Someone came up to LA police officers and shot them with no warning.
The assailant used a pistol.
Here's Joe Biden's response:
Weapons of war have no place in our communities.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 14, 2020
We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
We can interpret this in several ways:
- Biden knows that the gun used was a pistol and is lying to our faces
- Biden doesn't know the difference between a hand gun and an assault weapon
- Biden doesn't know what gun was used and doesn't care he just wants to seize our guns
- Biden thinks pistols are assault weapons that should be banned
Sadly there's no way to view any of these possible interpretations in a way that's favorable for Joe.
Clearly Joe is more concerned about seizing our guns than about cops being shot. He's just using the "opportunity" created by one of his supporters shooting two cops to advance his agenda of taking our guns.
When Joe talks about assault weapons and weapons of war he's either lying or amazingly ill informed.
It's already nigh on to impossible to buy a weapon of war or an assault weapon in America. It takes thousands of dollars in fees and lots of licenses to own fully automatic weapons dating to before decades ago and it's prohibited to buy more recently manufactured weapons of war/assault weapons.
Basically the only people who have fully automatic weapons of war are ultra rich collectors with Thompson machine guns mounted on the wall of their study.
When Joe talks about AR-14s, which are really AR-15s, he's talking about hunting guns that no soldier would take into battle. Assault rifles and weapons of war are fully automatic and have been since the end of WWII. AK-47s are weapons of war and assault rifles and it's illegal to own them. AR-15 are one shot per trigger pull hunting rifles.
The reality is Joe just wants you to be defenseless because he knows that criminals, 90% of whom get their guns illegally, aren't going to give up their guns but most honest Americans will give up theirs if forced to.
It's kinda sick that Joe views the two heroic cops being shot only as an opportunity to take guns away from law abiding citizens. But that's Joe for you. Or rather against you.
He want's to reduce funding for the police while taking away your guns.
That is he wants to make you less safe and more afraid of going against what rioting Antifa/BLM goons want you to do.
Makes sense since Antifa and BLM are all in for Joe.
Posts
6 comments:
>Someone came up to LA police officers and shot them with no warning.
>The assailant used a pistol.
>Here's Joe Biden's response:
uhm, you put a lot of thought into this except for the fact that this is a "response" to the killing. do you have any evidence of that? it doesn't mention the incident.
> AK-47s are weapons of war and assault rifles and it's illegal to own them
false? you can legally own an AK-47. how do you not know this?
It's illegal to purchase any fully automatic weapon manufactured after 1986.
While you can buy an AK-47 manufactured before 1986 here are the hoops you have to jump through:
"You MUST be a citizen of the United States.
You MUST obtain an FFL license.
You HAVE to pass a very intensive background check, even more intensive than the background check to purchase any firearm in America. You essentially cannot be convicted of ANY violent misdemeanor, or else, no full auto rifle for you, and no special license.
The firearm in question MUST be manufactured before 1986.
Not really an official requirement, but since supply is low, and demand is high, these items can be prohibitively expensive. If we’re talking full auto versions of the AR-15 (which would be an M16) or the famed AK-47, these can easily exceed $25000."
Also you clearly didn't read my post which says:
"It's already nigh on to impossible to buy a weapon of war or an assault weapon in America. It takes thousands of dollars in fees and lots of licenses to own fully automatic weapons dating to before decades ago and it's prohibited to buy more recently manufactured weapons of war/assault weapons.
Basically the only people who have fully automatic weapons of war are ultra rich collectors with Thompson machine guns mounted on the wall of their study."
So once again you're either responding out of ignorance or malice. Which is why I don't bother responding to most of your distortions.
so you accept your post contains an error and yet you refuse to correct it. further your rebuttal discusses the legality of purchasing an AK-47 not owning it.
maybe stop making errors and i'll stop commenting.
Also you obviously ignored the first point entirely.
Once again you confuse minutia with substance.
That it's technically possible for rich people with pristine criminal records to buy an AK-47 manufactured before 1984 has no relevance to what Joe is talking about. He's acting as though random people can buy fully automatic weapons today.
You want to ignore that.
I ignored the first point because Biden's response was with respect to the shooting. That you don't believe that is kinda irrelevant to me since you've said that your objective isn't actually to show I'm wrong, which of course is you admitting you can't, but to silence me by mocking me.
That you refuse to acknowledge that every time some Democrat talks about people having weapons of war they're lying shows your basic dishonesty.
> Once again you confuse minutia with substance.
You could avoid this by not being wrong all the time. Are you incapable? Or do you not care?
> I ignored the first point because Biden's response was with respect to the shooting
What's the saying? That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?
> That you refuse to acknowledge that every time some Democrat talks about people having weapons of war they're lying shows your basic dishonesty.
Biden's post contains no errors. The definition of "assault weapon" was written into the assault weapons ban. You are the one arguing "minutia" by quibbling over what counts as an "assault weapon" (and demanding it be full auto).
Post a Comment