My Biden vote is not an endorsement of his gun control.

Being able to protect yourself from both is important. But I do not fear either.

 

Yeah, a right is a threat just like free speech is a threat to progressives.

 

Agreed. That is why I pointed out that Republicans do not fully support the 2nd and its ramifications.

 

The Supreme Court is a reliable talking point but it hasn't leaned Democrat appointed justices in over 50 years...including roe v wade which was decided by a republican majority. It is also the same republican supreme court who had the late supposed constitutuonalist, Scalia, who stated that rocket launchers could be banned.

SCALIA: "We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."

Feel free to hide behind cherry picked statements from selected democrats and ignore Trump when he stated,
"I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time," Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

"Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.

The overall difference in 2nd amendment rights by dems and repubs is relatively marginal at best in the overall picture. I was simply suggesting you take a closer look at the libertarian party if the 2nd is so dear to you...or don't , matters little to me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second?amp

 

In the Heller decision, it clearly states entire classes of weapons “in common use” can not be banned. There is no legitimate argument that can be made that semi-automatic handguns and rifles are not in common use. I mean the buying frenzy of AR-15s in the past 20 years alone should be enough to settle that.

I don’t give a **** what Trump said. You are cherry picking as well. If my picks don’t count, then neither do yours. Trump says crazy stuff all the time. I disregard him saying that as I do all the other **** out of his mouth.

 

WOW!

I mostly disagree with Biden and Democrats.

But I am thankful to them for being anti-gun. 572,000 lives lost to guns in USA 1999-2016.

 

This is where Classical Liberals would disagree with Modern Liberals.

But Modern Liberals are right about Guns and Welfare State.

 

Most Humans are good people.

Both Left and Right ideologies have severe flaws.

 

Indeed.
Lets consider the meaning of the term "in common use":
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/in-common-use.567876/

HELLER:
Holding:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. ...Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition...would fail constitutional muster

CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”

-----

Handguns are "overwhelmingly cho[sen] for the lawful purpose of self-defense - and thus, "In common use" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".

Note that the "overwhelming choice" of handguns for a traditionally legal purpose, and not their actual numerical use, qualifies handguns as "in common use" for those purposes, and thus their possession and use is protected by the 2nd.

And so, according to the reasoning of the court, any class of firearm that is an "overwhelming choice" for any of the innumerable traditionally legal purposes of a firearm are similarly "in common use", and thus, their possession and use is protected by the the 2nd.

That is, a class of firearms need not be -actually- used some number of times to qualify as 'in common use' but be commonly -chosen- for said uses.


BUT, let us say "in common use" -does- require a demonstration of a certain number of -actual - uses for a given traditionally legal purpose of a firearm.

According to the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center, defensive firearm uses are "rare", at about 95,000 instances per year.
http://vpc.org/press/self-defense-gun-use-is-rare-new-vpc-study-confirms-2/
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf

If we grant this 95,000 figure accurately represents the entirety of handguns used for self-defense, then the threshold to qualify for "common use" must be at or around 95,000 uses for traditionally lawful purposes per year, and so to qualify as "in common use" and thus, protected by the 2nd Amendment, there must be some demonstration that a given class of firearms is used at least that often.


In either case, the "in common use" bar is quite low.

So, I ask
What class of firearm is NOT "in common use", and how do you know?

 

All Humans are G-d's creation. All Humans have innate worth.

This includes 572,000 people killed by guns in USA 1999-2016.

About 1% of those killed were killed in Justifiable Homicide.

 

Neo liberals are right about removing rights and making people dependent on the state? Fascinating.

 

#notallrights

But guns like heroin are deadly.

 

Well how is it to climb in bed with Beto? You did that when Biden got your vote!

 

No isn’t anymore than my vote to keep Missouri red means I am pro life. I am a gun nut atheist that is for universal healthcare and universal basic income. My down ballot vote was a vote to keep Missouri pro gun. As in if the cops get to keep their AR-15s, we will keep our AR-15s pro gun vote; keeps everyone honest if they have the same firepower.

 

I would argue automatic weapons would be in common use had it not been for the ban in 1986 that stopped new sales to the public. A legal challenge could be made that had it not been for government interference, automatic weapons would be commonly owned as semi-autos are.

 

I don’t take anyone serious if their position is assault weapons should be banned for being mass murder weapons, but the police can keep theirs. That just means you want the same cops you protest to be your better armed overlords. No thanks. I’ll keep my arsenal of ARs.

 

So are democrats like Cuomo.

 

Not even close. Most non-LEO open carriers don't want to trample my Constitutional rights. The gun banners do.

Nope, there are huge differences in the two party's positions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Republicans aren't perfect on the issue, but they're a whole lot better than democrats.

Here's a recent-ish Senate vote on an assault weapons ban:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00101

"Question: On the Amendment (Feinstein Amdt. No. 711 )"

"Statement of Purpose: To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes."

"Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---40
Baldwin (D-WI)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---60
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
King (I-ME)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

One Republican in favor, along with 39 democrats. If you think that's just a "relatively marginal" difference, you should get your eyes checked.

 

The relative difference was not in cherry picked voting on an assault weapon ban. It is in comparing the arms each party brings to their 2nd amendmemt posturing.

When the Fed comes after us in an "over reaching" way, the difference bt small handguns and assault weapons will be like the differemce bt a pea shooter and a sling shot, because neither will stand a chance.

You do realize the full scope of the 2nd right? Arms does not mean guns, it means weapons. Feel free to support the party that waters down the 2nd a little bit less then the other party...because that is how we got where we are now.

 

If you voted Biden, you voted for gun control.....period.

 

If you voted for Trump you voted for weapons control....period.

 

Why do you think this?

 

Trained soldiers, air attacks, armoured vehicles etc. The things an over reaching government as ours could bring to the table.

 

We've had all those things in Afghanistan, and yet the Taliban has largely outlasted us, equipped with little more than AK-47s and decades-old explosives for making IEDs. Not to mention the fact that the Taliban is an ocean away from the US government's base of supply, while an insurgent American population would be right at its doorstep, able to sabotage and attack the government's rear lines and command and control infrastructure.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. The Bernie socialist left has gained more momentum in 2 years than the average joe Dem voter. The anti-gun and anti-police left has never been more exposed. What you've said is completely false.