Bite Me says he can dictate the type of weapon you own
Personally, I wouldn’t let Joe Biden pick out my underwear, but he told House Democrats at their retreat that the government can tell you what weapons you can own says Politico;
“It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.”
Now, I’m no constitutional scholar, but I’m pretty sure that the federal government doesn’t have any rights. I skimmed the Bill of Rights a few times, and couldn’t find any rights, per se, in there for the feds. I see the tenth amendment with States’ rights. So, I’m concluding that Bite Me doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
“Don’t tell me because we can’t solve it all, we can’t act at all. … when people tell me you can’t prevent these kinds of occurrences that doesn’t mean we can’t do something so god forbids if it happens again, diminish the carnage,” he said.
Yup, we just have to do something, anything. Of course, unfortunately for the country, he’ll still have his job in January 2015. Because if they go through with their gun ban, many of the Democrats in that room won’t be in Congress.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Well Joe couldn’t possibly be wrong! Remember, he’s a lot smarter than the rest of us, just ask him.
Didn’t you see the press conference today in which Chris Rock laid it out for all of us dumb people? Obama is our daddy, we should do what he says because he’s the president. Biden being the creepy uncle still rates total authority over the American people because these people are our “boss”.
Libtards gonna Libtard.
I have no words left for this lying, manipulating administration. Now this bonehead wants to tell me to conform to a standard weapon? Only time in my life I did that was when I carried an M16A2 every day. Seriously, how can “…shall not be infringed” be interrupted any other way?
Bazookas? Stinger missles? There’s gotta be a line somewhere, just a matter of where that line is. Draw the line at muskets? (just kidding)
So what he’s saying is I need to top off my stock of surplus 7.62x54r Ammo out of pure and simple spite right?
I do think that Heller V. DC is ANOTHER in a long list of stupid-ass decisions by this SC. It was a decision going against over 100 years of Constitutional law and history. That being said, even THAT shitty decision backs up Biden’s interpretation of the law:
“The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.”
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
So, once again, Jonn, keep your legal interpretations to grown-ups.
So where are the government’s “rights”, smartass?
And all the while they are also busily decimating our already tattered mental health care system. See the article on MSN today? One psych got paid for five hours of work for the month of January; he and his staff saw @ 300 patients. The doc ended up paying his bills out of his personal bank account. And the beat goes on…
I agree that grown-ups should be discussing these things, which begs the question: Why is Sippy here?
When the government passes the law prohibiting the sale of certain types of weapons it will have the right to enforce that law. He wasn’t talking about Constitutional rights, but legal rights.
Also, it will be the Republicans that will be hurt if they stop gun legislation, not the Democrats for pushing it. Newtown has changed things. That change is here to stay.
@8- Republicans want to do NOTHING to solve the problem. They don’t want to pay for armed guards in school, they don’t want to pay the CURRENT cost of education. They don’t want to enforce the gun laws we have in place right now, which is why they keep trying to push laws limiting the ATF and keeping the ATF without a leader. They don’t want to invest in parity for mental health, in fact they want to decimate Obamacare which calls for mental health parity. In short they like the status quo.
@10: You’re right, things have changed. Americans have become more educated on how the media and politicians lie about crime. They actually start looking at those free public FBI Uniform Crime Reports and seeing who is lying about firearm crime. Americans are finally are waking up that asinine restrictions on freedom don’t create a perfect society and that maybe if protecting group of unarmed adults with armed individuals is worth it so are enacting the same protection for their children.
Insipid, you’re being ignorant; Republicans have been trying to get the government to enforce the laws they already have in place since forever. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t want people with felony convictions to be able to buy guns either. We don’t want armed 9-year-olds or any of that other bullshit you’ve been fed. Grow up and think for yourself for a change. And, oh, by the way, the government has no rights. The whole point of the Constitution is to limit government and to protect our rights, you know, those things “endowed by our Creator”, and the government is endowed by it’s Creator, the people, with our rights. I’m no legal scholar, but you’re a blithering idiot.
I didn’t mean that as an insult, merely an observation.
You mean Republicans like Barack Obama, whose administration eliminated federal Readiness and Emergency Management (REMS) funding grants for schools in FY 2012?
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/dvpemergencyresponse/performance.html
Did those same Republicans stick a hand up Eric Holder’s ass and make his mouth move to give the orders when federal firearms prosecutions were reduced by 40% to focus more on drug cases?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-prosecutions-under-obama-down-more-than-45-percent/article/2516175
And as for Obamacare, it sounds like you prefer an equal decimation of the mental and physical health systems once it drives more and more doctors out of business.
Jonn, just out of curiosity, and in re: skippy’s remark at #10, I just have one question:
Isn’t the US Constitution the law of the land?
@12- That’s if you buy into John Lott’s bullshit debunked work. The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that if you reduce the number of gums, you reduce the number of gun deaths and gun suicides. That there is no corresponding evidence that people will find other ways to kill and committ suicide. States with more restrictive gun laws have less gun related deaths:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/states-with-most-restrictive-gun-control-laws-have-lower-gun-related-deaths-study-finds
@10 Thanks man, I had a crappy day and needed a laugh. Not like the last big federal foray into gun control didn’t come back and bite the democrats in the ass. Being a history major (BA, MA, someday PhD) I seem to recall the original gov’t attempt at regulating weapons held by the people. Maybe you read about it, it was in all the history books (well except for the ones written by Howard Zihn)
John Lott debunked by who? The underpants gnomes or the voices in your head?
@16 That report doesn’t mention Illinois or New York.
#16
You have got to be freaking kidding me. You do understand what is happening in Chicago right? Explain Chicago for me. That’s all I ask of you. Explain. Chicago.
@13- Oh for goodness sakes for a group that hangs its tenuous defense of the second Amendment on the idea that there are dual meanings in the Constitution of the word “Militia” you’re being awfully obtuse when it comes to recognizing that the word “right” has multiple meanings. It can mean a direction, as in right turn while driving, it can mean a statement of basic human principles as in Right to Life and it can mean giving permission for an action such as a right of the government to arrest you if they suspect you of drunk driving or murder.
Government DOES have the right to enforce the law. That’s what Biden was saying. In fact that’s one of the essential functions of government.
Also, the NRA does NOT want laws enforced which is why much of their actions have been directed against funding the ATF, providing leadership for the ATF, defunding research on the best way to combat gun violence, passing laws holding gun manufacturers immune from lawsuits and criminal prosecution etc. You don’t go by what they SAY, they lie. You go by what they do.
@ Inspid: Please list some of that “100 years of Constitutional law and history” that Heller went against.
We’ll… wait.
And we don’t need to hire additional people to guard schools. We can simply restore the right of the adults there to be armed, effective deterrents to murdeous scum-F#@%*@$. Iknow that vexes you…
They’re not buying the guns in Chicago. They’re buying them outside the City and outside the state. That’s why gun laws are effective in New York, but not Chicago. There’s no easy way to get gun laws elsewhere in New York because all the surrounding areas and states ALSO have strong gun laws. This is why we need a NATIONAL plan.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html
http://www.suntimes.com/news/17620046-418/analysis-straw-purchasing-background-check-law-most-important-here.html
It’s really quite simple – the government has no rights at all. It has certain obligations, all of which are to the people which it serves.
It is obvious that our society is out of whack. There are entirely too many who now see it in reverse – we the people now seem to have obligations to the government while the government is said to have rights.
Welcome to la-la land.
You do know what Operation Fast and Furious is right? You want the ATF to have more power to track and regulate guns in the US after they gave 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels and only recovered 700 of them. And you think that’s wise? You do know that Biden has admitted that federal and most state governments are not equipped or capable of enforcing existing gun laws don’t you? Nothing you’re saying makes any sense.
OK, I don’t know or care what skippy is smoking or drinking, but this ongoing project by Redeye, a local Chicago group has links to valid studies being done in regard to the homicide rates in Chicago:
http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/
The city of Chicago has extremely strict gun control laws. There is a tax on bullets sold in Cook County, which is where Chicago is located. In the beginning of February, 700 guns held by criminals were seized by the Chicago Police Department:
http://wgntv.com/2013/02/04/chicago-police-seize-nearly-700-guns/
Meantime, kids are still being killed by gangbangers and other criminals, including Hadiyah Pendleton, who was the only one shot by someone who jumped the fence around the park where she and her friends had been playing volleyball. Hadiyah was the young lady from Chicago who performed at the most recent inauguration. 44 other kids were killed by guns in the hands of criminals in the month of January alone.
They were NOT killed by people who legally owned weapons.
@22- Why don’t you look up U.S. V. Miller, or Vietnamese Fisherman vs. the KKK and get back to me. In fact let me know of any other time a gun ban has been struck down prior to Miller based on 2nd amendment grounds.
I’ll wait.
In case I wasn’t clear, the law is no obstacle to any criminal when he wants to get his hands on a gun, even in New York.
Dreamworld, dreamworld, dreamworld.
There is no “dual meaning” of the term militia, Sippy the Pinhead. The term is defined clearly in 10 USC 311. It’s defined as the combination of (1) every male ages 17 to 45 who is either a citizen or has intent to become one, (b) all male members of the organized Reserve Components (state or Federal), and (c) all female members of the organized Reserve Components (state or Federal). The latter two form the organized militia. The former forms the unorganized militia.
The definition in Federal law today is not significantly different from that in the Militia Acts of 1792, which are contemporary with the 2nd Amendment. And the definition of militia as “all able bodied free males of military age” was commonly accepted in the Colonies that later became the United States more than 100 years before the Declaration of Independence.
The term militia does not today and never has meant solely “members of an organized reserve unit”. That bogus claim is an untruth spread by those who are either abjectly ignorant of US history or who are lying to further a political agenda – specifically, to ignore the 2nd Amendment.
Suppose we have a national plan. Of course we all know that inner city street gangs have arsenals of guns that they will not willingly give up should a national gun ban plan be enacted. But what about rural and suburban America? We all know there are plenty of restaurant workers, office dwellers, law enforcement officers (active and retired or former), members of the military (again, active and retired or former), doctors, lawyers, truck drivers, ranchers, farmers, (you get the idea), who all own those scary black rifles privately and store them in their homes. People who are good people, just trying to make their way in this world and have no desire to harm anyone. What is the appropriate plan of action to relieve those people of the guns that they legally own and store in their house? Again, I ask, what is the plan of action for those folks?
This is always where it gets good, fellas, lol
So, you have nothing, and attempt to deflect? Well played… oh, no, it wasn’t…
@30- There is no “plan of action” other than the fevered brains of gun-nuts. There is no plan on the books, no plan proposed that calls for taking away guns already purchase. To be honest, i would like a national gun buyback program- similar to the one instituted in Australia that brought THEIR mass killings to a stop. However, i recognize that in the United States such a common-sense action is impossible due to the fact that there are too many folks who rub themeselves raw thinking about their “weapons”. But just because you have a fantasy of confiscation, doesn’t mean i have to engage in your fantasy.
Sippy: sorry to break this to you, but Miller v. US has largely now been invalidated. Between Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago, the SCOTUS has now formally affirmed the individual right of firearms ownership that the Constitution has contained in clear and unambiguous language since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. That right has been held to be binding on state governments as well as Federal enclaves.
Reasonable regulation is permitted, but the SCOTUS has yet to define the limits of permissible regulation. I suspect they will do much in that area within the next few years.
And I also suspect you aren’t going to like what they have to say.
@31- If you consider two court cases decided by the SC as “nothing” then you’re right. In the real world, it is something.
#11 You say that Republicans don’t want to do anything and yet I live in a state that has a Republican super majority. All school in my school district now have armed cops in them. You really shouldn’t repeat koolaid talking points.
Miller has been completely invalidated. That’s my point. My argument is that the SC overturned Precedent. I know it’s hard for you, Hondo, but try and keep up.
#34 SCOTUS has historically made many unconstitutional decisions.. see Plessy et. al. Just because some judge hands it down does not mean it is remotely Constitutional. And the wonderful thing about precedent is that there is always a new precedent to take its place.
Sippy: more recent precedent generally governs, particularly when the more recent decision contradicts an older one. Otherwise, we could ignore Lawrence v. Texas and begin prosecuting sodomy as a crime again under the precedent set by Bowers v. Hardwick.
Heller v. DC was decided in 2008; McDonald v. Chicago, in 2010. Both are more recent precedents.
@34- That’s true Melle, and Heller is amongst those awful decisions.
Well, since you admitted that there is no plan of action (that you know of) I am obligated to see your words as nothing more than a meaningless temper tantrum.
Get back to me when you have realistic ideas.
Miller made no real precedent… as Miller was dead, and his lawyer did not show up to testify.
Other than that, what “precedent” supports your claims?
Insipid, it is against federal law to own automatic or “select fire” weapons and has been since the 30’s. You are muddying the waters, pal.
Inspid, how do you define “the right of the people… shall not be infringed.”? What does it mean?
Oh for gods sakes I’M NOT SAYING HELLER DOES NOT GOVERN! I’M SAYING IT OVERTURNED PRECEDENT. AND YOU’RE AGREEING WITH ME!
Do i need to use sign language? My argument is NOT that Heller is not law. It is. All I’m saying is that it overturned many years of precedent. And you’re saying the same thing. Unless if you just have a rule that you MUST argue with all thigs i say?
@40- There is a plan of action. It just doesn’t include confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. There was a plan of action to stop drunk driving without getting rid of alcohol or stopping it from being sold. There’s a plan of action to preven gun violence as well.
Drunkle Joe really needs to get control of that bumper car bouncing around in his head.
@41 Even if your circumstances behind the case our true, so what? If the SC decides something it is precedent. Whether you like the fact pattern or not.
@42- it’s not illegal, just restricted.
@42- Actually the ban on automatic weapons was put in place by Ronald Reagan, that commie fascist socialist pinko, in 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection act.
No, it was the National Firearms Act of 1934. Really, you can look this stuff up.