Bite Me says he can dictate the type of weapon you own

| February 7, 2013

Personally, I wouldn’t let Joe Biden pick out my underwear, but he told House Democrats at their retreat that the government can tell you what weapons you can own says Politico;

“It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.”

Now, I’m no constitutional scholar, but I’m pretty sure that the federal government doesn’t have any rights. I skimmed the Bill of Rights a few times, and couldn’t find any rights, per se, in there for the feds. I see the tenth amendment with States’ rights. So, I’m concluding that Bite Me doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

“Don’t tell me because we can’t solve it all, we can’t act at all. … when people tell me you can’t prevent these kinds of occurrences that doesn’t mean we can’t do something so god forbids if it happens again, diminish the carnage,” he said.

Yup, we just have to do something, anything. Of course, unfortunately for the country, he’ll still have his job in January 2015. Because if they go through with their gun ban, many of the Democrats in that room won’t be in Congress.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (120)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Hondo says:

    Philly: hate to tell you this, amigo – but PA is in the top 20% of states regarding having the most legal restrictions on firearms. It has the #10 Brady Score in the country – 26.

    It’s nowhere near as bad as the 9 states with higher Brady score – but it’s still in the top 20%.

  2. Hondo says:

    Now, Ish – don’t go trying to confuse Sippy with those nasty things called facts. He gets his info from DU and Chrissy-Poo Matthews. Giving him non-sugar-coated facts like that will cause enough cognitive dissonance in his poor little head to give him a whopper of a headache!

  3. Ex-PH2 says:

    Is it far to say that in spiffy’s little world, there is no such thing as corrupt cops, corrupt lawyers and/or corrupt politicians?

    Everything is fine…it’s jus fine…nothing is wrong…it’s all just fine. 🙂 😉 :P)

  4. Hondo says:

    Nah, Ex-PH2. Those exist in his imaginary world. But in his world, they’re all “conservatives” whose goal is to “oppress the masses”.

  5. UpNorth says:

    Hondo, the middleman is all part of Baracka’s Jobs Recovery Plan. Can’t cut him out, unemployment will go up, again.

  6. Ex-PH2 says:

    I noted that ‘weapons’ did not include anything other than guns, things that fire bullets.

    Oh, man! These people are so STOOPID! And so afraid of everything that rattles their cages.

    I checked the IL DNR rules on crossbow hunting: don’t need a special permit (it’s just a small tax), coyote season is extensive, and turkey season will be coming up soon. I think I will join the Richmond hunting club.

  7. PhillyandBCEagles says:

    Hondo, that surprises me–PA is shall-issue and has one of the highest ownership rates in the country. The city of Philadelphia is basically Chicago or DC, but the rest of the state is free. Not sure what metric they’re using there (could take Philly into account or could have something to do with permit reciprocity, not sure how PA stands in that regard)

  8. Insipid says:

    @81- I remember the majority of people on this board asking scoffing when i told them that the Affordable care act would be affirmed as a tax. I remember the majority of folks on this board scoffing when i said that President Obama would win, and win by a comfortable margin (i actually did predict 332 on the Daily Kos, but not here- i wish i had). To be honest I don’t know if Hillary will be the President in 2017. I said that to poke folks here with a sharp stick. Immature? Yes. But fun.

    I can’t say for sure she’ll run or for sure that she’ll win the nomination. But i CAN say for sure that a Democrat will be elected in 2017, and with that the Republican grip on the SC will be over. Thank goodness for that.

  9. Insipid says:

    @88- There is absolutely nothing in that document that does not support my contention that the Militia is a military body as envisioned by the founders.

    The document clearly organizes the militia into groups, enforces how they’ll be organized, it makes it abundantly clear that it is a MILITARY organization. Any evaluation of a statute or decision revolves around reading the ENTIRE document for its meaning, not just select passages from the statute to arive at partisan conclusions. This is basic legal analysis 101. There is no fair reading of the statute in its entirety that would lead anyone to conclude that they were talking about anything other than a military organization.

    I will say the same thing to Hondo that I said to Jonn: leave legal analysis to the adults. You’re not very good at it.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Yes, Insipid, you are a legal genius. NO ONE argued that the SC would find obamacare constitutional on tax grounds but, somehoe, you saw that it was. The admin even said flat out that it was not but, somehow, you knew them to be wrong. You are indeed a legal genius, an idiot savant, perhaps–but nevertheless a gift to American jurisprudence

  11. Insipid says:

    No, i’m not a “legal genius” simply capable of reading the statute and determining what constitutes a tax and what doesn’t. It is enforced by the Internal Revenue service and reported on our tax return and the tax is less than the cost of health care. The only penalty allowed by law is that they take the cost from your tax return- no jail time. There is little real difference between this and the housing credit or the child tax credit. It’s a tax, no matter what the administration calls it for political reasons.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Then, Insipid, that makes you a legal genius because no one –and I mean no one–anticipated that Roberts would find it to be a tax. And by no one, I mean to include constitutional lawyers and law scholars.

  13. Insipid says:

    Actually a lot of folks predicted it, i can give you a long list of articles. But if you want to say i’m a “genius” who am i to blow against the wind? I guess i’ll just say “thank you.”

  14. MCPO NYC USN (Ret.) says:

    Sippy, I was having a lovely sun filled and snow covered day. Now it is dark and lonely!


  15. Insipid says:

    I can see why it’s “dark and lonely” direct quote from MCPO two weeks before the election:
    @ Sippy …. You wrote ….

    @47- Sparky, as much as you may want to deny reality, Obama is winning. Barring some major happening in the next two weeks, President Obama will still be POTUS on January 21st, 2013.

    I laughed so hard my right eyeball popped out, I blew an ear drum, and pissed myself … Thanks Sippy!

    I said then I’d have the last laugh. How’s that ear drum?

  16. Powerpoint Ranger says:

    I guess when your arguments don’t work and people just don’t accept that you’re right because you say so, it’s back to gloating over the continuation of your teleprompter dependent messiah’s reign of errors.

  17. Hondo says:

    Sippy: you castigating anyone here about their analytical skills? Oh, that’s rich. First you misidentify the rationale for Miller. Then you make an absurd claim above that every male in the US of military age is already in the military – because you said so, law be damned!

    Let’s just say your logical and analytical skills leave something to be desired when compared to those expected of a 5th grader.

    In fact, your inane comment 109 above concerning the militia is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone make the absurd claim that the entire male population of the US between the ages of 17 and 45 not in the military reserve components “clearly” constitutes some form of military organization. And yet, that’s precisely what Federal law defines the “unorganized militia” to be – all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45.

    Do you really not understand the definition of “unorganized”? An untrained, unorganized group of people – armed or not – is NOT a military organization. It’s a manpower pool that, given organization and training, may one day become a military unit.

    And in any case, the point is moot. Firearms ownership is now explicitly recognized as and declared by the SCOTUS to be an individual Constitutional right, independent of any connection to the military. (It always has been, but now the SCOTUS has formally declared that to be law.) Deal with it.

    Of course, your inability to think for yourself is to be expected. You obviously gave up logical thought and analysis in lieu of preprocessed pablum given to you by others years ago. You’ve been parroting the liberal “party line” so long without thinking that I’d be surprised if you even can think critically any more.

    And I wouldn’t get all that conceited about calling on part of the ACHA case correctly if I were you. You also contended that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to force people to buy particular items they did not want. The same ACHA decision emphatically denied Congress that authority. However, you don’t seem to ever talk about that part of the decision. I wonder why?

    Finally, I’ll remind you that the SCOTUS on occasion blows one out of their ass entirely (like you do here consistently in your comments). Perhaps you’ve heard of a case called Buck v. Bell (1927)?

  18. Joe Williams says:

    They put sights on a shotgun for a reason. The public cannot buy those shotguns you just point in the general direction and blow your target backwards.The pattren of shot does not open as soon as it leaves the barrel. At 10 feet the spread is only about 4 inches in diameter.Step out and fire 2 shots and the double barrel is empty like Joe’ head

  19. ByrdMan says:

    car insurance (@120)

    Please tell me you’re not complaining about spelling with a post that contains hardly a hint of punctuation.