VP Harris calls for 'assault weapons ban' on guns 'intentionally designed to kill' people

[1911'S 4 Me]

Biden wakes up in the morning saying cock-a doodle do.
Harris wakes up saying any cock will do.

 

[baboon]

Biden wakes up in the morning saying cock-a doodle do.
Harris wakes up saying any cock will do.

I haven’t been up very long this morning, but now I’m going to pretend my toilet is her mouth and feed her some shit to keep her brain strong.

 

[Axxe55]

United States v Miller, 1939. The Supreme Court upheld the NFA in the case of a sawed-off shotgun because

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Wait...you mean the Supreme Court set precedent that we're supposed to have weapons of military use? Yes, yes they did. While they were upholding a law that in itself is an egregious violation of the Second Amendment, they still verified that we're supposed to have weapons that would be useful on the battlefield. Because the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or shooting ranges.

I came here to post this.

I'm amazed by the number of gun owners who haven't read the Miller decision.

The decision itself is...well...legally questionable. The justices were bending over backward to rule in the government's favor because Miller himself was a known bank robber who was apparently on his way to rob a bank when he crossed state lines with his sawed-off shotgun and got nabbed. But bringing in the actual meaning of the opening clause about the militia should have set precedent in how the Second Amendment is read and obeyed where gun control laws are concerned.

I suspect so many people are ignorant of the Miller decision because so many don't want knowledge of it to influence resistance to gun control laws. Out of sight, out of mind.

I have read that decision some years ago, I'm kind of perplexed as to why no one has used it to challenge some of the existing restrictive gun laws that have been passed.

Could the new SCOTUS ruling in NYSRA v. Bruen give the possibility of having a better challenge today?

 

[B. Wright]

The decision itself is...well...legally questionable. The justices were bending over backward to rule in the government's favor because Miller himself was a known bank robber who was apparently on his way to rob a bank when he crossed state lines with his sawed-off shotgun and got nabbed. But bringing in the actual meaning of the opening clause about the militia should have set precedent in how the Second Amendment is read and obeyed where gun control laws are concerned.

I suspect so many people are ignorant of the Miller decision because so many don't want knowledge of it to influence resistance to gun control laws. Out of sight, out of mind.

Be careful spreading this knowledge. They might build a time machine to go back and picket the justices in their homes.

 

[benenglish]

Out of sight, out of mind.

Possibly. But in my view, if the courts had paid proper attention to Miller, Dred Scott, and Cruikshank (and Presser, too? IDK; I haven't read it in a while.), we wouldn't have needed Heller.

Cruikshank held that 2A rights were pre-existing, natural rights. Dred Scott accepted (in an "Everybody knows that; why are we having to say it again?" way) the fact that the 2A was, in every way, the equal of all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Miller held that the arms protected by the 2A were those suitable for infantry use.

We didn't need any more than that. But then along came Scalia's detestable urge to comment on more than the case before him.

He started his commentary on Miller and deciding what type of guns are under consideration with "We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually)..." Really? "Hey, this question may come up in the future so I'm just gonna throw in a few paragraphs here" hardly seems to me to be the sort of thing that should be part of a SCOTUS decision. Then he proceeded to interpret Miller as saying the exact opposite of what the plain language of the decision says. In fact, in Heller he says that the plain text, I'm-just-reading-English words of Miller would, if taken literally, constitute "...a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns ... might be unconstitutional..."

Well, no shit, Sherlock. I wanted to wring Scalia's neck for that. He was so anxious to make the Heller decision palatable to the political class that he pre-emptively threw short-barreled long guns and automatic weapons under the bus.

Heller is important but it also contains political maneuvering that renders it only a partial win for 2A rights. And, in fact, it (probably) forecloses the possibility of ever regaining the rights that were lost due to the NFA.

Heller was not purely a good thing; there's substantial bad in that decision, too.

 

[Otto_Mation]

She states that "certain semi-automatic firearms are "intentionally designed" to kill people and only belong on the battlefield." I would argue that most Democrat run cities are a battlefield. I would also argue that she is an idiot, all self defense weapons are designed to kill people, bad people. Otherwise they would be useless.

 

[Sam7sf]

Issues with a persons argument always develop when they don’t understand what they are talking about. It’s the norm now. Have a heavy opinion on things they know nothing about.

 

[Axxe55]

She states that "certain semi-automatic firearms are "intentionally designed" to kill people and only belong on the battlefield." I would argue that most Democrat run cities are a battlefield. I would also argue that she is an idiot, all self defense weapons are designed to kill people, bad people. Otherwise they would be useless.

Sorry, but you are helping to perpetrate their lies and misinformation. Guns are not designed to kill, anymore than vehicles, knives or baseball bats. Guns are designed to fire a bullet from a cartridge, nothing else and nothing more.

 

[Otto_Mation]

Sorry, but you are helping to perpetrate their lies and misinformation. Guns are not designed to kill, anymore than vehicles, knives or baseball bats. Guns are designed to fire a bullet from a cartridge, nothing else and nothing more.

Sorry but nothing could be further from the truth. Vehicles are designed to get you from place to place, knives are designed to cut, baseball bats are designed to play the game of baseball. All of which however, could be used as a weapon. Guns are a weapon. Weapons are defined as: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword. I am not perpetuating their lies. I am stating that the libtards have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Axxe55]

Sorry but nothing could be further from the truth. Vehicles are designed to get you from place to place, knives are designed to cut, baseball bats are designed to play the game of baseball. All of which however, could be used as a weapon. Guns are a weapon. Weapons are defined as: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword. I am not perpetuating their lies. I am stating that the libtards have no idea what they are talking about.

And spoons and forks are to blame for people getting fat, and pencils are to blame for misspelled words.

Saying guns are designed to kill is perpetrating the liberal's interpretation of what they think about guns.

 

[Otto_Mation]

And spoons and forks are to blame for people getting fat, and pencils are to blame for misspelled words.

Saying guns are designed to kill is perpetrating the liberal's interpretation of what they think about guns.

Your first statement is on point. We are just going to have to disagree on your second statement. Liberal's interpretation of guns is just wrong period. Lets say that they are designed to stop a perp from causing harm and if he is killed in the process, so be it.

 

[Axxe55]

Your first statement is on point. We are just going to have to disagree on your second statement. Liberal's interpretation of guns is just wrong period. Lets say that they are designed to stop a perp from causing harm and if he is killed in the process, so be it.

How a gun is used can lead to death, just as how a vehicle, a knife or a baseball bat is used can lead to death.

Our job is not to help liberals in their interpretaton of what guns are designed for. in doing so, we are helping to villify the inanimate object, rather than the person that uses the object for evil deeds.

If guns are designed to kill, then all of mine have failed at what they were designed to do.

 

[Otto_Mation]

Again, I disagree. It is the same as the augment that you do not need an AR15 to hunt deer. The second amendment or the right to self defense or owning an AR15 or a weapon has nothing to do with hunting and I will never concede that point. I will also never concede the point that I don't need an AR15 or any weapon. Guns are weapons. The fact that liberals are delusional will never be solved by denying the purpose of your weapon and your right to use or own it. So you define weapon.

 

[msharley]

How a gun is used can lead to death, just as how a vehicle, a knife or a baseball bat is used can lead to death.

Our job is not to help liberals in their interpretaton of what guns are designed for. in doing so, we are helping to villify the inanimate object, rather than the person that uses the object for evil deeds.

If guns are designed to kill, then all of mine have failed at what they were designed to do.

Swimming Pools, trains, bridges, electric devices/lines....weather....pillows, Dr's Office....

Any and all of the above and MORE have been used to end human life....

To my knowledge, "MEDICAL MISADVENTURE" is good for 500,000/year!

The first recorded MURDER in human history? One brother slew another...........with a Rock!

 

[Vaquero]

It's true that guns are designed to kill, or for competition.
Shotguns are for bird hunting, small game hunting. Medium sized game or self defense with proper loads.
Handguns are for self protection in somewhat confined areas.
Rifles are for hunting, war, sport.

Any one of those can be deadly.

We, as free men, can use them as we see fit.
I know people who hunt with target rifles.
I know people who shoot handguns at long distances. Some use shotguns for skeet or trap. Some just hunt dove or quail.

They're just a lot better than a spear or slingshot for launching projectiles.

The user is the one who decides what the purpose is.

It's never been a gun problem.
It's a people problem.

 

[General Zod]

Firearms are designed to put a projectile in the spot they are aimed at when the trigger is pulled, consistently and reliably. They have no conscience or motivation, and they are not designed with any moral decision pre-made.

 

[Axxe55]

Again, I disagree. It is the same as the augment that you do not need an AR15 to hunt deer. The second amendment or the right to self defense or owning an AR15 or a weapon has nothing to do with hunting and I will never concede that point. I will also never concede the point that I don't need an AR15 or any weapon. Guns are weapons. The fact that liberals are delusional will never be solved by denying the purpose of your weapon and your right to use or own it. So you define weapon.

Show me anywhere in the 2nd Amendment that "need" was mentioned or implied?

I'll also ask you to show where "weapons" was mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Axxe55]

Firearms are designed to put a projectile in the spot they are aimed at when the trigger is pulled, consistently and reliably. They have no conscience or motivation, and they are not designed with any moral decision pre-made.

Exactly. Guns are an inanimate object, that has no thoughts, or feelings, or emotions. Guns can be neither good or bad, only the actions of the person using the gun can be defined as good or bad. Guns also will never do anything without human interaction.

 

[Otto_Mation]

Show me anywhere in the 2nd Amendment that "need" was mentioned or implied?

I'll also ask you to show where "weapons" was mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?

This is becoming ridiculous and I don't see where these statements are coming from. "Need" was never implied in what I said. Need is the statement used by liberals, not me. The right to keep and bear "Arms" shall not be infringed. Weapons = Arms. Feel free to use them interchangeably.

 

[Axxe55]

This is becoming ridiculous and I don't see where these statements are coming from. "Need" was never implied in what I said. Need is the statement used by liberals, not me. The right to keep and bear "Arms" shall not be infringed. Weapons = Arms. Feel free to use them interchangeably.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 2nd Amendment was never about "need" but affirming the right that everyone had the right to self defense.

I'll also believe that guns were not designed to kill. I'll concede the point that they can be used for that purpose, but the actions of the user are more relevant than the object that is used for the action, whether good or bad.