Biden's Executive Orders on Gun Control (1 Viewer)

[Amused to Death]

I care about the US, not other countries.  I could care less what they don't/don't have.  It means nothing.

Sure, but it challenges your assertion of just how far left they've moved. Not so radical when you're just trying to keep up with the developed world. Again, shows how far to the right we've moved.

 

[Kal El]

I care about the US, not other countries.  I could care less what they don't/don't have.  It means nothing.

Affordable healthcare seems nice, as does the idea of sending my kids to school with a greatly reduced fear of them getting killed on campus.

 

[popeye]

Are these things like 3D printed guns?

Not quite, or at least not in my mind.  This is usually a lower receiver that is 80% or less finished.  You need to have a certain tools and jigs to complete cutting away the excess metal.  You can then complete the build with parts that are readily available.  In short, the lower receiver for the AR15 is the portion of the firearm that has to be serialized.

Well, after typing that 3D guns could be categorized in a similar fashion.

The 80% or less finished receivers do not require a background check - as they are not complete enough to be considered a firearm.  Complete lower receivers are considered a firearm, even without the upper and barrel.     

 

[Thunderlips]

I am sure smarter people than me have tried (and failed) - but I wonder if the best approach for gun control advocates is to go in the opposite direction.

One of the cardinal rules of any statutory (or constitutional) interpretation is that courts may only provide interpretation when the language is ambiguous - and thus open to interpretation.  When the language is clear - the plain meaning of the language prevails.

If you take the 2nd amendment on its face - I would focus on this: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Certainly we can argue about, and thus is open to interpretation, the term "Arms".  But, having decided that, "shall not be infringed" is straightforward, unambiguous, and not subject to interpretation. I would take the position that the federal government (and state governments) can not, in any way shape or form, infringe  upon a persons' right to possess such arms.  So, no restrictions on felons, no restrictions on mental health, no restrictions on location, no restrictions on concealed carry, no background checks, no IDs, no age limits, etc.

The idea would be to put pressure on enough people, that the 2nd Amendment - under those rules - would not be acceptable to a majority of Americans - forcing a repeal, and new Amendment - that would provide more delineated restrictions on weapon ownership.

Dave Chappelle said it....the best way to get gun control is to have millions of Black Americans register for guns.  Like, all at once.  

 

[Insein]

Dave Chappelle said it....the best way to get gun control is to have millions of Black Americans register for guns.  Like, all at once.  

They do and they have been. Is this why Biden is coming out now with this EO?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/546454-gun-ownership-among-black-americans-is-soaring%3famp

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Ronald Reagan wanted complete open border with Mexico, supported Clinton's ban on assault weapons, and repealed open carry of loaded handguns. No way he would get through a primary with today's GOP.

It just shows how far to the right the GOP has moved since Reagan.

Ronald Reagan wanted open borders and a assault weapons ban so that shows how far right the GOP has moved?

Just because RR was in favor of these things you’re saying the GOP did?

 

[Amused to Death]

Ronald Reagan wanted open borders and a assault weapons ban so that shows how far right the GOP has moved?

Just because RR was in favor of these things you’re saying the GOP did?

Well we have examples of Justice Scalia and Ronald Reagan, two of the conservative stalwarts of the modern era, no?

 

[Amused to Death]

Ronald Reagan wanted open borders and a assault weapons ban so that shows how far right the GOP has moved?

Just because RR was in favor of these things you’re saying the GOP did?

Reagan advocated for an open southern border, banned open carry of loaded hand guns, and supported a ban on assault weapons. Would he get through the GOP primary in 2024 with those positions?

 

[BladeRunner]

Affordable healthcare seems nice, as does the idea of sending my kids to school with a greatly reduced fear of them getting killed on campus.

You are more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a campus shooting.  Affordable healthcare is only affordable overseas because mainly we foot the bill for R&D and Defense, so they can spend their money like that.  

Your hyperbole is off the charts.  Maybe you should move to those countries you worship?  Just sayin'.  If you're that scared then maybe the US isn't for you.

 

[BladeRunner]

Reagan advocated for an open southern border, banned open carry of loaded hand guns, and supported a ban on assault weapons. Would he get through the GOP primary in 2024 with those positions?

Okay, first off you're taking some exaggerated or omissions of liberties with Reagan to try and prove that somehow the right has moved further right (ignoring, of course, how far left the DNC has moved - but whatever).

• Reagan did not want an "open" border like you're suggesting, but rather a two-way relationship with controls and heavy monitoring so they could come here LEGALLY.  He did not support people coming here willy nilly.  In fact, he followed up with the Immigration and Reform act which implemented tougher penalties.
  
• Reagan signed the loaded handgun bill in 1968 for the State of CA only - 12 years before he became POTUS.  Not only that, the bill simply addressed having loaded weapon.  You could still open carry the firearm with a magazine in your other pocket.  That's a far cry from anti-gun or anti-carry like you're trying to say.  Although Reagan did say he didn't think guns were a good way of solving disagreements.  But, then again, everyone thinks that anyways.
  
• He did support the 1994 Assault Weapon ban.
  

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Well we have examples of Justice Scalia and Ronald Reagan, two of the conservative stalwarts of the modern era, no?

You are saying that the GOP has moved way right since the days of Reagan. Just because Reagan was in favor of those things doesnt mean you can include the entire GOP.

 

[Amused to Death]

Okay, first off you're taking some exaggerated or omissions of liberties with Reagan to try and prove that somehow the right has moved further right (ignoring, of course, how far left the DNC has moved - but whatever).

• Reagan did not want an "open" border like you're suggesting, but rather a two-way relationship with controls and heavy monitoring so they could come here LEGALLY.  He did not support people coming here willy nilly.  In fact, he followed up with the Immigration and Reform act which implemented tougher penalties.
  
• Reagan signed the loaded handgun bill in 1968 for the State of CA only - 12 years before he became POTUS.  Not only that, the bill simply addressed having a round in the chamber - you could still carry the firearm with a loaded magazine.
  
• He did support the 1994 Assault Weapon ban.
  

“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, and then while they’re working and earning here they pay taxes here? And when they want to go back, they can go back, and they can cross. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems.”

 

[BladeRunner]

“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, and then while they’re working and earning here they pay taxes here? And when they want to go back, they can go back, and they can cross. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems.”

Yep, exactly what I mentioned in my post. 

You've been taking some liberties by omission and/or without context.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Reagan advocated for an open southern border, banned open carry of loaded hand guns, and supported a ban on assault weapons. Would he get through the GOP primary in 2024 with those positions?

Do you think that Reagan won the nomination  back then because he wanted an open border with Mexico and a ban on assault weapons?

 

[Amused to Death]

Yep, exactly what I said. 

You've been taking some liberties by omission and/or without context.

Correct, he once banned open carry of loaded hand guns (check), he said "open the border both ways" (check), supported the 1994 assault weapons ban (check). Now, get those three things past the 2024 GOP primary.

 

[Amused to Death]

Do you think that Reagan one the nomination  back then because he wanted an open border with Mexico and a ban on assault weapons?

Was it an issue then for the GOP voters? Would he win the nomination today with those on his record? Or would he be labelled a radical leftist?

 

[BladeRunner]

Correct, he once banned open carry of loaded hand guns (check), he said "open the border both ways" (check), supported the 1994 assault weapons ban (check). Now, get those three things past the 2024 GOP primary.

Again, you're generalizing and cherry-picking to try and prove he was for "open" borders.  He wasn't for "open" borders like the Democrats are now.  He was for HEAVY monitoring of the border to stop ILLEGALS from entering the country.  I guarantee you that conservatives would certainly be on board if a GOP candidate said no wall but we're going to heavily monitor the border, beef up the border patrol, etc...

You're willfully ignoring context, and details.

 

[Amused to Death]

Again, you're generalizing and cherry-picking to try and prove he was for "open" borders.  He wasn't for "open" borders like the Democrats are now.  He was for HEAVY monitoring of the border to stop ILLEGALS from entering the country.  I guarantee you that conservatives would certainly be on board if a GOP candidate said no wall but we're going to heavily monitor the border, beef up the border patrol, etc...

You're willfully ignoring context, and details.

Huh, so today's GOP would allow Mexicans to come and go as they please and take jobs away from Americans. And it wouldn't be an issue with today's GOP voters if a candidate once banned open carry of loaded hand guns and supported a ban on assault weapons? Just like the Dems want to do now?

Which this thread is about - a Dems wanting gun control. Nothing worse than Reagan supported. But suddenly now that's an assault on the Constitution. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Huh, so today's GOP would allow Mexicans to come and go as they please and take jobs away from Americans. And it wouldn't be an issue with today's GOP voters if a candidate once banned open carry of loaded hand guns and supported a ban on assault weapons? Just like the Dems want to do now?

Which this thread is about - a Dems wanting gun control. Nothing worse than Reagan supported. But suddenly now that's an assault on the Constitution. 

I don't think it would be as big of an issue as you so really want to think it would be.  But, then again, you're exaggerating to try and prove your point.  

And, as per the bolded, .  There is no way, shape or form that the what the Democrats want or are proposing is just like Reagan.

 

[joffer]

i admire your efforts and tenacity

 

[dkp993]

I love tone-deaf statements like yours.  It just reinforces the bubble you guys live in. 

And this statement below isn’t a bubble one side lives in?   Unless your “you guys” statement includes red and blue teams it’s laughably bias.  

Basically just more deliberate attempts to divide our country wherever he can. 

 

[dkp993]

His liberalism is really showing there.  Trump wouldn't have appointed him.  

Today he’d be called a Rino.  

 

[Kal El]

You are more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a campus shooting.  Affordable healthcare is only affordable overseas because mainly we foot the bill for R&D and Defense, so they can spend their money like that.  

Your hyperbole is off the charts.  Maybe you should move to those countries you worship?  Just sayin'.  If you're that scared then maybe the US isn't for you.

How is wanting to avoid bankruptcy for medical care and desiring safety for my kids hyperbole? Please explain that to me, because somewhere between the inane comments of “love it or leave it” and whatever point you tried to make and missed on, I can’t help but notice that you have posted no solution to any of these issues. As for my residency in this great nation, both sides of my family have lived here since at least before the Revolution, and in the case of my Cherokee ancestors, considerably longer than that. 

 

[sho nuff]

How many gun deaths per year?  And complaints from attempts to make us safer.

Compare that to actual cases of voter fraud...how many laws are now passed to protect from even less of a problem?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Right off the bat, both of these are wrong. The fire in a crowded theater line was never a legal decision. It was analogy made during WW1 to defend convicting an anti war protestor of espionage. It was overturned in 1969 stating that inflammatory speech IS protected by the first amendment as long as it isn't a call to violence. So no, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not prohibited by the First amendment. 

Biden's invocation of the "fire in a theater" thing is annoying and dumb, but not wrong. It's true that no constitutional right is absolute. The right to free speech, for example, is not absolute. The case where the line about falsely yelling fire in a theater comes from was wrongly decided and was partially overturned later. But the case had nothing to do with fires in theaters, so overturning it didn't overturn anything about fires in theaters. It didn't render the right to free speech absolute. It remains a fact that governments can forbid falsely yelling "fire" in theaters without violating the First Amendment.

 

[GordonGekko]

I think it was Scalia in the Heller decision who said no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. 
 

In any case I’m not clear what Biden has done that would violate the Constitution. Please elaborate. 

FACT CHECK:  Biden’s wrong claim that Senate GOP’s Supreme Court move is ‘not constitutional’

Joe Biden stated on October 10, 2020 in a comment to reporters: Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is "not constitutional."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/13/joe-biden/fact-check-bidens-misleading-claim-senate-gops-sup/

Direct Headline: Biden's 'Unconstitutional' Game | Opinion

Mike Davis 10/14/20 at 7:30 AM EDT

https://www.newsweek.com/bidens-unconstitutional-game-opinion-1538494

Direct Headline: Biden signs more executive orders despite claims he once said they were for dictators

by Rob Crilly, White House Correspondent |  January 28, 2021 05:02 PM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-executive-orders-dictator-trump-psaki

******

United States Constitution Article II, Section 3, Clauses 2 and 5

POTUS has a clearly defined role and that includes NOT legislating unilaterally to bypass the 2/3rds approval of the Senate. While Biden has a Super Majority, he's not going to get 2/3rds of the Senate and everyone knows this. Biden can make recommendations to Congress and he's tasked to enforce the laws of the land, even if he disagrees with them. There's a fair argument to be made that Executive Orders are a means to bypass our nations established system of Checks And Balances and violate the Constitution. Biden has signed EO's at an record rate, esp for his short duration so far in office and he, himself, said openly that they were a tool for "dictators" and that the consensus of Congress and the people were required to fairly run this country.

If Biden believes ACB's SCOTUS nomination and confirmation were "unconstitutional", then why did he not take action to attempt to legally remove her from the bench when he became POTUS?

If Biden believes ACB's SCOTUS nomination and confirmation were "unconstitutional", he actually has a legal duty, based on the responsibilities vested to him by the United States Constitution, to defend it, to attempt to remove ACB from the bench.

POTUS' role is NOT to make laws when the clear intention is to bypass the Senate.

Based on Biden's OWN WORDS, is he a dictator then?

 

[tonydead]

Well we have examples of Justice Scalia and Ronald Reagan, two of the conservative stalwarts of the modern era, no?

Maybe they were...until Trump.

GAMECHANGER

 

[Amused to Death]

Maybe they were...until Trump.

GAMECHANGER

Hence my assertion the GOP has moved further to the right.

 

[Thunderlips]

You are more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a campus shooting.  Affordable healthcare is only affordable overseas because mainly we foot the bill for R&D and Defense, so they can spend their money like that.  

Your hyperbole is off the charts.  Maybe you should move to those countries you worship?  Just sayin'.  If you're that scared then maybe the US isn't for you.

The hyperbole on both sides is off the charts.  Both sides concoct unrealistic agendas.