Biden Position on Guns Is a Joke

Here's what Joe Biden has repeatedly said he want to do about guns in America.

1. Ban what he calls "assault weapons"
2. Ban high-capacity magazines.
3. Hold gun Manufacturers "accountable"

Strike 1....Strike 2......Strike 3

First, according to the second amendment of the Constitution, the right to bears arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (exactly what Biden is proposing to do)

Second, I don't think Biden, or any of his leftist friends, clueless about guns, have any idea what they're talking about, when they loosely throw the phrase "assault weapons". I've heard some of them refer to the AR-15 rifle as an assault weapon , when it's just an ordinary rifle, that fires one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Third, unlike Biden's claim that high capacity magazines have no place in a civilized society, and his question of why there is a need for that, there easily could be a need. What if a whole gang of thugs show up in your front yard ? (let's say 10-15 of them). A 6 shooter wouldn't cover that.

Third, gun manufacturers have nothing to do with any of this. In addition to the guns possessed by police, there are far more guns in the hands of law-abiding people (with CCW permits), than there are criminals in possession of them. And you cant blame an inanimate object. Some people kill or injure others with a car. Wanna ban cars ? Some people are attacked with baseball bat. Wanna ban baseball bats ? Some people are killed with a kitchen knife. Wanna ban them ?

Lastly, banning assault rifles (whatever anybody defines that to be) or any kind of rifle, doesnt ,match up with the facts. Relatively, very few people are killed with rifles.
Indeed, just ask a Ukrainian what he'd need a high capacity magazine for...or would they just prefer that he defend his neighborhood against invaders (with AK47's) with a double barreled shotgun??
 
Indeed, just ask a Ukrainian what he'd need a high capacity magazine for...or would they just prefer that he defend his neighborhood against invaders (with AK47's) with a double barreled shotgun??
Shotgun works good on 1 or 2 attackers. For a group, the high capacity magazine is essential.
 
What about gun shows ? You still must undergo a background check. I bought a gun at a gun show, and I had to wait 3 days, while they did an national database check. And this was when I already had a CCW license.
So no special deals are ever made at gun shows? You are dim.
 
Okay, so you get rid of so-called assault weapons and the next perpetrator uses a semi-automatic handgun. He kills 24 students instead of 26. Would you be satisfied with those results? Because let's face it, the only advantages to assault weapons are accuracy and larger capacity magazines. Accuracy is not an issue when you're firing into a large crowd of people and to change a magazine takes less than 2 seconds if practiced. So now what do we do? We go after semi-automatic handguns next.

It's like the great late Rush Limbaugh said so many times: Folks, I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body.

Taking steps to ban one particular group of weapons is only the stepping stone to the next group of weapons.
Rush Limbaugh and great don't belong in the same sentence. He was a fuckin' facist tool just like you.
 
That goes hand and hand with enforcing and enhancing penalties for breaking our laws in the first place.

* Illegally carrying a firearm, 7 years minimum prison sentence.
* Using a firearm in commission of a crime, 15 years minimum prison sentence.
* Found with a stolen gun, 10 years minimum prison sentence.
* Assault with a firearm, 20 years minimum prison sentence.
* Murder with a firearm, automatic death penalty.

Such penalties would reduce gun crimes by at least 50% or more, gang or no gang. A felon robbing a store with a stolen gun collectively puts him away for a combined minimum 32 years in prison if we adopted such penalties. If you got 10 years just for having a stolen gun that dries up the firearms black market because nobody would be buying them. We would be reducing the amount of guns available to the criminal and not all the people.
Or we could redistribute the money we put into so-called law enforcement and help those caught up in the inner city hopeless life. We could decriminalize drug possession and immediately ease the violence level considerably. Attack the cause and not just the effect. But that never crosses your racist mind, does it?
 
Why is that? Is it the GOP forcing blacks to lead the country in murders?
You never fail to take the racist side of every argument, do you? You think every black kid in the ghetto was born a criminal? And don't forget that white kids in the same circumstance follow the same path. But you're of course welcome to remain an ignoramus.
 
So they don't use a knife. They use a car instead. Happy now?
Situation; Your kid is at school and the north half the building is being assaulted by an AR wielding nut job and the southern half is being assaulted by a knife wielding nut job. Where would you want your kid to be?
 
Yes they do. In fact both Trump impeachments were based on mind reading, better known in their Holy Bible as Thought Police.
Ignorance is your middle name. So did we Imagine him withholding approved aid to Zelenskyy while Ukraine was under attack? Did Mueller imagine the ten instances of outright obstruction of Justice on the part of him and his fellow Comrades? You didn't notice any of that? LOL
 
Someday you'll figure out that your ego is not what this forum is all about.
I know what the vast majority of the right wing morons on here are all about. Weakness and susceptibility to indoctrination. Idol worship of a guy who wouldn't piss on the best part of you if you were on fire. In other words, stupidity.
 
See post # 496
One of the latest in the school shootings was done by a kid whose parents left it out and even encouraged their idiot son to practice with it. Those parents would fall into the category of legal possessors of firearms. Precisely why there needs to be stricter background checks and there needs to be more control over who gets one and what their situation is and the fuckin' sheer numbers and types out there in circulation. There's a case where a little infringing could have saved some kid's lives.
 
lol
Situation; Your kid is at school and the north half the building is being assaulted by an AR wielding nut job and the southern half is being assaulted by a knife wielding nut job. Where would you want your kid to be?

I'm sure I'd want my kid to be in the other building, where the kids are being sexually indoctrinated by the libtards. :p

Hey Lefty, hear me loud and clear:

GUN CONTROL WONT WORK.

Not now, not ever.

First, it won't accomplish your goal. You implied that your goal was reduction of child shootings in schools. Gun laws will not accomplish that

Second, you have no more chance of banning guns than you do of banning pot, liquor, or prostitution. Human beings simply will not comply. And you can't make them

Third, guns are for SELF DEFENSE. If you restrict guns just because some idiot is abusing them, then you're also restricting them for the 99% of normal people who just want to protect their families. In other words you are DAMAGING SOCIETY, and infringing on the natural and political rights of your neighbors.

Hey man, I lived through the Watts riots, Kent State, Rodney King, and BLM. The police can NOT be trusted to protect us.

In the scenario you raised, where are the cops?

In Florida they stood there watching

In California they ran away

Sorry, a good weapon is mandatory for protection of self and family. That concept is PERMANENTLY written into the highest law in our land. And do recognized in the Heller decision. Which will be shortly incorporated into all 50 states.

And then the leftard DA in St Louis won't be able to charge people for protecting their property anymore.

Trust me, the leftists DA's are on the way out. Count on it. Bank on it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top