Biden Spits Out Usual Gun Control Narrative, Wants to Ban ‘Weapons of War’

Biden Spits Out Usual Gun Control Narrative, Wants to Ban ‘Weapons of War’

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wants to ban “weapons of war” from civilians along with “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”

Excuse me, Vice President. My AR-15, a modern sporting rifle (MSR), is not a weapon of war. Our soldiers would not fare well with AR-15s.

Weapons of war have no place in our communities.

We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 14, 2020

Let me state first off that I am not a gun expert. I know the details of my revolver and my AR. I know why I want or need one.

Vague terms are never good to hear. Weapons of war. Assault rifles. Can Biden provide specific details? Oh wait. I know he won’t because we all know deep down Biden and his cronies want to ban guns.

What is an assault rifle? It’s not an AR-15. The AR stands for ArmaLite, Inc., which is the original manufacturer.

The AR-15 we can buy, which I own, is not meant for war. It is semi-automatic and holds a .223 round. That means it’s a smaller cartridge and I shoot only one bullet when I pull the trigger.

A few MSRs can fire a 5.56 round, but it is still a semi-automatic.

But the fact is you CANNOT buy an automatic weapon without cutting a bunch of red tape. It is damn near impossible to purchase one.

Also, do not tell me I do not need an AR-15. I need and want an AR-15.

Many people do not know this, but I was born with massive head trauma after the doctor got careless with the forceps. My left side is handicapped. My left hand can be careless and obviously doesn’t work well.

The AR-15 is light and I can basically use it with only my right hand. It has light recoil, too. It’s perfect for a female even without physical disabilities.

Yes, I do like that it’s big and scary looking!

Let’s talk about those high-capacity magazines. In 2018, Cato Institute wrote about why it’s an “empty case” to even restrict magazines:

Magazine restrictions do not have appreciable effects on crime or violence. In an oft‐​cited study, Christopher Koper analyzed the effects of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which banned new magazines of more than 10 rounds but did little more than drive up the price of already‐​existing magazines. While presenting his findings at a Johns Hopkins summit on reducing gun violence in America, Koper was decidedly noncommittal on the ban’s utility.

Plus there are about a billion magazines in circulation:

With as many as a billion magazines in circulation, it would take immense and constitutionally dubious law‐​enforcement efforts to make even a dent in the extant “high‐​capacity” magazine population. Moreover, any potential reduction in lethality or violent crime by magazine restrictions would occur only in extremely rare circumstances — namely, in shootings involving the discharge of more than 10 rounds.

Cato issues the mic drop:

Those observations underline a core issue: when a motivated murderer wants to cause a lot of damage, he plans accordingly. Be it a handgun, a revolver with a speed‐​loader, or a self‐​loading rifle, what really matters for sustaining a high rate of fire is having multiple magazines, not the capacity of those magazines.

I do not know why it is so hard to understand that a criminal will always find his or her weapon. The person will plan and use whatever he or she can whether it’s a knife or a pistol to inflict as much damage as possible.

But these people are so hooked on these propaganda terms. It’s like they know people won’t do their own research and just take whatever the politicians feed them.

Leave my guns alone. Leave my 2nd amendment alone.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.