Assault Weapon Ban

Biden Likens Owning an AR-15 to Falsely Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater

The presidential contender has trouble explaining why the guns he wants to ban fall outside the Second Amendment.

|

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, today got into a heated argument with a Detroit autoworker who challenged his support for a new federal "assault weapon" ban. Even leaving aside Biden's reference to an "AR-14" when he meant "AR-15," the conversation revealed both the illogic of his proposal and the suspicions it understandably arouses among many gun owners.

Cellphone video of the encounter shows a bearded man in a hard hat accusing Biden of "actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns." Biden denied the charge. "You're full of shit," he said. "I support the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, just like now, if you yelled fire, that's not free speech…I have a shotgun. I have a 12-gauge, a 20-gauge. My sons hunt….I'm not taking your gun away at all."

It is true that Biden's proposal—like the 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban, which expired in 2004—does not include confiscation of guns Americans already own. Instead he would give owners of the targeted firearms a choice: They could sell their guns to the federal government, or they could register them under the National Firearms Act (NFA), following the same procedure, including a background check and a $200 tax, that applies to machine guns. Unlike former presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke, Biden is not threatening to "take your AR-15."

But state requirements for registration of "assault weapons" have been honored mostly in the breach, and Biden's plan is likely to be even less successful now that talk of confiscation is in the air. When the government does not know who owns the guns it decides to ban, it can neither force people to register them nor seize them. It is perfectly rational for gun owners to worry that the first step will eventually lead to the second.

During the exchange in Detroit, Biden himself muddied the legal impact of his proposal. "Are you able to own a machine gun?" he asked. "No, machine guns are illegal," the autoworker replied. "That's right," Biden confirmed. "How are AR-15s legal?"

It's not actually true that "machine guns are illegal." While new production for civilian use has been banned since 1986, machine guns owned before then can be legally possessed and transferred as long as the NFA's requirements are followed. On one hand, Biden wants to treat "assault weapons" the same way machine guns are treated, which he says shows he does not favor confiscation. On the other hand, he erroneously says no civilian is legally "able to own a machine gun," which contradicts his first point.

Biden argues that machine guns "are rarely used in crimes" because of the restrictions imposed by the NFA. But even without those restrictions, "assault weapons" also are used in a very small share of gun homicides. In 2018, according to the FBI's numbers, 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 weapons used in those cases. A tally by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who sponsored the original "assault weapon" ban and has introduced a new, stricter version that is probably similar to what Biden favors, suggests that the firearms she considers intolerable were used in something like 0.5 percent of gun homicides from 2004 through 2011.

The argumentative autoworker raised that point with Biden, noting that handguns are much more commonly used in homicides than the firearms he wants to ban. "Why are you advocating for [a ban on] assault rifles?" he wondered. Biden did not answer.

There is a good reason for that. Biden has conceded that the 1994 "assault weapon" ban had no impact on the lethality of legal firearms, which remained "just as deadly." He says he would fix that problem, but it is hard to see how, since "assault weapons" are an arbitrarily defined category of firearms distinguished by military-style features that make little or no difference in the hands of a murderer. No amount of tinkering with the list of forbidden characteristics can ban guns that are effective in mass shootings without also banning guns that are commonly used for self-defense and other legal purposes, which would clearly violate the Second Amendment.

Biden wants us to believe that owning an AR-15 is constitutionally analogous to "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic," which is "not free speech." But he cannot explain why. The Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms "in common use" for "lawful purposes," a standard that so-called assault weapons easily satisfy, since they are among the most popular rifles sold in the United States.

Today Biden repeatedly asked his interlocutor whether anyone really needs a magazine that holds "100 rounds," which is doubling misleading. First, the issue of ammunition capacity is distinct from the definition of "assault weapon," since a gun could fall outside Feinstein's criteria and still accept a 100-round magazine. Second, Biden's proposal to ban "high-capacity magazines," assuming it is similar to Feinstein's, draws the line at 10 rounds, not 100. That rule would ban magazines commonly used for self-defense.

To show that he supports the Second Amendment, Biden noted that he owns shotguns and that "my sons hunt," which is not exactly reassuring for anyone who values the right to armed self-defense. Biden also has said that if you must keep a firearm for home defense, a shotgun is the way to go—questionable advice that has been rejected by the millions of Americans who own handguns for that purpose, a choice the Supreme Court has recognized as constitutionally protected. Feinstein seems to share Biden's affection for shotguns, hundreds of which are included in her bill's gratuitous list of specifically exempted firearms.

Since even shotguns are more commonly used in homicides than "assault weapons" are, the constitutional or public safety distinction that Biden and Feinstein have in mind is rather mysterious. If Biden wants gun owners to believe him when he says he respects the Second Amendment, he will have to do a better job of explaining which rights he thinks it protects and why.

NEXT: Yes, There Are Libertarians in Pandemics

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. There is no way Biden has fired a shotgun in the last 10 years.

    1. might explain the perpetual post-concussion syndrome?

      1. Lewy body dementia or Alzheimer’s likely explains it better.

        1. As opposed to lewd body dementia?

          1. Is this an attempted joke?
            Really can’t tell

      2. How can a blithering dumbass, sniffer of women’s hair EVER get to the White House? Answer: HE WON’T!!! Exactly NO ONE likes, admires, or wants any one LIKE ODUMBA, so why would anyone vote for Biden??

        1. Exactly NO ONE likes, admires, or wants any one LIKE ODUMBA, so why would anyone vote for Biden??

          Uh, have you met people (ones that don’t live in your head)? Close to half of them want something just like Odumba. The reason Biden is doing well is exactly because of his association with Obama. And that he’s slightly less horrifying than Bernie.

          1. The reason Biden is doing well is exactly because of his association with Obama. And that he’s slightly less horrifying than Bernie.

            Polls show almost any Democrat beating Trump, and that’s before he committed suicide on his handling of COVID-19

            And Biden’s not a nigger. *sarc*

    2. There is no way Biden has fired a shotgun in the last 10 years.

      The statement “My sons hunt” hasn’t been objectively true in the last 5 yrs.

      And that’s both exceedingly sad and exceedingly troubling.

      1. One son at least does hunt — Ukrainian jobs, that is.

        1. And strippers.

          1. and rock.

        2. He also hunts big black strap on dildos. With his rectum.

      2. Hey didn’t he name one son, “Hunter” ? & as I recall Hunter was really good at job hunting, especially overseas & without Daddy’s help!!!!

      3. Can’t we have one candidate under 70, for fuck’s sake?

        1. I hear Hunter is just bidin’ his time.

          1. While I appreciate the pun, one more caveat, no more dynasties.

            1. Dynasties are usually started by someone capable, then fall apart in succeeding generations. This would be an unusual one, starting weak, with the prices already decrepit and used up.

              1. True decline of the republic. Even our dynasties are weaker than previous dynasties.

                Do we have anymore Adams kicking around? How about a nice Roosevelt?

                1. Fuck off Hihn.

        2. Tulsi Gabbard hasn’t dropped out yet.

          1. All but in name.

            1. Fuck off Vince

          2. Just Early Voted for her this morning …

        3. You do. In Canada. Where you’re from.

    3. I think he has fired a staple gun & I think it might have been in his scalp to keep his hair plugs in place!….He looks as scary as he sounds!

    4. How can a blithering dumbass, sniffer of women’s hair EVER get to the White House? Answer: HE WON’T!!! Exactly NO ONE likes, admires, or wants any one LIKE ODUMBA, so why would anyone vote for Biden??

      1. Nope, the comment is no less dumb a second time.

        Not to say that I think he is likely to get elected.

  2. Even if we do credit the NFA for preventing machine guns from being used in crimes, it was passed before there were tens of millions of them in circulation. If anything, gun control is a vaccine, not a cure.

    1. If anything, gun control is a vaccine snake oil, sold in medical infomercials on 2AM cable channels.

      1. If anything, gun control is [totalitarian]

    2. Before the NFA you could buy fully automatic Thompson’s and BARs by mail. There were plenty of automatic weapons out there. They were not and are not used for crimes because most crimes involve stealing money or at most killing one person and then trying to get away with it. And fully automatic weapons are close to useless for such purposes. They were never a problem and their ownership never a danger to the public.

      1. No shit? I should have picked up a BAR back then. Great weapon

        1. Ever shot one? With full mag and tripod it dresses out around 23#. I would not have wanted to be the guy who had to lug one of those around the South Pacific.

        2. eh, it really wasn’t. Like Quo said, it was a heavy motherfucker, and it was awkward to use and difficult to master. Didn’t have a big enough mag for sustained fire, and it was too heavy to shoot effectively while upright like an assault rifle. Many infantrymen (particularly in the pacific) would discard the bipod and flash suppressor in an effort to reduce weight, which made firing while prone difficult also.

          But it was the only automatic weapon infantry squads usually had going into WWII, so we kept it as an adhoc LMG. Read the Wiki, there are more issues then the ones I’m mentioning here.

      2. The banning of such weapons began in 1934, and was a response to their use in the gang wars back in the 20’s, said gang wars being a direct result of the banning of alcohol in 1919. Although Prohibition was enacted by a Constitutional Amendment, unlike the clearly unconstitutional War on Drugs, it was still stupid. In any case, the NAF was a response to a problem the government itself had caused.

        1. I should have said “gang wars that started back in the 20s, since the 21st Amendment didn’t magically make the gangs who had formed to smuggle alcohol magically disappear, it just made them find new forms of illicit gains.

      3. Democrats banned alcohol and gave all organized crime a serious foothold in making money. Limited supply and demand and all.

        Add in sporadic city mob violence with machine guns allowed the government to effectively ban machine guns.

        All gun control is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

    3. Machine guns are expensive, heavy, and ill suited to holdups. Sub machine guns are hard to conceal, and seldom used in crime for a number of reasons. The entire impetus of gun control has always been to keep self-defense,weapons out of the hands of possibly unruly citizens.

    4. Machine guns were rarely used in crime before NFA of 1934, anyway. More media hype than anything. Plus, semi-autos are easily substitutable, as are slide actions (pumps) or bolt-actions.

      1. Not just machine guns but all full-autos.

  3. Using facts when debating gun control is bullying.

    1. As the WaPost editorial said last year – presenting facts to gun banners is acting in bad faith.

      1. They call it “gunsplaining”

    2. I’d argue that the “logic” the Dems try to use with women’s health applies here. If guys aren’t allowed to have an opinion on women’s health due to not knowing what it’s like, I don’t see why the Dems get to have an opinion on something they clearly don’t understand.

  4. “Back in my day you had to scare away the varmints with the home cannon!”

  5. My sons hunt….

    I don’t want to feel bad for the guy but fuck if that doesn’t turn your stomach a little.

    1. I know what one of them hunts.

      1. The stomach turning part is that *the* other one doesn’t do much hunting these days and Joe doesn’t seem to realize that.

      2. Rhymes with “hunts”?

    2. Given all of his family’s criminal tendencies, are any of them even legally allowed to have guns?

      1. I’d think that Hunter can’t since he was dishonorably discharged. It depends on the state, but since he’s either living in Cali or DC, I’d assume he can’t. Hunter’s brother… well, he isn’t in a position to own diddly shit.

    3. I bet Biden doesn’t even know what color a snow goose is.

      1. I’m pretty sure the problem isn’t the hunting part and is more the sons part. Seeing as how one of them is dead.

  6. “You’re full of shit,” he said

    Glad Biden is here to bring back civility and decorum.

    “This is not OK, alright?” the man said, to which Biden replied, “Don’t tell me that, pal, or I’m going to go out and slap you in the face.”

    “You’re working for me, man!” the worker said.

    “I’m not working for you,” Biden said. “Don’t be such a horse’s ass.”

    1. This is a man unironically running on the idea that he can heal division and unite the country.

      1. In fairness, he’s lied about everything else in his life so far, so lying about his campaign platform doesn’t even make the top 10.

        1. Hey man, as long as I can keep my AR-14, it’s all good.

          1. But if they come for my 16 and 17…there’ll be bodies on the cold, hard ground. 🙂

            1. And as long as it comes with a 100 round clip.

          2. The AR-14 might have been two AR-7’s… one badass 22LR rifle.

            Biden’s view that as long as a double barreled shotgun is legal the 2A is intact, is akin to a view that as long as the Chinese had Quotations from Chairman Mao in print, there was a freedom of the Press.

            And, I’m going to guess his protection detail have large capacity magazines, as many as they can conceal. Perhaps 100 rounds apiece or more.

      2. Tough sell when he keeps getting in fights with the peons

        1. At least the uppity white male peons.

          1. And Cornpop.

          2. And that dog faced pony soldier chick who volunteered for him

    2. They’re limiting his campaign speeches to 7-15 minutes because he literally can’t keep himself focused any longer than that. They altered the format of the last debate to a town hall so he could take questions from audience members that I’m willing to bet the DNC planted to lob him softballs…because if he ever got grilled he can’t think on his feet and he’s toast.

      I am so looking forward to Trump tearing into him at the presidential debates. And I’m betting that they’ll try to change the formats of those too to try and hide just how far gone Biden is.

      1. My call right now for the DNC statement: “Trump is a lying liar who lies and we aren’t going to normalize him by having our candidate debate him!”

        1. Hey, someone’s taking espresso’s commentary to heart

        2. It’s how every elder Democrat in elected office has been running for years. Pelosi and Feinstein haven’t debated their campaign opponents in over a decade…same reason. Because they can’t hold their own in a debate.

          1. Incidentally, through all this never Trump b.s., noticed the conspicuous absence of Feinstein from any of the commentary? We’re hearing tons from Schumer and Harris and Booker and other Senate Dems. But Feinstein’s been very quiet for about a year.

            Anyone want to make a bet on whether she or Biden have the worse cognitive functions?

            1. She posted the following on her twitter an hour ago. If the comment section is any clue, the masses are not impressed. (They’re wondering why she isn’t focused on something more important, re: Anything at all.)

              “If the last year has taught us anything, it’s that we can no longer ignore the problems associated with horse racing. We must take action, including passing the Horseracing Integrity Act, if we’re going to protect these magnificent creatures and their riders.”

      2. They will try and change the format but I’m pretty sure Trump will ignore that.

        1. Not if they refuse to participate in a debate at all.

          Then when he says that they’re hiding Biden’s senility, the Dems and the MSM will accuse him of spreading “conspiracy theories”.

      3. I’m guessing he’ll refuse to debate based on some nonsensical reasoning and the media will back him up 100%.

        1. Coronavirus you betcha.

        2. Agree and amplify Alphabet’s comment on covid-19. They will “protect” poor old Biden’s health by hiding him away from debates, voters, cameras, campaign trail, etc.

          By autumn, maybe we can have a “Where’s Waldo” meme set up for the absentee Democratic candidate.

    3. This is terrific. That whole exchange needs to be a PAC ad run morning noon and night. And there are so many others.

      And it’s only the beginning of March………..lol.ll.

      1. Voter: “Hey man, you work for me.”
        Candidate: “Don’t be a jackass.”

        If CNN weren’t just an arm of the D party, something along the lines of “who do you think the president works for?” would absolutely be a necessary question at the next debate

  7. Falsely Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater
    That is bad if you have people with weapons drawn and ready.

    1. You cannot own vocal chords; you might shout fire in a crowded theater.

      1. At least not assault vocal chords. (Which, come to think of it, seems to be an actual goal of the progressive left.)

    2. Which is as we all know a reason why we need controls on free speech – people might say something the government doesn’t want said like “how come we’re in the pointless war?”.

      1. Haha. Yeah. Nobody ever says that cuz they’re so scared.

        Everything is so terrible and unfair.

  8. The presidential contender has trouble explaining why the guns he wants to ban fall outside the Second Amendment.

    I think you can end it there.

  9. Lowering gun violence is simple, end drug prohibition. 95% of the problem is gangs fighting over turf.

    1. I once went through some googling and tallying. It started with 1/3 (10000) of gun deaths are murder, and 2/3 of those are gang on gang, leaving 3000 actual murders a year, of which most are family on family. It came down to just 500 or 1000 random gun murders a year, meaning burglars and robbers.

      1. Nearly all of the gun homicide deaths in this country involve a small section of young, mostly minority men, who are involved in gangs and kill each other as a part of that. If you are not involved in gang activity, your chances of being murdered with a gun are vanishingly small.

        1. Yes.

          Banning “assault” weapons would have little to no affect on the murder rate. Banning young black males would instantly reduce the murder rate by at least 40%.

          1. An AWB would only be step one, toward banning the guns that criminals actually use. Never mind that 99+% of gun owners are not part of the problem, when you want to use a hammer you hammer ALL the nails on the board.

            1. This.

              Some of you are old enough to remember the early 1980s, when HCI and the Brady Campaign had some “success” (from their point of view) with getting handgun “safety” legislation passed. However, their gains were limited and did not last. Eventually, the pendulum swung way back in the other direction, to the point that most states now have “shall issue” concealed carry permits (a few don’t even have a permit requirement). As those restrictions were being relaxed across the country, there were predictions of frequent shootings in bars, road rage carnage on the highways, and similar “sky is falling” predictions, none of which came to be.

              So, now they’ll try for “common sense” restrictions on “weapons of war” in civilian hands. They frequently muddle the language to mislabel scary looking rifles as “automatic” weapons (and not always out of ignorance in my opinion), not to mention the nebulous term “assault weapon”. This is all just an attempt to boil the frog. If they succeed with this, they’ll move on to all semi-automatic rifles, then handguns, probably leaving revolvers until last – “Nobody needs more than 6 bullets”, they’ll say. Finally, it will be any shotgun other than single or double barrel breech-loaders.

              They’re hoping that banning scary looking rifles can be made palatable to the general public. Then they can say, “Look how violence decreased!” Never mind that it has been steadily decreasing since the mid-90s. Little Bobbie Frankie (a.k.a. “Beto”) shit in their punch bowl, but they’ll play it down. That is their end goal, the disarming of the American populace.

      2. Sorry, meant to finish by saying I had found some estimates of how many burglaries and robberies were due to needing funds for drugs which are only expensive because they are illegal. It came down to an amazingly small number of “real” criminal murders (as opposed to family and friends).

        1. That is another BS myth. Burglaries and robberies are generally committed by professional criminals who steal for a living. Drug users sell drugs to feed their habit. You are using the drugs anyway. Why risk your life breaking into someone’s house when you can make more money selling the drugs you are already buying and using anyway? There are so many bullshit lies put out by the media. Almost nothing they say is true.

          1. Uh, no. If all or even most drug users are also dealers to support their habit …. uh just no. Selling pyramids don’t work like that. You have to have a lot more users than dealers.

            1. Not to mention that a user who sells drugs would become his best customer.

            2. But if get 10 meth-heads to join, your drugs are free!

              1. And you get a black pimped out Cadillac.

            3. But that assumes that all users are problem users who can’t otherwise support their habit. Most drug users are of the occasional/casual variety, and that’s who the junkies sell to.

              1. Don’t know about other drugs, but in my college days that was very common with weed.
                Pick up an oz., sell three quarters to cover the cost of your own quarter

                1. I had friends who would do that too. If you have a wholesale hookup, you can sell some at retail and cover your costs. I tended to smoke all the weed I got, but I had some disposable income and didn’t want to take on the risk of selling.

                  Anyway, in my experience, nobody is committing theft to support their weed habit. Opiates and stuff maybe, but that’s usually petty theft like shoplifting or stealing from family members. I’ve never known anyone to commit armed robbery to feed a drug addiction.

                  1. usually they’d sell the gun first, and then try to steal to feed the habit.

          2. Mostly the theft. Drug users is not a burglary. Usually it’s just them grabbing some unsecured tools or some such thing from a place they already have access.

  10. “They could sell their guns to the federal government, or they could register them under the National Firearms Act (NFA), following the same procedure, including a background check and a $200 tax, that applies to machine guns.”

    Left unsaid is option 3, and the one most gun owners will use, which is losing all of their now-illegal guns in truly unfortunate boating accidents.

    1. Left unsaid is option 3, and the one most gun owners will use, which is losing all of their now-illegal guns in truly unfortunate boating accidents.

      It will be funny when the nation’s largest freshwater disaster takes place in a city like Flagstaff, Boise, or Nashville.

      1. I came to Barstow for the waters.

        1. As long as it wasn’t for the home made rocket test flights

        2. Let me guess, you were misinformed?

      2. Like I said, the boating accidents were truly unfortunate.

      3. Nashville has the Cumberland River running through it, and Percy Priest Lake next to it. We might not be the land of a thousand lakes, but we do have a good amount of water around here.

    2. But if you ever had to use them you’d be in big trouble.

  11. No democrat has respect for any part of the constitution.

  12. Biden can’t control himself when asked a simple question by a voter. That doesn’t bode well for his ability to debate the President. Biden is senile. He is no longer mentally fit. I don’t think even the media is going to be able to keep the public from realizing that.

    1. They’re going to start getting commitments from prominent Democrats to serve in key posts in the Biden administration (and they’ll elect a ready-made replacement as VP who will step in within a year) and run on the promise that it’ll be a “team effort”. They’re already floating the idea of Warren as Secretary of the Treasury, and Biden is plugging Beto for head of ATF, or DHS, or whatever.

      The Dems are stupid, but I doubt they’re stupid enough to think they can hide Biden’s dementia forever when they couldn’t hide Hillary from voters. They’re going to run Biden as a delegator overseeing a “crack team of top people”, even though Biden probably won’t be able to name half the people in his Cabinet a month into the job.

      1. I do you one better than that. They will impeach him and remove him from office for corruption. It will put in some far left nut that could never get elected otherwise but did get elected as VP and enable them to claim that they are not being partisan when they try to impeach the next Republican President.

        And yeah, the Democrats pulled this shit before with FDR. FDR was dead within a month of being inaugurated to his fourth term and they put Truman on the ticket because they knew he would be President. But, I don’t think the public is going to buy it and vote for Biden because his looney left running mate is ready to take over for him.

        1. They won’t impeach him. That would require an investigation, and there were a lot of other prominent Democrats whose names would get tossed out there (especially in a Senate investigation). John Kerry being at the tippy-top of that list, as well as Pelosi. They’ll invoke the 25th Amendment for removal if he gets to the point where they can’t just sideline him in a home somewhere.

          After all, it’s the party that let Woodrow Wilson’s wife run the country for two years after he had a stroke and was completely incapacitated. They’ll just keep him out of the spotlight and let his “staff” run everything, overseen by the VP (probably Hillary or Bloomers). They’re masters at hiding behind cutouts and scamming the public.

          1. Or they use an impersonator. Like in the 1993 Kevin Kline film ‘Dave’.

        2. Biden with Hillary as VP. within a month of inauguration, the 25th Amendment is invoked.

          1. Assuming she doesn’t suicide him a couple of months before the election so she can run on “Win this one for Joe” pity vote.

        3. They’re not going to impeach Biden. They’ll just tell Joe he’s been impeached and he has to go home now and off he’ll toddle.

      2. They’ll select Bloomberg as VP. He’s got money to burn, big on gun-control. Deal’s probably already been made when Bloomberg dropped out.

        1. No, it won’t be Bloomberg, because he brings nothing to the ticket. It won’t be Hillary, because…well, because Hillary. It won’t be Bernie, because “two old white guys”. It certainly won’t be Warren, because she’s from the same region and she earned precious few primary votes there.

          It will be fucking Kamala Harris. Different region, makes Cali a lock (as if it weren’t already), and masks some of the “old white guy” smell by ticking a couple of the wokeness check-boxes. Then Biden will either have a stroke or shit the bed a few months to a year in, and we’ll be stuck with a president who is the most autocratic of the entire set of 2020 primary contenders.

          In order for that nightmare scenario to happen, Biden/Harris would have to win. I’m not fond of Republicans in general, nor Trump specifically, but we must not elect, even indirectly, a President Harris. I’ll swallow my bile and vote for Trump, regardless of which D is at the top of the ticket. Given all that the Democrats (and the most vocal subset of their party) have shown during the primary, it’s difficult to imagine myself voting for any of them for any office ever again. Of course, whenever I think that, I immediately remember that Josh Hawley exists…

    2. Biden is senile. He is no longer mentally fit.

      Again, in the article he says (twice!) “my sonS hunt“. He had two, one’s dead. Unless we all follow Joe’s flight of fancy where Beau has gone off to that big pheasant shoot in the sky, “my sons hunt” is factually incorrect, has been for 5 yrs., and apparently nobody’s clued Joe in.

      1. Well, the last thing you do with a senile person, when they’re enjoying not remembering their son is dead, is remind them. That’s just common courtesy.

      2. Don’t forget the other one has a dishonorable discharge, which if I remember correctly means he can’t have one, and no one in his family has one that he can access.

    3. Here comes Hillary!

  13. Really pretty amazing behavior by former VP Biden that the MSM is just glossing over, sort of like a wet fart in church; everyone knows it is terrible, and it sounds awful, but no one wants to acknowledge it. I don’t think it is a good idea to verbally abuse potential voters, especially when elections these days are pretty unpredictable and close.

    1. Not as amazing as the MSM glossing over the growing evidence that Biden is not playing with a full deck.

      The media has always been liberal and biased, but when Thomas Eagleton ran as McGovern’s VP in ’72, they still investigated him and reported his history of mental illness and psychiatric treatment. Biden’s had two brain surgeries, refuses to release his full medical records, he’s behaving bizarrely in public, he started bleeding from the eyes in a debate, and yet the press just pretends that nothing has happened and that only a fool, a Trump supporter, or a Russian bot would insinuate otherwise.

    2. Never mind the MSM glossing over crap, just look at the first paragraph of this article:

      Even leaving aside Biden’s reference to an “AR-14” when he meant “AR-15,”

      “When he meant”? Nobody can know that.

  14. He’s senile
    Come and take my AR14 LOL
    And he uses aggression to counter any challenge
    I’ve been through relatives who have had dementia
    Acting aggressive is a defense mechanism because they don’t know what to say

    1. Yup. And he’s getting worse fast. Biden was markedly faster on his feet two years ago in his appearance on MSNBC and he was absolutely brilliant in comparison if you look at his 2012 VP debate.

      And Biden wasn’t brilliant in 2012 or at any other point in his life. He was always stupid. Which tells you just how bad he is when 2020 Joe Biden looks horrible in comparison to Biden just a couple of years ago.

      1. I once had a conversation with a friend were we estimated his IQ to be between 90 and 95. That would appear highly optimistic in his current condition.

        1. Probably accurate then. Not now.

          He did a 25 second thank you video for last night’s primary. They had to splice it at least twice. He literally cannot do a simple 25 second thank you message.

          He did a 7 minute speech in Missouri last weekend and it was a disaster, even while using a teleprompter.

    2. AR-14, AR-15……… whatever it takes.

      1. One of my circle’s favorite quotes to riff on “220…221…whatever it takes”, works its way into conversation almost daily it would seem.

    3. My question is the media was all over Trumps mental state even getting 100’s of pshycologist to formally say Trump was nuts without actually meeting with Trump where are those same people now with Biden who is clearly having issues

  15. Biden is not going to confiscate your guns. Biden’s going to hire Beto O’Rourke to do it.

    1. But clearly supports 2A!

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised if Joe thought the second amendment was that thing about coveting your brother’s wife.

    2. As long as they only confiscate guns that don’t exist it might not be too bad.

  16. Hey, Joe how do you stop a person from shouting fire in a crowded room when there is no fire?
    answer: by prosecuting that person.
    Hey, Joe how to you stop a person from firing a weapon, any weapon, into a crowd?
    answer: by prosecuting that person.
    You do not take away that person’s voice just because he may shout fire in a crowded room which would violate his first amendment right likewise you do not take away a person weapon just because he MIGHT use it improperly, That would be a violation of that persons second amendment rights. In both cases it would be a violation of constitutional rights without proper court order after a trial.

  17. IIRC Biden was the go to guy Obama set up to fight the “gun lobby” after Sandy Hook. Of course he failed miserably because Biden is a loser piece of shit and had to ride the coattails of a community organizer to get inside the White House.

  18. Biden also has said that if you must keep a firearm for home defense, a shotgun is the way to go…

    Joe finally said something that I agree with. You don’t have to aim, you can choose the lethality, your pellets aren’t traveling into adjacent spaces, if you run out of shells you still have a really good club, and, for the 12ga, you can buy all kinds of cool rounds, like bolo or flamethrower.

    1. Rhodesian-Buck and bird
      Pitbull-slug and buck
      Those are two i really like.

      1. My problem is the cost. If I ever move back to the desert, I’ll have to get into loading my own.

    2. “Don’t have to aim” my ass. Are you one of those fools who thinks shotguns spread crazy fast like in Elmer Fudd cartoons? They don’t. You better aim.

      1. I used to hunt dove in NM with a 12ga with a 36 inch barrel. I could make shots at distances hard to believe. I used the same gun to hunt quail, and had to learn to shoot high so the entire bird wasn’t full of abs. I have a decent idea of how quickly shot disperses.
        If you are shooting down a hall with bird or buck shot, you’re much more likely to hit your target than with a single round.

        1. “B.B.s” not abs

        2. Speaking of shotguns, I was gonna say that, the next time I acquired a 12 or 410, I wanted to try the bolo shell, but I YouTubed it, and apparently, while a deadly load, it doesn’t actually work as intended.

        3. Having recently done a shotgun course including patterning 12-gauge 00-buck shells –

          Bullshit.

          The “pattern” at 10 yards for everyone in the class was right about four inches. At 15, it was under eight.

          How many places in your home have a forty-five foot straight unobstructed run? Or even a thirty-foot run? You’d better be aiming.

          And if you’re using birdshot as a primary defensive shell, you’re screwing up by the numbers to start with.

          1. the other problem with bird shot over 15 feet you better hope innocent people aren’t standing by.

            use a pistol for anything under 15 yards

      2. I’ll just leave this here…

        1. Try again…

          Click here

      3. Ehhh, if you fire buck from a rifled barrel it spreads pretty damn well.

  19. Between schumer and biden, the left has has horrible optics lately.

  20. Huh. Misthreaded and broken html. I’ve only had a couple drinks, I swear. Try again:
    Speaking of shotguns, I was gonna say that, the next time I acquired a 12 or 410, I wanted to try the bolo shell, but I YouTubed it, and apparently, while a deadly load, it doesn’t actually work as intended.

  21. Biden did say that he would put Beta O’Rourke in charge of solving the gun problem. Beta said explicitly during his campaign that he was in favor of outright confiscation of assault (style) rifles.

    1. Beta should be required to personally confiscate those rifles himself.

  22. The old argument that the first amendment did not protect “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic” was used against people who had questioned the wisdom of the US entering WWI and who opposed conscription of American youth to fight a European war. Being anti-war was not protected speech because it was like “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

    1. Holmes was the second-greatest coiner of judicial aphorisms ever to sit on the Supreme Court.

      The greatest was Potter Stewart, whose explanation of the constitutional doctrine of obscenity included this: “…I know it when I see it.”

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/378/184#writing-USSC_CR_0378_0184_ZC1

  23. “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater”

    Why do liberals love that argument so much?
    Also, you supposedly can’t use guns in a gun-free zone, but….

    1. It is the camel’s nose under the tent of free speech. If you can justify one restriction on a basic right, then you can justify any restriction.

      1. Like, for instance, that “hate speech” does not deserve protection.

        Funny, ACLU understood the opposite back when they fought for the right of Nazis to parade in Skokie.

    2. “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater”

      But you *can*. There’s no prior-restraint preventing you from doing so. You may even be fully warranted to shout fire in a crowded theater if the theater is, in fact, on fire. If you falsely shout “fire!” in a crowded theater but nobody panics and nobody is hurt, you might not even be charged with disturbing to peace.

      It’s when you falsely shout “fire!” in a crowded theater and the ensuing panic cause casualties that will get you in trouble. And citing a 1st amendment right to shout “fire!” will not protect you.

      By the 2A, there should be no infringement on TRKBA (prior restraint). You may be fully warranted to use a gun to kill someone in self-defense. But if you use a firearm to murder someone, citing the 2A will not protect you.

      1. Well said.

    3. Authoritarians have sure gotten a lot of mileage out of that quote.

  24. All gun control laws are unconstitutional and therefore illegal so Biden, youre a piece of shit.

    Luckily for Biden, he wont remember this nor will he ever be President.

  25. Fun facts:
    Frank Biden wont pay for a judgment where his negligence killed a mother of two girls.
    Hunter Biden was using his dad’s position as VP to curry influence peddling for Burisma.
    Joe Biden is a washed up piece of shit Democrat who will never be President. He has had fucking brain aneurysms and clearly has dementia and/or Alzheimers.
    Beau Biden’s (died of brain cancer) wife cheated with Hunter Biden.

    Its a piece of shit political family like the Kennedys.

    James Biden is involved in an FBI investigation involving bankruptcy fraud.

  26. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily……. Read more

  27. The Congressional Research Service estimates over a half a billions guns in the U.S., and most of them are handguns; 10 million of them in VA. Obviously no realistic danger exists from the number of guns, and to calm otherwise is phobic

    Oh, and Bernie Sanders is an evil, greedy piece of shit and so Gov. Northam. Justice would be served if Northam choked to death on chicken bone. But he’s a Neurologist and I suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury 36 years ago and I can think of some more fitting. A gun shot at the base of the skull, where the spinal column and brain connect, the brain stem. . The only problem with that is, he’ll probably die and I want him to live! Why? Because his life after getting shot at the base will not be good., trust me; it won’t be good.

    1. Uhhh, you can post just about anything here. But I’m not sure about this.

    2. For legal reasons, this is a joke, right? RIGHT?

  28. the problem is he wants to treat a machine gun like a machine gun?

    1. An AR-15 is not a “machine gun”.

      1. This is an example of why I can’t trust people who claim they want “common sense” gun laws. They don’t know the first thing about them to have a common sense conversation.

        1. Another is to ask them to point out any existig law that restricts guns that they would consider “not common sense.”

      2. “An AR-15 is not a “machine gun”.”

        Neither is an AR14.

  29. It is perfectly rational for gun owners to worry that the first step will eventually lead to the second.

    At Reason, only Sullum can write a proper 2nd Amendment article.

  30. Banning assaualt weapons has nothing to do with crime.
    Appeals to logic and statistics are useless in this argument.
    They want to control the citizens.
    That is why effective firearms must be banned.
    Because they are planning do do things that will make the citizens shoot back at the tyrants.

    1. Yup. And the Democrats will continue to lose winnable elections (2000, 2004, 2016) if they continue to alienate gun owners, an increasingly diverse and still growing voting Bloc.

    2. ^agreed

    3. This t-shirt is available on Amazon: “Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.” Absolutely worth the price in my opinion.

  31. He can’t stand up to a debate with a Michigan factory worker…he’s going to be toast on the debate stage with a seasoned performer.

    1. The Babylon Bee should have a headline that reads,
      “Biden loses first debate with factory worker”

  32. A tax is taking, if you can’t pay they take don’t give me this bullshit that its not taking. You can’t tax rights and the second is a right. how about we say we aren’t taking your right to vote away we are only taxing it.

  33. Also I can yell Fire in a theater as long as its on fire therefore i can have my AR since I have a right to defense

  34. This senile old fk is just a walking cliché, because he is as dumb as he is corrupt.

  35. Headline is incorrect. Biden likened owning an AR-14 to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

    1. Hmm, is Biden THAT stupid?
      The crowded theater, from a SCOTUS ruling, is meant to illustrate that NO rights are absolute because they are all absolute.

      It’s the principle of conflicting rights, when two absolute rights are in conflict — if BOTH cannot be defended absolutely. Both. Both. Both

      A popular and clearer example is:
      “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose”
      If you cannot defend a right to punch someone in the nose, you have just accepted the principle of conflicting rights.

  36. When was Scalia’s Heller overturned?
    When was 80 years of SCOTUS precedent reversed?

    The Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms “in common use” for “lawful purposes,”

    When? When was Scalia vacated? He said the exact opposite in Heller, defended it VERY strongly, and re-affirmed a precedent (US v Miller, 1939).

    Sullum has a history of misrepresenting several portions of Heller.
    Is he faking it now? Or was Heller overturned, along with 80 years of judicial precedent?

    Sorry, Jacob, but google gives me nothing on this.

    P.S. Remember the NRA was totally helpless on the 1994 assault weapon ban (which failed because so many exemptions were pork-barrelled into it) The ban was constitutional since 1939’s Millerm, and Scalia reaffirmed all if it. (When the court makes major changes, like Heller’s 2A an individual right, it reaffirms or overrules all related rulings, to clarify how the changes may affect all related rights, Scalia’s ruling did that, which is why it’s so lengthy! He reaffirmed the major precedent of Miller, 1939,

    And please stop the nonsense that assault weapons LOOK funny. Yes, in society. But constitutionally, all semi-automatics fail Miller’s and Heller’s definition of which weapons are protected. (The guntards will no down scream and attack me. I’ll post the ALL the most relevant portions of Heller, with links and page numbers, which, in the past, has pissed them off even more!

    1. Miller’s “test” was if a weapon had some utility to militia (military) use.
      So you’re trying to say that semi-automatic firearms ‘fail’ Miller’s test?
      You’re a liar. And a Piss Poor one at that.
      M1903Mark 1 Pedersen Device (Semi Automatic
      M1 Rifle (Semi Automatic)
      M1 Carbine (Semi Automatic)
      Lets get modern shall we?
      M110 & M110C SASS (Semi Automatic Sniper System) That’s Stoner’s eee-vil dreaded AR design by the way

      Stop trying to sell your Horse Shit here like it was fresh clean high quality oats.
      Other than with LIES and DISTORTIONS, you can neither make Miller, nor Heller support your claim.
      And your believing so merely indicates your mind is full of delusional febrile fantasies.

      1. YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT … JUST ANOTHER BRAINWASHED GUNTARD … WHO BELEEBS ” COMMON USE AT THE TIME” MEANS … NOW …. ACTUALLY, THE SAME FUCKUP AS SULLUM …. IT MEANS AT RATIFICATION

        PROOF, FOR GOMERS AND OTHER GUNTARDS

        Scalia’s Heller (Page 1)
        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

        USED BY THE MILITIA!!
        Why does he say the phrase Sullum lied about. (lawful purposes)
        BECAUSE OF “THE HISTORICAL TRADITION OF PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL WEAPONS.”

        We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.‘ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

        “AT THE TIME” (also see Miller in part 2)

        “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 now … 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 and Heller. modern versions of … the musket)

        Now, Scalia even RIDICULES you!

        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

        **’Modern equivalents of …. “those arms in existence in the 18th century ” DUH.

        Now Miller

      2. Part 2 –
        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.

        ***Context: The PURPOSE of 2A was to assure future governments did not disarm citizens … to establish a standing army

        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.

        **THIS is where guntards go TOTAL psycho. “AT THE TIME!”

        I’ll dumb it down for ya

        MILLER:
        “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

        GUNTARDS
        “When called for service … IN THE 18th CENTURY … these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves … AND IN COMMON USE 200 YEARS LATER

        EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons … Continues for a few hundred words, in great detail on 2A limits — which is why the NRA was TOTALLY HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons ban (what it’s called) for TEN LONG YEARS..

        WAIT FOR IT … (smirk)

        Stop trying to sell your Horse Shit here like it was fresh clean high quality oats.

        Other than with LIES and DISTORTIONS, you can neither make Miller, nor Heller support your claim.

        DID IT HURT, JAMMING BOTH RULINGS UP YOUR ASS?

        And your believing so merely indicates your mind is full of delusional febrile fantasies.

        YOU THREW A RAGING HISSY FIT … ON SOMETHING YOU NEVER READ … BECAUSE YOU WERE EAGERLY BRAINWASHED AND MANIPULATED … NO BETTER THAN A BERNIE BRO!.

        As libertarians have said for over 50 years:
        LEFT – RIGHT = ZERO (two sides of the same authoritarian coin)
        A growing majority of Americans now agrees!

        My attitude here was determined by yours, chump.
        We call it self-defense … from severe violation of the Non-Aggression Principle … by a thug of the Authoritarian Right.

        *sneer*

        (Will I again see more raging psychos, seeking to punish me … “triggered” snowflakes)

      3. Miller’s “test” was if a weapon had some utility to militia (military) use.
        So you’re trying to say that semi-automatic firearms ‘fail’ Miller’s test?

        Umm, I proved it, actual text from the ruling, with a link to the source. I’m too adult to call anyone a liar, unless I can prove it, as I’ve done with you.

        https://reason.com/2020/03/10/biden-likens-owning-an-ar-15-to-falsely-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/#comment-8163982

        P.S, In this context, military and militia are exact opposites, as also proven in the posted text. At ratification, 2A was intended, largely, to preclude a military. You’ve clearly never read Miller. States were explicitly forbidden to maintain troops. Another purpose of 2A was to forbid seizing guns as an excuse to restore troops.

        Anything else?

  37. “To show that he supports the Second Amendment, Biden noted that he owns shotguns and that “my sons hunt,” which is not exactly reassuring for anyone who values the right to armed self-defense.”

    Biden’s son also earns millions of dollars from a Ukrainian energy company for doing nothing. Does this mean Biden is offering to give me the same deal?

    1. Biden’s son also earns millions of dollars from a Ukrainian energy company for doing nothing

      You’re full of shit. He was on their board, placed there for his experience in raising capital, from countries other than his clients. Obviously, to also curry favor from the VP, but can you prove anything improper happened, since you told a lie (or swallowed one) about what Hunter did?

      Are you not aware that Trump and his family have exploited the Presidency for at least 100 times the personal gain (for Trump himself, not his kids)

      Does this mean Biden is offering to give me the same deal?

      Now you’ve confused Biden with Burisma Holdings.

  38. Of course Biden can’t define what firearms would or would not fall under an ‘assault weapons’ ban. The term is without definable meaning. What he (and every other Progressive Left toad) WANTS is a ban on as many kinds of firearm as he thinks he can get away with. The very idea of an armed populace scares the dickens out of him. He considers the vast majority of the citizenry as barely articulate Primitives, desperately in need of his Guidance. God alone knows WHAT mischief they would get up to if they were armed!

    So he and his fellow parasites came up with the scare-term ‘assault weapon’, which has precisely as much meaning in the real world as Hobgoblin.

    1. Of course Biden can’t define what firearms would or would not fall under an ‘assault weapons’ ban. The term is without definable meaning. What he (and every other Progressive Left toad) WANTS is a ban on as many kinds of firearm as he thinks he can get away with.

      “Assault weapons” is a strawman fallacy.
      The ISSUE is what weapons are protected by 2A? (especially rifles)
      Answer: since 1939 … ONLY the modern equivalent of weapons brought from home for militia duty, at ratification, are protected … the modern version of a musket … NO machine guns, semi-automatics, bump stocks, etc, … yes, Virginia, it does protect only the LOOSE equivalent of hunting rifles. Since 1939.

      What he (and every other Progressive Left toad) WANTS is a ban on as many kinds of firearm as he thinks he can get away with

      JUSTICE SCALIA WAS A PROGRESSIVE LEFT TOAD??? PROVE IT! Like I prove Heller and Miller here:
      https://reason.com/2020/03/10/biden-likens-owning-an-ar-15-to-falsely-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/#comment-8163981

      So he and his fellow parasites came up with the scare-term ‘assault weapon’, which has precisely as much meaning in the real world as Hobgoblin.

      Correct.
      A strawman fallacy,as noted above. Semi-automatics would be closer to the facts. And ONLY facts matter.

      1) The partial list of semi-automatics, in the 1994 “assault weapons” ban, was TOTALLY constitutional … since 1939 (catch up)
      2) That’s why the NRA was TOTALLY helpless for 10 long years. The ban could ONLY be repealed or expire. Deal with it.
      3) Somewhat obviously, a ban on ALL semi-automatics would be fully constitutional (without all the exempted weapons pork-barrelled into the 1994 ban)

      No, it’s NOT a living constitution. This from the qualifying (perfectory) clause: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

      That hasn’t been true for a LONG time. We now defend America with a professional military. The strongest argument (not mine) is that the amendment is obsolete, and/or must be amended.
      Your hated left are not the only ones seeking to pervert our Constitution, to suit their own tribal agenda, by pissing on the intent of our Founders. And so self-righteously.

      1. The 1939 decision is highly questionable, and in any case hinged on certain kinds of weapons not being of general military use (yes, it fits badly with the heavy restrictions on machine guns, but fully automatic weapons had not then become basic infantry issue). In any case , since the fully automatic M-16 is the basic infantry weapon, if we rest on the ‘kind of weapon brought back from militia duty’ idea, the ban on assault rifles falls.

        Understand; I am not a ‘gun nut’. I own no firearms. But when a government ignores or weasels around the laws intended to limit its power, I get nervous. By plain English grammar and usage, the Second Amendment should preclude ANY ‘gun control’ laws, save those that do not apply to sovereign citizens. No bans, registries, permits, or taxes. Period.

        Worse, the roots of Gun Control are sunk deep into Jim Crow, and Democrat efforts to keep down Brown people.

        And I don’t think that’s changed much.

      2. This from the qualifying (perfectory) clause: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

        Well, that’s kind of the crux of the argument. That can also be read as a statement of fact. Whether or not it happens to be true, the rest of the amendment remains.

        1. The 1939 decision is highly questionable,

          NOT BY SCALIA!!!!!! … HIS HELLER LIMITATIONS ARE IDENTICAL … BUT EVEN MORE STRONGLY DEFENDED … AS I ALREADY PROVED. … At the link you REFUSE to check.

          Worse, the roots of Gun Control are sunk deep into Jim Crow, and Democrat efforts to keep down Brown people.

          SCALIA WAS A RACIST DEMOCRAT??? WHO KNEW!

          ***TODAY, IT’S REPUBLICANS WHO SUPPRESS BLACKS
          LIKE TRUMP’S TOTALLY SHAMEFUL LIES … TO DEFEND RACISTS AND ANTI-SEMITES … BY LYING WHO INITIATED THE RIOTING AND MASS ASSAULTS IN CHARLOTTESVILLE.

          ***Do YOU defend the death, injuries and rioting, launched by Trump’s nazi/racist supporters.

          In any case , since the fully automatic M-16 is the basic infantry weapon, if we rest on the ‘kind of weapon brought back from militia duty’ idea, the ban on assault rifles falls.

          HOW SHAMEFUL OF YOU.
          SCALIA SAYS YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT … AS I PROVED … AT THE LINK YOUR BLOVIATING ASS REFUSED TO CHECK

          “My mind is made up, LTT, DO NOT try to confuse me with the facts.”

          You just crippled yourself, with a self-inflicted wound,

          ***SINCE YOU REFUSE THE LINK, I’LL REPEAT IT HERE.

          MILLER:
          “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”

          GUNTARDS
          “When called for service … IN THE 18th CENTURY … these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves … AND IN COMMON USE 200 YEARS LATER

          SCALIA (MY EMPHASIS)
          We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.‘ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” ((His pages 54-55 include a lengthy description of weapons considered “dangerous and unusual” at the time.

          (boldface to emphasize humiliating him for REFUSING to look at INCONVENIENT FACTS … and the crazed reference to Democrat bigotry FIFTY YEARS AGO))

        2. Well, that’s kind of the crux of the argument. That can also be read as a statement of fact.

          As THE PURPOSE of he amendment.

          Whether or not it happens to be true,

          It’s the law of the land.
          Is that your lame excuse for shitting on the Constitution.
          Is that your excuse for the rest of the amendment remains.

          the rest of the amendment remains.

          Who said otherwise .. limited by the prefatory clause.

          Who do I believe, an originalist like Scalia? Or one who suspects
          the Founders MAY lied … to interfere with your political agenda. (plus 80 years of constitutional precedent.

          You have NO SAY on what the meaning says or means, none at all.
          Sorry, but you have no power to overrule a ruling 80 years ago

  39. Whats next to ban, my potato cannon. It runs on hairspray. Should we ban that too?

    1. Nah, that’s way down the list. Next is handguns. Then all semi-auto weapons.

      1. ONLY handguns which are not modern versions of the flintlock.

    2. Hairspray is a WEAPON????
      Hairspray causes DEATH AND INJURY?

  40. I think it is always worth mentioning that “yelling fire in a crowded theater” is not a legal precedent and was an argument presented in defense of laws criminalizing anti-war speech and criticisms of government.

    1. I think it’s worth noting your ignorance.
      The PURPOSE of the slogan was to illustrate there are NO absolute right … not even life itself … because two absolute rights can conflict, as they did there … which means instances where two ABSOLUTE rights cannot be defended ABSOLUTELY.

      The PRECEDENT is … when two absolute rights are in conflicts, ONLY SCOTUS may resolve such conflicts … but obliged to “draw a line” the best defends BOTH rights equally,

      Abortion is the most common example. The fetal child’s right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s right to Liberty. HOWEVER, both left and right seek to place their preferred right over the other, through the use of government force. Thus both extremes are wrong.

      Even if all rights exist from conception, the woman does not lose her right to liberty by becoming pregnant. And sex is only for procreation FOR LOWER ANIMALS, who must be in heat. It is the obvious will of Almighty God that humans have sex for enjoyment alone, even when conception is impossible.

      This is merely one example, illustrating the precedent mistakenly noted by Zeb. Not his fault; most common on the right.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.