Biden Says 2nd Amendment Not Absolute, Calls For Lots Of Restrictions

Guy surrounded by lots and lots of people with firearms that he wants to restrict, as well as ones which most of us average citizens care not allowed to have, had thoughts

And then

Biden says Second Amendment is ‘not absolute’ in call to reinstate assault weapons ban

President Biden said the Second Amendment is “not absolute” in a speech Thursday following a wave of mass shootings across the nation, pleading with to Congress to pass what he called “commonsense” gun control legislation, including reinstating an assault weapons ban, requiring background checks, and limiting magazine capacity.

The president, speaking from the Cross Hall of the White House, told Americans that the issue of restricting access to guns “is one of conscience and common sense.”

“For so many of you at home, I want to be very clear – this is not about taking away anyone’s guns,” the president said. “It is not about vilifying gun owners. In fact, we believe we should be treating responsible gun owners as an example of how every gun owner should behave.”

Oh, really? Just days ago he said no one needed an AR-15 (well, except his security, which carries a similar version that are fully automatic)

While they are all bad, the big one is the liability shield, which would allow lawsuits that would put gun makers and gun stores out of business.

Biden will milk this hard, regardless of whether anything happens, because it’s meant to deflect from the shit economy.

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

18 Responses to “Biden Says 2nd Amendment Not Absolute, Calls For Lots Of Restrictions”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    People are not as stupid as the dems think. They, the dems, know they’ll get an ass pounding in November.

    Stolen elections, rigged kangaroo courts and show trials, state-sanctioned persecution of political enemies, along with intimidation, coercion and censorship in the private sector — is now the norm. The only thing perhaps that prevents them from just openly dissolving the fig leaf of the republic that remains and instituting a dictatorship is the knowledge that the two thirds of this country that opposes them are armed to the teeth.

    Truer words never written.

    Bwaha! Lolgf

  2. Hairy says:

    Of course the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. Only an idiot would ever even consider it absolute.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Only an idiot would allow Brandon and the dems to pick and choose which restrictions Americans have to live with.
      After all it is for your own good. Right?

      Bwaha! Lolgf

    • Dana says:

      Really? What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do you find has room for restrictions?

      The Second Amendment does not say that “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      The Framers contemplated, and were aware of, the private ownership of ships of war and of cannon, yet they never attempted to write exceptions to such ownership into the Second Amendment.

      But hey, the left, which used to be for an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment, are now the foremost proponents of restricting our individual rights.

      • UnkleC says:

        Exactly. The ‘militia’ section is merely a preamble to the statement of the right belonging to the people.

  3. bob says:

    typical liberal idiot. ALL of the bill of rights are absolute or else they wouldn’t be rights granted by God.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      These are rights granted by government. Rights granted by gods or nature don’t need to be written down and enforced by the government.

      No god wrote our Constitution.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        A comment so asinine it doesn’t deserve a response.

        Bwaha! Lolgf

      • david7134 says:

        You have no idea of the Constitution. We have begged you to get an education.

      • alanstorm says:

        These are rights granted by government.

        Wrong again, dear child. They are recognized by the constitution as being pre-existing natural rights.

        I’m sorry your education has been so poor. You should try to get a refund.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    Just like with Abortion, nothing new has been said about this topic for 50 years. We can all agree that Killing other people without a good reason is bad and should carry criminal penalties. That is why murder is illegal in every state. That doesn’t stop bad people from doing it anyway. This has always been true. We had an “assault weapons” ban for ten years and it had zero impact on crime, murder, or mass shootings. Zero. Once again, we don’t need to speculate what would happen if Democratic party activists got their way. We already saw it happen and have lots of data.

    • The Liberal but not libertarian Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Commenter typed: We had an “assault weapons” ban for ten years and it had zero impact on crime, murder, or mass shootings. Zero.

      The 1994 law barred the “manufacture, transfer, and possession” of about 118 firearm models and all magazines holding more than 10 rounds. People who already owned such a weapon could keep it. When the ban took effect, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons in private hands.

      The decline in mass shooting deaths during the ban was slight.

      The increase in mass shooting deaths in the decade after the ban ended was impressive! President Biden said deaths increased 3-fold but he was wrong! Deaths by mass shooting increased 5-fold!

      It seems there was a lot of pent-up mass killing waiting in the wings for more assault weapons and big magazines!

      • UnkleC says:

        There were actually very few real assault weapons in private hands in 1994, as defined by the military and industry definitions of an assault rifle and still there are relatively few in private hands. There were many semi-auto rifles, the lefties call “assault style” weapons, and now they are one of the most common type of rifles with numbers in the millions.
        Since your garden variety lefty can’t tell what a woman is, I would have serious doubts about their knowledge of firearms beyond a Wikipedia page or an NPR article.

        • The Liberal but not libertarian Elwood P. Dowd says:

          More and more, cons pretend they don’t know what is meant by “assault weapon”. This is an attempt to muddy the waters and derail conversation.

          The industry was so concerned that they gave this type of weapon its own special name – “modern sporting rifle”! Why would they do that if these were just another semi-auto rifle?

          You’ve all seen pictures of ‘modern sporting rifles’ with pistol grips, shrouded barrel, long magazine, semi-auto action, short barrel, light weight, flash suppressor… they’re essentially an M4 assault rifle without selective fire (no 3 shot burst, no fully auto).

          These are semi-auto versions of the military weapons. You know it, the military knows it, mass shooters know it. You embarrass yourself when you claim otherwise. Next you’ll argue that trump won the election!

          Wingers argue that mass shooters are weak-minded individuals who choose AR-15 style rifles because they look “mean” and “manly”. So why do you choose them?

          All that wingers know about women is that women despise wingers.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    Democrats would rather victims be killed than defend themself with a gun. This is not hyperbole. Ask them and they will tell you this. They reiterated this in the gun control hearing yesterday.

    Every tyranny starts with weapon restriction and confiscation, save for those in the hands of the state’s trusted allies. Every time.

    Bwaha! Lolgf

    • The Liberal but not libertarian Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Statistically, that gun in your house for defense if more likely to kill you or a family member than an intruder.

      But the Supreme Court made it clear that Americans have the right to keep and bear firearms for home defense, unrelated to a ‘militia’, but Justice Scalia pointed out that the right is not unlimited. Congress needs to enact restrictions on AR-15 style rifles (large magazines, semi-auto, pistol grip, light-weight, flash suppressor, barrel shroud) and restrict magazine capacity. Those intent on killing lots of children will have to rely on their semi-auto hand guns.

  6. alanstorm says:

    Statistically, that gun in your house for defense if more likely to kill you or a family member than an intruder.

    Incorrect. That is based on flawed studies that lump together all guns in homes – whether owned by intelligent people or democrats.

Pirate's Cove