Speaking to NPR, Vice President Joe Biden says Senator Feinstein’s DOA AWB will rise again! “I believe that the vast majority of the American people agree with us. The vast majority of gun owners agree with us.” No so vast! the NPR interviewer interjects. “It’s 56 percent. A very slim majority.” Biden: “That is a pretty good majority.” Melissa Block: “But not the vast majority.” Biden blusters, casting doubt on the poll. Block goes in for the [proverbial] kill, pushing the Veep on his support for ammunition capacity limits. Block: ” Gun owners will say that all of these lines are arbitrary? Why 10 rounds? Why not seven?” . . .
Biden: Sure they are arbitrary. Why age 18 to vote? Because society has concluded that the capacity to keep yourself from doing damage and or allowing other to do damage – you don’t let 9 year old drive – well that is arbitrary. There’s some 9 year olds might be able to drive better then some 16 year olds. Limiting it to 10 rounds makes a difference in how many shots you can let off before someone can intervene.
Block: If you look at the numbers the vast majority of deaths in this country are not from assault weapons, they are from handguns. Are you really fixing the main problem?
Biden: No, you are not fixing the problem. That is like saying, does it make any sense to ban cigarette smoking while you still have global warming going on? C’mon. Does that fix the environmental problem? No. But it saves some people’s lives. Do you say the fact that we took lead out of gasoline? Does that solve the problem? No. It doesn’t. We still have too many emissions going into the air. But it helps. I find that a bizarre argument; if it doesn’t solve the whole problem but, guess what? The fact is that it does impact. The people I go to, to look to, when we talk about assault weapons and magazines; talk to the police officers. They are tired of being outgunned. They are tired of being outgunned.
I wasn’t aware that cops were outgunned. They say they’re outgunned, especially when they want new guns, but where’s the evidence? The LA shootout? Two words there: head shot. And anyway, the po-po are AR’ed and MRAP’ed up the yin yang these days.
But you gotta give Double Barrel Joe some credit. The man knows his political limitations.
Block: What’s the problem with having a gun registry? A national, mandatory gun registry? We license our cars, why shouldn’t we have to license and register our guns?
Biden: Because there is a – this is where you start to cross a cultural line. The idea that you register your guns – it may make logical sense to say this, but there isn’t a constitutional right to own an automobile. There is a Second Amendment constitutional right to own a weapon: The right to have and bear arms. When you go to registration, it raises all the black helicopter crowd notion that what this is all about is identifying who has a gun so that one day the government can get up and go to the house and arrest everyone who has a gun, and they’ll cite Nazi Germany and all that.
You don’t need to register guns to have logical gun safety laws. This is not – there is a healthy gun culture in this country with regard to hunters. They husband their guns and their weapons; they lock them up, they use them responsibly, they pass them down to their children, like my dad. This is about keeping guns out of the hands of people who, constitutionally, the government is able to prohibit from owning those guns.
“Gun safety.” I don’t think that means what all the President’s men want it to mean. As for constitutional prohibitions against gun ownership, I wasn’t aware that the document made any such specifications. Just sayin’ . . .
The only specification I know of is “… shall not be infringed.”
He is so stupid he doesn’t even know what the meaning of “arbitrary” is.
Yes
Let alone spell it…..hes the clown with the expensive teeth
Why do so many politicians misinterpret what the 2nd amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights actually says? None of that grants me anything, it specifically outlines what the government is not allowed to do to infringe on my God given rights. The 2nd amendment protects me from the government. I have the rights ofself defense regardless what a piece of paper says.
And seriously, enough with the hunter garbage.
They don’t misinterpret it, they just don’t like it. They’re consciously attempting to change the cultural mentality of it by constantly repeating these buzz phrases about hunters and such, and it’s working.
+1
If there’s one thing I’ve seen liberals do consistently well, it’s re-write history. You say something like it’s a well-known fact enough times, sheeple start believing that it is.
Not just liberals…conservatives do it, too.
Whatever that man is drinking, smoking or swallerin’ I want some too. Every now and again I’d love to be completely detached from reality.
You think they were trying to leagalize, “for the people?” 😉
i have a hard time following his arguments. In fact, theyre so nutty i feel stupider for reading or listening to them.
I weep in pity for him. and i usually sneer at the concept of pity.
Wait…an NPR interviewer was grilling Double Barrel on arbitrary mag caps and the effectivness of rifle bans? Were they hoping Joe would respond differently and he wiffed, or did I wake up in bizzaro world this morning?
Nahhh, I just think even liberals are growing tired of Biden’s BS.
In all probability it was a setup, so then they can accuse the administration of not fighting HARD enough. If we can’t move the popular opinion by going after pro-gun folk, we’ll just demonstrate how the antis are not anti enough…………..using their own words against them………….
NPR often does its duty, namely questioning people in power. It may lean left, but its reporters and commentators generally challenge whoever is in office at the moment. I know this from having listened for the last more than thirty years.
+1 NPR is good like that.
Gun salesman of the year: Obama
Gun rights advocate of the year: Biden
Seriously, the more this guy oozes his stupidity, the more he reveals his side’s true nature.
And I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: the majority doesn’t dictate policy. This is a constitutional republic, not a straight democracy. 99 percent of the drooling masses could be pro-slavery, it’s still unconstitutional and illegal to enforce.
Awesome reference there, Joe Bob. Yep, we took the lead out of gasoline because it had the potential to cause heart problems in a small portion of the population and replaced it with MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) which has the potential to cause cancer in everyone.
Not to get all Woodsy Owl, but tetraethyl lead in gas was a major health issue, especially at the levels it was used at one point. There is some decent science that links lead exposure to violence. I haven’t spent a ton of time reading about it, but it is out there.
Don’t get me wrong, MTBE is a nightmare pollutant that gets into everything. That it’s only banned in like 30 states is beyond my comprehension.
This is the first time I’ve heard him reference the Second Amendment without following it up with a sentence that begins with, “but…” or “however…”.
Fourth amendment says “UNREASONABLE searches and seizure…” and “…PROBABLE cause.”
Eighth amendment says “EXCESSIVE bail shall not be required…”
These are subjective.
Second amendment says “…SHALL NOT be infringed.” There are no qualifiers there. It does not say “commonsense.” It does not say “reasonable.” It does not say “high capacity.”
Whether you like it (NRA) or don’t (progressive), how can there be any argument what it says? Nowhere in there is Biden qualified in saying the government is constitutionally allowed to prohibit certain people from owning guns.
“Second amendment says “…SHALL NOT be infringed.” There are no qualifiers there.”
An inconvenient truth.
I am starting to lean towards the view. If you can’t be trusted with a gun…maybe you should not be on the street. The only thing to take the 2nd amendment away is being in jail/prison.
“Why age 18 to vote? Because society has concluded that the capacity to keep yourself from doing damage and or allowing other to do damage…”
So 18 and up means you’re responsible? So Joe’s saying anyone over the age of 18 can own handguns, suppressors, SBRs, full autos, can purchase and consume alcohol, can gamble and can pretty much do w/e they damn well please provided they aren’t hurting anyone, damaging anyone’s property, or otherwise infringing on anyone’s rights? Joe, you’re a man after my own heart.
You still can – in the armed forces. Sadly, out in the real world, that stuff was stripped away when we started infantilizing teenagers back in the 60s.
I just want to point out that as a citizen of Cuomostan I am prohibited from handing down my weapons to my children, as Biden’s dad did.
Does that seem right to you?
My weapons are mine, I’ll hand them down to whom I please, yes I live in a free state but that being said if I lived in NY my statement would still be the same.
No, it’s one of the most outrageous things in the law. They say “we are not taking anyone’s guns”, but that’s exactly what they are doing here, just not right away.
18 year of age may be arbitrary, but it is expressly stated in the Constitution.
25th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Biden, where is a 10-round mag limit provided for in the Constitution?
The North Hollywood Shootout was 16 years ago and as dramatic as it was the only people who died were the perps
Biden actually said there is a Second Amendment right to own guns, and that you don’t need to have registration guns to have logical safety laws? He still has a job this morning? Big O didn’t fire him?
He can’t fire Joe. That’s why he put him on the whole gun thing. It got him out of O’s hair for a few months.
You keep using that word arbitrary… I do not think it means what you think it means el hefe…
Would you say he has a …PLETHORA…of gun laws???????
oh sí a plethora.
This entire line of comments is full of win.
Now that’s funny. Thank you.
“there isn’t a constitutional right to own an automobile. There is a Second Amendment constitutional right to own a weapon.”
First of all, Joe, it’s a Constitutionally-protected right to “own a weapon.” The right exists and the Constitution only protects it. Second of all, the right to own property (including cars) is also protected by the Constitution, and since automobile ownership is not specifically addressed and those powers are not specifically delegated to Congress or the States, then the right to own cars resides with the people.
Automobile licensing and registration is a violation of our natural, inherent rights and the Constitution, just as licensing and registration of any other piece of property (firearms) would be.
Not to pick nits but the your right to own a car (property) is protected. Your right to operate it on a public road is not protected.
It was a completely different tone on PBS the other day. From someone who knows what she’s talking about. The interviewer was the consummate professional journalist.
wow she is really well spoken! a semi automatic rifle that looks cool! exactly! and on PBS!
Blammo, thanks for posting that clip. Just to watch a calm discussion of the subject was very pleasant, almost dreamlike.
“because we can” is not an argument that survives strict scrutiny. progressives seem to be missing this point.
Haven’t the gun control freaks admitted that without registration, background checks are effectively useless?
“The people I go to, to look to, when we talk about assault weapons and magazines; talk to the police officers. They are tired of being outgunned. They are tired of being outgunned.”
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS ARGUMENT. I AM A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. I AM *NOT* OUTGUNNED. I HAVE AT MY DISPOSAL EVERY DAY:
– A .40 PISTOL
– A FULLY AUTOMATIC M4 CARBINE
– AN 870 SHOTGUN
– A HK UMP .40 SUBMACHINE GUN
– SOFT BODY ARMOR
– HARD PLATE BODY ARMOR
THE CITIZENRY *MUST* BE PERMITTED TO ARM THEMSELVES WITH WEAPONS THAT ARE AN@LOGOUS AND COMPARABLE TO THEIR INFANTRY COUNTERPARTS IN THE ARMY. *THAT* IS THE WHOLE POINT! ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT IS AN ELITEST, POWER-HUNGRY, STATIST PRlCK WHO SHOULD NOT BE WEARING THE UNIFORM. PERIOD. ANY LEO WHO SEES HIM/HERSELF AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A GUARDIAN OF CIVIL RIGHTS MAKES ME SICK. FOAD.
JOE… JUST BECAUSE BIG-CITY LIBERAL DEMOCRAT APPOINTED POLICE CHIEFS HAPPILY TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR IN BETWEEN BL0WJOBS DOESN’T MEAN THAT COPS SUPPORT YOUR BS.
(caps added because I am, indeed, yelling)
…..and I wish you were heard, as well.
Preach it, brotha
+1 million, please post on NPR.com and call their phone line (minus profanity) maybe they’ll read it.
Sorry about that. I got a little upset when a know-nothing moron decided to speak for my entire profession in an attempt to push his totalitarian social agenda. Especially when the only actual LEOs he speaks with are Chiefs who are appointed by liberal ideologues.
My patrol rifle is a demilitarized Vietnam-era M16 modified to shoot semi-auto only, and I’ve got a Remington 870, and a .40 Smith 4006 TSW. I also have a substantial choice of backup guns, ammo, and magazines. I don’t feel outgunned either, although I’d much rather have a 6.8 SPC or 300 BLK than a .223 in a patrol rifle.
Before moving to the M4s I too carried older stock. First M16A1s. Those were shockingly nice; light, reliable, accurate and handy. Then we got about 5-6 GM and Winchester made M14s and I ditched that M16A1 in a second. Not because I am a direct impingement hater; I LOVE DGI and would stake my life on it. I chose the M14 because it had better sights (A2 sights are good but M16A1 sights suck) and because at the time my AO was VERY rural with many VERY wide open spaces. Also I’m a sucker for .308, which is why for me on the personal side the LMT MWS is a winner.
Glad to see I am not the only one tired of hearing that line.
It’s all slyly inserted Propaganda
Eighteen is not a random number, it’s a distillation of human experience of when a developing human reaches a certain stage of maturity, or at least did so in the pre-nanny state era. Sure, it’s not precise to a year, but it’s clearly in the ballpark.
Ten rounds in a magazine is, however, very arbitrary, and as it seems likely that sooner or later we may have to face the prospect of some limits being imposed, at least in a few more States if not nationally, it is important to develop cogent arguments for what a less random number would be. It seems obvious that with many handguns taking 17 rounds, and with that number also being perfectly sensible in perfectly common self-defense situation (say, three home invaders), any number that is substantially less impairs the right to self-defense with a handgun. And this activity is one of the few things that is now explicitly protected by a SCOTUS decision. 10 is just not acceptable – it’s not only “random”, it’s also objectively too low.
“This is about keeping guns out of the hands of people who, constitutionally, the government is able to prohibit from owning those guns.”
So telling when they go off teleprompter. Not about keeping guns out of the hands of people that are dangerous to law-abiding citizens, but about disarming people whenever they think they can legally get away with it.
Someone else included this riff, but let’s go ahead and pull the full Billy Madison quote:
“[Mr. Biden] what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
I wish I knew how to do a bronx cheer on the computer. Any one that thinks barry and biden and friends is not after all guns, including grandpa’s double barrel is not a fudd. They are at best, deluded.
tdiinva,
The right to property includes the right to it’s use for licit purposes. Why wouldn’t you have the right to use your property on roads you paid for?
By your rationale, you have a right to carry a gun, but not in “public.”
Edit: for some reason this didn’t post as a reply. Sorry for any confusion.
The guy’s had more plastic surgery than Pamela Anderson and it seems like he OD’d on pain killers once or twice too often. It’s given him Tourette Syndrome.
More likely the brain aneurysms he had back in ’88.
Looks like the bit of his brain that regulates what comes out of his mouth has been intermittently nonfunctional ever since.
This man is America’s number one moron!
What is it with Vice Presidents of late being total f*ck ups anyways? From Dan “potatoe” Quayle to Al “man-bear-pig” Gore to Evil Dick, and now worst of all Clueless Joe. There’s gotta be something in that Vice Presidential water.
Yeah, it’s called “Play The fool: Take the heat and attention of the president.”
IF he is playing dumb, watch out, he’s even more dangerous than if it’s not an act.
All I think about when I see that picture is Hunnngry eeeeyes!
BHO and double barrel deliver eloquent speeches, and that’s about it.
Wowee… Shotgun Joe really IS as stupid as most people pegged him for. He can’t form a cogent sentence that makes any sense.
And Barocky, he seems to be looking a bit more stressed out than usual. Maybe it was the Israel trip and the unbreakable vehicle that broke down….
Why do posts take three minutes to clear?
I used to kinda like ole’ Joe … before he got on the anti-gun crusade. Now … after his “get yourself a double barrel shotgun” speech … it’s become increasingly clear what a colossal idiot the man is. Truly. Like he fell out if the pages of Mad magazine…
Those crazy black helicopter people… Who in the right mind would believe that the government would try to seize firearms through a declaration of martial law, a treaty with a foreign government, or presidential orders?
Oh, someone who’s read some of these gun control blogs and opinion pieces. E.g., http://guncontrollogjam.blogspot.com
Silly, Nazi Germany stopped being logical historical reference material on January 20th, 2009.