Ammo For Sale

« « “It’s a free country” | Home | The fix is in » »

More democrats and guns

Noted gun expert Joe Biden: the Second Amendment says you can limit who can own a gun.

Really? Where?

Bernie Sanders ups teh st00pid:

I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America

Such as?

16 Responses to “More democrats and guns”

  1. Sigivald Says:

    I would note that from the Founding to today, nobody seems to have seriously doubted that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” did not interfere with disarming prisoners and convicts who were nonetheless definitely part of “the people”

    So plainly at least very limited limits on “who can own a gun” were understood to be compatible with the Second Amendment since 1789.

    Just, you know, nothing like what I expect Joe Biden wants.

    (It’s not as clear to me that any other prohibitions were intended, however.

    It doesn’t help that the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated against the States until after the Civil War, thus limiting our precedents.

    When did the Federal ban on felon possession come into being, I wonder, and what if any common law precedents did it follow?)

  2. Jody Says:

    The GCA of 1968 removed the rights to bear arms of people convicted of crimes punishable by a year or more of incarciration.

    Its ok because it only affects “those” people. Beware the day they make you on of “those”people.

  3. Mike V. Says:

    And the .gov seems to always add to the list of folks who qualify as “those people.”

  4. Jeffersonian Says:

    I have it on good authority the Slow Joe and Bernie really only want to ban two types of firearms.

    Mine. And yours.

    And even then from only two types of people.

    Me. And you.

  5. Ron W Says:

    “I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America.” –Bernie Sanders

    Would such a law apply to everyone in the United States, you know, according to “the equal protection of the laws”? Or would it EXEMPT some and DISCRIMINATE AGAINST others in violation of the 14th Amendment? Bernie should be asked if he supports that inequality and injustice.

  6. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    Guns used to kill people. Hmm… I don’t figure on using my EDC for anything but to shoot someone. You know, actually using it, not just practicing or training with it. I don’t carry it around in the expectation that a random target practice will spontaneously break out.

  7. 1 With A Bullet Says:

    Y’all are looking at this all wrong. Grammar police definition: If the firearm in question could be used for shooting anything other than a person, it’s not *exclusively* for killing people. For instance, if you’re able to shoot a paper target, or an animal or anything else with a machine gun it wouldn’t be banned. Heck, even if people are shot with it but don’t die every single time it’s not *exclusively* a killing firearm (ie. it would also be a wounding firearm) and therefore wouldn’t be banned. See? Nothing to worry about. :S

  8. TS Says:

    “Really? Where?”

    It’s right there in the text of the amendment that the government can limit who gets the right. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms…” Therefore it is absolutely in the government’s power to deny the right to non-persons. Dogs, giraffes, rubber tree plants, chairs… The list is practically endless regarding whom the government can limit. For once Joe is right.

  9. Stan Says:

    He doesn’t know when to stop jamming his foot in his mouth

  10. MajMike Says:

    Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than any of my firearms, except maybe for the Mauser 98K.

  11. Fred Says:

    Sigivald – Gun control started after the civil war. Can’t have those Negros running around with guns now can we.
    Jody – You are right about “those” people it just started 100 years earlier.

    We are being added to the “those people” group. It’s being done here the same as the Nazis and Maoists did it.
    First they came for the blacks, then they came for the felons, then they came for me.

  12. Tirno Says:

    Sigivald et al,

    I’d like to propose that the Second Amendment means what it says, as Founders and the American people at the time of it adoption understood it to mean. “Shall not be infringed” means almost all gun control legislation is un-Constitutional.

    But there is room to infringe on the right of felons and idiots and foreigners and persons not in control of their own minds (medically, psychologically, chemically, intentional or not) to keep and/or bear arms: Such individuals are not part of the We The People who established the Constitution. The right is preserved to the people, and they’re not it. Either they never joined, or they’ve been kicked out by due process of law.

    Yes, I know that concept sounds a bit dangerous and possibly offensive. But it is also internally consistent. It also allows for the possibility of rejoining The People at some point and regaining the right to keep and bear arms, which may not, of the people, be infringed. Either you get better, or you serve your time, or you kick your chemical dependency, or you naturalize, and you can be back in the club.

    But to further be consistent, all the other things that go along with being either Of The People, or Not of The People also need to be applied: voting, duty to be on a jury, ability to hold public office, et ceteras.

    I’ve recently been thinking along these lines. It also occurs to me that the anti-gun people actually think along these lines, too, but they can’t admit it out loud. Because their version of Not Of The People includes pretty much anyone that isn’t a white middle or upper class progressive. All the minorities, poor, illegal aliens, etc, they aren’t Of Their People either, but they need the votes, so class warfare works great. You can see the evidence of this any time one of the Not Of Their People But Reliably Vote Our Way people step off the reservation and get progressive-piranha-attacked until they either get back in line and apologize or are hounded from public view.

  13. one-eyed Jack Says:

    When the SHTF I want a gun that I can use to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. What’s wrong with that? Jack.

  14. Ron W Says:

    Fred, gun control was used before the Civil War to keep slavery legal in the United States. Chief Justice Roger Taney, in the majority opinion for the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott, kept black people as slaves lest, if they persons, “they would be able to speak publically and go armed everywhere they went” correctly citing First and Second Amendment rights for FREE people. BTW, the Emancipation Proclamation, an admitted military measure, applied only to slaves in Southern States and not to those in Union States like Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware, nor to those owned by people like Union Gen. Ulysses Grant who kept his slaves until after the War, until the 13th and 14th Amendments overturned Dred Scott. That chief historical aspect of slavery is still being promoted today from our high levels of government.

  15. Fred Says:

    Ron W – Good points.

  16. Tirno Says:

    Ron W – Your points actually link very well up with my Of The People/Not Of The People thoughts. Chief Justice Taney knew for certain that the Second Amendment didn’t permit any infringements to the right possessed by the people. And his argument held water as long as you held the view that blacks weren’t Of The People. The reason he was wrong is that that notion was inherently anti-Revolutionary, in direct opposition to the self evident truth (to Americans, anyway) that all men are created equal.

    Apparently, the American Revolution is never over. There are still individuals out there that refuse to believe, or fail to act in ways that support the beliefs, that all persons are equal before the law, and that every individual must be judged not on the color or their skin, nor the form or absence of their prayers, nor the land of their forefathers, but on the content of their character, and the actions that demonstrate that character. Well, I will judge each individually, and if they insist on only using the world ‘American’ as a hyphenated suffix to some other word, I condemn them individually.