President Biden Repeats Dubious Claim About the Assault Weapons Ban

We previously discussed how President Biden continues to repeat the same false statements about bans on weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified. However, he also repeated another dubious claim this weekend. The comments have received considerable coverage after the President seemed to target 9mm guns for possible legislative bans, stating that “high-caliber weapons” like the 9mm handgun should not be needed and told the public that “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.” Critics pushed back on that claim, but such statements can be written off as part of the hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding gun rights and gun control. Yet, he made a separate factual claim about the record of the earlier assault weapons ban that is more questionable.

In addition to repeating (for the second time in two days) a false claim that certain weapons were banned at the ratification of the Second Amendment, Biden made the claim that “the assault weapons ban in the 1990s had “significantly cut down mass murders.” He previously made this statement in favor of gun bans.

Others have raised the earlier ban to show that such legislation has previously passed in Congress and can be passed again. The President is referring to the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The law banned the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms as well as some large capacity ammunition magazines. That ten-year ban was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994 but expired on September 13, 2004.

That was before the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The Act was not challenged under the Second Amendment in any major litigation.

Putting aside the constitutional challenges, the President’s factual claim is far from established. Indeed, there is no evidence that the ban had any appreciable impact on gun violence and most studies questioned the impact even on mass shootings. There does appear to have been a decrease during this period and an increase after the period. However, the cause-and-effect claim has never been well-established.

Support for this claim could be based on a  2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004”. However, the authors said that this reduction was merely “observational” and that the Act was not clearly the cause of the reduction in shootings and deaths.

A Rand study found such claims “inconclusive” while the National Institute of Justice noted:

“A number of factors—including the fact that the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country, the limited availability of data on the weapons, other components of the Crime Control Act of 1994, and State and local initiatives implemented at the same time—posed challenges in discerning the effects of the ban.”

Even the Washington Post noted that “Part of the problem is that the assault weapons ban existed for only 10 years, and there are relatively few mass shootings per year, making it difficult to fully assess its impact.” The Post would only say that some studies show the law was “effective.”

A 2020 study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that “bans on assault weapons had no clear effects on either the incidence of mass shootings or on the incidence of victim fatalities from mass shootings.” This study noted that “most mass shootings do not involve assault rifles, but many involve the use of [large caliber magazines].”

A 2004 Justice Department study found little support for this cause-and-effect claims.

The obvious problem with this claim is that mass shootings are statistically rare. It is very hard to associate a decrease to the law, particularly with the abundance of existing weapons and the fact that many shootings do not involve the AR-15 or similar models.

While difficult to discuss, it is also arguable that the same number of fatalities would likely have occurred with the use of semi-automatic handguns in Uvalde, Texas.

That does not mean that we should not have this debate. However, we need to work from a factual foundation in establishing the policy and constitutional basis for reforms.

193 thoughts on “President Biden Repeats Dubious Claim About the Assault Weapons Ban”

  1. Svelaz,
    The case wasn’t weak.

    The jury pool… that was weak.

    1. The case was indeed weak. Durham didn’t have the evidence to charge Sussman on conspiracy charges so he tried to charge him on lying to the FBI.

      Durham used a text from sept 18 to claim Sussman told Baker he was not representing anyone on his Sept. 19 meeting. The charge was he made that claim at that meeting when in fact he did not. Durham tried to use this case to inject his conspiracy theory despite the fact that it had nothing to do with the charge of lying. That’s why the judge didn’t allow Durham to use that “evidence”.

      Durham was incompetent. He sought discovery on evidence way too late and often missed deadlines for filing for discovery. Because he couldn’t find the evidence for the charge he was making.

      Durham charged Sussman BEFORE he had evidence. That’s why his case was weak.

  2. Jeff, Natacha, Fishwings, Anonymous WahPost copy/paste, all of them employed by DNC troll farm, all commenting within 30 mins of each other. Not a coincidence

    Classic Seth Warner / Svelaz infantile voice:

    “One would’ve had to find a jury of Rip Van Winkels who’ve been asleep the last 10 years to make the case this wasn’t about politics. And let’s be honest, after January 6th, trying to paint Donald Trump as a ‘victim’ is simply a bridge too far.”


    Fortunately Durham exposed Hillary’s FBI/DOJ coup against a US President. No American believes justice is served in the US Courts these days, particularly a jury of Washington DC members.

    Hillary and DOJ/FBI are discredited forevermore

    1. Anonymous, just as I predicted.

      “ We spoke to several legal experts—Jonathan Turley, Andrew McCarthy, Jim Trusty—all on Fox News who said they would not be shocked if Michael Sussman was acquitted simply because you have a D.C. jury,” he declared, referencing a number of conservative legal analysts the network has hosted to discuss the trial.”

      Never mind the fact that Durham’s case was already pretty weak from the start, but now that the facts have been presented, Durham did not prove Sussman lied to the FBI.

      Blaming the jury is just an excuse to avoid discussing the fact that Durham really didn’t have much of a case.

  3. You forgot to mention his additional repeated false claim that the Bill of Rights is not absolute. Of course it is. It is the final basis of legal interpretation of what the government is prohibited from doing to its citizens. And, it was added to the Constitution make absolutely sure those prohibitions were perfectly clear and not lost to misinterpretation. That’s about as absolute as it gets. And, the Second Amendment is the shortest worded one to further avoid ambiguity. Somehow, they still manage to twist and misconstrue it.

  4. Judging the success of Special Counsel John Durham’s probe into the investigation of President Trump and those associated with the Trump campaign and administration should not rest on the outcome of the Sussmann prosecution, however. In fact, even if the special counsel’s office scores a conviction in its false statement case against Sussmann, that would do little to right the scales of justice unbalanced by more than five years of the politically motivated abuse of power that began as Crossfire Hurricane and continued even after Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued his final report.

    So, measuring Durham’s performance by the outcome in United States v. Sussmann would be a mistake. Also, especially in the case of an acquittal, it would ignore the valuable information exposed related to the broader Spygate scandal. Using that gauge as a measure, the special counsel’s office succeeded wildly.

      1. “ Fox News Immediately Blames Jury

        When the Jury was seated, all honest legal experts said the jury would not convict. The Judge did earned his massive compaign donations and trips to exoctic isles to make sure of an acquittal.

        1. “ When the Jury was seated, all honest legal experts said the jury would not convict. The Judge did earned his massive compaign donations and trips to exoctic isles to make sure of an acquittal.”

          That’s a lie. Legal experts did not say the jury would not convict. Nobody knew what the jury would find. Nobody.

          The only reason people are saying that now is because they don’t like the outcome. You’re just upset at the fact that your preconceived notions didn’t materialize.

          The fact of the matter is Durham had a weak case and obviously was unsuccessful in his attempt to charge Sussman. That’s the nature of our legal system.

          1. Fair enough. I suppose you would support an amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure so that venue may be laid in such political cases in the Northern District of Texas?

            A jury is a jury, right?

      2. Svelaz,

        I sincerely hope not. I have wagered that Turley, unlike a lying Trumpist, would not delegitimize the jury’s verdict. As an upholder of the rule of law, Turley cannot accuse a jury of nullification unless the jury’s verdict is positively and unmistakably wrong.
        That is not the situation here. So I predict that he will not join the chorus chanting nullification.

        Sometimes, jury nullification is a good. Jury’s nullified convicting pickpockets in merry old England because the penalty was death by hanging. No doubt, the Trumpists would have wanted a jury to nullify a Flynn conviction had he not pled guilty.

        1. Jeff, I suspect Turley will blame the jury by way of his usual ambiguous reasoning and rhetorical gymnastics.

          I’m confide he will mention the location of the trial and how unfair it was to Durham because the judge did not allow his conspiracy theories to be used as evidence.

          1. Turley has already questioned the judge’s decisions and raised doubts about the jury’s bias, but I still say he will not accuse the jury of acting in *bad faith* unlike his Fox News rage provocateurs. Turley is tasked to raise legitimate concerns which his Fox colleagues seize upon to remove all doubt!

            1. Knowing the DC Fed court, the judge’s name & the jury pool people like attorney Robert Barnes & other like myself knew in advance what the outcome would. We also see the Rigged Crap with Antifa/BLM vs J6’ers in DC courts.

              DC courts are Weaponized Against America/Americans.

              DC courts need shut & dispersed to other Fed Court systems.

              DC hasn’t a jury pool a large enough nor unbiased judges to hear case.

              Everyone should take another look at the treatment of Roger Stone, that was directly caused by Hillary, Sussmann & the Obama/Biden Crime families Coup. .

              That evil judge was going to send him to prison for years based on false charges, testimony & immaterial information, like what kind of cheese did you have on that ham sandwich 6 months ago Roger .

              1. Oky1 says:

                “DC courts are Weaponized Against America/Americans.”

                Turley REJECTS your accusation. He defends the integrity of judges and grants them the benefit of the doubt. You sound just like Trump attacking the bona fides of a judge. This is what Turley would have to say to you for unfairly maligning a court:

                “During the campaign, President Donald Trump was roundly criticized for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge who was presiding in a case involving his now defunct Trump University. He argued that, because of the Mexican heritage of U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel (who was actually born in Indiana), the judge was biased against him and referred to him as a “hater.” That “hater” however just handed down a major 101-page ruling in favor of Trump’s signature policy: the wall with Mexico.”


                “At the time of Trump’s comments, I was one of many voicing strong objections to the personal attack. Indeed, I recently raised those comments in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox who also said that he also “hated” that attack on Judge Curiel even though he was critical of “rogue judges.”


                Be more like Turley.

                1. I hope Prof Turley finds the decency to apologize to Roger Stone, Paul Manfort , DJ Trump, peaceful J6’ers & many of us others.

                  Americans a sick of those Satanic Warshipping Pedophiles. Anyone helping them are Commie/Nazi American Hating Evil Azzhole.

                  That’s why they continue to attempt to strip the Citizens of All our God Given “Rights” as they attempt to cause another Civil War.

                  Being Peaceful now is the answer to the American Haters.

                  I understand many of them a compromised, fear the Obama or Hillary Mafias will have them Whacked or they are just ignorant.

                  They have to get over their fear.

            2. He’s already questioned the jury insinuating they acted in bad faith by way of mentioning bias.

              It is obvious Turley hasn’t been paying that much attention to this case as he should. He’s just going to whitewash the verdict by focusing on the jury and the judge instead of the merits of the case.

              1. So you know more about “the law” and “legal system” than Turley?

                1. Anonymous, I’ve followed this case closely for months. That makes it easy to tell that Turley’s analysis is not about the merits of the case. He’s just throwing a lot of red meat to feed the rage of his fan base who are no smarter than they think in knowing the details and complex issues surrounding the case. Marcy Wheeler did a phenomenal job keeping everything in perspective and she is much more credible than Turley in regards to this case.

                    1. She’s far more credible than Turley on this issue. She’s analyzed the actual evidence and used the transcripts of all counselors and the judges.

                      She was far more thorough than Turley in putting this case into proper context.

              2. Svelaz says:

                “He’s already questioned the jury insinuating they acted in bad faith by way of mentioning bias.”

                Turley raises a lot of doubts which is what a good defense lawyer does. Insinuating is one thing, asserting is another. I grant you that the lying Trumpists latch onto his insinuations as *proof* of bad faith. Has Turley expressly claimed jury nullification? I don’t think he would dare, but, to his discredit, he will not disabuse his followers who do so conclude. Turley needs to be asked why he never corrects those who misinterpret his statements as a teacher should.

                As an academic, Turley is very circumspect in his legal pronouncements. He generally avoids indicating where exactly he stands; instead, he dutifully argues the best case on behalf of his “client,” Fox, though well short of going full Giuliani!

              3. Svelaz,

                Predictably, Mark Levin, Turley’s Fox brother, just announced on his radio show “jury nullification” and “judge nullification.” We will have to wait and see if Turley uses those words. Certainly, I will stand corrected if he does.

                1. Conservative media is already quoting Turley that he is also saying the jury and the judge were being partisan in their conduct of the case.

                  They point to Turley’s disingenuous argument on the judge limiting evidence without mentioning the fact that the evidence Durham wanted to include is not material to the charge he accused Sussman of committing.

                  It’s simply Durham’s incompetence in handling the trial that created this result.

      3. No one”immediately” blamed the jury – many hear have said there is little chance of a DC jury convicting a Clinton flunky.

        Out side of the nutosphere people are genuinely shocked and disappointed.

        This verdict is DANGEROUS.

        It is a slap in the face to the americans who have had this nonsense invlicted on them for 6 years.
        It is a slap in the face for all of us – right and left who were lied to by SO MANY.

        It is a rejection of the rule of law.

        I found the foremans remarks that the court wasted their time telling.

        Spend 6 years burning the country down with blatant lies and that isho hum – not important.

        Of course it is important. Lives have been destroyed families torn apart even the outcome of elections and government polices are different as a consequence of these LIES.

        Of course the jury screwed up – as most of us knew they would
        Further we ONCE AGAN have jurors LYING to get on a jury.

        Jurors are sworn to follow the law. They are not there to decide whether this issue is important – a Grand Jury already decided that.

        Further if the law is not important – then lets just get rid of it. It was important enough to prosecute Papadoulis – who did what ?

        He did not lie to the FBI, he did not manufacture a fake crime. He got some dates wrong on some emails that he was not allowed to look at.

        If the Jury wishes to beleive that the FBI was complicit – good for them. But that does not exonerate Sussman.

        If this was during a time of declared war – Sussman would be guilty of treason.
        That is what leading an actual coup si according to the constitution.

        Protesting the outcome of an election – rightly or wrongly is not a crime and is actually fully protected by the constitution.
        Attempting to persuade congress to act as hey are constitutionally free to do – is not a crime.

        Making up a crime and reporting that fake crime to law enforcement is a serious crime everywhere in the country – except DC – if you are a democrat.

    1. The special counsel has won.

      But the country has lost.

      Further those on the left do not understand that Sussman’s Aquital Damn’s them and increases the odds of violence substantially, while undermining the rule of law and trust in our government.

      A conviction of Sussman – would to some extent be itself a fraud – the left could escape and blame it all on Sussman – the FBI was Duped, Mueller was Duped. The DOJ was Duped.

      But by failing to convict Sussman – the Jury admits what we all know. The FBI, the DOJ, the Courts, much of our government, democrats in the house and senate and even a few republicans, the media, big Tech were all complicit in a Fraud on the american People, are all guilty of corruption.

      I would note that not only did they try to take down a legitimately elected president – through corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional means, but they hounded myriads of other INNOCENT people.

      Every single person that was investigated, interviewed, suspected, plead, or even convicted as a result of this HOAX is owed their lives and reputation back from not just the Clinton campaign – but from all of those who stole their time, their money and in some cases their freedom.

      Flynn is suing for $50M – not near enough.

      And what of the american people – what are we owed for this monumental Fraud ?

      Yes, Durhaam has won by exposing the corruption – starting with the Clinton campaign – but straight through to Mueller and his hentchman.

      But there are no consequences, and without consequences we can expect the criminals to repeat their misconduct.

      We have an FBI that has been unleashed by the AG on american parents unhappy that their children are being taught by public schools to be racist.

      Why is it we should trust the FBI ? Why does the FBI continue to exist ?

      1. John B. Say,

        “ The special counsel has won.”

        No it hasn’t. It has lost credibility. Durham has not been able to provide anything of significance in three years investigating.

        Blaming the jury, the judge, and Sussman for not producing the preconceived expectations based on conspiracy theories is evidence that the truth prevailed.

        Durham tried to use the conspiracy theory that Sussman provided a hoax to the FBI. The problem is he had no evidence. He couldn’t charge Sussman with conspiracy because he knew he had zero evidence to support his conspiracy theory.

        Durham’s case was weak and his own incompetence added to his problems.

        Blaming the jury is just a deflection from the facts of the case which involved one charge that had no chance of being proved

        1. Where Stalinism prevails, guilty people from the party are freed while innocent people are convicted.

        2. Durham was like Lot – looking for one honest man. but there are none to be found in Sodom on the Potomac.

          Many of us hoped against hope that there could be an honest DC jury.
          But most of us knew better.

          I agree with Andrew MacCarthy that Durham’s strategy was wrong – the FBI was not duped by Sussman, they were COMPLICIT.

          It is not a conspiracy theory that Sussman provided TWO hoaxes to the FBI.

          Those are well established facts.
          That was not even a question at trial.

          Sussman’s defense was NOT that the Steele Dossier or Alpha Bank scam were not Hoaxes.
          It was NOT that he did not lie.

          It was that his lie was not material.

          That was blatantly false – it is ALWAYS material when you make a false report of a crime.

          The jury failed – as expected.

          They also did more harm than good.

          Much of the country see this for what it was – lawlessness, a miscarraige of justice.

          The harm done to this country by these hoaxes – not just to Trump or his campaign or presidency – but to the entire country to out institutions that have been damaged by this.
          Much of the Federal government, the press social media – all participated – wittingly or recklessly in a long long long fraud.

  5. Debate is fine, i love debate, I even love friendly polemic, with the understanding that everyone is still friends. Trump exaggerated to an epic scale, and i am no fan. But Biden lies. The media lies. The DNC lies. Blatantly, with video evidence to the contrary all of months old. They do it boldly and brazenly. They lie through their teeth and they know they are lying, and they drag the rule of law into it, again, knowing full and absolutely well they are lying. They make W look like a choir boy in this modern age. I no longer have the words.

    Kids don’t know the difference because they have no context to provide them an historical understanding. Grown adults that do or should – there is no excuse for this. I grew up in the Carter and Reagan eras when during the 70s the polls were quite literally taken hostage in parts of the country, and I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams we’d be seeing any of this, it is so, so much worse now. The rule of law, and people that actually understand it is very much under threat. That law students say they are studying law to ‘persecute people like you’ should make every single person on this thread think about what the heck they are doing.

    I respect differences, and I know our host is a lifelong and generational Democrat. Fathom this professor or others: my progenitors were the forebears of Democrats also, until they actually participated in assisting people in the underground railroad so long ago. They never voted dem again. True story. That envelopes, for my lineage at least, the entire period from the abolishment of slavery to the civil rights movement, to present day. One of my great uncles was a photojournalist that was part of and documented the civil rights movement (the real one, not the contrived one of the spoiled elite under 35 that simply didn’t get the outcome they desired if they paid enough money promised by Obama). And sorry, tough sh*t, we are Irish and white. Even all that time ago they saw the dems were a losing proposition for free people, long before JFK was so tragically taken away.

    Doesn’t mean we can’t have multiple parties presenting multiple views, but you see: the DNC is no longer an American party. it is a regime, with all of the implications that implied 100 years ago. Granted, people like AOC are ridiculous to the extent that they border on parody, but that is precisely what people her age vote for. Think on that, and flood the polls in November as though your life depended on it, because it just might.

    1. Trump lied on an epic scale. “Exaggeration” is a kinder word for lying.

  6. OT


    Great venue if you can get it, right?

    The daughter of a juror was on the same soccer team as Sussmann’s daughter.

    Any impartial, coherent and rational judge who was subject to impeachment would have thrown three jurors off.

    This judge should be impeached, convicted and gibbeted in front of the Supreme Court.

    Isn’t it ironic?

    The branch that judges is totally corrupt, and its Supreme Court can’t even read the 2nd Amendment and explain its clear English language to the President and Congress.

    America is infected by and sick with dark metastasizing cancers.

    Malignant tumors must be excised to save the patient.

  7. 43,000 Americans are killed every year on highways.

    118 Americans are killed every day on highways.


  8. This did not result in World War 3, so why would NATO bombing Russians in Ukraine?

    1. “This did not result in World War 3, so why would NATO bombing Russians in Ukraine?”
      Hey, Aninny, when I was a kid age 5, I went to the Tiger cage at the zoo and stupidly put by hand in there. The Tiger yawned as my parents frantically yanked me away. I was incensed since the “the Tiger didn’t bite me” and wanted to go right back.

      That’s sort of your logic – like mine at age 5.

  9. Banning guns is not a solution. There are far too many already out in circulation. That Pandora’s box was opened a long time ago.

    There are far more simple solutions that are effective. First; raise the age to 21 to buy any gun. That doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment since there is no age mentioned in the clause.

    Second; close all the domestic violence loopholes. DV is the biggest indicator of someone more liable to use a weapon to harm others. Get convicted of a felony DV you get put on a list of people not allowed to have a weapon.

    Third; ban the advertising of guns to minors and promoting the military appeal of weapons such as the AR style rifles.

    Fourth; make training mandatory for every gun purchase including a thorough review of all laws regarding use in each particular state were the purchase occurred. Not a violation of the 2nd amendment either.

    These are just a few that don’t violate the 2nd amendment and are sensible and rational.

    1. So should free speech also only start at 21 since it is not mentioned in the the 1st?

      So because something looks scary determined by you, but still has the same capabilities as other devices, they should be banned?

      Should we force people to get trained before giving speeches?

      Yes, these ideas all go against the 2nd.

      1. Jim, you can’t kill people with free speech like you can kill people with a gun or rifle. It’s a physical object that requires a certain level of maturity to wield responsibly.

        Just like not being able to drink at 18 because 18 yr olds are not mature enough to understand the consequences of what drinking does to you.

        Raising the age limit to 21 doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment.

        1. Speech can absolutely lead to the death of people.

          There is no drinking amendment. Nice strawman.

          1. Jim, speech can’t kill people the same way a gun does. It’s not the same. Your asinine comparison is just that, asinine.

        2. You used to be able to drink at. The Feds canceled those laws. The Fed said if you dont use 21 as the age to drink, you federal hwy $’s will be diminished. It’s a State Issue.

        3. Jim, you can’t kill people with free speech like you can kill people with a gun or rifle. It’s a physical object that requires a certain level of maturity to wield responsibly.

          It’s called prior restraint. Something else the govt can’t do.

    2. Svelaz,

      Why not tax bullets like the government taxes cigarettes? The taxes could pay to harden the tens of thousands of schools, pay for the extra security guards, train and hire the thousands of needed mental health workers, etc. Why shouldn’t the gun bearers not bear this burden?

      1. That’s one way to go. Taxing bullets at higher rate than sales tax is not an infringement of the 2nd amendment. It’s a good option in my opinion.

      2. Tax people to exercise an enumerated right?

        Our resident retard reaffirms his affliction.

        1. Do your homework before you shoot your mouth off. You are embarrassing yourself.

            1. It’s not been litigated by the Supreme Court.

              “Ari Freilich, the state policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, noted that a federal tax on guns and ammo has been in place for decades: a 10% tax on the sale of pistols and revolvers and an 11% tax on other firearms and ammunition. The revenue raised is mainly used to fund wildlife conservation efforts and education programs for hunters, according to Freilich.”


              1. It’s not been litigated by the Supreme Court.
                They don’t litigate state laws at SCOTUS, retard

                And you are talking about excise taxes on manufacturers and importers. Just go away, you are clueless

                  1. Jeff,

                    “You like that word “retard,” don’t you?”

                    As you have previously explained,, words such as ‘liar’ and Trumpist’ are not insults if they are ‘true’.

                    1. Ray,

                      “Trumpist” is not a pejorative. It simply means “a follower of Trump.”

                      Calling Trumpists “liars” is true if they say false things knowingly.

                    2. When you start listing President Trump’s significant lies while in office, we might be able to take you more seriously.

                    3. Someone says:

                      “When you start listing President Trump’s significant lies…”

                      Whether his lies are significant is a matter of opinion, but I applaud you for conceding that Trump is a liar.

                    4. I am sure Trump has occasionally lied like all humans, but as a President his significant lies are minimal and compared to the other recent Presidents he has been transparent and more truthful. You lie on a daily basis and we still talk to you. I don’t know why, but we do.

                      Why don’t you name Trump’s significant lies as President starting from the most important.. If you do that I will admit that Biden is a terrible President and suffers from dementia.

                    5. As was said, you cannot be serious. You cannot tell us the lies of Trump. He lied less frequently than all other recent presidents and was informed the country of what he was doing.

                      You can’t be very bright not to know all this and dumb if you can’t list the most significant lies of Trump while in office. How can anyone believe you are anything but a troll?

                      Biden, Obama, and the Clintons were all frequent liars, Biden can’t get anything straight and Hillary has just been proven a liar again.

        2. Libs look to tax anything and everything. It is always their answer.

        3. Iowan2, not tax people. Tax ammunition. Taxing ammo does not infringe on the 2nd amendment. You don’t have a right to a free gun. You still have to pay for it. The constitution says nothing about having a right to a weapon just because you can’t afford it.

      3. Yes, and we should tax news websites. We could make a “digital stamp” that would appear on every news website. No stamp, no website.

      1. Required training does not infringe on the right to have a weapon. Its not an undue burden either.

        1. In order to be eligible for an abortion you must first train 20 hours a year from the age of 14 to 18.

      1. He already did, in yesterday’s piece, calling the Sussman trial an indictment of the FBI and Hillary Clinton. Sour grapes in advance of what Turley knew was coming.

      2. No spinning necessary. It’s the exact result we all expected.

        Everybody expected a jury packed with Hillary Clinton donors would acquit Hillary Clinton’s attorney despite the overwhelming evidence.

        1. Anonymous, it’s funny that nobody was complaining about the jury when it was picked. Some hedged on Durham’s weak case by setting up blame on the jury. Durham tried to make this about political conspiracy theories. The jury didn’t buy Durham’s BS. Durham respects the jury’s decision.

      3. ‘Sussmann verdict is what you expect when the judge stacks the jury with DNC activists. Today is one of the most disgraceful days for the federal judiciary in modern history.’ @cernovich

        100% truth.

        1. Anonymous, the judge didn’t pick the jury. Durham’s and Sussman’s lawyers did. You have no idea how the judicial system works. That much is apparent.

            1. The judge doesn’t pick the jury. The lawyers for both parties do. Conservatives are only blaming the jury because they couldn’t make a convincing argument with the evidence.

              1. The judge however will rule on whether an objection to a juror being seated is allowed or not.

          1. Judge forced the prosecution to use their challenges, when the judge should have dismissed jurors with admitted prejudices.

          2. Rejection of a potential juror can be done by the prosecutor, defense counsel and the judge. When the judge does it, no attorney has to use up his peremptory challenge. Therefore the person above LACKS UNDERSTANDING.

            For explanatory purposes only: If there are 100 jurors selected to be interviewed by the lawyers and 90% are likely Clinton supporters, then the jury will likely be all or nearly all Clinton supporters. If there were 10 peremptory challenges, theoretically the defense could get rid of them all. For the prosecution, it is different. After he gets rid of 10 Clinton supporters, there are 80 more. The judge permitted 3 donors to the Clinton campaign and one who played on the same team as Clinton’s daughter.

            The decision doesn’t mean much of anything, for we saw what happened to Clinesmith. Almost nothing. However, Sussman points the finger of derision, incompetence , bias and subversion of the law straight at the FBI and its leaders.

            What does one expect when elections are proven fraudulent? Biden is President based on Fraud.

            2000 Mules, the documentary, proves that. It is so damning that those who support the left aren’t able to watch it, and if they do, they immediately learn that the election was lawless.

    1. That’s not a surprise at all. But we will see Turley lay blame on the “DC jury” and judge instead of the fact that Durham’s case was weak from the very beginning.

      1. So you would have had no problem with a jury like that in the drug addict Floyd case.

        1. What Jury would that be Jim? It was a case involving murder. Not drug addiction.

    2. ‘Two tier system. Democrats can be caught on text committing crimes and the judge and jury will fix the case. If you’re a Republican, same judge will lynch you. No other way to put it. This is Stalin era justice now.’ @cernovich

      Yep. No other way to “spin” it.

  10. The 2nd amendment was never about the individual right to bear arms. Just like the abortion issue. The word “abortion” is not in the constitution. Neither is the word “individual” on the second amendment. A constitutional textualist would’ve had a problem interpreting the 2nd amendment to include “individuals”. The originalists would have to have the same problem because at the time it was all about states having militias to defend their own borders from the British absent a National army.

    Long guns were common in rural communities because they were often used for hunting. Not self defense.

    The 2nd amendment was about state militias. Not individuals. The word “people” was referring to the state, not individuals. The term “the people” in those days was always a reference to the state government. Not individuals.

    1. Svelaz: And what does ‘the people” mean in the 1st and 4th Amendments? State governments?

      1. Steve, the 4th amendment specifically mentions what it means by “people” when it refers to “in their persons”. It’s referring “the people” as the individuals.

        In the 1st amendment “the people” is contextualized as a reference to individuals by they mention of assembly.

        In the 2nd amendment it is talking about the security of the state by mentioning militias first and the state. The “people” in the context of the clause is referring to state militias as a whole. Not individuals.

        “We the people of the United States” From the preamble is referring to the entirety of the nation represented by the entirety of congress as “the people”, the ruling body of the nation, the state.

        “People” has different meanings depending on the context of how it is used.

        1. Svelaz: Nice reasoning but, from UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ(1990): (“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States”) (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. “

          1. That would be a good point of debate, however using the originalist or textualist interpretation like our conservative justices adhere to your argument wouldn’t fly. It would only matter what those terms meant at the time they were put into the constitution.

      2. I suppose he’ll pretend that “people” means one thing in certain amendments, and another thing in others.

    2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      A well regulated Library, being necessary to the enlightenment of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.

      Does this mean only libraries can have books? Of course not. It means “the people” [it is literally stated] have the right to keep and bear books (or arms) so they can form libraries (or militias) for their intended purpose of enlightenment (or maintaining the security of a free state).

      1. Madison is considered one of the two who were mostly responsible for the Bill of Rights. One can refer to Madison’s writing for clarity. However, all one has to do is read the Bill of Rights to see what “the people” means. Try substituting alternative meanings or the state to #1, 2, 4, 9 and 10. “The people” refer to individuals. I’ll provide #10 which is the simplest: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.” Try substituting the word state for “the people.”

        “The word “people” was referring to the state, not individuals.”

        Svelaz, don’t bother responding. I have had enough of your nonsense and ignorance. I have posted many responses of yours that have been proven wrong. There is a difference of opinion on this issue, but I wrote this for others that are able to think.

    3. I would think you are correct because the necessity of a gun for a man on the frontier would have been taken for granted. Would it have even occurred to the framers that the individual needed a constitutional right to be armed given the lack of a police force and the need for sustenance not to mention the threat of the natives? The individualized right to bear arms might be implied by the 2nd Amendment, but it certainly was not foremost in their minds as were armed militias. I would say a right of privacy if not expressly granted was similarly implied by Amendments to the Constitution.

  11. 9 mm parabellum bullets are far more likely to pass through the the body of an adult or child but the injury to the child would generally be worse because of their small size. Most of the time when people are struck by bullets that have passed thru another human body they are 9 mm. The muzzle velocity and small size seems to account for the tendency to over penetrate and pass thru. 9 mm hollow points are less like to over penetrate but do worse damage locally. Cities are loathe to use hollow points in their police forces fearing the “hollow point as inhumane” but they may be worse on the person fired at and less likely to pass thru and hit someone else. The 45 is larger and has a slower muzzle velocity and not likely to over penetrate but they do tend to stop a person more completely than a 9 mm. Of course the 45 was designed for stopping power that a 38 or 9 mm could not achieve. A 30-06, win 308 or 5.56 are rifle rounds and all have smaller cross-sectional areas but markedly higher muzzle velocity and will cause hydrostatic shock to the lungs and surrounding organs that are extensive. A 22 magnum can be as deadly as a 9 mm. It all depends on where you’re hit. The President has about as much knowledge of firearms as he does military strategy and tactics. I would not trust him dealing with either. Getting the bullet out has somewhat minimal effect on survival because it’s the trauma and damage of the penetration that usually kills you or your target.

  12. Isn’t it wonderful Turley is NOW so concerned by what a President says, he had no problem looking the other way when the Dear Leader was running his lies and disinformation every day, month after month, year after year.

    1. You just described the last year and change. How’s that “vaccine” working for everyone?

      1. You have made it clear to everyone, that you really don’t believe in reality. How’s that flat Earth working for you.

        1. “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” Who said that? And I’m the flat Earther? I think you need to check your reality.

          Here’s some more that I’m sure your too scared to look into.
          CNBC reported on a newly-published Nature study in an article headlined, “Vaccines Offer Little Protection Against Long Covid, Study Finds.”

          The Hill, “As Summer Begins, US COVID-19 Cases Six Times Higher Than Last Year.” and yet a year ago there was a fraction of the the population “vaccinated”.

          From the UK

    2. Fishwings,

      Turley several times called out Trump’s lies though diplomatically. For instance, the Stormy Daniels affair:

      “Trump’s past blanket denials were consistent with Cohen’s past insistence that he received no reimbursement for the Daniels’ payments, and that the president had no knowledge of the agreement or the payments. The problem is that the denials were manifestly implausible and increasingly in conflict with developing facts.”

      Isn’t that cute? In short, he lied his a$$ off.

      But it gets even better:

      “The defense team likely saw a painful change in Trump’s account as inevitable and decided that it was time to take the hit. Indeed, the team might have concluded that changing the president’s factual account is unlikely to come at a political cost. The White House may have been encouraged by a new NBC News poll that shows 76% of Republicans still believe Trump tells the truth “all or most of the time.” The White House may feel that Trump’s base is virtually immune from glaring contradictions by the president.”

      “Glaring contradictions”? Um, lies?

      Trumpists virtually immune from the truth about Trump. Now who would have thought?

      1. I never wrote President Trump didn’t lie. So your point? Idiot Joe is as much as a liar as Trump. The difference is, When Trump was President, life was a lot better.

        1. Jim22 says:

          “I never wrote President Trump didn’t lie.”

          You will be accused of Trump Derangement Syndrome for having admitted that Trump is a liar!

          1. As a rule President Trump didn’t lie about consequential things, though he may have lied out of national security concerns. All Presidents lie at one time or another, but he probably lied the least and was the most transparent.

            Without saying anything that Jeff hasn’t admitted to in the past, Jeff doesn’t know much of anything about these things.

  13. If only we loved our children as much as we love our guns! Professor I know that carrying the water for the murderous gun lobby must make you happy but are the details about how a gun kills really that important when someone is trying to get guns off the street so 18 year old mass murders can’t get one and shoot up a school.

    No matter what the right wing fanatics on SCOTUS may say, the Second Amendment didn’t grant individuals to have an unlimited individual right to own weapons. To get to that place they simply amended the Second Amendment and took out that bit about a well regulated big deal just a little judicial activism….amended it just like that. But of course they can do it because they Republicans. The Constitution doesn’t apply to them nor do the laws or any thing else. Professor, you should be ashamed.

    1. If only we loved America like the left loves the Clintons. Sussman not guilty. Not unexpected from a corrupt jury that had Clinton donors on it.

    2. Move to Trudeau’s Canada where you will enjoy living under tyranny.

    3. Justice Holmes: It appears you believe regulation can apply only to weapons. Perhaps regulation means training, fitness, uniforms and so on.

    4. Only if you loved children enough to try to understand the true problem of why an 18 year old would do such a thing. We have created a anti-religious, broken family, violent and isolated society. We are just beginning to reap this harvest.

    5. The 2cnd amendment did not create the right, It only protects it against the government.

      Because the govt is always trying to supress the people.

      Start with that simple fact. The rest of the silliness evaporates.

    6. “If only we loved our children as much as we love our guns!”

      Power lusters and tyrants always trot out “the children” (and the elderly).

      1. If these leftist tyrants were concerned about children, we wouldn’t see the number of children shot and killed on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit. These people are animals when they use children in this disingenuous fashion.

  14. if the police and DA’s did their job…loss of life would be much less
    Jamaica very strong gun laws…#2 Highest Murder Rate
    Switzerland….very weak gun laws which allow automatics…#200 Highest Murder Rate
    Murder is Cultural. Democrats PUSH for MORE MURDER…witnessed by the voters and their cities!

  15. The kinetic energy of a bullet is 0.5*m*v*v where m is the mass of the bullet and v is the speed. So a smaller bullet, less mass m, which is much speedier, bigger v, does much more damage. In practical terms, the .45 inch monster bullet from the old 1911 design just lumbers along to the target. But a modern 0.22, as in the AR-15 design, is exceptionally speedy at over a kilometer per second. So the kinetic energy delivered is very much larger, easily severing limbs, I am told.

    But I suppose that mini-lesson was too hard for almost everybody in the USA. Sigh.

  16. Democrats lie. They want Total Power. They want Money
    Pretty much sums it up!
    Nothing ever happens…as the DOJ and FBI are 100% corrupt

  17. It’s election propaganda, that’s all it ever is because they know the constitution, they just choose to ignore it to set their base on fire.

  18. 40 billion to Ukraine and probably most of it was stolen being one of the most corrupt countries in the world. That would pay for armed guards for all schools for a long time. But, politicians do not want solid answers to issues, otherwise why would we need them. They need to be this shinny beacon on the hill (or some other stupid quote muttered by every one of them) and proclaim that they will fix things, small print, if you vote for them again. They never do! How may times have inane voters put Joe Biden in office, and what exactly has he done that is positive and substantial in his long profitable carrier as a blow hard? Absolutely nothing.

  19. Lefties lie; Biden provides daily proof.

    If you want closer proof, just read the posts of our resident lefties.

    More convinced than ever that lefties are ugly people.

    1. Monumentcolorado, lying has never been an issue with the right. In fact they accept lying not to be immoral. Especially when those on the right do it with gleefulness and certainty.

Comments are closed.