Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Biden on Google+ Hangout today (1/24) at 1345

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Biden on Google+ Hangout today (1/24) at 1345

    That's 1:45 PM for some of you. If you're a google+ user:

    Before Vice President Joe Biden introduced a set of ideas to help reduce gun violence, he kicked off a national conversation. He wanted to make sure that he heard from people from every perspective about the steps we need to take to protect kids and make our communities safer.
    And that dialogue isn't over.
    Today, in a hangout hosted by Google and moderated by Hari Sreenivasan from PBS NewsHour, Vice President Biden will speak with a group of Google+ users about the White House policy recommendations and answer their questions. And we want you to join us.
    What: Google+ Hangout with Vice President Joe Biden
    When: Thursday, January 24 at 1:45 PM ET
    Where: Live on WhiteHouse.gov
    Of course, he does't want to reduce gun violence; he wants to reduce gun rights. Perhaps we can help him see his error.

  2. #2
    Regular Member MagiK_SacK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    VA Beach, VA
    Posts
    264
    Here is a good segment from the event, one that stand out to me.

    The on thing in it (out of many) that kills me here, and I think should kill his credibility too, is when he goes to say (at the 2:00 mark) that the Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restrictions can be placed on who can own, and WHAT KIND OF FIREARMS can be owned. Now I know he is right about the first part. That can be clearly read in the Heller v. DC ruling. I cannot find any decision that says it is reasonable to restrict what kind of firearms can be owned. Furthermore in the United States v Miller decision this excerpt can be found:

    "The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -

    "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

    With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

    The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were EXPECTED to appear BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES and of the kind IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME."

    So in short, as applied to the 2A, if you are called up for service in the militia you are expected to show up with your own firearm that is in common use at the time. Is it just me or aren't these so called "assault riffles" that are being attacked common arms of our time??

    Maybe I'm reading this with a bias but I truly hate misinformation. So if anybody reads that court decision differently, or knows of one that allows for the restriction of types of firearms please let me know.
    .45 ACP - Because shooting twice is silly

    A cop pulled me over and said, "Papers..." So I said "Scissors, I win!" and drove away.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Militia, does not refer to the common citizen, sitting around at the house, watching Family Guy.

    Heller speaks to total ban, not restrictions.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Regular Member MagiK_SacK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    VA Beach, VA
    Posts
    264
    It looks to me that the Supreme Court that decided on United States v Miller would beg to differ. From my quote above - "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Civilians being those that are not a part of the standing military.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=2,47


    Sorry I should have said that differently. Yes Heller did speak to total ban. In the opinion they strengthen the government’s ability to place certain restrictions. "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." So it should have been said that Heller gave affirmation to the government to restrict firearms to an extent.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=2,47
    .45 ACP - Because shooting twice is silly

    A cop pulled me over and said, "Papers..." So I said "Scissors, I win!" and drove away.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Militia, does not refer to the common citizen, sitting around at the house, watching Family Guy.

    Heller speaks to total ban, not restrictions.
    Of course statist judges believe in restrictions.

    Stop letting oligarchs in black redefine words. Militia is the armed citizenry.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Of course statist judges believe in restrictions.

    Stop letting oligarchs in black redefine words. Militia is the armed citizenry.
    Besides with the Miller case the judges said they could tax a short barreled shotgun because they could not see any military use for it. Implying that if there is a military use for a weapon then it cannot be taxed or prohibited.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Besides with the Miller case the judges said they could tax a short barreled shotgun because they could not see any military use for it. Implying that if there is a military use for a weapon then it cannot be taxed or prohibited.
    +1

    And keep in mind that Miller won in the district court. The government appealed. Miller's lawyer didn't want to go to DC as he was not going to get paid, so the SCOUTS only heard the governments side of the argument.
    I stopped stocking for the zombie apocalypse. I now stock for the liberal apocalypse.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasjayhawk View Post
    +1

    And keep in mind that Miller won in the district court. The government appealed. Miller's lawyer didn't want to go to DC as he was not going to get paid, so the SCOUTS only heard the governments side of the argument.
    Isn't that double jeopardy?

    Once a person is found not guilty when the government charges them then that is it, game over.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    I *think* the purpose of the appeal was to try and keep the '34 firearms act in place. If so they got what they were after.

    SCOTUS found the shotgun restriction to be ok and remanded the case back to the district court, but by that time Miller was dead (he was shot and killed by the way) so nothing ever happened.

    Miller was not a LAC, he was a hard core criminal.
    I stopped stocking for the zombie apocalypse. I now stock for the liberal apocalypse.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasjayhawk View Post
    I *think* the purpose of the appeal was to try and keep the '34 firearms act in place. If so they got what they were after.

    SCOTUS found the shotgun restriction to be ok and remanded the case back to the district court, but by that time Miller was dead (he was shot and killed by the way) so nothing ever happened.

    Miller was not a LAC, he was a hard core criminal.
    That does leave the door open to challenge the law again still.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    I may have also used an incorrect term when I said Miller won. The case was in fact dismissed by the district court, the defendants jawbone demurrer to the indictment, holding that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was unconstitutional was upheld by the judge.

    In fact Miller and Layton (his pardner in crime) had both pleaded guilty, but the judge got them to withdraw their pleas and get counsel. Methinks Judge Ragon wanted a chance to find the NFA34 unconstitutional.

    Some info on Miller: http://rkba.org/research/miller/miller.html
    I stopped stocking for the zombie apocalypse. I now stock for the liberal apocalypse.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    *snippers* Militia is the armed citizenry.
    I agree.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    Biden on Google+ Hangout today (1/24) at 1345

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Militia, does not refer to the common citizen, sitting around at the house, watching Family Guy.

    Heller speaks to total ban, not restrictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I agree.

    so you say it isnt, then agree it is...???

    S.T.F.U AND STOP TRYING TO DERAIL GOOD THREADS.
    Last edited by PFC HALE; 01-25-2013 at 05:24 PM.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by PFC HALE View Post
    so you say it isnt, then agree it is...???

    S.T.F.U AND STOP TRYING TO DERAIL GOOD THREADS.
    There's no contradiction in my two posts. They go well together, thanks for combining them.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Regular Member crazydude6030's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fairfax, va
    Posts
    512

    Re: Biden on Google+ Hangout today (1/24) at 1345

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    There's no contradiction in my two posts. They go well together, thanks for combining them.
    Looked like a contradiction to me...

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by crazydude6030 View Post
    Looked like a contradiction to me...

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
    Apparently it looks like a lot of things.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member crazydude6030's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fairfax, va
    Posts
    512

    Re: Biden on Google+ Hangout today (1/24) at 1345

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Apparently it looks like a lot of things.
    Its pretty clear in text. Maybe you didn't translate your meaning correctly. Just my opinion

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

  18. #18
    Regular Member MagiK_SacK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    VA Beach, VA
    Posts
    264

    Biden on Google+ Hangout today (1/24) at 1345

    Quote Originally Posted by crazydude6030 View Post
    Its pretty clear in text. Maybe you didn't translate your meaning correctly. Just my opinion

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
    +1
    .45 ACP - Because shooting twice is silly

    A cop pulled me over and said, "Papers..." So I said "Scissors, I win!" and drove away.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •