Biden, on video, lashes out at Detroit autoworker in profanity-laced gun dispute

You didn't even read my post did you?

 

Biden oh Biden...

 

No worries

 

How come you never play mod when your lefty pals double post threads? (dont bother, consider it rhetorical)


Anyhow, good luck with Biden. The guy obviously has issues he cant conceal. Probably needs anger management classes.

 

Let's put the obama-guns thing to bed.
Obama Tells CNN His Greatest Regret Was Failure to Secure More Gun Control
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/12/08/obama-cnn-gun-control/

 

I agree they both really need to be vetted much more.

I agree that Bernie's socialist agenda wasn't that popular with anyone in the past....it's now come to dominate the DNC

 

In Joes world, the peons (you know the rest of us not in the NDP aristocracy) serve at his pleasure. His first reaction is something akin to "get a rope", every time one of the peons presses him on a subject that he's bad on nationally. It's a shame really that he wasn't around in the 1820s although he does look rough enough that he might be actually lying about his age....

 

Again no, it just supports that he wanted some type of ban on some type of guns. So not the same thing as "coming for your guns," or "taking all your guns." But nice try.

Good dodge. I wouldn't want to debate me either.

Whoops. Someone only plays a lawyer on google, eh? That case you are quoting applied to a handgun ban within DC. The entire class of arms referred to were handguns. The Assault weapons ban, as you gun guys like to point out, bans something based on a term that isn't a gun term. Aka, there isn't a class of weapons defined as assault weapons. That's why the term assault weapons is used. It defines how something operates. Just like how we ban weapons that operate like a bazooka. See? We CAN ban certain types of weapons! Heck, some of those are even "classes" of weapons! Mines, explosives, RPG's, all illegal for you or me to own! So assault weapons are no different. You can't apply this statement to a law that says no weapon shall have these specifications, for example. The legal merit for an assault weapon ban is perfectly fine and wouldn't be proposed if it couldn't stand up to the scrutiny of the courts. Politicians are great at knowing when they can win and when they can't. Plus, most are lawyers themselves.

 

Go ahead. Ask him. He'll probably curse at you. But then again, ask Trump about his. What kind of response did people get from Trump? Was it, "sure, you have a good point, here's an objective release of my health. Oh, and my taxes!" Nope. Higher bars can't be set for one guy over another. The democrats will nominate without such vetting or feel they know enough about Biden to nominate him. The only people who want to vet are opponents, but since the right has abandoned such norms with Trump, they don't have solid ground to stand on I fear.

 

You agree then - The Obama -did- want to ban guns.
Thanks.

Debate you?
All you've done is made statements you know you cannot demonstrate to be true.
Fact remains:
You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, said restrictions on the exercise the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding.
Let me know if that changes.

This is no way changes the fact the 2nd protects all "bearable arms" - that is, those in common use for traditionally legal purposes - to the same degree as handguns.

Wow. That's some impressive mental gymnastics there.
But, for the momemt, lets play this:
Semi-automatic rifles ARE a "class" of weapon, and thus protected.

How does the operation of an 'assault weapon' differ from a non 'assault weapon'?

Are bazookas, RPG, mines, nuclear weapons, etc, in common use for traditionally legal purposes?
No?
Fallacy: non seq.

 

Yes I can. The effectiveness is proven by other nations that ban similar weapons and have fewer gun deaths. You have to dispute that fact and you can't.

I can bear a bazooka. And yet, it's illegal. Go on, explain how the term "bearable", as in my ability to hold it in my hands, matters one bit when it comes to the many weapons I can hold in my hands that I cannot own.

I know, I'm really smart.

And yet, such assault weapons bans aren't predicated on them being semi-automatic only. After all, so is a revolver. And such a ban would not ban revolvers even if one could argue, and they could, that they kill more people than AR-15's.

That's a great question. You're the expert, you tell me smarty pants.

The AR-15 has the ability to shoot at many different targets with accuracy at greater ranges than a hand gun. Unlike more accurate or longer firing rifles which are slower between shots, the AR-15 increases it's killing efficiency by finding good middle ground. As in, a balance between range, firing rate, and stopping power. It's those qualities that make this weapon ideal for the battlefield, not every day, civilian life. Indeed the purpose of such a weapon is to kill as many people as possible. That is in conflict with the notion of self defense, the only real reason to legally protect gun ownership, where the object is to repel an attacker. I think I googled that off some gun nut site. Well I added the last part of course.

I can target shoot with an RPG. I can set up a target in the middle of no where, fire the RPG, and do no legal harm to anyone. Is target shooting legal or illegal? And guns CAN be used for illegal activities just as any of the aforementioned weapons can be. Nuclear weapons are legally kept to defend the nation. Are you saying their only purpose is to be used illegally? As in, it's illegal for the US to defend itself with nuclear weapons? Better tell the president, Congress, Russia, and history! So if the government can legally have nuclear weapons, why can't I? If I just keep the weapon in my basement, that's perfectly legal. It harms no one. Maybe a little extra radiation when I go get a beer or bottle of wine, but that's only harming myself, like smoking or sun bathing.

Fallacy: you are losing this argument and you don't even see it. You can translate that to Latin if you really want to. I would rather you spend your time on other things.

 

You already made this claim.
I asked to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the firearm laws of those countries and their lower rates of mass shootings.
You failed to do this then, and you will fail do this now.

Are bazookas, RPG, mines, nuclear weapons, etc, in common use for traditionally legal purposes?
No?
Fallacy: non seq.

The fact you cannot cite a single 'assault weapon' law that defines the term as anything other than a semi- or full-automatic weapon aside....

Fact remains:
Semi-automatic rifles ARE a "class" of weapon, and thus protected.
The AR15 is a semi-automatic rifle.

A question you cannot answer, even though it is pivotal to the point you tried to make.
Concession accepted,.
When you can demonstrate the difference you claim, let us know.

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

Are bazookas, RPG, mines, nuclear weapons, etc, in common use for traditionally legal purposes?
No?
Fallacy: non seq.

 

You imply that a doctor would have to be paid off to help Joe avoid the draft. I don't think that is the case. At the time of Biden's asthma claim (1969 or thereabouts) many doctors were very sympathetic to people who wanted to avoid service in Vietnam.

 

Well if he used the same loophole everyone else had, I don’t see the issue

 

Then why do you take issue with the President's health issues back then?

 

Because he was a rich kid and they seemed to have different rules

 

But you just said Biden had the same rules and wasn't rich....

 

No, revolvers are NOT semi auto *facepalms

 

He was 6 feet tall and had an athlete’s build. He played football in high school and was active in sports throughout college. He spent one summer as a lifeguard at a local pool.


Just a few months before President Donald Trump received his now-infamous diagnosis of “bone spurs in the heels,” former high school football star Biden got the same 1-Y draft deferment for “asthma as a teenager.” It was one of five deferments Biden received (the same number as notorious GOP “draft dodger” Dick Cheney) and allowed him to avoid being drafted at the height of the war. The year 1968 was one of the bloodiest of the Vietnam conflict with 296,406 Americans drafted into military service — the second-highest during the war.


https://www.insidesources.com/joe-b...s-a-lot-like-donald-trumps-do-democrats-care/

 

Oh... I didn't catch that!
It appears Biden isn't the only one w/o an operative knowledge of the subject's basic terminology, and yet thinks he can have a rational, reasoned discussion of same.

 

I said if...I have no idea but I know joes dad wasn’t a rich developer

 

What does that have to do anything?

https://www.insidesources.com/joe-b...s-a-lot-like-donald-trumps-do-democrats-care/

He was 6 feet tall and had an athlete’s build. He played football in high school and was active in sports throughout college. He spent one summer as a lifeguard at a local pool.

Just a few months before President Donald Trump received his now-infamous diagnosis of “bone spurs in the heels,” former high school football star Biden got the same 1-Y draft deferment for “asthma as a teenager.” It was one of five deferments Biden received (the same number as notorious GOP “draft dodger” Dick Cheney) and allowed him to avoid being drafted at the height of the war. The year 1968 was one of the bloodiest of the Vietnam conflict with 296,406 Americans drafted into military service — the second-highest during the war.

It appears you are supporting a draft dodger for President, but your own standards.

 

I have no reason to believe joe diagnosis was bogus.

 

Other then he played sports all through highschool and college....but whatever....

Bottomline, you by your defination, you support a draft dodger. Hundreds of thousands American boys died, so Biden could be a life guard......

Congrats.

 

So did trump, one had a rich dad and ones dad sold cars. I know who I would guess got preferential treatment.