Now that there’s another tragedy for him and his side to capitalize on, what is Biden trying to do? Push gun control, of course!
And, presumably, to do so and build support for his radical agenda, what’s Biden doing? He’s making yet another demonstrably false, ridiculous claim about the 2nd Amendment.
That came during Biden’s remarks to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House on May 30th, at which time he was asked by a reported about gun control proposals, with the reporter saying:
Is there one element — is it aid, is it red flag, is it some component that you think could be most successful now?
Biden took the opportunity to attack the 2nd Amendment and make a major push for gun control, saying:
Well, that’s hard to say because I have not been negotiating with any of the Republicans yet. And I deliberately did not engage in a debate about that with any Republican in — when we were down consoling the families in Texas. So I don’t — I don’t know what is the most — how far it goes.
I know that it makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds. I know it makes — and I know what happened when we had rational action before, back in — when the crime bill was — the law that got passed. It did significantly cut down mass murders.
And so there’s only one reason for something that can fire, you know, 100 shots.
I mean — and I’ll just conclude with this: Look, when I first started doing hearings on the issue of what rational gun laws should be, it was during a period when I was a senator and the death rate was going up. Not that many more people were being shot, but the death rate was up. And when I think of — I’m not sure, I think it was (inaudible) hospital in New York — whatever the largest trauma hospital is.
And I sat with a trauma doctor, and I asked him — I said, “What’s the difference? Why are so many people…” — and not that many more people were being shot. This is now 20 years ago, or 25 years. I said, “Why are they dying?” And they showed me x-rays. He said, “A .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out, may be able to get it, and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”
So the idea of these high-caliber weapons is of — there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting. I mean, I just — and remember, the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute. You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weapons.
And those who — not many are saying it anymore, but there was a while there where people were saying that, you know, the Tree of Liberty is watered with the blood of patriots, and what we have to do is you have to be able to take on the government when they’re wrong. Well, to do that, you need an F-15, you know? Or you need an Abrams tank.
I mean — so, it’s just — as I say, I think thing — I think things have gotten so bad that everybody is getting more rational about it. At least that’s my hope and prayer.
Those bolded parts are the lies/bizarre statements that Biden made while pushing for gun control. We’ll tackle them one by one.
First up is the “300 rounds”/”100 shots” part. What he meant there is unclear. Contrary to his words, pretty much every gun on the market can fire 300 or 100 rounds, it just has to be reloaded every so often. That was the case in colonial times and is the case today; a gun that broke before firing 300 shots, much less 100 shots, would be about useless. If he meant magazine size, no one manufactures an AR magazine that holds 300 rounds, though there are 100 round drums. Contrary to what he says, there is a use for them: hog hunting, where having lots of rounds on hand is a must. And that’s before getting into the what’s useful for fighting tyranny/criminals debate.
Next up is the part about the crime bill. That bill did reduce crime, but it has nothing to do with gun control. He probably meant the assault weapons ban, or Brady Bill, which happened during the Clinton Era. According to research, it had no impact on gun homicides.
Then there’s his point about .22 bullets vs 9mm bullets. Yes, smaller bullets can do less damage than larger bullets, though velocity is another major issue. The bullet fired by an AR-15, for instance, is a .22 caliber bullet; it does more damage than a 9mm, generally at least, because it’s going so much faster.
After that is the “you couldn’t buy a cannon”/”was never absolute line”. That also is a total lie. When the 2nd Amendment was written, anyone could go out and buy a cannon and “a lot of weapons” if they had the cash or credit and so desired to do so. It was only with the FDR-era NFA Bill that what guns citizens could own started being limited. Before then, the 2nd Amendment was “absolute”, though there were some restrictions on where weapons could be carried.
Finally is the line about Abrams tanks and F-15s. As to that point, who maintains those, Joe? Who operates them? Who makes the spare parts for them? Yes, an AR can’t pierce the armor of a tank and would have trouble shooting down a jet, but those who operate and maintain such weapons would a) probably not side with Joe Biden and b) are vulnerable to small arms when out of their armored cocoons.