Joe Biden wants to ban all semi auto firearms

You'll like this part.

 

Like I said…

 

That gun was made for trash, by trash. Neither of whom actually support anything they pretend to.

Stop. Simping.

 

Neither are magazines. Think it through.

Stop. Simping. Its disgusting.

How'd you feel about it if it was a Clinton, Obama, or Biden policy?

 

I'd give them kudos for it.

As far as bump stocks go they are merely a crutch/gimmick to help the lazy people bump fire. Not mad.

And God Bless Trump!

 

You'd give kudos for a magazine ban. And you think you support the 2a?

Let's assume that's true. The government still has no right to infringe on the right to own them.
And certainly if its going to do so, since they don't fit a definition under existing law, you would need to amend existing law. You don't just wave your ****ing hand and say its done. That's not how laws work.

<Mod Edit>

 

Misunderstood Re:Magazine bans.

I would them poo-poos for that.

 

Using the logic you expressed earlier: Large mags are just for lazy people who can't reload reliably. Right?

 

Wrong. Mag size makes no difference.

 

Ah so a 2 rd magazine is the same as a 100rd magazine?
So you're ok with magazine restrictions then?

 

Joe Biden is a puppet-clown.

 

Magazines come in standard sizes for a reason, it's a part of a functional semi-auto.

Restricting magazine size will not reduce body count, if you want proof look at the Virginia Tech massacre. That had all the restrictions you clamor for, yet is the worst mass shooting ever.

Your recommendations are ineffective.

 

They're not my recommendations dude. They're your logic applied to a different but same category item (ie accessory not the gun itself).
You're the one who says if its not the firearm itself its not 2a protected.
Leaving aside that bumpstocks were considered machineguns under the bumpstock ruling and so really what the issue is is that you do not know enough about the subject you're discussing.
If you find it illogical, stop using faulty logic.

As to standard sizes: Yes, and what if they made the standard size 5 rounds? As you say, its just an accessory and so not 2a protected. By that logic, you have no ability to halt such a restriction.
I am pointing out the position is foolish and non-sensical, and included within your 'logic' expressed regarding bumpstocks.

 

I think you and he are both pro gun rights

 

Which means nothing if he supports a non-sensical position like 'who cares if trump altered a statute by executive fiat explicitly to restrict 2nd amendment rights, check out this merch made for rubes by a guy whose wife takes bukkake for money'.

I'm not a fan of Reagan, he was a grabber, I don't follow his asinine rule about not saying anything negative to or about someone who is ostensibly a fellow traveler.
Democrats do that ****. Republicans do that ****. I'm not one of those things.

 

while I ripped Trump on the bump stock pandering, I do note that if Hillary had been the president, we never would have seen the BRUEN DECISION and I am sure she would have demanded far more idiocy on guns

 

President Biden does not want to ban all semi-automatic firearms. However, he does support measures such as banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which have been used in several mass shootings. Biden has also expressed support for implementing universal background checks, closing loopholes in the current system, and encouraging states to adopt "red flag" laws. These measures aim to make it harder for people who pose a danger to themselves or others to obtain firearms.

 

He does.
https://nypost.com/2022/11/24/biden-vows-to-push-ban-on-semiautomatic-guns/

That is, he supports unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, which he knows violate the constitution.

See above.

... and thus, he supports confiscating guns from the law abiding.

 

Yes, and if the choice was between a **** sandwich and a sandwich that is **** and also tofu, it would make sense to pick **** and also tofu instead of just ****.
But the choices are never such a binary solution set, no matter how loudly you people chant about it.

Further: Trump didn't need to make it past the primaries, but a good number of you lot don't have 3 braincells to rub together for heat.

 

well I didn't vote for Trump in the primaries but once the election rolled around it was him or Hilary or him and Biden. if you support gun rights, it was a no brainer. Perhaps you could tell me what you think was a better choice for gun rights advocates

 

well if his reason for banning things is to stop murder, why is he targeting weapons rarely used. Biden's a piece of cattle dung and is as dishonest as he is odious

 

Not simply for gun rights, but generally speaking, there has been a libertarian candidate in each election in recent memory perfectly capable of winning if you'd stop chanting.

 

Before they were big news, they were gimmicks that no one really paid attention to, hooking a thumb in a belt loop to bump fire was far cheaper. No one cares about bump stocks.

However a magazine is part of a functional rifle, and halving it's capacity has no bearing on body count as evidenced by the VT shooting.

The only people you concentrate your gun control efforts on are law abiding citizens.

Why?

 

And again: Trump gave the executive the power to rewrite the definition in a statute at will. The BATFE at his behest calls them not gimmicks but MACHINEGUNS. As if they were even the receiver of a firearm. Do you not grasp how that massive overexpansion is 1) an issue and 2) applies to magazines?

Indeed it is, and they've now by fiat changed standard from the factory to 5 rds by law in this example to help you learn something. Indeed it has no bearing on body count, but that doesn't stop the grabbers from making the law. And they're not stopped, in fact don't need to make a law at all really: they only need to redefine a term again.
That power is a power your cheeto dusted loser of a fat incompetent who couldn't beat a senile old man for ****'s sake, granted to them. A power which you endorse them having with your flippancy and your simping for that low rent con man.

Again: I'm not pro gun control, I'm illustrating where your 'logic' leads us. YOU allow them this power, YOU endorse it. YOUR MAN you keep demanding God be praised for the existence of is pro gun control.

You'd have to ask a pro gun control person the why. I'm not pro gun control, you may quote me otherwise.

 

I suspect i forget daily more about this issue than most know. I ran Ed Clark's campaign in the Yale-New Haven, Southern CT region in 1980. Right now I support libertarians at local levels. They cannot win at the presidential stage and a vote for them helps Democrats.