It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A reminder about Biden and his gun policy

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 12:21 PM
link   


If you are a Biden fan, this is his policy, it's from his mouth. If you are a legal weapon owner, and you wish to keep your weapons, this may not be the best choice for your presidential pick.

There needs not be a discussion on what you feel about gun rights, as that isn't the argument. This is just a reminder of who Biden is.
If you want to have a little fun, try to find this info on google. Yes, it's there, but the amount of in your face propaganda, well, it's amusing.
But don't just take my word for it, Take Joe's word. They are his, he owns them.

molon labe




posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Oh Biden.

No...just no.

besides, what is considered an assault weapon? Aren't they all able to assault someone?

One thing that always stuck with me though on the 2nd though is the "well regulated" part. This could be open to debate as to what this means. regulations may indeed allow for restricting certain types of weapons (you can't have a scud missile for instance...most people won't try to defend their right to own a missile battery or the like)...so, thats the only part that makes me not want to immediately shut the conversation down.

I am in favor of some gun measures, such as super extended mags and such..the reload time might allow people to tackle a nutjob type mentality.

tbh, I am in favor of issueing everyone (outside of mentally unhinged or repeat violent offenders) a 6 shooter and a requirement for gun safety courses...would be a polite society I imagine. Even on the last 2, I think there should be a path to getting your rights back (psychologist signing off on being low threat)

But yeah, Joe needs to tone it down a lot there.
"Why do you need AR-15's?" is normally the question
The answer can be simply pointed out by koreans in cities standing on their business roofs defending from riots.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

So basically it all comes down to Joe Biden's definition of assault weapons.
I've heard the left's definition of what an assault weapon is and I don't agree so biden can stick it where the monkey put the peanut.

According to today's culture I can have a lovely riot if I feel my rights are being violated.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: network dude

So basically it all comes down to Joe Biden's definition of assault weapons.
I've heard the left's definition of what an assault weapon is and I don't agree so biden can stick it where the monkey put the peanut.

According to today's culture I can have a lovely riot if I feel my rights are being violated.



Assault weapons already have heavy regulations/restrictions, so not sure what else he wants....lol So lets say we outlaw ALL rifles including Armalite styles we would then only cut less than 300 off the 15,000 murdered by guns per year. How about increasing jail rates for illegal guns to like 15 years on top of anything else if illegal guns were used.

Or better yet...work on fixing the dysfunctional parts of our societies like parts of Chicago at the ground level so kids do not grow up wanting to kill people with guns.


edit on 21-7-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I was just thinking that the other day. People worried about Biden winning forget that he’s coming to take our AR-14s. He might as well say he’s going to raise our taxes too. Oh wait.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

One thing that always stuck with me though on the 2nd though is the "well regulated" part. This could be open to debate as to what this means. regulations may indeed allow for restricting certain types of weapons (you can't have a scud missile for instance...most people won't try to defend their right to own a missile battery or the like)...so, thats the only part that makes me not want to immediately shut the conversation down.



The definition of "well regulated" or "militia" wouldn't matter. The 2nd Amendment doesn't require anyone to be in a militia to exercise their right to bear arms.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: network dude

So basically it all comes down to Joe Biden's definition of assault weapons.
I've heard the left's definition of what an assault weapon is and I don't agree so biden can stick it where the monkey put the peanut.

According to today's culture I can have a lovely riot if I feel my rights are being violated.


Completely off topic but I need to know what you mean by “the monkey put the peanut”?
I feel like I could make many jokes just as lone as I can explain the reference.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Joe Biden could be perfect in all other aspects and I wouldn't vote for him because of his stance on guns.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX




One thing that always stuck with me though on the 2nd though is the "well regulated" part.

Well, allow me to unstick it then
"well regulated militia" meaning precisely that.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" referring to the militia
" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - separate from militia yet a part of
comma meaning in addition to the above statement
"shall not be infringed"

You are welcome
edit on 7/21/20 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

if someone comes and wants to take away my bazooka, my flamethrower, my machine gun and my hand grenades, i would cry!


how am i supposed to defend myself when the imperial forces come for me? or the men in black? or the guys from the insane asylum? or even worse: my ex!

without a gun, i'm nothing. it's like going to walmart naked. biden, you cruel man! and what comes next? kids aren't allowed to practice on the kalashnikov anymore? #ing liberal fascist communists!



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: oloufo

I bought a raffle ticket the other day for a chance to win an M1, second prize is a flame thrower. Not sure what I want more.
edit on 21-7-2020 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: network dude

#ing liberal fascist communists!


At least you got that part right.
Nice job.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: oloufo

I'd take you seriously if you weren't so ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: network dude

So basically it all comes down to Joe Biden's definition of assault weapons.
I've heard the left's definition of what an assault weapon is and I don't agree so biden can stick it where the monkey put the peanut.

According to today's culture I can have a lovely riot if I feel my rights are being violated.


Completely off topic but I need to know what you mean by “the monkey put the peanut”?
I feel like I could make many jokes just as lone as I can explain the reference.


It means biden can stick it up his ass.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: oloufo

I bought a reflex ticket the other day for a chance to win an M1, second prize is a flame thrower. Not sure what I want more.


and i just bought a book from h.g. wells! but to be honest: i have an old air rifle from my grandpa. you could shoot at pigeons with it.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: SaturnFX




One thing that always stuck with me though on the 2nd though is the "well regulated" part.

Well, allow me to unstick it then
"well regulated militia" meaning precisely that.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" referring to the militia
" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - separate from militia yet a part of
comma meaning in addition to the above statement
"shall not be infringed"

You are welcome

Thank you for your interpretation.
Overall I am in general agreement, but I am not a lawyer (gonna go out on a limb here and say neither are you).

I would like to know what a few constitutional lawyers would say about this.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: oloufo

I'd take you seriously if you weren't so ridiculous.


that's fine! but aren't gun nuts a little ridiculous too?



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

The 2nd doesn't say only a well regulated militia can bare arms, it says that it's necessary. Well regulated means one properly equipped. Using current terminology the 2nd would read a well equipped citizenry is necessary to ensure freedom, so the right to bare arms shall not be infringed.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: oloufo

I'd take you seriously if you weren't so ridiculous.


that's fine! but aren't gun nuts a little ridiculous too?

Define a gun nut though
someone hoarding an arsenal in my opinion is a bit ott, but someone else might consider a "gun nut" anyone who owns a single rifle.

More to the point, the reason why people need guns, assault and otherwise isn't for hunting, its for defending


Most people who are heavily anti-gun are either protected in a quiet suburb or in a big city that thinks the police will solve all their problems in an instant.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: SaturnFX




One thing that always stuck with me though on the 2nd though is the "well regulated" part.

Well, allow me to unstick it then
"well regulated militia" meaning precisely that.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" referring to the militia
" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - separate from militia yet a part of
comma meaning in addition to the above statement
"shall not be infringed"

You are welcome

Thank you for your interpretation.
Overall I am in general agreement, but I am not a lawyer (gonna go out on a limb here and say neither are you).

I would like to know what a few constitutional lawyers would say about this.

Why ?
The Supreme Court of the US has made rulings all throughout history.







 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join