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

Go right ahead then.

 

Google it. Your fingers aren't broke.

 

I thought so.

 

Don't know how to google stuff?

Justice Scalia Made Clear the Second Amendment and Heller Prohibit “Assault Weapon” Bans
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...dment-and-heller-prohibit-assault-weapon-bans

 

Do you read your own Links?

 

Yep, I read it.

"Taken alone, Justice Scalia’s Heller opinion is enough to dispel this deception. In it, Justice Scalia made clear that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment include those “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.” The AR-15, which is the favorite target of so-called “assault weapon” ban legislation, is the most popular rifle in America and therefore undoubtedly “in common use” and protected by the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates seem to agree that such semi-automatic rifles are common, considering they routinely complain about the “proliferation” of these firearms."

 

Trump is the champion of Americans. Biden is the champion of China.

 

Taken alone. Read it all. I also note your citation is not to the SCOTUS decision but instead to an NRA site.

 

The article I linked is about the SCOTUS ruling. The article links every SCOTUS ruling it refers to. Do you real the links provided to you?

 

Saved for posterity

 

What false claims are these? You keep talking about the constitutionality about an assault weapons ban, but I never made any claims about it. Lets assume for the minute that assault weapons are protected by the second amendment, and that you are completely right. Well, the worker claimed that Biden wanted to take away all guns, not just assault weapons. That is the claim that matters here because that is what Biden responded to. It is you who doesn't want to talk about what the worker actually said, because it is very inconvenient for your attack on Biden!

 

Bull ****. The worker never made such a claim. That is a false statement. I already provided the video and the text that rebuts that. I know you aren't that think that you didn't get it the first and second time. I even provided video. I can't make it any easier for you than to comprehend. Here is the post.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas made clear that the mere possession of a converted AR-15 is not enough to infer a mens rea sufficient for conviction...

...it seems that Liparota's concern for criminalizing ostensibly innocuous conduct is inapplicable whenever an item is sufficiently dangerous-that is, dangerousness alone should alert an individual to probable regulation and justify treating a statute that regulates the dangerous device as dispensing with mens rea. But that an item is "dangerous," in some general sense, does not necessarily suggest, as the Government seems to assume, that it is not also entirely innocent. Even dangerous items can, in some cases, be so commonplace and generally available that we would not consider them to alert individuals to the likelihood of strict regulation. As suggested above, despite their potential for harm, guns generally can be owned in perfect innocence. Of course, we might surely classify certain categories of guns-no doubt including the machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, and artillery pieces that Congress has subjected to.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/600/

AR15s are "so commonplace and generally available" that simple possession of one does not demonstrate mens rea.
Thus, In common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
Protected under Heller.