Smedley_buzkill

He comes to bear witness to the t***h? Sure he does. In answer to his post "Biden Makes America Safer" ostensibly by "closing the gun show loophole" here is a copy of the regulation, which can make the sale of a single firearm to a family member without a background check a felony.
🔵 New ATF Rule:
https://ept.ms/4aNqYCE
🔵 Executive Order:
https://ept.ms/3TY7cxD

If you don't want to wade through 400 plus pages of legalese and bureaucratic bulls**t, here is a link to a video offering a 12 minute synopsis.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/selling-even-a-single-gun-can-land-you-in-jail-under-new-atf-rule-facts-matter-5628098?est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY%2BMlfxwGyMLDvepb6EVeBrVzxw0NKCTqGhTQuoNBECjIpI9XDpTG

For all you Biden worshippers, the Senile S**tweasel really stepped in it this time. This one will go straight to court as an end run around both the Second Amendment and the Article I prohibition on ex post facto law. Congress never authorized this crap.

EmilyD

TJKMO comes to OPP to “bear” her own witness…except it false, full of h**e and a warped sense of her own self-importance.

Congress never authorized Biden to pay off student debt, a clear violation of the constitution.

He also canceled Trump’s wall, tore down what was already built, and let the equipment and materials, rot and rust while he opened the border completely. Another crystal clear violation of the constitution, again.

And he did both of those things without Authorization from Congress, Which he was supposed to have.

You have to ask why?!! Why is Congress letting him do these things?

What do they have up their sleeve?

..

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

Smedley, The law also applies to anybody that wants to purchase a gun. He or she may be a psycho mass murderer, terrorist, felon, or unbalanced mental case. I hope and pray that my children, and grandchildren will never have to face one of these maniacs in their public school. You are correct about the ex post facto law, but as far as I know, it doesn't apply to p**********l executive actions.
The second amendment doesn't apply to weapons like machine guns which are against the law to own by civilians, because they are just too dangerous for civilians to own. It seems to me that military style assault weapons, are in the same category. I say this as a gun owner, I happen to own two 9mm pistols an S&W M&P 9 shield plus, for bringing a concealed weapon to my synagogue, and a IWI Masada tactical pistol to defend my home.

Smedley_buzkill

"Military style assault weapons" is a made up sack of crap. They are nothing more than plain old semi auto rifles, the same kind that have been around for well over one hundred years, that look like the real thing. The US Army definition of assault rifle is a rifle firing an intermediate power cartridge effective to about 300 yards, and capable of selective fire. I have posted links to the FBI Uniform Crime Report countless times on OPP, which shows that less than 2% of all murders are committed with semi auto rifles, scary looking or not. They are just low-h*****g fruit for anti-gun zealots to try and pick, or score points with people who know next to nothing about firearms. God knows there are enough of them on this site.
It is not against the law for civilians to own machine guns or select fire weapons, it is just expensive. Too dangerous for civilians to own? I am a veteran, qualified expert rifle, pistol and grenadier and spent more than a little time running an M60 machine gun. Unlike most people I have actually been in a shooting fight. Tell me more about "too dangerous." Perhaps too dangerous for a squid that poses for a picture with his scope mounted backwards.

The Second Amendment applies to ARMS. The definition of ARMS is man portable weapon, although it was sometimes applied to crew served weapons such as cannon. There were repeating and breech loading weapons at the time the Second was ratified. If the Second does not apply to weapons capable of automatic fire, then the First does not apply to computers, printers, radio, TV or the internet.
I am s**k of armchair pseudo-experts pontificating on subjects they know little or nothing about.

Smedley_buzkill

Concerning ex post facto law:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/constitution-center/constitution/ex-post-facto/

JoyV

You better reread the US Constitution. It does not limit arms to those which are "safe". It is not against the constitution to own an automatic weapon. At the time of the signing of the constitution, citizens could and did own automatic weapons, motors, canons, and even warships.

Restricting gun ownership for law abiding citizens will not make kids safe in gun free zones, such as schools.

And before you ban assault weapons, can you define what an assault weapon is?

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Why do you continue to spout things we continually disprove? Rhetorical question. You think if you say it enough it will become true inside of a prevarication.

ed4short Loc: New Hampshire

A bunch of misfits

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

TJKMO would not know t***h except for what is in its, predominantly empty, head.