Did Biden just do something that requires him to be removed from office?

[thraashman]

If the 2nd Amendment were absolute, you could own a nuke. You cannot. Stop being an idiot. Not that I expect anything else though from an OP with that loony username.

 

[brycejones]

They've probably been burning dictionaries too.

Dictionaries are tools of the elite to give meaning to words. Down with the elites!

 

[blackangst1]

In regards to the 2A? No.

 

[nickqt]

Biden just stated that
"the Second Amendment is not absolute" after Texas mass shooting"

If I'm remembering correctly, Biden swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States when he took office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Anyway, he just publicly stated his intention to NOT fulfill the duties he swore to undertake as part of his oath of office.
We fought 2 wars, the War for Independence, and the War of 1812, in part to be free of a government that tried to ban the import
of guns and gunpowder to Americans.

Since he just essentially publicly stated that he won't fulfill his oath, doesn't that mean that he just said he won't do his job that he swore an oath to do?

No right is "absolute", especially Amendments.

Also, how did you feel about Trump banning bump stocks? Did he need to be removed from office for that?

 

[Thump553]

One point-several posters here have made the implication that a right covered by an amendment is somehow less substantial than a right contained in the original body of the Constitution. That is incorrect as both a matter of well settled constitutional law as well as English language construction. Once an amendment is validly passed and ratified it becomes part of the Constitution entitled to equal weight and authority to any other part of the Constitution.

But do NOT think I agree with the current so-called conservative courts reinterpretation of the Second Amendment. IMO District of Columbia (2008) was an exercise of linguistic gymnastics by a self-proclaimed "strict constructionist" of the Constitution in creating an INDIVIDUAL's right to bear arms. For over two hundred years prior to that reconstruction the courts had consistently ruled the Second Amendment only barred the federal government from barring the states from raising armed militias. Perhaps the worse social experiment in constitutional law since the Prohibition IMO. Today we have over 400 million guns in the US, over a 100 million more than we have cars. How anyone can honestly argue the present situation is either rational or socially just astonishes me.

 

[Commodus]

This is what I'd call selective interpretation.

Biden wasn't saying he'd violate the 2nd Amendment. He said what he meant: that the amendment isn't an absolute guarantee that anyone can own any gun they want.

If the 2A was indeed absolute, you'd have the right to own unrestricted machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers and even tanks, regardless of what you'd done. Just out of prison for murder, and have a restraining order? Doesn't matter, here's an M249.

Rights aren't absolute precisely because the world is a complex place, and your rights stop when they infringe the rights and basic safety of others. You know who insists on absolute rights to do whatever they want, without even a hint of responsibility? Teenagers.

 

[hal2kilo]

Even in the ruling that vastly expanded so-called gun rights well beyond the clear language of the second amendment the Supreme Court itself expressly recognized that the Second Amendment is not absolute and the government does have the power to reasonably regulate gun ownership and usage.

OP's basis for faux outrage is not based in reality (given username, no big surprise there).

You should see what Chief Justice Warren Burger had to say about the 2nd ammendment.

Warren Burger on the Second Amendment | Playing in the World Game

 

[iRONic]

Burger called the 2nd amendment a FRAUD on national TV.

 

[nickqt]

One point-several posters here have made the implication that a right covered by an amendment is somehow less substantial than a right contained in the original body of the Constitution. That is incorrect as both a matter of well settled constitutional law as well as English language construction. Once an amendment is validly passed and ratified it becomes part of the Constitution entitled to equal weight and authority to any other part of the Constitution.

But do NOT think I agree with the current so-called conservative courts reinterpretation of the Second Amendment. IMO District of Columbia (2008) was an exercise of linguistic gymnastics by a self-proclaimed "strict constructionist" of the Constitution in creating an INDIVIDUAL's right to bear arms. For over two hundred years prior to that reconstruction the courts had consistently ruled the Second Amendment only barred the federal government from barring the states from raising armed militias. Perhaps the worse social experiment in constitutional law since the Prohibition IMO. Today we have over 400 million guns in the US, over a 100 million more than we have cars. How anyone can honestly argue the present situation is either rational or socially just astonishes me.

No right is absolute. With Amendments that are often very vaguely written, the Supreme Court has a myriad of tests to determine if a right is even applicable to a situation/actor. With enumerated rights, the criteria is typically more detailed and less open to interpretation.

And to be very honest, there really aren't any rights if they can be taken away from you - and every single right can be taken away from you.

 

[iRONic]

You should see what Chief Justice Warren Burger had to say about the 2nd ammendment.

Warren Burger on the Second Amendment | Playing in the World Game

The shitstorm that dyed in the wool conservative created…

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Sorry, but every President doesn't uphold the Constitution on a regular basis, or enforce laws legally passed, it's pretty routine

 

[Thump553]

No right is absolute. With Amendments that are often very vaguely written, the Supreme Court has a myriad of tests to determine if a right is even applicable to a situation/actor. With enumerated rights, the criteria is typically more detailed and less open to interpretation.

And to be very honest, there really aren't any rights if they can be taken away from you - and every single right can be taken away from you.

Here are two of my core beliefs: First, under the US Constitution, the power flows from the people, and the government has what power the people have granted it under the Constitution. To anyone that ever studied civics in school or perhaps even read the Constitution and/or histories about it's origin, I think this is pretty fundamental.

Secondly, I believe the right to personal privacy is the core and fundamental right upon which all other rights are derived. This is core of such decisions as the striking down of Connecticut's law the criminalized birth control(even for married couples, hey we were a heavily Catholic state) decided by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The basic right to privacy was also the foundation of Roe v. Wade-a right the so-called conservatives are on the cusp of purporting to declare nonexistence.

I do believe that individuals do have the right to bear firearms under their right to privacy, subject to reasonable regulation by the government (just as in the case of abortion). But what we have seen in recent years is a substantial and very vocal and well funded minority claiming their right to bear arms is paramount and not subject to any sort of regulation at all. That's nonsense.

 

[Muse]

Biden just stated that
"the Second Amendment is not absolute" after Texas mass shooting"

If I'm remembering correctly, Biden swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States when he took office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Anyway, he just publicly stated his intention to NOT fulfill the duties he swore to undertake as part of his oath of office.
We fought 2 wars, the War for Independence, and the War of 1812, in part to be free of a government that tried to ban the import
of guns and gunpowder to Americans.

Since he just essentially publicly stated that he won't fulfill his oath, doesn't that mean that he just said he won't do his job that he swore an oath to do?

Dig, I was thinking about this earlier: ANYBODY who brings up the constitutional right to own guns is on my shit-list. That includes you!

In fact, you just laid a big turd in this forum with this cockamamie thread.

 

[sandorski]

Consensus says, No.

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

Criminals often don't get their guns legally (they're criminals, after all, with criminal intent). I keep seeing the government pass more and more laws restricting guns, more and more 'hoops' and red tape that law abiding folks have to go through to buy or own a gun. Let's not kid ourselves - the end goal for that kind of thinking is to eventually make it so annoyingly difficult to get and keep a gun that few folks will bother.

 

[sandorski]

Criminals often don't get their guns legally (they're criminals, after all, with criminal intent). I keep seeing the government pass more and more laws restricting guns, more and more 'hoops' and red tape that law abiding folks have to go through to buy or own a gun. Let's not kid ourselves - the end goal for that kind of thinking is to eventually make it so annoyingly difficult to get and keep a gun that few folks will bother.

Dude legally buys some guns a week ago to shoot up a School. This was possible because a dipshit Governor relaxed Gun laws. If there are any US governments passing Restrictions, they have not passed enough yet.

 

[rommelrommel]

Criminals often don't get their guns legally (they're criminals, after all, with criminal intent). I keep seeing the government pass more and more laws restricting guns, more and more 'hoops' and red tape that law abiding folks have to go through to buy or own a gun. Let's not kid ourselves - the end goal for that kind of thinking is to eventually make it so annoyingly difficult to get and keep a gun that few folks will bother.

Pretty big shift here from impeachment. It’s almost like your original post was completely insincere.

 

[nickqt]

Here are two of my core beliefs: First, under the US Constitution, the power flows from the people, and the government has what power the people have granted it under the Constitution. To anyone that ever studied civics in school or perhaps even read the Constitution and/or histories about it's origin, I think this is pretty fundamental.

Secondly, I believe the right to personal privacy is the core and fundamental right upon which all other rights are derived. This is core of such decisions as the striking down of Connecticut's law the criminalized birth control(even for married couples, hey we were a heavily Catholic state) decided by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The basic right to privacy was also the foundation of Roe v. Wade-a right the so-called conservatives are on the cusp of purporting to declare nonexistence.

I do believe that individuals do have the right to bear firearms under their right to privacy, subject to reasonable regulation by the government (just as in the case of abortion). But what we have seen in recent years is a substantial and very vocal and well funded minority claiming their right to bear arms is paramount and not subject to any sort of regulation at all. That's nonsense.

I get all of that, but you're talking about the philosophy of rights. Rights are made-up by humans and held as "cherished beliefs" akin to religion.

Any individual can walk up to you and deprive you of your most basic right in actuality. All "rights" are like that. The government can do that, as can individuals who, for example, overthrow a government and declare that you no longer have any rights.

In the legal sense, a right is basically what society agrees upon. None are absolute, although some are more "foundational" than others.

 

[pete6032]

I nominate this thread for the 2022 self ownage thread of the year award.

 

[gothuevos]

Trump in 2018:

"I like taking guns away early," he said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Gong into P&N Middle name also seems appropriate for this thread:

 

[ivwshane]

A well regulated militia is also controlled by the state and able to be called upon by the federal government. It’s also trained according to congress by whoever the state decides to have train them. This is all in the constitution. The fact that a Supreme Court judge couldn’t see this or that the lawyers arguing against an individual right couldn’t make this a compelling argument is puzzling.

 

[zinfamous]

Biden said something that is completely true. You know, for those that at least got through a 4th grade basic civics class.

Why should he be removed for understanding the absolute basics of the constitution better than every single conservative that has ever lived?

 

[Commodus]

Criminals often don't get their guns legally (they're criminals, after all, with criminal intent). I keep seeing the government pass more and more laws restricting guns, more and more 'hoops' and red tape that law abiding folks have to go through to buy or own a gun. Let's not kid ourselves - the end goal for that kind of thinking is to eventually make it so annoyingly difficult to get and keep a gun that few folks will bother.

You say the government is passing more restrictive laws, but where's the evidence of this? I know a few states are tightening things, but others are doing nothing or even loosening things up.

The end goal isn't to make gun ownership impractically difficult. It's to make sure that the people who do get legal guns won't turn around and murder people, and that the guns they do buy aren't practically tailor-made for mass shootings. You don't need an AR-15 or a similar semi-auto rifle for home defense or hunting (in fact, it's generally lousy for the former).

The US' gun culture is sick, frankly speaking. It's not that there's something wrong with having the right to own a gun — it's that it's so ridiculously easy to get a gun (despite your claims to the contrary), and that people are so encouraged to fetishize ownership that it practically invites calamity. The Uvalde shooter murdered a classroom in part because he, like many Americans, was told that guns are the solution to his problems.

 

[mpo]

From the opening paragraphs of DC vs Heller (you know, the Supreme Court decision that affirmed an individual's right to keep and bear arms):

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Best go back in time and tell the SCOTUS that they were wrong, too.