Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Well that's what he and the Kamala are planning to do, so . . . .
High school newspaper exposes how state police quoted Adolf Hitler in training manual
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Well, let's take a look...
Does Biden Want To Abolish the Second Amendment?
Biden has never called for abolishing the Second Amendment.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-abolish-second-amendment/
You're thinking of the guy who said this:
"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ess-second-white-house-gun-meeting/381145002/
Biden never advocated anything close to that.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
No Democrat or Republican in their right mind would ever say that. And nobody said he did either. All I did was provide the link to what he actually plans to do. Which you apparently didn't bother to peruse.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I did
It was very clear and easy to read. I can't imagine why burby would struggle with it.
Right. No one in their right mind. But Trump said it.
The link doesn't show that, either. It's just someone telling a story about what they want you to believe Biden is going to do.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
No they're not.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
What neither of these people are seeing, because they're willfully blind about it for some reason, is that the president-elect plans to enact law to render every semiautomatic long gun and every magazine capable of receiving more than 10 rounds, equivalent to a machine gun, which means that tens of millions of Americans are, if he gets his way, going to be backed into a corner, given the choice between either getting rid of their guns and magazines, or paying a steep fee, plus, partially forfeiting their right to privacy and registering with the ATF. As far as I can tell that's just the beginning of what he and the Kamala want to do.
Now contrast that with what these people say about the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. They talk a good game and basically pretend like Biden's not saying what he is objectively saying.
If the president cannot find a remedy in the law courts, regarding this irregular election whose outcome was influenced by an emergency voting rules change, that only benefited Biden's party at the expense of the president's party, then the best chance that real Second Amendment-supporting Americans have, is that Republicans retain control of the Senate for at least two more years.
If Biden does ascend to the presidency, and if Georgia hands the Senate to the Democrats, and Biden's position of the Second Amendment becomes reality, I'm sure these two people will be first in line to rationalize it as somehow still being "pro-Second Amendment."
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The president is bombastic and says so many things off the cuff. I have no doubt that after he uttered this, that if legislation came to his desk to enact it, that he would veto it. Meanwhile Biden's polished website sets out exactly what he want to do, and I don't have any reason to not believe him that he would if given the chance, by a Democrat House and Senate.
:AMR: That "someone", is Biden himself.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Maybe you don't understand the language in there. The NFA is the weapons grade gun control law that regulates machine guns and destructive devices. Their plan is to force average Americans into disarming by giving them two awful choices, both of which flagrantly ignore the Second Amendment.
As you just learned, Biden never said he wanted to violate the 2nd Amendment, but Trump has. Yet you support Trump and oppose Biden.
That seems rather self-defeating to me.
The key here is you have the most right-wing Supreme Court in American history, who ideologically favor the 2nd Amendment over the 1st Amendment. Even if Biden wanted to abridge the 2nd Amendment, they wouldn't let him.
What has some people agitated is that Constitutional rights are never absolute; they can't be used to impose on the rights of others. And that's where the friction lies. Trump's solution was simple. Grab the guns from people and worry about due process later. Biden leans toward the rule of law and the Constitution. I like Biden's way better.
That seems rather self-defeating to me.
The key here is you have the most right-wing Supreme Court in American history, who ideologically favor the 2nd Amendment over the 1st Amendment. Even if Biden wanted to abridge the 2nd Amendment, they wouldn't let him.
What has some people agitated is that Constitutional rights are never absolute; they can't be used to impose on the rights of others. And that's where the friction lies. Trump's solution was simple. Grab the guns from people and worry about due process later. Biden leans toward the rule of law and the Constitution. I like Biden's way better.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Not explicitly, and I never said that he did explicitly say that, and I did not "just learn" anything about Biden or the Kamala.
Again not explicitly. Bombast.
If I thought the president would actually bring about his "take the guns first" off the cuff remark, you'd have a point. The reality is that "red flag" laws, which are the realization of a "take the guns first" policy, are supported by Democrats and not Republicans. Because they short-circuit due process, another right, a positive one, that's enumerated in the Constitution.
Ah, no. They treat them more equally than prior courts.
Not how it works. First come the laws, then come the appeals trying to overturn, nullify, or vacate them, up to the Supreme Court if necessary. The lag between the former and the latter is many months to over a year.
But also, by your own reasoning, President Trump's own Supreme Court also wouldn't let him enact the "take the guns first" policy either.
Well obviously there's a reason many voters prefer one party over the other. This is one of them.
On top of everything I've addressed about this already, it wasn't "simple" but "simplistic". Bombast.
He prefers to restrict the Second Amendment even more than it is already restricted.
All's to say is that you don't believe in the Second Amendment like how you claim to believe anyway, in our other enumerated negative rights, otherwise you would prefer to treat that right just like all the other negative rights enumerated in the Constitution.
But you don't.
I don't think any of your excuses are going to matter. You don't want to acknowledge that Trump has advocated abridging the 2nd Amendment, while Biden has not.
And that's what matters.
And that's what matters.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I addressed it numerous times.
Ditto.
Cloudy thinking comes from believing in ghosts, and in denying self-evident facts, f y i.
You seem to now be arguing against yourself.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
lain:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The problem here is that you think that I think that one of these parties has a legitimate policy position on arms control. I do not think that, I think that they are both illegitimate. But, the Democrats including president-elect Joe Biden himself gave us the AWB of 1994, that the Republican government of 2004 allowed its 10-year sunset clause to occur, and for the AWB of 1994-2004 to expire, and even in the midst of a mountain of infringements against our right to keep and bear arms, this is salient, this stung, and still stings, for those of us unfortunate enough to live in states where they basically just ignored the federal expiration, and continue to enforce it in their state, enacting "new" laws for their state that mirrored the federal AWB of 1994-2004.
All Democrat states. MA, NY, NJ, IL, CA, etc. The difference between Republicans and Democrats on the Second Amendment is not much, but it can be summed up in three letters; AWB. Democrats say yes, Republicans say no.
Now Democrats including Biden are promising an even more painful AWB. You think that I shouldn't believe that?
Both parties are wrong on guns, but the Democrats are more wrong than the Republicans.
Repeal the NFA of 1934. Repeal the GCA of 1968. Repeal the Hughes amendment and all of the FOPA of 1986. Our society is distorted from the open and flagrant Constitutional rights violations in this matter. Arms has to do with war, bearing arms is preparing for war, the worst case scenario. Both Republicans and Democrats generally stink on this right, but the Republicans stink a little less, but they do both stink, but who else is going to win elections? No other institution, organization or business can win elections like those two parties, nobody's even a close third place, especially in presidential elections, going back to Abraham Lincoln. No other party has won since him, just the two we have today, they are very old institutions in this country. And they're both supportive of the NFA, GCA, and of FOPA, but at least Republicans do not support AWB.