Biden: My task force will have some gun-control recommendations on Obama’s desk by Tuesday

posted at 3:21 pm on January 10, 2013 by Allahpundit

The task force was supposed to have suggestions for O by the end of the month but that plan was kiboshed when the political reality of attention spans after mass shootings began to set in. So, new plan: The national lecture “conversation” on gun control will begin officially on Tuesday.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told sports shooting groups Thursday he would send his recommendations on preventing gun violence to President Barack Obama by Jan. 15, according to a White House pool report.

Biden mentioned several measures that he said he has heard supported repeatedly — universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, and the government’s ability to do research on gun violence. Biden clarified that background checks would go beyond closing the so-called gun show loophole.

He compared the current limits on federal data gathering with the 1970s restrictions on federal research over the cause of traffic fatalities. He said there is a need to study which weapons are used most to kill and which tend to be trafficked.

The One will issue some sort of executive order too, likely tightening reporting requirements for federal agencies related to gun ownership and mental health and directing the DOJ to bump up prosecutions of gun traffickers. Eric Holder himself will be sitting in on Biden’s meeting today with major gun retailers like Wal-Mart, during which the veep will remind them that requiring universal background checks means fewer sales for private sellers and therefore more sales for them. Corporate buy-offs: They worked for ObamaCare with the pharmaceutical industry, why couldn’t they work for this?

Just one question: Whither the new assault-weapons ban? That’s a glaring omission from Biden’s list of new measures on which he senses a consensus. There’s no doubt they’re going to propose one but there’s also no doubt that the House will sink it. I think the AWB is really more of a negotiating tactic than an earnest demand: They’ll put it out there next week as their unrealistic opening offer so that they can drop it later in favor of more “reasonable” feasible measures like universal background checks and banning high-capacity magazines. Background checks, in particular, enjoy massive support, with one recent poll showing 92% in favor of requiring them at gun shows and a CNN poll taken last year finding 94% support for checks on all potential gun buyers. That’d be a very tough vote for congressional Republicans and of course Biden knows it, which is why he’s talking it up today. If you can’t get your policies passed, you might as well use them as a way to make the opposition squirm.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Moving to WY…

affenhauer on January 10, 2013 at 3:22 PM

feeling lucky punk?

tom daschle concerned on January 10, 2013 at 3:24 PM

The public does NOT want you to act, you dictatorial POS. You want you to act. The two things should never be confused.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Posted elsewhere:

The Oppressive gun grabbers keep on repeating day in and day out about how the supreme court says that there are limitations on the right of self-defense.
Obviously, they like to LIE about all the limitations we ALREADY have and pretend they do not exist.

We ALREADY have massive limitations on that right
We ALREADY have can’t possess certain types of weapons
We ALREADY have cannot possess large caliber guns.
We ALREADY have cannot possess select-fire fullauto firearms
There are ALREADY have limitations on the purchasing a gun and FFL’s selling guns.
There are ALREADY are many embarrassing and obnoxious hoops we have to jump through just to exercise our right of self-defense.
And yet, that’s not good enough for the Oppressive gun grabbers, with each and every infringement they force on us, they always come back for more.
Well, when can it be said that our fundamental rights have been INFRINGED?
At what point will we say enough is enough?
It is certain that they want to limit our rights out of existence. They have made it plain that they want to take our guns.
Andrew ‘Gun Confiscation’ Cuomo had come out and stated this publicly along with other national luminaries of the socialist left.
Clearly the Oppressive gun grabbers would like us to be down to sling-shots and stones before we come to that realization – they would like us to our guns taken away before we start question their motivations on the matter.
They had better not be expecting to put up with their LIES for much longer.
Anonymous

Southern by choice22 on January 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Moving to WY…

affenhauer on January 10, 2013 at 3:22 PM

We’re moving also to a red state. Been looking at Wyoming too. Kansas and Texas. A few others.

JellyToast on January 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Biden mentioned several measures that he said he has heard supported repeatedly — universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, and the government’s ability to do research on gun violence.

Strange, I thought we were talking about preventing gun violence.

apostic on January 10, 2013 at 3:26 PM

We are an occupied nation, under enemy control.

Pork-Chop on January 10, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Would be tyrants.

This is what the Founders warned us about. A complacent nation and a band of committed wannabe tyrants.

And the DOTUS is their God.

If they really cared about kids they wouldn’t support killing 50 million of them since 1973.

PappyD61 on January 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM

The One will issue some sort of executive order too, likely tightening reporting requirements for federal agencies related to gun ownership and mental health and directing the DOJ to bump up prosecutions of gun traffickers.

Perhaps they could look into the illegal sales of weapons to Mexican drug kingpins conducted by the ATF. Seems like a good place to start being tough on gun traffickers.

Shtetl G on January 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM

The public does NOT want you to act, you dictatorial POS. You want you to act. The two things should never be confused.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Exactly!

We need gun control on this administration! Obama was the one caught trafficking guns across the border into Mexico with the purpose of increasing crime!

Fast and Furious! Fast and Furious! Fast and Furious! Fast and Furious!

Why has no one gone to jail?!

JellyToast on January 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM

He said there is a need to study which weapons are used most to kill and which tend to be trafficked.

Biden can begin to collect his “study” by demanding the secret documents of Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious program. Next, he can go into the neighborhoods in Chicago and NYC (for starts)to conduct a door-to-door sampling. I’m sure the study group will have loads to keep them occupied.

The Second Amendment is not a “sports-related nor merely a personal-protection issue.

(Isn’t Biden supposed to be another Constitution “scholar”?

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM

and still……where are the Conservative defenders in Congress to defend the CONSTITUTION?

AWOL

PappyD61 on January 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Strange, I thought we were talking about preventing gun violence.

apostic on January 10, 2013 at 3:26 PM

So true.

So far, Biden has said NOTHING that will impact the Chicago Slaughter House.
But then, that is not his target.

Jabberwock on January 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Optics and timing, my friends. The largest gun, shooting, and hunting industry trade show is next week in Las Vegas (the SHOT Show). Starts…Tuesday. So what better than to have cameras roaming halls full of Evil Black Rifles and other “implements of mass slaughter” while chatting with really angry folks? I went to the SHOT Show last year. There are plenty of fun (read: scary) things there to stoke faux outrage.

This timing says to me that they are both serious and managing the process like the [sadly] successful election. Love ‘em or hate ‘em they can be a messaging and process machine when they want to be.

skoot65 on January 10, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Feel good legislation, unsupported by empirical data, costing oodles of money we don’t have to accomplish nothing and to be forgotten within a year–THE DEMOCRATIC WAY!

hillsoftx on January 10, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Accidentally bought an extra Ruger 10/22 on Black Friday (wife had already bought one as a surprise). Looking at prices on Gunbroker, it looks like that is going to be the most profitable mistake I’ve ever made. Thanks Obama!

Dead Hand Control on January 10, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Biden mentioned several measures that he said he has heard supported repeatedly — universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, and the government’s ability to do research on gun violence.

Strange, I thought we were talking about preventing gun violence.

apostic on January 10, 2013 at 3:26 PM

The ugly fact is – those measures won’t do a thing to protect the children – and they know it.

This is just a bit more of the incremental work at destroying the right of self-defense.

BTW, they don’t have the authority to do universal background checks.

Do they really thing that they will get away with trampling the Constitution with an executive order?

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Well I will have to give bho/team a great outta the New Year distractions! We have lew/brennen/hagel/gun grabbers/the 1 gazillion coin?/nothing done about our debt/etc etc! They sling SO much at us, we don’t know what to take up or do next? And all the while bho/jarrett are laughing their fool heads off thinking THEY have us? Well if we don’t put a stop to this, THEY will have us and that ‘h guy’ in the 30′s will have nothing on them?
L

letget on January 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM

and still……where are the Conservative defenders in Congress to defend the CONSTITUTION?

AWOL

PappyD61 on January 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM

yet most on here still support the GOP, and had mulitple orgasms in the marco polo thread.

GhoulAid on January 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Accidentally bought an extra Ruger 10/22 on Black Friday (wife had already bought one as a surprise). Looking at prices on Gunbroker, it looks like that is going to be the most profitable mistake I’ve ever made. Thanks Obama!

Dead Hand Control on January 10, 2013 at 3:32 PM

That is, if you hadn’t lost it Ice fishing on lake Okefenokee.

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Seriously, do you think the gun shows will pay ANY attention to a diktat by Executive Order? I wouldn’t, then dare them to try to prosecute me. The courts would throw it out in a heartbeat.

michaelo on January 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM

If they can do it that fast, you can bet they won’t be good ones.

bflat879 on January 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM

“It’s the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs” — Levin

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Send this to your Congressional Representative and demand that they implement it. Time for a Mandatory Federal Firearms Law, Enter the Affordable Firearms Act. this is how we need to respond to Obama and the Marxist cabal of his regarding gun grabbing.

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Thank God we have people like Joe Biden looking after us… /s

yubley on January 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Wanna bet that his recommendations have been sitting Barky’s desk for 4 years awaiting re-election and the right tragedy to capitalize on.

Dingbat63 on January 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Do they really thing that they will get away with trampling the Constitution with an executive order?

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Yes, they really do…

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I’ve got one gun control suggestion: quit selling guns to Mexican drug gangs.

rbj on January 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Thanks Obama!

Dead Hand Control on January 10, 2013 at 3:32 PM

OT, but while we’re thanking Obama: just got my first paystub of 2013. Even with a pay increase at the end of 2012, my check is ~$300 smaller. I’d go to the range to vent, but it’s suddenly a lot harder to replenish the stock. Thanks, 0bama…

affenhauer on January 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM

As usual, the R/C ‘leadership’ are missing in action and letting oafs like Obama/Biden, Reid the NRA crapweasel, set their agenda.

Washington (CNN) – A staunch supporter of gun rights for years, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may be changing his position on the contentious issue in the aftermath of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

The nation’s top Democrat in Congress has faced scrutiny in recent weeks for his close ties with the National Rifle Association. On December 30, the Washington Post reported that Reid slipped a provision into the 2010 national health care law that restricts the government from collecting data on gun ownership.

A Democratic source close to the passage of the landmark legislation said the last-minute provision was aimed at avoiding any opposition from the NRA that could have scuttled the entire bill.

“This is what was viewed as a relatively benign way to make sure the NRA didn’t get involved with this,” the Democratic source told CNN.

However an adviser to Reid, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Reid’s feelings on gun control have changed since President Barack Obama signed health care reform into law.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Do they really thing that they will get away with trampling the Constitution with an executive order?

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM

They do think so… However making an executive (legal or illegal) order is far different from implementing an executive order… Idiots can make all the orders they want but it much hard to execute the order than just write it…

mnjg on January 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM

and still……where are the Conservative defenders in Congress to defend the CONSTITUTION?

AWOL
PappyD61 on January 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Needs to be repeated often and vigorously.

Cleombrotus on January 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Yes. The public wants you to act- like adults. Unfortunately we’ve come to expect child-like behavior from you.

Browncoatone on January 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Seriously, do you think the gun shows will pay ANY attention to a diktat by Executive Order? I wouldn’t, then dare them to try to prosecute me. The courts would throw it out in a heartbeat.

michaelo on January 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Exactly… Creating an executive order is one thing but implementing it is far more difficult…

mnjg on January 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Ask law enforcement across the country, “How many bullets do you want in your clips? and we’ll use that number for EVERYONE.” They will say 15-17 bullets, and I as a gun owner will except having as many as they do in mine. Look, gun ownership isn’t about hunting, it’s about self-defense. Whatever the cops think are reasonable for their self-defense is good enough for me… fingers crossed that they don’t decide to go back to 6-guns or billy-clubs :)

RedManBlueState on January 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Do they really thing that they will get away with trampling the Constitution with an executive order?
Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM

You don’t think their success in doing so continuously over the past four years hasn’t emboldened them?

Do you think the Roberts court is going to stop them?

Cleombrotus on January 10, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Quiz Question:

Which infamous Obama executive order that fortunately could not be implemented?

mnjg on January 10, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Some of the public wants you to sit on a dried-out corn cob and spin, Joe.

hillbillyjim on January 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM

The public wants you to buy some guns and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

The Rogue Tomato on January 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM

They do think so… However making an executive (legal or illegal) order is far different from implementing an executive order… Idiots can make all the orders they want but it much hard to execute the order than just write it…

mnjg on January 10, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Good point. I mean Guantanamo Bay is totally closed right?

Gatsu on January 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I’ve got one gun control suggestion: quit selling giving guns to Mexican drug gangs.

rbj on January 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Corrected, hope you don’t mind.

trs on January 10, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Student, teacher shot at Taft High School
http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/report-at-least-one-person-shot-at-taft-high-school

TAFT, Calif. – Officials have said that at least two people were shot at Taft High School and the suspected shooter has been arrested.

Pruitt said he believes the student used a shotgun in the attack and that weapon has been recovered.

The shooter had multiple rounds of 12 gauge shells on him and was taken down by nearby people.

Next up on the Confiscation list: Shotguns.

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Seriously, do you think the gun shows will pay ANY attention to a diktat by Executive Order? I wouldn’t, then dare them to try to prosecute me. The courts would throw it out in a heartbeat.

michaelo on January 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Colorado already requires background checks for purchases at gun shows. Not a big deal when the check only takes 15 minutes – like it used to. But with the flood of gun buyers right now, it’s ridiculous to try to buy a gun at a show (comprised mostly of out of town dealers who travel the show circuit) when you have to wait 2 weeks for the background check.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 3:48 PM

(Isn’t Biden supposed to be another Constitution “scholar”?

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM

As a friend of mine recently put it, slightly softened:

If Biden were a monkey at the zoo, he’d throw poop at himself.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Is it possible that these people in DC are attention whores like Britney, Beyonce and Lady Gaga types?

PappyD61 on January 10, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Next up on the Confiscation list: Shotguns.

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Maybe “high capacity shotgun clips” and “shotgun bullets wider than 10 millimeters.”

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM

*”Shotguns with ‘assault chokes.’”

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Do they really thing that they will get away with trampling the Constitution with an executive order?

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Yes they do.

Exactly… Creating an executive order is one thing but implementing it is far more difficult…

mnjg on January 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Well he does have that private army of his called the TSA and DHS. Just wait until the gropers hit the streets. They have already practiced in a few states.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM

*”Shotguns with ‘assault chokes.’”

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Using high capacity bullets no doubt.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Good point. I mean Guantanamo Bay is totally closed right?

Gatsu on January 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM

That is exactly my point… Fortunately despite all the big publicity of Obama executive order to close Gitmo he failed miserably and got laughed at even from his own party when they had super majorities in Congress…

Look at Obamacare… They created a law that is so f***ed up on every level and now they are have tough times implementing it as almost half of the states are refusing to set up health care exchanges…

Obama is the master of left wing propaganda… All what he can do is give empty left wing rhetoric by reading a speech from a teleprometer…. However he does not have a clue how to implement most of his left wing socialist ideas and neither are the people who are surrounding him… If the man has the brains and will of FDR (the worst socialist President of all times) then we would have been in much problemetic situation than what we are in now and on every level…

mnjg on January 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Try again

*”Shotguns with ‘assault chokes.’”

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Using high capacity bullets no doubt.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I went to the SHOT Show last year. There are plenty of fun (read: scary) things there to stoke faux outrage.

Such as what? Can you cite examples?

Drew Lowell on January 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM

You know, I’m just meh when it comes to banning “high” capacity magazines. I guess I oppose it, but only because its a superfluous law which will have exactly no impact one way or the other. Banning them will not decrease violence or the body count in mass shootings. Conversely, it also does not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. When “The Time” comes when free men will have to take up arms to stay free, it will not be the number or rounds in the mag that will determine whether good prevails over evil.

BohicaTwentyTwo on January 10, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Well he does have that private army of his called the TSA and DHS. Just wait until the gropers hit the streets. They have already practiced in a few states.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM

He has nobody… They would not obey his orders… Except for the socialists and communists few are ready to start killing and arresting their fellow well armed citizens and start a new civil war…

mnjg on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Such as what? Can you cite examples?

Drew Lowell on January 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Firearms
ammo
and ready?
high capacity magazines.

Imagine the horror of seeing those.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Do they really thing that they will get away with trampling the Constitution with an executive order?
Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM

You don’t think their success in doing so continuously over the past four years hasn’t emboldened them?

Do you think the Roberts court is going to stop them?

Cleombrotus on January 10, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I don’t know about you, but I’m being more and more sickened by the inaction of the GOP.

I mean, you know that the Oppressive Socialist party is going to act like a bunch of petty tyrants – that’s a given, that’s expected.

Maybe I’m being just too damn naive, but I would like to think that our side is going to stand up to those folks at some point.

The GOP had better be aware that if they are complicit in the destruction of this country – they will ALSO get the blame for it.

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

He said there is a need to study which weapons are used most to kill and which tend to be trafficked.

/facepalm

Is he really this stupid? Assuming for a moment that banning guns actually worked at keeping those guns away from people (it doesn’t), does he think that if they figure out what gun criminals use most and ban it, the criminals will just say, “well, crap, they took my favorite gun, I guess I’ll just become a law-abiding citizen now”? Does he seriously think they wouldn’t just, y’know, choose a different gun? Or perhaps a knife? A homemade bomb even?

*sigh*

Shump on January 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Ask law enforcement across the country, “How many bullets do you want in your clips? and we’ll use that number for EVERYONE.” They will say 15-17 bullets, and I as a gun owner will except having as many as they do in mine. Look, gun ownership isn’t about hunting, it’s about self-defense. Whatever the cops think are reasonable for their self-defense is good enough for me… fingers crossed that they don’t decide to go back to 6-guns or billy-clubs :)

RedManBlueState on January 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM

The answer to that question from every gun owner and cop I know is “more than the other guy.”

Also, and this has been getting my goat to hear pretty much whenever civilians talk about firearms: It’s not a clip. It’s a magazine. A clip is a means of carrying rounds to make them ready to load into a magazine. A magazine can be fixed (such as with the Springfield M1903) or detatchable (most modern pistols and rifles). A clip only very rarely is fed directly into a firearms and stays in is the en bloc design seen most commonly in the M1 Garand.

I know it may seem like it’s quibbling. But for military guys, it’d be like talking to a baseball fanatic and calling a slider a screwball.

Sgt Steve on January 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Using

high capacity bull

ets no doubt.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Perhaps shotgun shells with no more than 10 pellets?
We’ll all be REQUIRED to buy 00 buck (typically 9 pellets).//
I believe the libs could be ignorant enough to try something like that.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Drew Lowell on January 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Firearms
ammo
and ready?
high capacity magazines.

Imagine the horror of seeing those.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Ohh.. I’m shaking in my flats just reading about that.. were they black and all?

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM

From Ed’s thread on topic

Honest men do not need theatre. Theatre only makes it easier for the weasels and other vermin to cloud the issues.

Have you learned nothing from discussing subjects here? When the rule of law is clear and it takes an amendment to change that rule of law, then the discussion only serves to keep the otherwise dead subject alive.

Until the 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states amend the U.S. Constitution, the bottom line, without explanation, is ” the citizen’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed. “

ROCnPhilly on January 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Using high capacity bullets no doubt.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM

And maybe “tactical stocks.”

This is pretty easy, actually. :)

“Polarized assault shooting glasses.”

You just kind of . . . string it.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM

This should be good.

Chuck Schick on January 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Never let a crisis, manufactured or not, go to waste.

WisRich on January 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Of course that lecture conversation won’t address the fact that these shootings have occurred in gun free zones. And that just maybe the problem is that law abiding civilians cannot have guns in those zones while the perps do. A real conversation would address the fact that gun free zones don’t work. We won’t get that conversation.

AZfederalist on January 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

He has nobody… They would not obey his orders… Except for the socialists and communists few are ready to start killing and arresting their fellow well armed citizens and start a new civil war…

mnjg on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Could be right about regular authorities and military but I have my doubts that TSA is not in his pocket. Besides the TSA goons don’t get any respect so it would be a big payback thing for them. The liberals fear all the “gun nuts” but, I have more concern for the TSA morons with guns.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

In other words..we have a semi-retarted, hairplug wearing buffoon (who uses the constitution and Bill of Rights as toilet paper) authoring gun-policy.

I feel “safer” already.

What a world.

Tim_CA on January 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

“Beretta Biden” Is A Gun Banner

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

– Senator Joseph Biden, Associated Press, 18 November 1993

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM

high capacity magazines.
Imagine the horror of seeing those.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

OMG!!! – Not like that evil thing Davey Gregory waved at Wayne LaPierre?!?!? Oh the horror!!!!////

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Not a single “conservative” member of Congress has stepped up to defend the United States Constitution and our most sacred natural right. Not a single one. Stunning. If that doesn’t say “game over,” I don’t know what does.

Rational Thought on January 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM

The GOP had better be aware that if they are complicit in the destruction of this country – they will ALSO get the blame for it.

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

They are and I hope they will.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Don’t you sometimes get the feeling it’s a good-cop-bad-cop routine?

Cleombrotus on January 10, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Obama, being the bad vulture, feeds off of carrion, from hour one of the tragedy.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Hey, Biden,

If you were worth a spit, you would be after your pawn, Dirty Harry, to pass a budget.

Instead, you’re grandstanding with an issue dancing on the deaths of children simply to further weaken the rights of citizens, strip us of our rights and subjugate this generation and the next.

In simple parlance, Joe – Phuck you, the horse you rode in on, your pals, and Congress.

YOU SUCK!

You’re a ridiculous, idiotic a$$hole – which, of course, is no news to you.

“Sheriff Joe” – my a$$. Anyone who plays a weak, second fiddle for an effete, anti- intellectual Marxist tool can never claim to be an American.

Cody1991 on January 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM

That argument breaks down when you realize most progressives aren’t really opponents of censorship in fact and would love to see the Internet (for example) more closely monitored for a variety of -isms (racism, sexism, anything they disagree with,) etc) and the perpetrators to be either shouted down or actively removed from the forum.

It’s not like they haven’t already done so for the most part with other forms of media that constitutes the “press.”

Sgt Steve on January 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Not a single “conservative” member of Congress has stepped up to defend the United States Constitution and our most sacred natural right. Not a single one. Stunning. If that doesn’t say “game over,” I don’t know what does.

Rational Thought on January 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Ya – not real impressed with the R party right now.
On the other hand, if any of them did say anything (or has already) logical or reasonable – would any of the media actually show it?

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Has this vacuous study group examined the role of gangs and stolen weapons in the incidences of gun violence? How about the role of absent fathers?

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM

good stuff, and those expressions from douchenoozle are spot on

DanMan on January 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM

high capacity magazines.
Imagine the horror of seeing those.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Just imagine the outrage on the Left if some idiots on the right started calling for high FASHION magazines to be banned.

First Amendment! First Amendment! First Amendment!

Second Amendment? Meh.

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Again few understand what is going on, yet a poor immigrant lady in the 1950s explained it perfectly:

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after POWER and we mean it.

You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it.

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.

Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there it that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on it.”

LegendHasIt on January 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM

How about the role of absent fathers?

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Not that there is a role for the federal government on this issue. Nevertheless, the federal welfare system has been largely at the root of these fatherless homes.

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Not a single “conservative” member of Congress has stepped up to defend the United States Constitution and our most sacred natural right. Not a single one. Stunning. If that doesn’t say “game over,” I don’t know what does.
Rational Thought on January 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Troubling, isn’t it?

That look on Biden’s face in the cover pics in the last few days says, either, that he knows it too, or he’s just insane with power.

Either way it’s not good.

Cleombrotus on January 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM

I’m sure the study group will have loads to keep them occupied.

That is just funny. HP, JSP, Semi-Wadcutter, FML. Lots and lots of different loads.

Bulletchaser on January 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Biden mentioned several measures that he said he has heard supported repeatedly — universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, and the government’s ability to do research on gun violence.

Balloons.

Has this vacuous study group examined the role of gangs and stolen weapons in the incidences of gun violence? How about the role of absent fathers?

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM

1. racist, and then — 2. more racist.

So you are super racist.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Put the 2nd in the trash and the other nine can’t be far behind.

So does this vindicate those ‘nut jobs’ who have been painted all these years as crying wolf? Sad for my country, fearful for my grandkids.

Limerick on January 10, 2013 at 4:11 PM

But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on it.

That crazy nut had some pretty good insight didn’t she? Too bad her books were only read by rebelious teenagers…(halfway through F’head)

DanMan on January 10, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Sgt Steve on January 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Not really. They argue that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreseen the technological advances in weaponry when they wrote the Second Amendment. The same can be said about the technological advances that affect the First Amendment. That’s the point.

If the Second Amendment only permits “muskets,” then the First only applies to parchment and quills. While you are 100% correct that Progressives have no problem with censorship, they do not put forward the position that the First Amendment (or Fourth) doesn’t apply to the internet or cellphones, for example. See the outrage over warrantless wiretaps for overseas cellphone numbers used by known terrorists.

The underlying and fundamental principle is the same. Technological advances were understood by the Founding Fathers, although they may not have been foreseeable in detail. They KNEW that technology would advance. Some of them, such as Benjamin Franklin, were prodigious inventors.

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 4:15 PM

This is all academic for me anyway, I destroyed my entire collection with a chop saw this morning, into the metal shredder they went.

Feel free to dig though the county landfill, I’m sure they might find a trigger or two, maybe a bit of scope rail.

Bishop on January 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM

How about the role of absent fathers?

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM

An opportune time for me to once again post the prescient words and undeniable wisdom of one of my fave (and few) Liberals:

“From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos.”

– Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Family and Nation, 1965

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Bishop on January 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Yeah, I got $38.62 a pound for my scrap too. I donated it to the deficit.

Limerick on January 10, 2013 at 4:19 PM

high capacity magazines.
Imagine the horror of seeing those.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

OMG!!! – Not like that evil thing Davey Gregory waved at Wayne LaPierre?!?!? Oh the horror!!!!////

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM

He waved a high capacity magazine on national television!? Was it one of those Vogue issues? You know the ones that are chock full of perfume scratch and sniff inserts?

*shudders*

Lily on January 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM

How about the role of absent fathers?

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Not that there is a role for the federal government on this issue. Nevertheless, the federal welfare system has been largely at the root of these fatherless homes.

I seem to recall in the early days of welfare, it was very difficult to qualify with the father at home with the government’s expectation that he should be the provider. Well, of course the solution was to have daddy slink off and live away from the family so mom and the kids could get the support of Uncle Sugar, having, alas, no bread winner in the household. And the government had snoops who regularly checked just to be sure daddy wasn’t pulling a fast one. From that evolved the proliferation of and acceptance of fatherless homes as the norm in many communities, as Uncle Sugar is happy to act as the surrogate father.

hawkeye54 on January 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Pooty Poots criminalized gun possession after Beslan.

That gave him the ‘flexibility’ Barky now thinks he has.

CorporatePiggy on January 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Do they really thing that they will get away with trampling the Constitution with an executive order?

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM

In a word: Yes.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Again few understand what is going on, yet a poor immigrant lady in the 1950s explained it perfectly:

LegendHasIt on January 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Indeed, she moved tot he US in 1926, after the Russian thugs destroyed her parents’ flat, business, beat them up and etc.

In 1943 she clearly defined the systems, as they really are, freedom versus tyranny.

In 1957 she wrote the most accurate fiction of all times.

If you have not read Atlas Shrugged, yet, and if you love your freedom, it is a must read.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Here are two words no one has uttered yet on these threads: Commerce Clause. That’s how they’ll do it and it will past judicial muster. Mark my words boys and girls.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

and still……where are the Conservative defenders in Congress to defend the CONSTITUTION?

AWOL

PappyD61 on January 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM

In order for Conservative defenders in Congress to defend the Constitution, there would first have to be Conservatives. There are none. To rely on these criminals to defend the Constitution is futile.

On another topic, why does anyone even enter the argument of, “banning assault rifles will not do any good”, or “studies have shown that this or that will not make any difference in crime”? All of this is irrelevant. It’s Constitutional to “keep and bear arms.” The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to bear arms, that right is already there by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment only affirms that right.

air_up_there on January 10, 2013 at 4:24 PM

He waved a high capacity magazine on national television!? Was it one of those Vogue issues? You know the ones that are chock full of perfume scratch and sniff inserts?

*shudders*

Lily on January 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Obviously the answer is to ban all magazines over 10 pages – and no aftermarket “custom” additions of any kind.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Let me be clear Mr. Politician; As a law abiding citizen, Any attempt to limit my Devine Rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, which you have sworn to Preserve, Protect and Defend, will mark you a traitor to the Republic and therefore subject to the penalty for treason, specified in the Constitution.
The Founders recognized that the voting booth was not a remedy for a tyrannical government, but that force of arms was.

III/0317

dirtengineer on January 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3