PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on September 19, 2023, 11:16:10 PM
-
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/09/19/joe-biden-to-announce-executive-level-gun-control-office/
President Joe Biden will announce the Office of Gun Violence Prevention on Friday and the new office will be coordinated with Mike Bloomberg gun control proponents and others.
According to the Washington Post, “The new office will report up through Stefanie Feldman, the White House staff secretary and a longtime Biden policy aide who has worked on the firearms issue for years.”
Coordination in the office is expected between the “White House, the Community Justice Action Fund and Everytown for Gun Safety.”
Shannon Watts, a Mike Bloomberg affiliate who founded Moms Demand Action, praised the creation of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, saying, “If this announcement is, in fact, the creation of a single point of leadership on gun violence in the administration, it’s a very big deal for the movement.”
She added, “A governmental focal point dedicated to creating a framework for overseeing national policy, research and resources would be more than symbolic — it would be a significant turning point for the movement.”
On August 31, 2023, Breitbart News reported that Biden’s ATF was using executive rule to expand background checks to the point of nearly being universal.
In a press release that accompanied the announcement of the proposed rule, Attorney General Merrick Garland said:
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was passed by Congress to reduce gun violence, including by expanding the background checks that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This proposed rule implements Congress’s mandate to expand the definition of who must obtain a license and conduct a background check before selling firearms.
The ATF’s rule will redefine language so that there is not simply a category of Americans buying and selling guns from and to one another — as they have done since 1791 — and a category of Federal Firearms Licensed holders (FFLs) selling guns at retail. Rather, every seller will have to prove he is not trying to make a profit, or he will be required to ensure the purchaser undergoes a background check before taking possession of the firearm.
-
Any infringement is Unconstitutional, aka, ILLEGAL.
-
Isn't Hunter Biden now claiming gun control laws are unconstitutional?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-bidens-lawyer-gun-statute-unconstitutional-case-dismissed/story?id=103214828
-
And, we slip deeper into a dictatorship by the Executive Branch.
-
Isn't Hunter Biden now claiming gun control laws are unconstitutional?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-bidens-lawyer-gun-statute-unconstitutional-case-dismissed/story?id=103214828
The anointed ones are allowed to have firearms, and their bodyguards. It’s only us commoners who should be banned from owning and carrying them. That’s his argument.
-
Isn't Hunter Biden now claiming gun control laws are unconstitutional?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-bidens-lawyer-gun-statute-unconstitutional-case-dismissed/story?id=103214828
I'm actually hoping Hunter Biden wins that.
-
Any infringement is Unconstitutional, aka, ILLEGAL.
no rights are absolute.
My right to life is not so absolute that I can force you to give me a kidney.
rights are in tension/conflict with each other.
-
no rights are absolute.
My right to life is not so absolute that I can force you to give me a kidney.
rights are in tension/conflict with each other.
All rights are absolute.
I may not be able to force you to give me a kidney. But the government should allow me to buy one from you. The government's prohibition against that is the infringement to my right to life.
If I try to force you to give me a kidney, you have the right to protect your property.
Really, no tension or conflict at all.
-
There are differences between being allowed to do something, being required/foreced to do something, and being prevented from doing something.
-
There are differences between being allowed to do something, being required/foreced to do something, and being prevented from doing something.
Agreed. But the big difference comes in when it's stated this way:
There are differences between being allowed to do something by the state, being required/forced to do something by the state, and being prevented from doing something by the state.
All rights are absolute, and granted by God. We agree to have the state put some restrictions on those rights "for the common good". But when the state thinks it knows what's good for the people, that's when we have problems. Like we do now.
-
https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1704610265818419227
-
no rights are absolute.
My right to life is not so absolute that I can force you to give me a kidney.
rights are in tension/conflict with each other.
“Shall not be infringed” is absolute. The fact that even Antonin Scalia screwed the pooch in Heller doesn’t invalidate the English language, or the legal meaning of “shall.”
No person’s rights are infringed upon by making the RKBA absolute, unlike the well-worn and poorly thought-out argument for limits on the First Amendment “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”
-
“Shall not be infringed” is absolute. The fact that even Antonin Scalia screwed the pooch in Heller doesn’t invalidate the English language, or the legal meaning of “shall.”
No person’s rights are infringed upon by making the RKBA absolute, unlike the well-worn and poorly thought-out argument for limits on the First Amendment “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”
The fact that I can own and use guns responsibly does not take anything away from anybody else. Unlike what control freak, Fascist Democrats want to do with everything.