Biden’s Double-Barrel Idiocy
Jay Weber nailed this this morning.
“I think the president does agree with the vice president that homeowners who are interested in utilizing their Second Amendment rights to own a firearm to protect themselves in their home, and their families in their home do not need a military-style assault weapon and that a shotgun would be a logical choice,” Carney said.
What business is it of government to tell me what guns I “need” or don’t need? And why should I take self-defense advice from people surrounded by people with assault weapons to protect them? When I see Biden’s Secret Service detail toting double-barrel shotguns, I’ll take another look at what he’s selling.
You have no second amendment right. The right is natural and pre-existing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 0833 hrs
Well, if it’s a natural right then at least the 2nd amendment indicates that government recognizes that you have it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 0913 hrs
Liberals disarming women, again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 0914 hrs
A big AMEN to what Owen said!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 1004 hrs
A handgun worked just fine when it came time for Oscar Pistorius to protect himself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 1012 hrs
O. J. Pistorius AKA the Blade Gunner. It the blades don’t fit, you must acquit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 1152 hrs
Let’s see. Homeland security sez call 911 and find a sharp scissors. David Clarke says: get trained, educated, get a gun, then call 911. Joe Biden sez: “get a shotgun”.
where are the Liberals yelling about Biden????
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 1336 hrs
Listening to Joe Biden will likely get you arrested, especially in an area where guns are frowned upon. There are many cases of folks who fire “warning shots” getting arrested or doing time for the behavior he advocates.
Joe Biden is Obama’s life insurance policy—he makes Dan Quayle look like a rocket scientist by comparison.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 1640 hrs
Now you need a machine gun for personal defense?
Check your ego.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 1819 hrs
Did I say that? But if I did, what business is it of yours?
And, BTW, machine guns are already heavily restricted. I can’t buy one.
Posted by Owen on February 21, 2013 at 1835 hrs
Now you need a machine gun for personal defense?
Can you cite the comment that said this?
Check your ego.
Check your IQ.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 1912 hrs
Check your IQ.
Pretty sure it doesn’t have enough of an IQ to even register.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2013 at 1924 hrs
In the military they refer to what Vice Pres. Biteme described as “recon by fire.” You suddenly open up with a couple rounds in the general direction from which you expect the threat. The theory is that the return fire will be heavily influenced by the natural human inclination toward self preservation. I hated it because it always gives away your general position, and always results in a significant exchange of fire if the enemy is actually present, and is undisciplined, inexperienced or already has you in his sights.
I understand it was invented during the War of 1812 by a little-known military strategist, General Joesephus “Double Barrel” Biden. We died courageously in a minor skirmish at the Women’s Barracks in Bethesda, MA from gunshot wounds in his back. It was rumored the buckshot wounds in the front of his upper chest were caused by return fire from the barracks following two shots he fired in the air to frighten the enemy. The several gunshot wounds to his back have never been explained.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 0917 hrs
Lost in all of this is that Biden is correct. A shotgun will better protect you in your house than an AR15 will.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 0957 hrs
Um, that’s not what Biden said. He said to go out on the porch and fire off warning shots with the shotgun.
I agree that a shotgun is more effective in the close quarters of a house for pure stopping power, but I’d select something that holds more than 2 shots.
Posted by Owen on February 22, 2013 at 1015 hrs
A shotgun isn’t better protection in your home than an AR-15, especially for a woman.
The gun you are most comfortable using is better than any other gun in your house. The lighter weight and likely shorter barrelled AR-15 would be the choice of a lot of people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1023 hrs
A short barreled shot gun is better, but why would anyone walk out and fire shots into he air if you are concerned about your safety?
In the case of a woman, you need to have practiced a lot cause the noise and kick could surprise you. I had been firing my 44 mag for years at ranges but when I out in some hot rounds for deer hunting the kick and the noise really surprised me.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1120 hrs
Any weapon they aren’t familiar with could suprise a person. You absolutely would want to be comfortable using whatever weapon you choose to keep and use.
Firing random shots into the night is only the Plan A Biden recommends for us. He has the secret service after all. I’m guessing his Plan B for the rest of us involves hitting an intruder over the head with an empty bottle of Southern Comfort.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1217 hrs
I’m guessing his Plan B for the rest of us involves hitting an intruder over the head with an empty bottle of Southern Comfort.
Since, unlike what we see on the boobtube, the now angry person with the lump on his head doesn’t just fall to the floor unconscious, you will be required to stab him several times with your legally registered scissors (total blade length not to exceed four inches), and then deal with an even angrier person with a bump on his head and several nasty puncture wounds to the back, arms and buttocks. In compliance with Dept. of Homeland Security rules, the intruder will refrain from using his 9mm Glock on you until you have tired from all the hitting and stabbing.
Always remember, when seconds count the cops are only a couple of minutes away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1447 hrs
“But if I did [need a machine gun”, what business is it of yours?”
That’s simple: It’s the people’s business if the owner of the tool designed to efficiently terminate or damage mass numbers of targets becomes mentally ill and his or her trigger finger and hate list starts getting itchy.
I’ll trust the federal agents monitoring gun owners and websites (and their visitors) like these (George W. Bush - anti-terrorism legislation) more than the armed 2nd amendment, concealed carry advocate, no matter how intelligent, family oriented, educated, trained, down to earth, lovable and a fanatic for freddy mercury he or she is.
Jason - “Check your IQ” I’m betting the feds have watched you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2013 at 1538 hrs
Your trust is foolhardy. Trust the federal government? How did that work out for Native Americans?
Posted by Owen on February 23, 2013 at 1541 hrs
Perhaps you should read your constitution, Dismas and Gestas. The people and the federal government are separate entities. Natural rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, belong to the people. Additionally the states possess certain rights predating the constitution. The federal government, formed by the states at the consent of the people, possesses no rights but only the powers granted to it by the states and people.
Your trust isn’t misplaced, it’s simply irrelevant. I and my state have chosen to retain our rights regarding arms.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2013 at 1706 hrs
I’m betting the feds have watched you.
I’m betting we here who read your posts on this website aren’t the only ones who have laughed at your idiocy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2013 at 2201 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 58
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/19/2013 12:17 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).