Sleepy Joe Biden Wants To Ban Scary Looking Rifles Because It Totally Worked Last Time

It’s time for Joe Biden to pander to the hard-left, apparently, on firearms. He never seemed to have a problem with his boss, Barack Obama, running over 2,500 firearms into Mexico during Operation Fast and Furious, which were involved in hundreds of Mexicans, including children, being wounded and killed, as well as used to kill to U.S. Border Patrol agents, and even showed up during a terrorist attack in Paris.

Banning Assault Weapons Works

We have a huge problem with guns. Assault weapons — military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly — are a threat to our national security, and we should treat them as such. Anyone who pretends there’s nothing we can do is lying — and holding that view should be disqualifying for anyone seeking to lead our country.

I know, because with Senator Dianne Feinstein I led the effort to enact the 1994 law that banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for 10 years. Those gun safety reforms made our nation demonstrably more secure.

I fought hard to extend the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines bans in 2004. The Republicans who allowed these laws to expire asserted that they were ineffective. But, almost 15 years after the bans expired, with the unfortunate benefit of hindsight, we now know that they did make a difference.

Many police departments have reported an increase in criminals using assault weapons since 2004. And multiple analyses of the data around mass shootings provide evidence that, from 1994 to 2004, the years when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were banned, there were fewer mass shootings — fewer deaths, fewer families needlessly destroyed.

The ban was a failure. It didn’t reduce crime. It didn’t reduce shootings. All it caused to happen was that law abiding citizens couldn’t purchase a weapon that was lighter and easier to use than a standard rifles which had the exact same rate of fire and used the same round. And those non-scary looking rifles were used more often by criminals in crimes.

We have to get these weapons of war off our streets.

Gotta get those talking points in.

And if I am elected president, we’re going to pass them again — and this time, we’ll make them even stronger. We’re going to stop gun manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor modifications to their products — modifications that leave them just as deadly. And this time, we’re going to pair it with a buyback program to get as many assault weapons off our streets as possible as quickly as possible.

He doesn’t explicitly state it, but, that sure looks like he plans on banning people who currently own them from having them, does it not? Why else have a “buyback”? Because most owners will not sell them back, unless they are old and worn out, and they want the money to get a new rifle. I’ll believe Joe is serious when he forces the law enforcement that protects him and other elected officials to stop carrying real weapons of war, since they often have ones which you and I cannot have, including automatic rifles.

I won’t stop there. I’ll get universal background checks passed, building on the Brady Bill, which establishing the background check system and which I helped push through Congress in 1993. I’ll accelerate the development and deployment of smart-gun technology — something gun manufacturers have opposed — so that guns are keyed to the individual biometrics of authorized owners.

Most of these mass shooters passed a background check, excepting those who are running around the streets of Democratic Party run cities with gun control that disarms law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves while doing nothing about the actual criminals. So, won’t make a difference. Joe should arm his security detail with smart guns. They’ll be thrilled with the .22 caliber ones, right? Perhaps he should talk to NJ, which stalled development.

This is all about pushing the emotionalism to grab guns and making it harder for law abiding citizens to engage in their Constitutional right, particularly those who want to protect themselves. None of this effects criminals in the least. Why is it that Democrats always want to punish people who had nothing to do with a crime?

(Red State) What’s worse, in the greater scheme of things, rifles as a category of weapons, used in the commission of a murder constituted just 403 out of a total 15,129 according to the 2017 DOJ/FBO Uniform Crime Report (UCR). That’s 2.67 percent. One study claims that semi-automatic rifles were used in just 25 percent of mass shootings.

According to the UCR the following instruments were used more often to kill people than rifles of any type: Knives (1,591); Blunt objects, hammers, bats etc (467); and finally, Hands/Fists & Feet (696).

One more little data point. There are somewhere between 15 and 20 million Modern Sporting Rifles in America. Using the low number and assuming for the sake of argument that all the rifles in the 2017 UCR were Modern Sporting Rifles, 403 divided by 15 million means that less than 3 thousandths of a percent of the Modern Sporting Rifles in these United States, were used in the commission of a murder.

Yeah, but gun grabbers gotta gun grab.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Sleepy Joe Biden Wants To Ban Scary Looking Rifles Because It Totally Worked Last Time”

  1. alanstorm says:

    “There are somewhere between 15 and 20 million Modern Sporting Rifles in America.”

    There’s somewhere between 15 and 20 million Modern Sporting Rifles in IDAHO, FFS.

    All of which were tragically lost in boating accidents.

  2. Professor Hale says:

    It only “worked” under a limited definition of “working”. If your goal was, “get Americans accustomed to having their rights curtailed”, then, Joe was right. It was a totally effective law. It’s only weakness was having an expiration date.

  3. Doom and Gloom says:

    No matter what the argument the right needs to be seen doing something on gun control. Nothing major. No over reach. Give the Dems a bone and give the houswives in the burbs some comfort by instituting a mandatory 72 hour waiting period and red flag laws with carefully and narrowly defined criteria and make it incumbent upon the government to convince a court they are correct in denying weapons. Additionally no legal costs will be incurred by the defendant because we all know blue states would attempt to bankrupt anyone they didnt like.

    Then do something about healthcare. I don’t care if it is passing a bill to assist with healthcare and demanding better coverages by the health insurances. They have to do something or in 2020. Trump will win. the GOP will get a smack down locally.

    I continue to stand by this. The GOP lost the house in 2018 because they promised for 8 years they would repeal and replace Obama care and then when they surprising and in total shock found themselves having all 3 branches of government they had no fuking idea what to do. Liars. Everyone of them. No lies this time around. Lets get something done.

    Even if the left blocks it by tacking on a ton of stuff to make the GOP block it, make sure it is at least well known and well touted the GOP tried and the left was totally unreasonable choosing instead to use peoples lives as political weapons rather than solving issues. That becomes a win/win for the GOP in 2020. Either Way.

    • Doom and Gloom says:

      Remember if they can get narrowly defined laws in place by the FEDS they now prevent blue states from losing their mind with over reach. Its actually a win for the NRA if they allow the FEDS to narrowly mandate minimum gun control without over reach thus preventing the states from going above and beyond. Just like DC was struck down by the Supreme court over their over reach.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    The Republican party really is the Stupid party. Everyone who has been watching this for any amount of time knows that there is zero benefit to going along with any sort of additional gun control. Zero. It won’t make America safer. It won’t prevent school shootings. It won’t prevent mass murder. What it will do is irrationally penalize normal citizens and restrict their rights. Republicans should know better since we have all seen this before, over and over again. There is never any good reason to cooperate with Democrats on their agenda items. The Democrats have gleefully greeted every announcement of gun violence as a means to promote their stupid communist agenda. Republicans should know better than to try to help them.

    Free Clue: After Trump helps the Democrats pass new gun control, they will still hate him.

  5. Professor Hale says:

    If the Government starts a buyback program with prices that are more than full retail value, then I will go into business busing assault rifles and selling them to the government so they can melt them down. There will probably be a boom in retail sales. If they don’t offer more than full retail price, why would I sell them my rifles at a loss?

  6. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH typed: “Most of these mass shooters passed a background check”

    If that’s true, doesn’t it argue that the background checks are not stringent enough?

    Although it’s a political ploy, both Moscow Mitch and The Teflon Don are calling for red flag laws and more stringent background checks.

    We Americans need to face facts. Nothing of substance will be done to reduce mass shootings. Angry, aggrieved, frustrated men will continue to walk into malls, theaters, concerts, schools, stores, restaurants, mosques, synagogues and churches and shoot other Americans with semi-auto weapons. It’s part of American epigenetics now. We need to mentally adjust to this. It’s the price we pay for “freedom”.

    • formwiz says:

      IOW Bunny suit wants confiscation.

      Putting these nuts away and executing the ones who aren’t nuts won’t fly with the Lefties because they want the murders to continue until firearms are confiscated.

      The real protection until the Lefties are run out of politics is get armed.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        The Bat Suit misses the point completely.

        Dead children are the price we pay for our freedoms! Get used to it.

  7. It is strange.
    The Democrat path is to point at unrestrained violence in society and demand that the non-violent people be disarmed.
    But most Americans see the Democratic activist stories about unrestrained violence and think, “I’d better do something to defend myself”.

    From a strategic point of view, the Democrats would have been a lot further ahead on gun restrictions if they had emphasized the decades long trends in less violent crime. Thus, more young people would not have bothered to buy their first gun and would have instead grown up in a gunless personal sphere.

  8. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    How about?

    “The National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Maybe the activist, conservative Supreme Court has been creating laws since Heller.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Maybe the left who has nothing but hate and wants to take away everyone’s weapons has distorted the meaning of the original writings?

      Advocates of the “individual right” theory countered that during the Founding Era the term “militia” referred to the citizenry generally, or at least to all able-bodied men between certain ages. This position was supported by James Madison’s Federalist No. 46, in which he referred to an American “militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” (The number “half a million” approximated the number of able bodied men out of the population of the time.) Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 29 provided some support for the “individual right” interpretation as well.

      But still, these writings did not state unequivocately that all able-bodied males were in the militia; to conclude that, one had to make inferences.

      However, the writings of Tench Coxe were more direct. In his third “Pennsylvanian” essay he wrote as follows: (Capitalization and italics are his.)

      The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

      This passage leaves nothing to inference: Coxe states explicitly that the militia consists of every man from 16 to 60 years of age.

      Contrary to what some would have you believe, you did not have to be in the militia to bear arms, but arms were part of the ability to call up a militia.

      Having nothing but hate, the left distorts history.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10048 access attempts in the last 7 days.