Assault Weapon Ban

Joe Biden Plans To Ban and Register 'Assault Weapons' but Won't Say What They Are

The presidential contender says the 1994 ban made mass shootings less lethal, even though the guns it tolerated were "just as deadly."

|

Former Vice President Joe Biden claims the 1994 federal ban on "assault weapons," which expired in 2004, "reduced the lethality of mass shootings." Yet the Democratic presidential contender simultaneously concedes that the 1994 law, which was part of a broader crime bill that he sponsored, had no impact on the lethality of legal firearms, which remained "just as deadly."

In a gun control plan he unveiled today, Biden promises to fix that problem with new legislation that will "prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don't limit the weapon's lethality." Since such laws have always been based on arbitrary distinctions that have little or nothing to do with a gun's capacity to kill people, it is hard to see how he can possibly keep that promise.

Under the 1994 ban, removing "military-style" features such as folding stocks, flash suppressors, or bayonet mounts transformed forbidden "assault weapons" into legal firearms, even though the compliant models fired the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity as the ones targeted by the law. That is also true of the new, supposedly improved "assault weapon" ban sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who wrote the 1994 law. Feinstein has fiddled with the list of military-style features (omitting bayonet mounts while adding barrel shrouds, for instance), and any one of them would now be sufficient to make a rifle illegal, whereas two were required under the 1994 ban. But the problem identified by Biden remains: Removing these forbidden features results in a gun that is "just as deadly."

Biden's plan does not specify how he would improve on Feinstein's approach. "Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun," he says. "That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children."

Does Biden plan to ban all guns that are capable of firing more than three rounds without reloading? If so, his ban would extend far beyond the firearms covered by any existing or proposed "assault weapon" law. Such a ban also would be clearly unconstitutional, applying to all semi-automatic firearms and revolvers, including the handguns that the Supreme Court has said are covered by the Second Amendment.

Presumably that is not what Biden has in mind, and his duck hunting example is just a red herring. But by refusing to say what he means by "assault weapons," a category that means whatever legislators say it means, he makes it impossible to take his proposal seriously.

In addition to banning "assault weapons" (whatever that means), Biden wants to give current owners of such undefined firearms a choice: They can either sell their guns to the federal government or register them under the National Firearms Act, as is currently required for machine guns, suppressors, and rifles and shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches. "Due to these requirements," Biden says, "such weapons are rarely used in crimes."

Yet that is also true of "assault weapons," whether under the 1994 definition or the new one proposed by Feinstein. Last year, according to FBI numbers released this week, rifles in general—only a subset of which would qualify as "assault weapons"—accounted for 4 percent of guns used in firearm homicides where the type of weapon was specified. Handguns, by contrast, accounted for 93 percent of the guns used in those cases.

Unlike his rival Beto O'Rourke, Biden does not plan to confiscate "assault weapons." But his registration scheme faces the same formidable obstacle: The federal government does not know who owns which guns. State attempts to register "assault weapons" have met with embarrassingly little success, and there is no reason to think a federal requirement would inspire broader compliance, especially now that talk of confiscation is in the air.

Biden, in short, claims the 1994 "assault weapon" ban made mass shootings less lethal even though the weapons that remained legal were "just as deadly"; that the legislation he has in mind will fix that problem, although he cannot say how; and that the federal government can succeed in registering "assault weapons," however he chooses to define them, even though the track record of such efforts provides little reason to believe that's true. And he implies that all of this will somehow have a noticeable impact on firearm homicides, which are almost never committed with the guns he wants to target. As a policy proposal, his plan does not pass the laugh test, but it beautifully illustrates the magical thinking of gun controllers.

NEXT: Trump Is the Problem, With or Without Twitter

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn, libertarians should support far more comprehensive gun safety laws. Biden has never been my first choice for 2020, but he’s correct here.

    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. well now that Bernie is in the hospital old Joe has a chance. Or will they make Bernie stronger faster able to leap the constitution in a single bound

      1. Is Bernie in Havana?

      2. The irony being that if Bernie became the 6 million dollar man he’d outlaw himself.

        1. Due to inflation Bernie would need to be at least a 35 million dollar man to come close to Lee Majors

      3. wait whaaaaat? I hadn’t heard, tell me more!

        1. Had chest pain, they put in 2 stents and he’s cancelled all appearances until further notice. That’s all I know

          1. Warren is probably dancing a jig.

    2. Which proves once again that Hihn is an ass.

    3. “According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn, libertarians should support far more comprehensive gun safety laws.”

      TRANSLATION: Libertarians should support far more comprehensive gun grabbing by our ruling elitist vermin who take the time and trouble to oppress us all.

      1. Constitution asshole, since 1939, confirmed by Scalia in Heller/

    4. You’re the biggest moron who posts here, and that’s saying a lot, considering that Kirkland posts here too.

      1. Says the PROUD BIGOT … too chickensht to make an argument.
        Just another right-wing thug.

    5. Waaanh! Waaanh! Is that what you’re so worked up about you fucking GOPer crybaby? Jesus Christ, get some Depends, lady!

    6. you cant be a libertarian and support any type of 2A infrringement. gun control is terrorism and tyranny. NO INFRINGEMENT

      1. You are fucking insane … and even stupider.
        1) All unalienable rights equal to each other.
        2) That means NONE can POSSIBLY be greater than any other.
        3) Even Justice Scalia said you are wacky, ignorant and wrong.

        Under our Constitution, nothing can be changed by misguided authtoritartians. There is a specified amendment process.

      2. (Posted in self-defense from multiple thugs … and as public ridicule)

        HOW MANY TRASHMOUTH GUNTARDS CAN I HUMILIATE?
        Count ’em (sneer)

        1. IceTrey
        2. Uncle Jay
        3. RestoreWesternHegemony
        4. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
        5. bitter clinging swiftie
        6. Entropy Drehmaschine Void

        Two Supreme Court rulings establish the long-established consitutional limits on the Second Amendment.
        1) Miller in 1939
        2) Scalia’s Heller

        Despite all the ineviatblescreeching to follow, by brainwashed puppets, the limits are on WHAT TYPE OF WEAPONS ARE PROTECTED.

        HERE is where guntards are just like progtards, as BOTH demand a Living Constitution, with NO justification

        Proof is posted below.
        https://reason.com/2019/10/02/joe-biden-plans-to-ban-and-register-assault-weapons-but-wont-say-what-they-are/#comment-7956291

        It’s lengthy, because it addresses all the guntard BULLSHIT … so far … Watch the raging lies, repeated and no doubt new … by those who would CRUSH individual liberty, FROM THE RIGHT.

        Be VERY afraid for your rights.
        Left – Right = Zero

    7. Assault Rifle has a definition; a select-fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge.’Assault Weapon’ has NO definition, because the people who use it mean ‘any firearm we think we can bamboozle the public into demonizing’, which they can’t very well admit.

      In either case, a ban is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment, which was originally written expressly to keep military firearms available to the citizenry. So, either propose an Amendment to make such Gun Control measures Constitutional, or admit that you simply wish to disregard those parts of the Constitution and its Amendments which you find inconvenient.

      1. (yawn) ALL semi-automatic rifle has been unprotected since US v Miller (1939) .. and confirmed by the crazy left-winger, Antonin — Scalia in Heller. The militia clause — and what citizens had in their homes. 2A had NO effect on gun regulations at the time, against “unusual and dangerous weapons” (Scalia)

        In either case, a ban is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment, which was originally written expressly to keep military firearms available to the citizenry,

        BULLSHIT. LAW OF THE LAND FOR 80 YEARS

        US v Miller (1939)

        The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

        Like I said, confirmed byu Scalia.
        That leaves you twisting in the wind, all alone (well, with fellow snti-liberty guntards

        P.S. “Military firearms” did not exist at the time!
        You are a PATHETIC WHINY LIAR about assa

        1. ….about assault weapons … mindless slogans by ignorant guntards.

  2. Progtard NannyStaters.
    Still after “the Shoulder Thing That Goes Up.”

    1. Conservatard Babbling

      Progtard NannyStaters.
      Still after “the Shoulder Thing That Goes Up.”

      How to make no sense, AND with the vocabulary of a 12-year-old on a hissy fit. IOW another Fascist.

      As libertarians have noted for over 50 years.
      Through all of human history, governments have served one of only two functions (overall).
      1) Defend individual liberty
      2) Impose one set of values, by force.

      Today’s conservatives (and many Republicans) want government out of your wallet, but into your bedroom. Which of those two purposes do they seek… liberty or force?.

      Today’s liberals (and many Democrats) want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet. Which of those two purposes do they seek … liberty or force?.

      Left – Right = Zero
      And a growing majority of Americans now agrees.
      Left and right are obsolete and dying off. Can we avoid BOTH of their failures?

  3. Don’t worry if Joe doesn’t know exactly what an assault weapon is, he’s got an advisor named Corn Pop that knows.

  4. Next on the list of “banned assault weapons”: Black-powder revolvers. “These weapons have killed tens of thousands…”

    1. Remember Lawrenceville. Do something!

      1. Remember Coffeeville, when will we stop these tragedies. Do something.

    2. Next on the list of “banned assault weapons”: Black-powder revolvers

      Umm, they are fully protected under the constitutional standard for 80 years. The modern equivalent of those weapons in common use at our founding. brought from home for militia duty.

      As Scalia reaffirmed in Heller

      Heller Ruling Page One
      1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

      2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: …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.

      weapons used by the militia

      Full stop

      ================,

      “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.”
      **That’s the issue,the militia clause.

      But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
      Weapons in common use in the 1800s. Miller and Heller, both page 1.

      It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.
      PERHAPS only more sophisticated weapons can be as EFFECTIVE. AND

      Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.
      The modern equivalent of a musket may be USELESS against today’s bombers and tanks. BUT

      But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
      NONE of that can change how the right is interpreted (in Miller)
      ======

      Next: Miller

      1. Miller

        US v Miller (1939)

        The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

        The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

        1) EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons …

        2 ) “these men” are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by “when called for service” for the 1800s militia. S

        3) “common use at the time” …. all one sentence … the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it’s “in common use” AT RATIFICATION.

        1. “So it’s “in common use” AT RATIFICATION.”

          Do you then maintain that the First Amendment only applies to methods of publication in common use at Ratification?

          1. Sorry, in the broader context, the Law of the Land protects MODERN VERSIONS of guns in common use AT RATIFICATION. As I said, I was dealing here with a narrower issue, the BLATANT BULLSHIT that “at the time” means … now … which I demolished.

            Your misinformation is separate, and was LITERALLY RIDICULED by Scalia in Heller

            Page 8, Heller ruling, Scalia
            Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
            that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

            Yes, 2A does prorect only what we now call hunting rifles (and pistols) Per Scalia, THE originalist of our time.

            Research and knowledge are a much higher bar than believing what one wants to believe (or one’s tribal legends) … as proven by Scalia..

            To clarify, I never blame the victims of tribal mind control, on EITHER major tribe. Neither you nor Bernie or Elizabeth. Partisan bullshit traces to the end of WWII, more neutral bullshit to 1933 (The depression was OVER when FDR took office, before a penny of New Deal spending!).

            As we libertarians have said for over 50 years, Left – Right = Zero
            A growing majority of American now agrees

  5. Once the primary is over, so shall be the gun control pandering.

    1. They’re gonna hush up faster than a Trump whistleblower.

      1. Not in over three months yet.

    2. Once the primary is over, so shall be the gun control pandering.

      I suspect you’ll be shamelessly pandered to forever

  6. “””Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun,” he says. “That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children.”””

    Would he be happy if a law was passed that said you could only have three shells in their shotgun when hunting children?

    I’m pretty sure hunting children is against the law and could possible lead to the death penalty. Unlike hunting duck.

    1. Yeah, well – – –
      And, oh by the way, ducks are famous for not robbing humans on a dark street, and for never, ever, committing a home invasion.
      In addition, they are much less likely than a democrat to violate your constitutional rights.

      1. Not true – if you feed ducks in the park every day and suddenly cut them off, they turn into superpredators.

        It is known.

        1. It’s true, they’ll even invade your home if you’ve been feeding them, and you’re not careful when opening the door. I’ve seen it happen, the consequences can be… well, delicious, but don’t tell the DNR.

        2. 97% of ornithologists agree!

      2. “”ducks are famous for not robbing humans on a dark street””

        But geese on the other hand are outright thieves.

        1. Hate those things. Fortunately we have dogs who keep them off the lawn.

          Deport the damn illegal geese back to Canada.

          1. Back to Canada? I’ve been to Canada more than most of those bags of shit.

    2. *scratches hunting children off bucket list*

      1. With as often as Dems refer to what the law allows for use in hunting humans, why do they never get asked which part of the U.S. Code allows for that activity (in a general sense) with any kind of equipment?

  7. All Joe wants is to get rid of the second amendment with the bother of an actual amendment repeal that would let people have their say through the various legislatures.
    It ain’t about the gun part, it’s about the control part.

    1. Longtobefree
      All Joe wants is to get rid of the second amendment

      Your hysteria SO pathetic … and ignorant. As provenon this page.
      https://reason.com/2019/10/02/joe-biden-plans-to-ban-and-register-assault-weapons-but-wont-say-what-they-are/#comment-7956291

  8. Biden’s circling the drain anyway.

    1. Yeah. The longer this Trump impeachment bs goes on, the more damage he’ll take. And if it goes away? Trump’s still gonna try to investigate that Ukraine shit. If he goes, and if this health thing knocks Sanders out, Warren might stroll on to the nomination, which would be very… interesting. I mean, considering that big Dem donors on Wall street and execs like Zuckerberg loathe her, and the middle-class understands what will happen to them if she gets elected. Even Trump could win that without trying.

      1. Facebook and Google will change their algorithms to stop suppressing conservatives?

      2. The Dems just finished running the worst candidate in history against the second worst candidate in history. It would be like them to try to break their own record.

        1. Looks like we have a fan of McCain and Kerry here…

          1. That was STUPID. Binary is for losers
            If I say Hitler was an asshole, will you WHINE that I like Stalin?

      3. Putting a target on the corporations that are estimated to have flipped millions of votes to her party by controlling what information people could easliy see in 2016 is what Jason Bateman’s character in Dodgeball would have called a “bold strategy”.

        1. Face it, Warren just isn’t very bright.

        2. TRUMP IS A HER????

  9. Joe believes in an eye for a tooth and a tooth for an eye.

  10. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not stop the Columbine murders.

    1. “Hey! It *could* have been a *lot* worse!”

      1. Yes we need to ban assault propane tanks. Hank Hill hardist hit.

        1. Stop using lady propane’s name in vain. She never assaulted anyone.

          1. We should at least ban some of the more dangerous propane accessories. No one needs a 600 square inch grill

            1. Goddammit Bobby.

            2. Goldarnet Bobby

    2. Nor Virginia tech which was the largest school shooting ever in the us ever and the largest mass shooting until the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016. But it saved lives you know……

      1. Funny thing though – –
        Back in the dark ages, the Va Tech Rifle and Pistol club wandered around campus carrying loaded firearms all the time, and yet not one person got shot. Saturdays were ‘range day’, and you could see someone with a pistol in a holster, two or more rifles slung over his shoulder, and a bag of ammunition in each hand headed for the parking lot.
        True, a permit was necessary for those who kept powder in the dorm, so the fire department knew of the risks, but they did reload hundreds of rounds on Friday nights.

  11. Removing these forbidden features results in a gun that is “just as deadly.”

    When will the gun-grabbers start pointing this out themselves in order to gain support for, um, phase two?

    1. Dammit Rich, don’t give them ideas

      1. “As a matter of fact, featureless assault weapons are even *more* deadly because that shoulder thing that goes up no longer gets in the way!”

    2. Honestly surprised they don’t go after measurable things like muzzle velocity, rounds per second, round mass, etc. They sort of went that path with magazine size limits, but everything else has been superficial.

      1. That’s because every semi-auto has an identical “rounds per second” measure. Even the ones with the slowest cycle rate are limited by the human finger.

        1. Look up “mad minute” to see how much of an assault rifle the bolt action Lee-Enfield WWI rifle is.

      2. Go after muzzle velocity or bullet weight you’d quickly lay false their claim not to be going after “hunting” rifles. Most deer cartridges have equal or faster muzzle velocity and all have heavier bullets then the 5.56mm nati.

        1. They actually did briefly (Chuck Schumer co sponsored it) a ban on so called sniper rounds, until someone pointed out that this would ban 90% of rifle cartridges. It sort of died away. I actually think it was Vox that pointed out how stupid the law was.

          1. Vox that pointed out how stupid the law was.

            That strains credulity.

            Pics or it didn’t happen.

            1. Unfortunately, after much Google and Duckduckgo it appears to have been memory holed, the whole debate. It was over a decade ago and I may be wrong on who pointed out the stupidity of the law. I have read a few Vox articles though, that have pointed out how stupid proposed gun laws. Of course their take is that the laws need to ban more not less guns.
              Like this one;
              https://www.vox.com/2015/12/11/9886862/banning-assault-weapons-solve

  12. A wise man once said, “You don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”

    1. buy a shot gun and shoot through the door without knowing whose there, per shooting Joe

  13. So 5 guys invade my house I take out 3 and the other 2 rape and murder my children. Thanks Joe.

  14. Start buying stock in Ruger, because Mini 14s are coming back, baby!

    Maybe we’ll get a A-Team reboot to go with it. Who says the 80s are dead?

    1. Did you see the A-Team movie?

        1. Yes, with Liam Nesson.

          1. Another reboot that totally fucked up a great 80s show.

  15. “The presidential contender says the 1994 ban made mass shootings less lethal, even though the guns it tolerated were “just as deadly.”

    1. Please show us evidence the 1994 ban made mass shootings less lethal.
    2. Please show evidence the guns that were tolerated were just as deadly.
    3. If you can’t do that, Mr. Biden, then shut the fuck up.

    1. The “post-ban” rifles were just as deadly as the “pre-ban” ones.

    2. He seems to think it’s legally permissible to hunt human children, so I’m not positive a fact-based rebuttal is the most practical way to proceed here.

    3. During the AWB, 1994-2004, there were 172,432 homicides. In the ten-year period following the expiration of the AWB there were 155,322 homicides. That’s 17,110 fewer murders after the ban, so obviously, restricting guns based on their appearance and banning magazines over 10 rounds is more lethal than no restrictions.

  16. Biden is showing us, in the photo, what assault weapons look like.

    Sexually assault weapons.

    1. Sexual assault weapons.

      1. Don’t you ever use the preview button?

    2. I thought he was describing Serena Williams’s ass.

  17. I kinda like Uncle Joe because he is such a clueless goofball. My feeling is that he is the most harmless of the Democrats. Don’t think it will matter much anyway. With this lineup they are never going to win. To beat Trump you need to light a fire under people, you need a crusader. None of them seem to be able to get anything more than a golf clap.

  18. “Joe Biden Plans To Ban and Register ‘Assault Weapons’ ”

    A probably lie or falsehood by @Reason as the ban will not apply to ALL citizens like the police and the militarily !

  19. As confirmed by Scalia in Heller, a ban on all semi-automatics is already constitutional, since 1939. Thisn is Sullum’s daffiest one yet on 2A

    Second Amendment – propaganda and misinformation
    Inconvenient facts (fully documented) (ignore the screeching guntards)

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    cont’d

    1. Part 2
      FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
      Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 250 in 7 months. Do the math.
      Mass Shootings Per year
      UK = 0.2 per year
      US = 426.7 per year = 2,130,000% higher mass shootings
      But guntard “think” gun control has never worked. Anywhere!
      (Australia had one in mass shooting in 23 years).

      Authoritarian Right: “SANCTITY OF LIFE” (except when it’s not)

      Inconvenient questions:

      1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH

      2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

      3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

      4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?

      NOT advocating gun grabs, just want HONEST debate – the difference between libertarians and the bellowing blowhards of the Authoritarian Right.

      ”shall not be infringed” They beat their chests and bellow … nonsense, evasions and bullshit. … PROVES how they’ve become witless tools of the political elites. The ISSUE is WHICH ARMS shall not be infringed. Why is this rocket science to these people?

      Left – Right = Zero
      Libertarians: speaking Truth to Power, both left and right, for over 50 years.
      Listen now to their death rattle, amidst the shrieking, bellowing and lies. .

      1. PROVES how they’ve become witless tools of the political elites.

        You’re not even a tool of the political elites, you’re a tool of the fascist fringe among the political elites.

        1. (posted in self-defense of aggression and bullying from the Authoritarian Right )

          FACED WITH DOCUMENTED FACTS, FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES … WHAT DO GOOBERS DO … THROW A HISSY FIT, WITH INFANTILE NAME-CALLING … because poor loser.
          And punk.

          1. Hihn: wants to confiscate guns, throws a hissy-fit when called out for what he is.

            1. FACED WITH DOCUMENTED FACTS, FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES … WHAT DO GOOBERS DO … THROW A HISSY FIT, WITH INFANTILE NAME-CALLING … because poor losers.

              NOYB2’s hissy fit HERE is PROVEN directly above. What he responded to. EXACTLY as I said, his direct assault on “documented facts from official sources.”

              And all down this page, since the lying thug began stalking me.

              The Authoritarian Right = the Authoritarian Left.
              Both now just bellowing statists, screaming at the sky, rejected by a growing majority of Americans.

    2. As confirmed by Scalia in Heller, a ban on all semi-automatics is already constitutional, since 1939. Thisn is Sullum’s daffiest one yet on 2A

      Fuck off, fascist.

      Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
      5.3 United States
      3.0 Europe and Asia (each)

      The US would be below European rates if it weren’t for Mexican drug cartels and black youth. But fascists like you like it when those people commit murders because it fuels your power grabs.

      1. (Also posted in self-defence, from repeated assaults by a raging stalker)

        CALLS SCALIA FASCIST!
        BAT-SHIT CRAZY ON GUN VIOLENCE.

        a) WHO POSTS FACTS … FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES … WITH LINKS TO THE PROOF.

        b) WHO ONLY SCREECHES … WITH INFANTILE PERSONAL INSULTS?
        Always the loser, here with blatant contempt for “sanctity of life” …which is what REAL fascists do, cowardly punks, the Authoritarian Right (and left) Left – Right = Zero.

        1. a) WHO POSTS FACTS … FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES … WITH LINKS TO THE PROOF.

          Your facts are not in question: murder rates in the US are substantially higher in Europe. The problem is your inability to comprehend the causes of those higher murder rates, which are unrelated to legal gun ownership.

          1. All those murders are KICKED TO DEATH
            Oh, it’s you ..

          2. Murder rates in the US are substantially higher in Europe

            (yawn) which has nothing to do with the facts I posted, yet another cowardly diversion.

      2. (posted in self-defense from repeated assaults by a brainwashed guntard THUG, same thing)

        You’re not even a tool of the political elites, you’re a tool of the fascist fringe among the political elites.

        Guntard/bully REJECTS absolute and undeniable proof, all from official sources.

        Guntard calls Justice Scalia a fascist … SNEERS as BOTH two binding SCOTUS rulings I cited …. attacked like a typical trashmouth … so, I have shoved BOTH rulings up his pathetic ass … and twisted (smirk) … above.

        https://reason.com/2019/10/02/joe-biden-plans-to-ban-and-register-assault-weapons-but-wont-say-what-they-are/#comment-7956291

        “Mess with the bull, you get the horns, blowhard.”

        1. (posted in self-defense from repeated assaults by a brainwashed guntard THUG, same thing)

          I have never owned or fired a gun in my life.

          But I have experienced totalitarianism, which is why I recognize you for what you are.

          1. Called out as a wacko, he DEFENDS saying Scalia is a fascist … by changing the subject … with ANOTHER cowardly diversion,

            The gutless wonders.

  20. Okay who was the smart ass who said Hihn three times and summoned his newest sock puppet? Now we have endless noise of his misrepresenting Heller and the Miller verdict. I hope you are happy smart guy. Fuck endless bolds, caps, quotes out of context, links to himself and sophomoric trope of left-right*perpindicular=π. Well this thread has gone to shit now.

    1. BEND OVER … I’M NOT HIHN … BUT THIS GETS JAMMED UP soldiermedic’s PATHETIC ASS (sneer)

      Heller Ruling Page One
      1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

      2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: …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.

      weapons used by the militia

      TEXT
      ================,

      “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.”

      **That’s the issue, the militia clause.

      But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

      Weapons in common use in the 1800s. Miller and Heller, both page 1.

      It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.

      PERHAPS only more sophisticated weapons can be as EFFECTIVE. AND

      Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

      The modern equivalent of a musket may be USELESS against today’s bombers and tanks. BUT

      But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

      NONE of that can change how the right is interpreted (in Miller)

      Now Miller (smirk)

      1. Please you are so Hihn. You use his exact style, wording, phrasing etc. And even his poor logic. So fuck off and please don’t start another tirade. Because I will just flag that one too. You are totally delusional.

        1. Your flag was removed, censor
          PERHAP because I make screen shots when I need proof.
          Perhaps because your bragging gave me IRREFUTABLE proof.

          How can you refuse to accept absolute, undeniable proof of relevant SCOTUS rulings … PLUS your blatant assault on FREE SPEECH? The Authoritarian Right STILL = Fascist Mentality.
          (vomit)

        2. soldiermedic
          Please you are so Hihn. You use his exact style, wording, phrasing etc

          Please, ignorant, child. Many of us who were active in discussion forums, for over 15-20 years … . that was a shared, common format. Because …..

          And even his poor logic. So fuck off and please don’t start another tirade. Because I will just flag that one too. You are totally delusional.

          … Because … even then, the original cyber-bullies were SCREAMING when RIDICULED by such PROOF as actual SCOTUS rulings. (gasp)

          That group — your group … are also called blowhards and know-nothings..

          And kinda dumb. As you SHOULD have learned in High School Composition classes, boldface, all caps and italics are used for emphasis in the written word … to simulate the emphasis and stressing in verbal communications Like this: You are SUCH a thug..

          When they’ve totally lost, they start whining about …. PUNCTUATION. (Those caps were for ridicule — again in self-defense)

  21. US v Miller (1939)

    The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

    1) EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons …

    2 ) “these men” are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by “when called for service” for the 1800s militia.

    3) “common use at the time” …. all one sentence … the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence, perhaps the worst guntard bullshit So it’s “in common use” AT RATIFICATION.

    Now the rage, screeching and hatred … from the dancing puppets

    1. US v Miller (1939) 1) EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons …

      SCOTUS around that time also legalized forcible sterilization of “imbeciles and undesirables”, permitted mass-confiscation of gold, and upheld a lot of other stupid, authoritarian laws.

      Thanks for showing us what you’re made of.

      1. That was even crazier than the norm for NDYB2s raging lies.
        THIS IS ABOUT SCALIA’S HELLER RULING YOU CRAZED AND DROOLING LOSER.

        (Will he AGAIN lie about what I said, with a bogus excerpt? More anti-liberty thuggery)?

        Thanks for showing us what you’re made of.

        Says the PROVEN cowardly LIAR. (sneer)

Please to post comments