner? If the did, that should be properly prosecuted. Just having the firearm is a right! A protected right!

It reflects very poorly on the millions of decent gun owners who would not think of doing such a thing. I find it extraordinary that you feel it is necessary to defend them.

Now this we agree on. I find their actions unnecessary and counterproductive to their goals, and a poor reflection on those who act agree with their goals.
I feel the need to defend their rights to do so. I find it extraordinary that you can’t distinguish between defending the right and opposing the action.

 

[JonNC]

Your post sound like there is some implicit orthodoxy in gun ownership.

Yeah, it’s called the right to keep and bear arms. It is protected by the second amendment. It is further explained most recently in the MacDonald and Heller decisions. It doesn’t speak about hunting, or “no one needs”. It speaks about the right that cannot be infringed.
Now, that’s the Orthodoxy.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

OK, where can I order a surface to air missile? Those pesky jets from O’Hare are too noisy.

Acquiring surface to air capabilities is fairly easy. Some years ago in my free time I was building rockets and flying them just for the fun of it. However, there are lots of regulations that will limit what you can do. The FAA restricts you from going over 400 feet unless you get the device registered (there are a lot more rules on height ceilings in certain areas). To get a registration you have to first schedule a meeting with the FAA. To schedule that meeting with the FAA you must first schedule a meeting to talk to someone about your plans to schedule the meeting (seriously,I’m not making that up). And if your device goes above 400 feet it also must also transmit telemetry. A flight plan will have to be scheduled with the FAA before breaching the 400 foot ceiling. While your device is allowed to use passive stablization it isn’t allowed to actively guide itself (ex: using GPS to make corrections). If such capability were added then the device would be considered a munition. There’s a license needed for rocket’s in this category. As a private citizen you won’t be able to get one of those.

 

[Maximus1]

Being fair to Trump, he hasn’t fired everyone not a yesman and replaced with a yes man. I think there might be a few with integrity left