How many of the people directly protecting Joe Biden carry scary looking rifles? How many of those weapons have high capacity magazines? How many of them are automatic, something illegal for most law abiding American citizens? These are questions none in the Credentialed Media are asking when Joe makes observations, nor of any other high ranking politician
Biden questions ‘who the hell needs’ high capacity assault weapons in wake of Maine shootings
President Joe Biden on Friday night harshly criticized the use of high capacity assault weapons in his first public remarks on gun violence following this week’s shooting in Maine that left at least 18 people dead.
Speaking at a campaign fundraiser in Washington, D.C., Biden asked: “Who the hell needs an assault weapon that can hold, in some cases, up to 100 rounds?”
Without referring to the Lewiston shootings directly, Biden said it was “outrageous what’s happening.”
Why? Why not? It’s built into the Constitution. And if it’s good enough for protecting the POTUS it’s good enough for We The People. Elected and government officials are not meant to live under different rules than the people they serve. And it doesn’t matter if they need or want them. As long as the government is allowed them so are we
In a statement Thursday, Biden urged congressional Republicans to work with Democrats to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, to enact universal background checks, to require safe storage of guns, and to suspend gun manufacturers’ “immunity from liability.”
“This is the very least we owe every American who will now bear the scars — physical and mental — of this latest attack,” Biden said in the statement.
Well, ban all government from carry them and we have a deal. Military members cannot carry them off base on US soil. And no one may carry them while protecting the White House, POTUS, the VP, or any federal agencies. That seems fair.
Safe storage is simply a method to make the guns of private citizens worthless for protection. Universal background checks is to make sure the government knows every single gun citizens own and where they keep them. Removing immunity is a stealth measure to sue gun owners out of business here in the U.S., except for possibly making weapons for government.
Oh, and then, with nothing happening in the US or world, Biden blew out to Delaware for the weekend. Who will be protecting Biden now and for the rest of his life with scary looking rifles with extended magazines and are automatic.
Biden. Typical democrat. Still using same argument from 30 years ago. It was unconvincing then. Now it just convinces us that the left really is out to take all our guns.
High violent crime, foreign invasion that we can all see, And WELL PUBLICISED STORIES ABOUT NUT CASES KILLING PEOPLE, make every reasonable person want to have their own firearms. And that’s not even counting all the people who fear tyrannical government or zombie apocalypse.
If the government really wants to disarm us, they should crack down on crime, deport the foreign army in our country and defund all those agencies trying to take our guns. Then people will forget about needing guns.
Why? An irrelevant question. My rights do not hinge upon your misconceptions and opinions of “why.”
Because FYTW.
Why do people who pay no taxes have a right to vote? Because they have a right to in our Constitution. My opinion doesn’t matter.
Why do you have any rights after you are arrested? Because the Constitution says so. We’d shut down a lot more crime if you didn’t, but that is irrelevant. Our social contract says that is off limits.
Why is cruel and unusual punishment illegal? We’d destroy a lot more career criminals if it wasn’t. But somewhere along the lines the founding fathers realized that was immoral and put restrictions on government.
Why do you have a right to worship or not worship as you see fit? We’d be better off as a nation if certain religions and non-religions were quashed. But that isn’t open to debate because we have a First Amendment.
We could go through the entire Bill of Rights, and none of those things are subject to anyone opinion. None of it has to be justified to anyone else.
Semi-auto rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
In Bruen vs NYSRPA2 (2022) the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the government to overly restrict carrying firearms outside the home. The US Supreme Court decides what you can and cannot do. The Constitution is a guide. The Supreme Court has restricted your right to tote a fully automatic weapon. Is that Constitutional?? What if the Supremes permitted a large tax restriction and large annual fee on semi-autos.
Is it at all possible that the ultra-permissive view of the Supreme Court on firearms possession contributes to the US homicide rate and mass shootings? Note that our homicide rate is the highest by far of all developed countries. (We know, we know, nuCons claim it’s because of liberal judges, feral negroes, not enough good guys with guns, no Jesus in schools, etc). Our suicide rate is high compared to most other developed nations, and suicide by bullet to the head is pretty effective.
A demonstrated mentally ill man was able to buy a rifle and double the homicide rate in Maine in one day.
C’mon now, that’s an extremely lame argument. The first amendment doesn’t mention radio,tv or the internet, so I guess those aren’t part of the press.
Aren’t all of Rimjob’s “arguments” extremely lame? Even for a 12yr old mentality.
C’mon now, don’t take one sentence out of an argument. Note that 2A fetishists insist the 2A gives Americans whatever firearm they desire, yet the SCOTUS has put limits on fully auto weapons that even this far-right SCROTUS has yet to overturn.
Conserves make the argument that they have the right to AR-15 assault weapons because “fuck you”. My argument is that they need a better justification for supporting mass shootings of school children, diners, theater goers and shoppers. That’s all.
We have some 20 rifles and shotguns in gun cases here, but the only temptation to obtain an AR-15 would be to protect ourselves from increasingly volatile and violent right wingers promoting rebellion.
a right to vote? Because they have a right to in our Constitution.
No. Actually it isn’t. If there is no election, there is no vote. And in the case of democrat party elections, you may vote but only super-delegate votes count. The constitution gives states the power to determine the manner of elections. Non-citizens may not vote in many places. Felons may not vote in most places. Minors may not vote. Some offices are filled by appointment not election. The constitution merely prohibits denying the vote on the basis of race, sex and age above 18yrs.
The constitution protects the right to own arms, because the right to self preservation was an uncontestable human right the did not belong to the government so the government had no right to regulate it. The founders saw no reason to regulate the definition of “arms”, since they believed all arms were permissible and government had no power to fence citizens from buying or creating any form of effective defense they saw fit. The constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. But the right to self defense is yours by right and may not be regulated away.
The limit of government power to regulate arms is to recomment what weapons and ammunition should be bought so that they can participate in collective defense measures and be sure of having compatible arms. If anything, the proper role of the government should be requiring people to buy AR15’s, 5.56mm steel penetrator ammo, and even subsidizing it to make it within reach of poor people.
Now, more than ever, we need in our individual hands the weapons of war. Our government illegally allowed into our borders 10 million people of military age. Did the planners for see that we would have the weapons we currently produce? Yes. They were well aware of evolving tech. For that matter, you could buy a barrel of gun powder. Crude, but it could still blow things up.
At the end of the day, we need as much protection as possible. The Dems have turn cities into war zones, the rule of law is gone thanks to liberals, our own government has broken down in every aspect.
David
have you now reached the age where you are afraid of young people?
Remember 40% of all the recent migrants fleeing Venezuelans fleeing “socialism” have at least a college degree.
David that reference to “barrel of gunpowder”? Do you think that the 2nd Amendment should also cover IEDs? Should we be able to build our own bombs?
John,
You prove time and again you don’t know shit. Go back to being stoned.
By the way, do you realize you have been wrong on every topic.
Should people be allowed to bring guns into courtrooms? Do people lose their 2ndAmendment rights because of mental health issues? or former drug use? Can we have RPGs? Dirty bombs? chem weapons?
No specific firearms are mentioned in the Second Amendment case you haven’t noticed. You’re not really a progressive if you don’t recognize progress. Televisions and radios computers and other such devices are not mentioned in the First Amendment but they’re still covered under it. Or should we have to stand on soapboxes in order to speak freely?
We need to apply our laws with common sense and fairness. Modern day Democrat/communists lack both as they also do not understand equal protection under the law.
Even on the rare occasion when you do come up with an intelligent idea you have to screw around with it by making it some kind of a Democrat handout and giveaway program. For some reason Democrats never believe human beings can exist on their own without government. It’s been said that if you peeled back a skin on a Democrat and you find a communist hiding underneath.
So L.G. Brandon is now calling the good Professor Hale a Democrat and a communist! Good lord.
LGB, do remember that when you argue with idiots, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Otherwise, a good post.