What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
7,940
Reaction score
12,641
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has​

23 Jun 2921 ~~ By Michael Austin
Inadvertently, President Joe Biden just made one of the most convincing arguments for gun rights.
In fact, he was quite possibly more convincing than any other president in U.S. history.
Biden made the remarks Wednesday during a news conference as he explained that his crime prevention strategy would largely focus on “strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing,” Fox News reported.
The president began by saying “most responsible gun owners” agree that “no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine.”
“Those who say the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said.
“If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
It’s actually hilarious how contradictory leftists’ logic can be.
According to them, an AR-15 is a weapon of war far too powerful to possibly be entrusted to a civilian.
Also, according to leftists, if the government wants to kill you, your puny AR-15s won’t be able to do anything to stop it.
Well, are so-called “assault weapons” military weapons, or aren’t they?
The Second Amendment is enshrined so that an armed populace can protect its own liberty from government oppression, so how could you possibly justify restricting a weapon that isn’t even powerful enough to fulfill that purpose?
~Snip~
Biden’s claim that these weapons aren’t powerful enough to take on the U.S. government isn’t quite making the case he hopes.
In fact, that sort of argument is far more in line with what pro-gun conservatives have been arguing for decades.
Throughout history, all sorts of governments have turned totalitarian or authoritarian.
The American people have a right to protect themselves from such a fate.


Comment:
Now that's an interesting philosophical question. If a weapon is absolutely ineffective against overwhelming force, why is the overwhelming force so hysterical about it?
Meanwhile, Chyna Joey Xi Bai Dung is the first president to publically and casually admitted he would consider using atomic bombs on American citizens. He should be impeached forthwith, along with his second, and immediately removed from possession of the football.
(Isn’t that what the liberals would scream had Trump made that comment?)
These are the bellicose words of a tyrant. He might as well be the demented version of Lukashenko. Hell, even Lukashenko would have a hard time saying that and getting away with it.
Bai Dung is exactly the kind of ranting, table thumping thug that the Second was specifically written to protect us against.


3715591c085c696c.png
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
39,857
Reaction score
6,835
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has​

23 Jun 2921 ~~ By Michael Austin
Inadvertently, President Joe Biden just made one of the most convincing arguments for gun rights.
In fact, he was quite possibly more convincing than any other president in U.S. history.
Biden made the remarks Wednesday during a news conference as he explained that his crime prevention strategy would largely focus on “strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing,” Fox News reported.
The president began by saying “most responsible gun owners” agree that “no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine.”
“Those who say the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said.
“If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
It’s actually hilarious how contradictory leftists’ logic can be.
According to them, an AR-15 is a weapon of war far too powerful to possibly be entrusted to a civilian.
Also, according to leftists, if the government wants to kill you, your puny AR-15s won’t be able to do anything to stop it.
Well, are so-called “assault weapons” military weapons, or aren’t they?
The Second Amendment is enshrined so that an armed populace can protect its own liberty from government oppression, so how could you possibly justify restricting a weapon that isn’t even powerful enough to fulfill that purpose?
~Snip~
Biden’s claim that these weapons aren’t powerful enough to take on the U.S. government isn’t quite making the case he hopes.
In fact, that sort of argument is far more in line with what pro-gun conservatives have been arguing for decades.
Throughout history, all sorts of governments have turned totalitarian or authoritarian.
The American people have a right to protect themselves from such a fate.


Comment:
Now that's an interesting philosophical question. If a weapon is absolutely ineffective against overwhelming force, why is the overwhelming force so hysterical about it?
Meanwhile, Chyna Joey Xi Bai Dung is the first president to publically and casually admitted he would consider using atomic bombs on American citizens. He should be impeached forthwith, along with his second, and immediately removed from possession of the football.
(Isn’t that what the liberals would scream had Trump made that comment?)
These are the bellicose words of a tyrant. He might as well be the demented version of Lukashenko. Hell, even Lukashenko would have a hard time saying that and getting away with it.
Bai Dung is exactly the kind of ranting, table thumping thug that the Second was specifically written to protect us against.


3715591c085c696c.png
The const never hints at citizens being able to take up arms against the govt. Rather, State Militias (organized by the STATE govt) are given protection from encroachment by a federal army, which the Founders feared.

I'm all for private ownership. But it doesn't help the case to repeat falsehoods. Someday, maybe we'll see a potus to refuse to leave even after votes are counted. Maybe we'll see the Supreme Court not rule that he's gotta go. Or he may refuse a Sup Ct order. And congress might not impeach and convict his ass. Or they might, and the military might even back him up. ..... although our military academies definitely teach that will not happen. But who knows.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
73,413
Reaction score
28,762
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has​

23 Jun 2921 ~~ By Michael Austin
Inadvertently, President Joe Biden just made one of the most convincing arguments for gun rights.
In fact, he was quite possibly more convincing than any other president in U.S. history.
Biden made the remarks Wednesday during a news conference as he explained that his crime prevention strategy would largely focus on “strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing,” Fox News reported.
The president began by saying “most responsible gun owners” agree that “no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine.”
“Those who say the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said.
“If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
It’s actually hilarious how contradictory leftists’ logic can be.
According to them, an AR-15 is a weapon of war far too powerful to possibly be entrusted to a civilian.
Also, according to leftists, if the government wants to kill you, your puny AR-15s won’t be able to do anything to stop it.
Well, are so-called “assault weapons” military weapons, or aren’t they?
The Second Amendment is enshrined so that an armed populace can protect its own liberty from government oppression, so how could you possibly justify restricting a weapon that isn’t even powerful enough to fulfill that purpose?
~Snip~
Biden’s claim that these weapons aren’t powerful enough to take on the U.S. government isn’t quite making the case he hopes.
In fact, that sort of argument is far more in line with what pro-gun conservatives have been arguing for decades.
Throughout history, all sorts of governments have turned totalitarian or authoritarian.
The American people have a right to protect themselves from such a fate.


Comment:
Now that's an interesting philosophical question. If a weapon is absolutely ineffective against overwhelming force, why is the overwhelming force so hysterical about it?
Meanwhile, Chyna Joey Xi Bai Dung is the first president to publically and casually admitted he would consider using atomic bombs on American citizens. He should be impeached forthwith, along with his second, and immediately removed from possession of the football.
(Isn’t that what the liberals would scream had Trump made that comment?)
These are the bellicose words of a tyrant. He might as well be the demented version of Lukashenko. Hell, even Lukashenko would have a hard time saying that and getting away with it.
Bai Dung is exactly the kind of ranting, table thumping thug that the Second was specifically written to protect us against.


3715591c085c696c.png
The const never hints at citizens being able to take up arms against the govt. Rather, State Militias (organized by the STATE govt) are given protection from encroachment by a federal army, which the Founders feared.

I'm all for private ownership. But it doesn't help the case to repeat falsehoods. Someday, maybe we'll see a potus to refuse to leave even after votes are counted. Maybe we'll see the Supreme Court not rule that he's gotta go. Or he may refuse a Sup Ct order. And congress might not impeach and convict his ass. Or they might, and the military might even back him up. ..... although our military academies definitely teach that will not happen. But who knows.








You are, as usual, wrong. Here, let the dudes who wrote the CONSTITUTION spell it out for you...
s-l400.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg


1179013805-35d7f7edf593d7eb78032555d06639dd.jpg
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
43,638
Reaction score
14,463
Points
2,250

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has​

23 Jun 2921 ~~ By Michael Austin
Inadvertently, President Joe Biden just made one of the most convincing arguments for gun rights.
In fact, he was quite possibly more convincing than any other president in U.S. history.
Biden made the remarks Wednesday during a news conference as he explained that his crime prevention strategy would largely focus on “strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing,” Fox News reported.
The president began by saying “most responsible gun owners” agree that “no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine.”
“Those who say the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said.
“If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
It’s actually hilarious how contradictory leftists’ logic can be.
According to them, an AR-15 is a weapon of war far too powerful to possibly be entrusted to a civilian.
Also, according to leftists, if the government wants to kill you, your puny AR-15s won’t be able to do anything to stop it.
Well, are so-called “assault weapons” military weapons, or aren’t they?
The Second Amendment is enshrined so that an armed populace can protect its own liberty from government oppression, so how could you possibly justify restricting a weapon that isn’t even powerful enough to fulfill that purpose?
~Snip~
Biden’s claim that these weapons aren’t powerful enough to take on the U.S. government isn’t quite making the case he hopes.
In fact, that sort of argument is far more in line with what pro-gun conservatives have been arguing for decades.
Throughout history, all sorts of governments have turned totalitarian or authoritarian.
The American people have a right to protect themselves from such a fate.


Comment:
Now that's an interesting philosophical question. If a weapon is absolutely ineffective against overwhelming force, why is the overwhelming force so hysterical about it?
Meanwhile, Chyna Joey Xi Bai Dung is the first president to publically and casually admitted he would consider using atomic bombs on American citizens. He should be impeached forthwith, along with his second, and immediately removed from possession of the football.
(Isn’t that what the liberals would scream had Trump made that comment?)
These are the bellicose words of a tyrant. He might as well be the demented version of Lukashenko. Hell, even Lukashenko would have a hard time saying that and getting away with it.
Bai Dung is exactly the kind of ranting, table thumping thug that the Second was specifically written to protect us against.


3715591c085c696c.png
The const never hints at citizens being able to take up arms against the govt. Rather, State Militias (organized by the STATE govt) are given protection from encroachment by a federal army, which the Founders feared.

I'm all for private ownership. But it doesn't help the case to repeat falsehoods. Someday, maybe we'll see a potus to refuse to leave even after votes are counted. Maybe we'll see the Supreme Court not rule that he's gotta go. Or he may refuse a Sup Ct order. And congress might not impeach and convict his ass. Or they might, and the military might even back him up. ..... although our military academies definitely teach that will not happen. But who knows.








You are, as usual, wrong. Here, let the dudes who wrote the CONSTITUTION spell it out for you...
s-l400.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg


1179013805-35d7f7edf593d7eb78032555d06639dd.jpg
Yup. That's why the 2nd is in there. Its not so we can go hunting. Its so we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical Government. Something the FF were well aware of.
 

InspectorDetector

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
911
Reaction score
1,055
Points
898

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has​

23 Jun 2921 ~~ By Michael Austin
Inadvertently, President Joe Biden just made one of the most convincing arguments for gun rights.
In fact, he was quite possibly more convincing than any other president in U.S. history.
Biden made the remarks Wednesday during a news conference as he explained that his crime prevention strategy would largely focus on “strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing,” Fox News reported.
The president began by saying “most responsible gun owners” agree that “no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine.”
“Those who say the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said.
“If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
It’s actually hilarious how contradictory leftists’ logic can be.
According to them, an AR-15 is a weapon of war far too powerful to possibly be entrusted to a civilian.
Also, according to leftists, if the government wants to kill you, your puny AR-15s won’t be able to do anything to stop it.
Well, are so-called “assault weapons” military weapons, or aren’t they?
The Second Amendment is enshrined so that an armed populace can protect its own liberty from government oppression, so how could you possibly justify restricting a weapon that isn’t even powerful enough to fulfill that purpose?
~Snip~
Biden’s claim that these weapons aren’t powerful enough to take on the U.S. government isn’t quite making the case he hopes.
In fact, that sort of argument is far more in line with what pro-gun conservatives have been arguing for decades.
Throughout history, all sorts of governments have turned totalitarian or authoritarian.
The American people have a right to protect themselves from such a fate.


Comment:
Now that's an interesting philosophical question. If a weapon is absolutely ineffective against overwhelming force, why is the overwhelming force so hysterical about it?
Meanwhile, Chyna Joey Xi Bai Dung is the first president to publically and casually admitted he would consider using atomic bombs on American citizens. He should be impeached forthwith, along with his second, and immediately removed from possession of the football.
(Isn’t that what the liberals would scream had Trump made that comment?)
These are the bellicose words of a tyrant. He might as well be the demented version of Lukashenko. Hell, even Lukashenko would have a hard time saying that and getting away with it.
Bai Dung is exactly the kind of ranting, table thumping thug that the Second was specifically written to protect us against.


3715591c085c696c.png
The const never hints at citizens being able to take up arms against the govt. Rather, State Militias (organized by the STATE govt) are given protection from encroachment by a federal army, which the Founders feared.

I'm all for private ownership. But it doesn't help the case to repeat falsehoods. Someday, maybe we'll see a potus to refuse to leave even after votes are counted. Maybe we'll see the Supreme Court not rule that he's gotta go. Or he may refuse a Sup Ct order. And congress might not impeach and convict his ass. Or they might, and the military might even back him up. ..... although our military academies definitely teach that will not happen. But who knows.








You are, as usual, wrong. Here, let the dudes who wrote the CONSTITUTION spell it out for you...
s-l400.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg


1179013805-35d7f7edf593d7eb78032555d06639dd.jpg


Outstanding!! Bravo :clap:

Let us also remember our Founding Father..........

"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington
 
OP
Doc7505

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
7,940
Reaction score
12,641
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina
Things coming true under the Bai Dung Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie totalitarian regime.

Excerpt from "The Turner Diaries" Chapter One, Page One...

"I am really uptight. I am so jittery I can barely sit still. And I'm exhausted. I've been up since 5:30 this morning, when George phoned to warn that the arrests had begun, and it's after midnight now. I've been keyed up and on the move all day. But at the same time I'm exhilarated. We have finally acted! How long we will be able to continue defying the System, no one knows. Maybe it will all end tomorrow, but we must not think about that. Now that we have begun, we must continue with the plan we have been developing so carefully ever since the Gun Raids two years ago. What a blow that was to us! And how it shamed us! All that brave talk by patriots, "The government will never take my guns away," and then nothing but meek submission when it happened. On the other hand, maybe we should be heartened by the fact that there were still so many of us who had guns then, nearly 18 months after the Cohen Act had outlawed all private ownership of firearms in the United States. It was only because so many of us defied the law and hid our weapons instead of turning them in that the government wasn't able to act more harshly against us after the Gun Raids. I'll never forget that terrible day: November 9, 1989. They knocked on my door at five in the morning. I was completely unsuspecting as I got up to see who it was. I opened the door, and four Negroes came pushing into the apartment before I could stop them. One was carrying a baseball bat, and two had long kitchen knives thrust into their belts. The one with the bat shoved me back into a corner and stood guard over me with his bat raised in a threatening position while the other three began ransacking my apartment.​
My first thought was that they were robbers. Robberies of this sort had become all too common since the Cohen Act, with groups of Blacks forcing their way into White homes to rob and rape, knowing that even if their victims had guns they probably would not dare use them. Then the one who was guarding me flashed some kind of card and informed me that he and his accomplices were "special deputies" for the Northern Virginia Human Relations Council. They were searching for firearms, he said. I couldn't believe it. It just couldn't be happening. Then I saw that they were wearing strips of green cloth tied around their left arms. As they dumped the contents of drawers on the floor and pulled luggage from the closet, they were ignoring things that robbers wouldn't have passed up: my brand-new electric razor, a valuable gold pocket watch, a milk bottle full of dimes. They were looking for firearms!"​
 
Last edited:

Batcat

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
2,007
Reaction score
2,025
Points
1,938
Let’s suppose a real tyrant took over in the USA.

The citizens decide to rebel.

The citizens have a estimated 400 million firearms while the army has 4 million.

Of course the tyrant can roll tanks, hit rebel cities with fighter jets and even nuke a couple rebel cities. In the end he has to put people on the ground in the rebel areas to enforce his rules. Such government bureaucrats will find their work difficult as they will be dodging bullets all day.

If an well armed citizenry opposes a tyrannical government it can make it impossible for that government to rule. That’s why authoritarian rulers disarm their subjects. For example people in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.



 

InspectorDetector

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
911
Reaction score
1,055
Points
898
Things coming true under the Bai Dung Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commie totalitarian regime.

Excerpt from "The Turner Diaries" Chapter One, Page One...

I am really uptight. I am so jittery I can barely sit still. And I'm exhausted. I've been up since 5:30 this morning, when George phoned to warn that the arrests had begun, and it's after midnight now. I've been keyed up and on the move all day. But at the same time I'm exhilarated. We have finally acted! How long we will be able to continue defying the System, no one knows. Maybe it will all end tomorrow, but we must not think about that. Now that we have begun, we must continue with the plan we have been developing so carefully ever since the Gun Raids two years ago. What a blow that was to us! And how it shamed us! All that brave talk by patriots, "The government will never take my guns away," and then nothing but meek submission when it happened. On the other hand, maybe we should be heartened by the fact that there were still so many of us who had guns then, nearly 18 months after the Cohen Act had outlawed all private ownership of firearms in the United States. It was only because so many of us defied the law and hid our weapons instead of turning them in that the government wasn't able to act more harshly against us after the Gun Raids. I'll never forget that terrible day: November 9, 1989. They knocked on my door at five in the morning. I was completely unsuspecting as I got up to see who it was. I opened the door, and four Negroes came pushing into the apartment before I could stop them. One was carrying a baseball bat, and two had long kitchen knives thrust into their belts. The one with the bat shoved me back into a corner and stood guard over me with his bat raised in a threatening position while the other three began ransacking my apartment.​
My first thought was that they were robbers. Robberies of this sort had become all too common since the Cohen Act, with groups of Blacks forcing their way into White homes to rob and rape, knowing that even if their victims had guns they probably would not dare use them. Then the one who was guarding me flashed some kind of card and informed me that he and his accomplices were "special deputies" for the Northern Virginia Human Relations Council. They were searching for firearms, he said. I couldn't believe it. It just couldn't be happening. Then I saw that they were wearing strips of green cloth tied around their left arms. As they dumped the contents of drawers on the floor and pulled luggage from the closet, they were ignoring things that robbers wouldn't have passed up: my brand-new electric razor, a valuable gold pocket watch, a milk bottle full of dimes. They were looking for firearms!​

I was down at the VFW about 2 months ago and this very subject came up between several combat vets (myself as well). "What would we do if confiscation ever became a reality?"

We were in total agreement. The 2A is worth dying for. Me (a CWO) and a Lt Colonel, a couple of Master Sergeants and a couple of other NCOs. Great guys.

Here's the consensus. Unfortunately (and we pray to God it never comes to this) but nonetheless, SOMEONE has to be the first, poor unfortunate soul, to come through our front doors. This is not a threat against anyone - it is merely the action we would take to protect our families and our Constitutional rights as law-abiding citizens of the United States. We will NOT comply with ANY law that flies in the face of our Constitution.

Now, as I stated, let us pray to God that this scenario never takes place and it won't - Until a future generation - comes along who care more about "government" and being "taken care of and willingly surrenders all for a little bit of "security".

By then however, most "patriots" will be dead and buried and this once great nation will be will be written (lies) by those who wish to see her dead and gone.


Der Sieger wird immer der Richter und der Besiegte stets der Angeklagte sein,”

“The winner will always be the judge and the defeated will always be the accused"
 
OP
Doc7505

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
7,940
Reaction score
12,641
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina

Earlier today, as RedState reported, Joe Biden launched into another dementia-laden rant where he talked about nuking Americans and shooting deer in kevlar vests. No, I’m not being facetious. That actually happened (see Biden Accidently Makes Best Ever for Second Amendment in Speech Promoting Gun Control Initiatives).
Going back to January 6th, as I’ve said several times before, there was no insurrection or imminent danger to our system of government. To pretend that for partisan gain was always pure hysteria mixed with cynicism. I’m just glad Biden came out and made that clear, even if he didn’t realize it.
 

DustyInfinity

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,804
Reaction score
1,495
Points
940
Location
Midwest
If a representative government becomes so corrupt it worries about revolt, then I'm guessing it isn't really representative anymore.
 

Osiris-ODS

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
1,865
Points
1,940

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has​

23 Jun 2921 ~~ By Michael Austin
Inadvertently, President Joe Biden just made one of the most convincing arguments for gun rights.
In fact, he was quite possibly more convincing than any other president in U.S. history.
Biden made the remarks Wednesday during a news conference as he explained that his crime prevention strategy would largely focus on “strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing,” Fox News reported.
The president began by saying “most responsible gun owners” agree that “no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine.”
“Those who say the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said.
“If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
It’s actually hilarious how contradictory leftists’ logic can be.
According to them, an AR-15 is a weapon of war far too powerful to possibly be entrusted to a civilian.
Also, according to leftists, if the government wants to kill you, your puny AR-15s won’t be able to do anything to stop it.
Well, are so-called “assault weapons” military weapons, or aren’t they?
The Second Amendment is enshrined so that an armed populace can protect its own liberty from government oppression, so how could you possibly justify restricting a weapon that isn’t even powerful enough to fulfill that purpose?
~Snip~
Biden’s claim that these weapons aren’t powerful enough to take on the U.S. government isn’t quite making the case he hopes.
In fact, that sort of argument is far more in line with what pro-gun conservatives have been arguing for decades.
Throughout history, all sorts of governments have turned totalitarian or authoritarian.
The American people have a right to protect themselves from such a fate.


Comment:
Now that's an interesting philosophical question. If a weapon is absolutely ineffective against overwhelming force, why is the overwhelming force so hysterical about it?
Meanwhile, Chyna Joey Xi Bai Dung is the first president to publically and casually admitted he would consider using atomic bombs on American citizens. He should be impeached forthwith, along with his second, and immediately removed from possession of the football.
(Isn’t that what the liberals would scream had Trump made that comment?)
These are the bellicose words of a tyrant. He might as well be the demented version of Lukashenko. Hell, even Lukashenko would have a hard time saying that and getting away with it.
Bai Dung is exactly the kind of ranting, table thumping thug that the Second was specifically written to protect us against.


3715591c085c696c.png

It's good to know human life is still chugging along here on earth 900 years in the future. But how were you able to obtain this historical report?
 
OP
Doc7505

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
7,940
Reaction score
12,641
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina

 
Last edited:

Obiwan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
11,729
Reaction score
8,984
Points
2,295
Location
Indiana

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has​

23 Jun 2921 ~~ By Michael Austin
Inadvertently, President Joe Biden just made one of the most convincing arguments for gun rights.
In fact, he was quite possibly more convincing than any other president in U.S. history.
Biden made the remarks Wednesday during a news conference as he explained that his crime prevention strategy would largely focus on “strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing,” Fox News reported.
The president began by saying “most responsible gun owners” agree that “no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine.”
“Those who say the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said.
“If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
It’s actually hilarious how contradictory leftists’ logic can be.
According to them, an AR-15 is a weapon of war far too powerful to possibly be entrusted to a civilian.
Also, according to leftists, if the government wants to kill you, your puny AR-15s won’t be able to do anything to stop it.
Well, are so-called “assault weapons” military weapons, or aren’t they?
The Second Amendment is enshrined so that an armed populace can protect its own liberty from government oppression, so how could you possibly justify restricting a weapon that isn’t even powerful enough to fulfill that purpose?
~Snip~
Biden’s claim that these weapons aren’t powerful enough to take on the U.S. government isn’t quite making the case he hopes.
In fact, that sort of argument is far more in line with what pro-gun conservatives have been arguing for decades.
Throughout history, all sorts of governments have turned totalitarian or authoritarian.
The American people have a right to protect themselves from such a fate.


Comment:
Now that's an interesting philosophical question. If a weapon is absolutely ineffective against overwhelming force, why is the overwhelming force so hysterical about it?
Meanwhile, Chyna Joey Xi Bai Dung is the first president to publically and casually admitted he would consider using atomic bombs on American citizens. He should be impeached forthwith, along with his second, and immediately removed from possession of the football.
(Isn’t that what the liberals would scream had Trump made that comment?)
These are the bellicose words of a tyrant. He might as well be the demented version of Lukashenko. Hell, even Lukashenko would have a hard time saying that and getting away with it.
Bai Dung is exactly the kind of ranting, table thumping thug that the Second was specifically written to protect us against.


3715591c085c696c.png
Apparently, Biden didn't hear about us not needing guns, F-15s, or nuclear weapons to take over the government....

It's so easy, a half-naked guy wearing buffalo horns can do it!!!!

Rfdc386d91bd649c23db35e13cc494672.jpg

:laughing0301:
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
43,309
Reaction score
14,400
Points
2,250

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has​

23 Jun 2921 ~~ By Michael Austin
Inadvertently, President Joe Biden just made one of the most convincing arguments for gun rights.
In fact, he was quite possibly more convincing than any other president in U.S. history.
Biden made the remarks Wednesday during a news conference as he explained that his crime prevention strategy would largely focus on “strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing,” Fox News reported.
The president began by saying “most responsible gun owners” agree that “no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine.”
“Those who say the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said.
“If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
It’s actually hilarious how contradictory leftists’ logic can be.
According to them, an AR-15 is a weapon of war far too powerful to possibly be entrusted to a civilian.
Also, according to leftists, if the government wants to kill you, your puny AR-15s won’t be able to do anything to stop it.
Well, are so-called “assault weapons” military weapons, or aren’t they?
The Second Amendment is enshrined so that an armed populace can protect its own liberty from government oppression, so how could you possibly justify restricting a weapon that isn’t even powerful enough to fulfill that purpose?
~Snip~
Biden’s claim that these weapons aren’t powerful enough to take on the U.S. government isn’t quite making the case he hopes.
In fact, that sort of argument is far more in line with what pro-gun conservatives have been arguing for decades.
Throughout history, all sorts of governments have turned totalitarian or authoritarian.
The American people have a right to protect themselves from such a fate.


Comment:
Now that's an interesting philosophical question. If a weapon is absolutely ineffective against overwhelming force, why is the overwhelming force so hysterical about it?
Meanwhile, Chyna Joey Xi Bai Dung is the first president to publically and casually admitted he would consider using atomic bombs on American citizens. He should be impeached forthwith, along with his second, and immediately removed from possession of the football.
(Isn’t that what the liberals would scream had Trump made that comment?)
These are the bellicose words of a tyrant. He might as well be the demented version of Lukashenko. Hell, even Lukashenko would have a hard time saying that and getting away with it.
Bai Dung is exactly the kind of ranting, table thumping thug that the Second was specifically written to protect us against.


3715591c085c696c.png
Apparently, Biden didn't hear about us not needing guns, F-15s, or nuclear weapons to take over the government....

It's so easy, a half-naked guy wearing buffalo horns can do it!!!!

View attachment 505148
:laughing0301:
Yeah the government is so weak a bunch of unarmed rabble rousers nearly defeated it.
 

Batcat

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
2,007
Reaction score
2,025
Points
1,938

Biden Accidentally Made the Best Case for Gun Rights Any President Ever Has​

23 Jun 2921 ~~ By Michael Austin
Inadvertently, President Joe Biden just made one of the most convincing arguments for gun rights.
In fact, he was quite possibly more convincing than any other president in U.S. history.
Biden made the remarks Wednesday during a news conference as he explained that his crime prevention strategy would largely focus on “strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing,” Fox News reported.
The president began by saying “most responsible gun owners” agree that “no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine.”
“Those who say the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said.
“If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
It’s actually hilarious how contradictory leftists’ logic can be.
According to them, an AR-15 is a weapon of war far too powerful to possibly be entrusted to a civilian.
Also, according to leftists, if the government wants to kill you, your puny AR-15s won’t be able to do anything to stop it.
Well, are so-called “assault weapons” military weapons, or aren’t they?
The Second Amendment is enshrined so that an armed populace can protect its own liberty from government oppression, so how could you possibly justify restricting a weapon that isn’t even powerful enough to fulfill that purpose?
~Snip~
Biden’s claim that these weapons aren’t powerful enough to take on the U.S. government isn’t quite making the case he hopes.
In fact, that sort of argument is far more in line with what pro-gun conservatives have been arguing for decades.
Throughout history, all sorts of governments have turned totalitarian or authoritarian.
The American people have a right to protect themselves from such a fate.


Comment:
Now that's an interesting philosophical question. If a weapon is absolutely ineffective against overwhelming force, why is the overwhelming force so hysterical about it?
Meanwhile, Chyna Joey Xi Bai Dung is the first president to publically and casually admitted he would consider using atomic bombs on American citizens. He should be impeached forthwith, along with his second, and immediately removed from possession of the football.
(Isn’t that what the liberals would scream had Trump made that comment?)
These are the bellicose words of a tyrant. He might as well be the demented version of Lukashenko. Hell, even Lukashenko would have a hard time saying that and getting away with it.
Bai Dung is exactly the kind of ranting, table thumping thug that the Second was specifically written to protect us against.


3715591c085c696c.png
Apparently, Biden didn't hear about us not needing guns, F-15s, or nuclear weapons to take over the government....

It's so easy, a half-naked guy wearing buffalo horns can do it!!!!

View attachment 505148
:laughing0301:
Yeah the government is so weak a bunch of unarmed rabble rousers nearly defeated it.
It did scare the hell out of Nancy Pelosi and AOC. Pelosi probably peed her panties. AOC wasn’t even in the building.
 

InspectorDetector

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
911
Reaction score
1,055
Points
898
Let’s suppose a real tyrant took over in the USA.

The citizens decide to rebel.

The citizens have a estimated 400 million firearms while the army has 4 million.

Of course the tyrant can roll tanks, hit rebel cities with fighter jets and even nuke a couple rebel cities. In the end he has to put people on the ground in the rebel areas to enforce his rules. Such government bureaucrats will find their work difficult as they will be dodging bullets all day.

If an well armed citizenry opposes a tyrannical government it can make it impossible for that government to rule. That’s why authoritarian rulers disarm their subjects. For example people in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.




In ANY war (doesn't matter where) - the INFANTRY - those folks on the ground with a rifle have won the day. ALWAYS. That's why in the US Army, the infantry is called the "Queen of the battle - follow me".

Doesn't matter how many tanks, artillery or planes the enemy has, they MUST get on the ground and clear the area. It is then that the battle begins.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top