Pres. Biden on gun control
13 responses | 0 likes
Started by GunterK - June 24, 2021, 4:42 p.m.

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1407810711653216258?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1407835887518597130%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es4_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fbidens-widely-mocked-f-15s-and-nukes-speech-latest-string-gun-control-blunders


Pres Biden addresses gun regulations. He wants to limit certain kinds of weapons.

He addressed the argument used by followers of the 2nd Amendment…. the right of the citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government

He said “… if you want to take on the government, you need F15s and nuclear weapons”

Now wait a minute !!!!!!!!

Didn’t they just scream “insurrection, insurrection”, and “the end of the Republic”, when a bunch of Trump followers, armed with flags and cameras, showed up at Capitol Hill????

I didn’t see any F15s dropping bombs. I didn’t even see anyone with an AR15 there.

You just heard the POTUS!!!!

The government was not in danger of being toppled by the people of Jan 6.

Comments
By mcfarm - June 24, 2021, 7:44 p.m.
Like Reply

so Biden who has been in gov for 50 years still to this day cannot recite what the second amendment is all about. What did he say about cannons today? Really, I have never read about cannons in the constitution. And then he topped himself by trying to quote Jefferson and so badly screwed that up I think he ended with "you know the thing". Bottom line he is really not aware of many of the principles that make America exceptional...ohhh sorry for using that word the left hates so much.....exceptional which is true 

By metmike - June 24, 2021, 10:06 p.m.
Like Reply

Previous threads/discussions on this:


                no crime just a gun problem ya right            

                            Started by cutworm - May 26, 2021, 8:41 a.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69988/


             

                Biden/Tim Scott speech-Banning assault weapons used in mass shootings                                        74 responses |           

                Started by metmike - April 28, 2021, 11 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/68659/

By mcfarmer - June 24, 2021, 10:20 p.m.
Like Reply

Controls on firearms absolutely reduce crime, and the severity of the crimes that are committed.

Anyone want to speculate what Jan 6 would have looked like if DC didn't have the controls in place they did ?

Tell me it wouldn’t have been much more violent.

By cutworm - June 24, 2021, 10:48 p.m.
Like Reply
By TimNew - June 25, 2021, 4:04 a.m.
Like Reply

Controls on firearms absolutely reduce crime, and the severity of the crimes that are committed.

Anyone want to speculate what Jan 6 would have looked like if DC didn't have the controls in place they did ?

Tell me it wouldn’t have been much more violent.

"I'd storm the capitol of the United States with some  heavy ordnance,  but I just don't want to risk breaking those strict DC gun regulations".

By mcfarmer - June 25, 2021, 7:15 a.m.
Like Reply

“I'd storm the capitol of the United States with some  heavy ordnance,  but I just don't want to risk breaking those strict DC gun regulations”


Actually some said exactly that.

By TimNew - June 25, 2021, 7:17 a.m.
Like Reply

I would very much enjoy seeing your source for that declaration.

By mcfarm - June 25, 2021, 8:29 a.m.
Like Reply

It was Biden who said the opposite. He said Chicago and other big lib cities with more gun laws than guns were being run over by guns from places like rural Indiana. What a foolish thing to say. Chicago is so poorly run the libs now blame the damn Amish in northern Indiana.

By mcfarmer - June 25, 2021, 10:13 a.m.
Like Reply

A quick and easy find, I can’t be troubled for more but they are out there:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oath-keepers-stashed-weapons-hotel-potential-jan-violence/story?id=77048420


From the article:

”In a court document filed Monday seeking the continued detention of Kenneth Harrelson, one of a dozen members of the Oath Keepers charged in a sweeping conspiracy case against the group, prosecutors cited newly discovered communications allegedly showing members discussing storing their weapons at a Comfort Inn in Arlington, Virginia, knowing that possessing such arms within Washington, D.C., would be illegal.”


But again, you didn’t answer my question. Deflection. Typical. Tiresome.

Notice I answered yours.


Can anyone honestly say there wouldn’t have been more violence if those “tourists” had been carrying  firearms ? DC’s gun laws prevented a massive loss of life.

By TimNew - June 25, 2021, 10:54 a.m.
Like Reply

Your question was to the effect of.  How much worse would the riot been wothout regulations.

My answer was,   not at all.   Anyone who will storm the US capitol is not going to be deterred by gun regulations. Seemed like an obvious answer to me,  but I don't mind explaining it more clearly.

You countered with,   the regulations DID keep them from brining weapons,  citing an article that said they had weapons stashed near by in case they needed them.  In Case They Needed Them.

Do you still want to argue that regulations kept weapons out?   What I read is the regulations only affected where they stored them.  Had they felt they needed them,  they certainly would have had them.

But thanks for highlighting the fundamental flaw in the gun regulation argument.  Essentially,  people who are willing to use weapons during the commision of a crime don't really care about laws.


By GunterK - June 25, 2021, 11:26 a.m.
Like Reply

mcfarmer, thank you for pointing out the OathKeepers issue (I didn’t know that).

Apparently they “discussed” bringing weapons, but didn’t do it.

You could be correct…. had it not been for the strict gun laws in DC, they quite possibly would have brought their weapons to the Capitol Building, even if it was “for show' only.

On the other hand, every Monday we read about how many people were shot in Chicago, over the weekend. Chicago also has very strict gun laws…. but the criminals don’t care. (same in many other cities)

What does this mean?

It seems to me that you are making the case that the protesters of Jan 6, in general terms, were law-abiding citizens (unlike those who do the daily shootings in our big cities)… people who simply believed there was election fraud and felt the need to protest.

They followed the law and came unarmed.

Had the criminals of our “inner” cities converged on the Capitol (for whatever reason), there would have been a blood bath, regardless of gun-laws.

That's an argument in favor of the Jan 6 protesters.

As has been said many times before, we all agree.. .those who broke glass, should be punished accordingly. Those who forced their way into the building, broke a law and should be punished accordingly.Those who were invited to enter by the police, should be sent home immediately and reimbursed for “false imprisonment”.

However, calling these people “terrorists” and treating them as such, is a travesty, IMHO.

By mcfarmer - June 25, 2021, 1:14 p.m.
Like Reply

What part of this is so difficult to understand ?


”, knowing that possessing such arms within Washington, D.C., would be illegal.”

There are other accounts I don’t feel the need to research. It’s boring.


As for being terrorists, I think they were deluded individuals who thought they were doing the right thing, as promoted by the president.


He is the one that should stand trial, and he will someday be regarded by history as a foreign agent. Putin couldn’t have imagined in his wildest dreams being able to do to this country what Donald Trump was able to do.


Distrust  the media, check.

Distrust the election process, check.

Distrust the justice system, check.

Distrust the federal law enforcement, check.

Promote violence against elected officials, check.


Oh, and Mike, I don’t hate anyone. Never have, it’s not something I’m interested in.


By TimNew - June 25, 2021, 1:27 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks McFarmer  :-)