Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Campaigning in the Rose Garden

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    You seem to have skipped the part where Biden said he would put Beto in charge of gun control.

    I see you are trying to change the subject again.
    M-16s? I never said anything about M-16s and neither did Beto.
    But sure

    The AR-15 is a semi automatic rifle, pretending it is an M-16 is simply dishonest or ignorant.
    I do not change the subject: I remind you who is the real person in charge...

    Bidden is going to be in charge of the gun issue and not Beto. And Bidden has presented his views:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1WH0WT

    Biden would ban assault rifles, but not force owners to sell them



    Democrat Joe Biden would seek to make gun manufacturers more accountable for mass killings and ban assault rifles but would not force owners to sell their existing high-power weapons to the government, under gun control policy his presidential campaign rolled out on Wednesday.



    I also showed how the SCOTUS talked about the "M-16s and the like" weapons in the Heller decision which multiple courts have interpreted to include military-style rifles that are bought in the private market and which are not protected by the second amendment. So, even if Beto or anybody else ultimately convinces Bidden to go after those types of guns, it does not mean that such thing abolishes the second amendment.
    Last edited by pamak; 18 Jul 20, 17:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Your stats do not support anything about BIDDEN

    You can find many Dems support things that Biden does not support.

    People who took the time to follow the Dem primaries understand what I am saying.

    And when you repeat claims like 39% of Democrats support a repeal, you are also indirectly claim that the majority of Democrats do NOT support a repeal. It is simple math!


    And consistently courts decisions after the Heller case have interpreted the SCOTUS decision (which was about HANDGUNS) as something that does not apply to "M-16s and the like." And the threshold you use to claim what is considered "common in use" or not "common in use" is unsupported by any evidence and rationale for the definitions you want to apply. So, you chose to claim that bump stocks are not common in use but assault rifles are. And all these despite the fact that we have no reliable statistics to show what percentage of population is using assault rifles or bump stocks.

    And CNN's claim does not substitute courts' claims or the lack of reliable statistics

    https://www.thetrace.org/2018/09/how...ons-in-the-us/

    And it’s important to put the NSSF estimate in context. Americans have purchased almost as many assault rifles as they have Nintendo Switch video game consoles, or copies of the book How To Win Friends And Influence People — successful products that are nonetheless nowhere near household items.


    Last year, an
    appellate court used the logic Scalia deployed in Heller to rule that modern assault rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 are also not protected by the Second Amendment, because the weapons are not “in common use.”

    http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/u...nc-opinion.pdf

    Are the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “like” “M-16 rifles,” i.e., “weapons that are most useful in military service,” and thus outside the ambit of the Second Amendment?

    The answer to that dispositive and relatively easy inquiry is plainly in the affirmative.10

    Simply put, AR-15-type rifles are “like” M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term. See, e.g., Webster’s New International Dictionary 1431 (2d ed. 1948) (defining “like” as “[h]aving the same, or nearly the same, appearance, qualities, or characteristics; similar”);

    ...

    10 Our ruling on Second Amendment protection is in line with the State’s argument that — because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are “like” “M-16 rifles” and “most useful in military service” — they are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.

    ...

    We find it unnecessary under Heller, however, to include the term “dangerous and unusual weapons” in the relevant inquiry. That is because the Heller Court plainly pronounced that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned” without infringement upon the Second Amendment right. See 554 U.S. at 627. Meanwhile, although the Heller Court suggested that those particular weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the Court did not elaborate on what being “dangerous and unusual” entails. Id. In these circumstances, we deem it prudent and appropriate to simply rely on the Court’s clear pronouncement that there is no constitutional protection for weapons that are “like” “M-16 rifles” and “most useful in military service,” without needlessly endeavoring to define the parameters of “dangerous and unusual weapons.


    You seem to have skipped the part where Biden said he would put Beto in charge of gun control.

    I see you are trying to change the subject again.
    M-16s? I never said anything about M-16s and neither did Beto.
    But sure

    The AR-15 is a semi automatic rifle, pretending it is an M-16 is simply dishonest or ignorant.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    Since you didn’t get the phrase “commonly owned”, (more specifically “common use”) I will just defer to your superior expertise.
    Of course the dems don’t want to abolish the 2nd amendment.
    I can’t imagine where such an ridiculous thought would have come from.

    39 percent of Democrats supported repeal.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-percent-demo/


    “assault guns”? ​ You might want to educate yourself about the differences between semi automatic rifles like the AR-15 and the guns you think you are talking about.
    AR-15 ? Very popular. In fact, the most popular rifle in the US.
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/healt...rnd/index.html

    But I’m not the expert.


    Beto
    Asked bluntly whether he was proposing confiscation, O’Rourke abandoned the disingenuous euphemisms that have hitherto marked his descent into extremism, and confirmed as plainly as can be that he was. “Hell yes,” he said, “we’re going to take your AR-15.”
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...for-your-guns/


    Moments after former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — who promised in aSeptember debate to take away legally purchased assault rifles if elected — endorsed Joe Biden’s White House run, the former vice president promised to name the Texan as his point man on gun control.
    https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-bi...f-gun-control/

    I can't imagine why I would think the dems and biden in particular would favor abolition of the 2nd amendment.
    Your stats do not support anything about BIDDEN

    You can find many Dems support things that Biden does not support.

    People who took the time to follow the Dem primaries understand what I am saying.

    And when you repeat claims like 39% of Democrats support a repeal, you are also indirectly claim that the majority of Democrats do NOT support a repeal. It is simple math!


    And consistently courts decisions after the Heller case have interpreted the SCOTUS decision (which was about HANDGUNS) as something that does not apply to "M-16s and the like." And the threshold you use to claim what is considered "common in use" or not "common in use" is unsupported by any evidence and rationale for the definitions you want to apply. So, you chose to claim that bump stocks are not common in use but assault rifles are. And all these despite the fact that we have no reliable statistics to show what percentage of population is using assault rifles or bump stocks.

    And CNN's claim does not substitute courts' claims or the lack of reliable statistics

    https://www.thetrace.org/2018/09/how...ons-in-the-us/

    And it’s important to put the NSSF estimate in context. Americans have purchased almost as many assault rifles as they have Nintendo Switch video game consoles, or copies of the book How To Win Friends And Influence People — successful products that are nonetheless nowhere near household items.


    Last year, an
    appellate court used the logic Scalia deployed in Heller to rule that modern assault rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 are also not protected by the Second Amendment, because the weapons are not “in common use.”

    http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/u...nc-opinion.pdf

    Are the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “like” “M-16 rifles,” i.e., “weapons that are most useful in military service,” and thus outside the ambit of the Second Amendment?

    The answer to that dispositive and relatively easy inquiry is plainly in the affirmative.10

    Simply put, AR-15-type rifles are “like” M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term. See, e.g., Webster’s New International Dictionary 1431 (2d ed. 1948) (defining “like” as “[h]aving the same, or nearly the same, appearance, qualities, or characteristics; similar”);

    ...

    10 Our ruling on Second Amendment protection is in line with the State’s argument that — because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are “like” “M-16 rifles” and “most useful in military service” — they are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.

    ...

    We find it unnecessary under Heller, however, to include the term “dangerous and unusual weapons” in the relevant inquiry. That is because the Heller Court plainly pronounced that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned” without infringement upon the Second Amendment right. See 554 U.S. at 627. Meanwhile, although the Heller Court suggested that those particular weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the Court did not elaborate on what being “dangerous and unusual” entails. Id. In these circumstances, we deem it prudent and appropriate to simply rely on the Court’s clear pronouncement that there is no constitutional protection for weapons that are “like” “M-16 rifles” and “most useful in military service,” without needlessly endeavoring to define the parameters of “dangerous and unusual weapons.
    Last edited by pamak; 17 Jul 20, 19:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    Since you didn’t get the phrase “commonly owned”, (more specifically “common use”) I will just defer to your superior expertise.
    Of course the dems don’t want to abolish the 2nd amendment.
    I can’t imagine where such an ridiculous thought would have come from.

    39 percent of Democrats supported repeal.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-percent-demo/


    “assault guns”? You might want to educate yourself about the differences between semi automatic rifles like the AR-15 and the guns you think you are talking about.
    AR-15 ? Very popular. In fact, the most popular rifle in the US.
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/healt...rnd/index.html

    But I’m not the expert.


    Beto
    Asked bluntly whether he was proposing confiscation, O’Rourke abandoned the disingenuous euphemisms that have hitherto marked his descent into extremism, and confirmed as plainly as can be that he was. “Hell yes,” he said, “we’re going to take your AR-15.”
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...for-your-guns/


    Moments after former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — who promised in aSeptember debate to take away legally purchased assault rifles if elected — endorsed Joe Biden’s White House run, the former vice president promised to name the Texan as his point man on gun control.
    https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-bi...f-gun-control/

    I can't imagine why I would think the dems and biden in particular would favor abolition of the 2nd amendment.
    Your stats do ot suport anything about BIDDEN

    You can find many Dems support things that Biden does not support

    People who took the time to follow the Dem primaries understand what I am saying.


    And consistently court decision after the Heller case have interpreted the SOTUS decision about what is considered "weapon in common use" as something that does not apply to "M-16s and the like." And the threshold you use to claim what is considered "common in use" or not "common in use" is unsupported by any evidence and rationale for the definitions you want to apply. So, you chose to claim that bump stocks are not common in use but assault rifles are. And all these despite the fact that we have no reliable statistics to show what percentage of population is using assault rifles or bump stocks.

    And CNN's claim does not substitute courts' claims



    Last edited by pamak; 17 Jul 20, 19:03.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    who is safe in Trump's America. He and is family and then next to nobody
    And not even his family can be included. During the fight over his father's will, in which he wanted to disinherit his dead brother's family, he stopped the health care of his grand nephew who was very ill and who eventually developed cerebral palsy. Trump is a monster, money being his sole object in life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Since you did not address my point that "Abolishing the second amendment is hardly the same thing as debating its limitations," I will assume that you recognized I was right but you not want to admit it. You chose to change the subject first by trying to change words and meanings and equate the debate about assault guns to abolishing the second amendment. You also tried to establish without facts a claim about the threshold of "commonly owned guns" which you claim it applies to assault weapons.

    Since you didn’t get the phrase “commonly owned”, (more specifically “common use”) I will just defer to your superior expertise.
    Of course the dems don’t want to abolish the 2nd amendment.
    I can’t imagine where such an ridiculous thought would have come from.

    39 percent of Democrats supported repeal.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-percent-demo/


    “assault guns”? You might want to educate yourself about the differences between semi automatic rifles like the AR-15 and the guns you think you are talking about.
    AR-15 ? Very popular. In fact, the most popular rifle in the US.
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/healt...rnd/index.html

    But I’m not the expert.


    Beto
    Asked bluntly whether he was proposing confiscation, O’Rourke abandoned the disingenuous euphemisms that have hitherto marked his descent into extremism, and confirmed as plainly as can be that he was. “Hell yes,” he said, “we’re going to take your AR-15.”
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...for-your-guns/


    Moments after former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — who promised in a September debate to take away legally purchased assault rifles if elected — endorsed Joe Biden’s White House run, the former vice president promised to name the Texan as his point man on gun control.
    https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-bi...f-gun-control/

    I can't imagine why I would think the dems and biden in particular would favor abolition of the 2nd amendment.
    Last edited by Cambronnne; 17 Jul 20, 07:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    Since you changed my wording from "commonly owned guns" to something else, I will assume you recognized I was right but didn't want to admit it so you changed the subject.

    Sure, merely debating its limitations. But thanks for the laugh
    Since you did not address my point that "Abolishing the second amendment is hardly the same thing as debating its limitations," I will assume that you recognized I was right but you not want to admit it. You chose to change the subject first by trying to change words and meanings and equate the debate about assault guns to abolishing the second amendment. You also tried to establish without facts a claim about the threshold of "commonly owned guns" which you claim it applies to assault weapons.
    Last edited by pamak; 17 Jul 20, 01:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    We had blanket bans on assault weapons before and we even had the NRA supporting gun control in CA when the Black Panthers openly armed with weapons were staging protests in that state.

    Abolishing the second amendment is hardly the same thing as debating its limitations. But sure

    Since you changed my wording from "commonly owned guns" to something else, I will assume you recognized I was right but didn't want to admit it so you changed the subject.

    Sure, merely debating its limitations. But thanks for the laugh

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    who is safe in Trump's America. He and is family and then next to nobody
    And his niece has definitely shown that perfidious fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied

    who is safe in Trump's America. He and is family and then next to nobody

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparlingo
    replied
    The point is that saying that joe Biden wants to " Abolish Police, Abolish ICE, Abolish Bail, Abolish Suburbs, Abolish the 2nd Amendment – and Abolish the American Way of Life." is beyond ridiculous. And so is saying "No one will be SAFE in Joe Biden’s America!"

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    Blanket bans on commonly owned guns is inconsistent with the the 2nd amendment.

    Biden is adopting radical left platforms (green new deal) it is reasonable to suspect that he will adopt other ones.
    The effort to abolish the 2nd amendment is open and obvious. The left is attempting to legislate guns out of the hands of the law abiding by making ownership so expensive and difficult that those who try to follow the law will give up.

    Banning a bump stock is hardly the same thing as banning a commonly owned gun. But sure.
    We had blanket bans on assault weapons before and we even had the NRA supporting gun control in CA when the Black Panthers openly armed with weapons were staging protests in that state.

    Abolishing the second amendment is hardly the same thing as debating its limitations. But sure
    Last edited by pamak; 16 Jul 20, 12:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I read both what you said and to what you responded:

    The quote you addressed started with the claim

    Here's a good example, his latest tweet:

    "Joe Biden and the Radical Left want to Abolish Police,


    and I replied to your question


    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    Which parts of that are untrue?

    I saw nowhere a claim by Biden that he wants to abolish the police. On the contrary, he specifically said that he does not even agree with the position of defunding the police. So, the quote you addressed (which is from Trump's tweet) starts with something which is untrue.

    And no, gun control is not equal with the claim of abolishing second amendment. Even Trump chose at some point a pro gun-control measure (banning bump stocks).

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/features...es-into-effect

    Trump federal bump stock ban goes into effect

    As for the rest of the claims, the primaries showed quite well that there is a big difference between Bden's position and the position of the leftist socialists in the Democratic party. So, the attempt to put Biden in the same position with the "radical left" cannot convince people who actually bother to follow politics. Of course, we know that Trump's tweet target uninformed people who live in their bubble and have no clue of what is happening around them...


    Blanket bans on commonly owned guns is inconsistent with the the 2nd amendment.

    Biden is adopting radical left platforms (green new deal) it is reasonable to suspect that he will adopt other ones.
    The effort to abolish the 2nd amendment is open and obvious. The left is attempting to legislate guns out of the hands of the law abiding by making ownership so expensive and difficult that those who try to follow the law will give up.

    Banning a bump stock is hardly the same thing as banning a commonly owned gun. But sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Please read what I said (hint: "the left") then realize how wrong you were.

    As for Biden the separation between him and the radical left is becoming smaller.

    Green new deal is radical left
    Biden supports.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...-climate-plan/

    Gun control
    Joe Biden is proposing to force owners of assault-style rifles to either sell their firearms through a voluntary buyback program or register them with the federal government under the same law that was first used to strictly control sales of machine guns in the wake of the gangland shootings of the 1920s and '30s.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/polit...lan/index.html
    Is it ok to laugh out loud at the "voluntary" buy back part?
    I read both what you said and to what you responded:

    The quote you addressed started with the claim

    Here's a good example, his latest tweet:

    "Joe Biden and the Radical Left want to Abolish Police,


    and I replied to your question


    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    Which parts of that are untrue?

    I saw nowhere a claim by Biden that he wants to abolish the police. On the contrary, he specifically said that he does not even agree with the position of defunding the police. So, the quote you addressed (which is from Trump's tweet) starts with something which is untrue.

    And no, gun control is not equal with the claim of abolishing second amendment. Even Trump chose at some point a pro gun-control measure (banning bump stocks).

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/features...es-into-effect

    Trump federal bump stock ban goes into effect

    As for the rest of the claims, the primaries showed quite well that there is a big difference between Bden's position and the position of the leftist socialists in the Democratic party. So, the attempt to put Biden in the same position with the "radical left" cannot convince people who actually bother to follow politics. Of course, we know that Trump's tweet target uninformed people who live in their bubble and have no clue of what is happening around them...
    Last edited by pamak; 15 Jul 20, 21:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    The mere attempt to equate Biden with the radical left is silly. And no Biden did not even support the defunding of police.

    https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...defund-police/



    The claim about him wanting to abolish the police can convince only fanatic Trump supporters
    Please read what I said (hint: "the left") then realize how wrong you were.

    As for Biden the separation between him and the radical left is becoming smaller.

    Green new deal is radical left
    Biden supports.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...-climate-plan/

    Gun control
    Joe Biden is proposing to force owners of assault-style rifles to either sell their firearms through a voluntary buyback program or register them with the federal government under the same law that was first used to strictly control sales of machine guns in the wake of the gangland shootings of the 1920s and '30s.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/polit...lan/index.html
    Is it ok to laugh out loud at the "voluntary" buy back part?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X