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

[oldag]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vp-harris-calls-assault-weapons-ban-guns-designed-kill-people

Vice President Kamala Harris on Sunday called for the reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, arguing that certain semi-automatic firearms are "intentionally designed" to kill people and only belong on the battlefield.

 

[baboon]

Kackling cum dumpster

 

[GasGuzzler]

Thus the "hunting only" change to the Constitution is underway...even though the Founding Fathers didn't mention hunting and their intent was to keep the People safe from the government not from each other.

 

[Wudidiz]

The smiling commie bobblehead should shut her pie hole and go spend a week at the border.

 

[Sam Colt]

 

[seeker_two]

 

[Axxe55]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vp-harris-calls-assault-weapons-ban-guns-designed-kill-people

Vice President Kamala Harris on Sunday called for the reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, arguing that certain semi-automatic firearms are "intentionally designed" to kill people and only belong on the battlefield.

I wish her good luck, because I seriously doubt that's going to happen now!

And unfortunately giving out blow-jobs ain't going to get her what she wants this time!

 

[m5215]

...arguing that certain semi-automatic firearms are "intentionally designed" to kill people and only belong on the battlefield.

But isn't any gun intentionally designed to kill people?

 

[Axxe55]

But isn't any gun intentionally designed to kill people?

Nope. It's just a mechanical device that is designed to perform a specific task of firing a bullet. What the bullet is fired at is the intent.

"Intentionally designed" is merely being used to provoke a certain emotional response, not a logical one.

If what she says is true, then every gun I own, has performed as a failure, since not one of them has ever killed a person.

 

[alwho421]

impeach and convict failing to uphold constitution.

 

[paknheat]

So I’m guessing that plane she was on didn’t crash.

Damn..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[DoubleDuty]

She is a dumb #&@%ing pos. Those guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment and we have them to protect us from her and the rest of the worthless scum in government. We need them to get better weapons if necessary to fight their tyranny. We don't have better weapons because as citizens we failed to keep them from infringing on our most important right.

 

[gll]

She is a dumb #&@%ing pos. Those guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment and we have them to protect us from her and the rest of the worthless scum in government. We need them to get better weapons if necessary to fight their tyranny. We don't have better weapons because as citizens we failed to keep them from infringing on our most important right.

If the arms we have aren't sufficient to resist invasion or defeat tyranny, then they aren't the arms our founding fathers intended us to have...

 

[B. Wright]

 

[TX OMFS]

Sigh. We new it was only a matter of time with this administration.

ETA: Read the article. I see she talked about the Independence Day shooting in Chiraq. Somehow she forgot about the gang killings every week in Chiraq.

 

[DoubleDuty]

If the arms we have aren't sufficient to resist invasion or defeat tyranny, then they aren't the arms our founding fathers intended us to have...

They expected us to have equivalent arms to the government. Those guns the corrupt scum are trying to ban are still protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[General Zod]

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.

 

[oldag]

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.

Guess they would not have liked the old blunderbuss?

 

[benenglish]

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.

I came here to post this.

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

 

[General Zod]

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.