Dud Biden Threaten Gun Owners With Nukes?

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
67,356
Joe Biden has no business in the White House. He's mentally flawed and uninformed. When the Constitution was ratified private citizens and store keepers did own cannons. There were no such gun controls at the federal level. Before the National firearms Act of 1934 a private citizen could and did buy fully automatic weapons. Even today hundreds of citizens own and operate fully automatic weapons, and artillery pieces.

For example, a private citizen can lawfully own a machine gun only if:

the possessor isn’t a “prohibited person,”
the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
their relevant state law does not ban the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features).


Biden Ripped For ‘Threatening To Nuke Law-Abiding American Citizens’: He’s ‘Literally Recording NRA Ads’
By Daily Wire News

Jun 23, 2021 DailyWire.com

President Joe Biden faced intense backlash online following remarks that he made during a press conference on Wednesday about how Americans who own firearms to defend against tyranny would need to own advanced military-grade technology to take on the U.S. government.

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon. [Those who] say the blood of the, the blood of patriots, you know, and all this stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government.”

“Well, the tree of liberty is not [watered with] the blood of patriots, what’s happened is that there never been, if you want, if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” Biden continued. “The point is that there’s always been the ability to limit, rationally limit, the type of weapon that can be owned, and who can own it.”

More here:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/hand...that-counter-democrat-narrative-of-jan-6-riot
 
quite the display of mental gymnastics. it's almost impressive. please get help, you poor, poor man.
 
Stupid old Joe doesn't realize he just made the best argument for the Second Amendment.

The dumb son of a bitch opened himself up to some embarrassing cross examination as well. "Well Mr. President, maybe you can explain how all of those inventories of F-15s, nuclear weapons, a friggin' army, and twenty fucking years of effort, you've failed to kick the shit out of a bunch of Afghan mountain fighters kicking your ass with small arms.":rolleyes:
 
Stupid old Joe doesn't realize he just made the best argument for the Second Amendment.

The dumb son of a bitch opened himself up to some embarrassing cross examination as well. "Well Mr. President, maybe you can explain how all of those inventories of F-15s, nuclear weapons, a friggin' army, and twenty fucking years of effort, you've failed to kick the shit out of a bunch of Afghan mountain fighters kicking your ass with small arms.":rolleyes:

Same reason something similar happened in Vietnam, I suppose: When the Americans actually got a chance to engage the enemy, they usually won, but it didn't matter. No matter how many guerillas they killed, the Viet Cong could always recruit more. The government was that unpopular.
 
Same reason something similar happened in Vietnam, I suppose: When the Americans actually got a chance to engage the enemy, they usually won, but it didn't matter. No matter how many guerillas they killed, the Viet Cong could always recruit more. The government was that unpopular.

As on most subjects, you aren't really informed on this subject. It was the Democrats who walked away from the Vietnam War, after it had been won. The NV would not have been in Paris suing for peace if they were really on top. What they detected was the lack of will on the part of the Democrat Congress to pursue victory that was entirely at hand. Instead they shrugged off the deaths of 58,000 men as if that sacrifice meant nothing and cut off funding for the war.
 
Same reason something similar happened in Vietnam, I suppose: When the Americans actually got a chance to engage the enemy, they usually won, but it didn't matter. No matter how many guerillas they killed, the Viet Cong could always recruit more. The government was that unpopular.

Just goes to show you, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

People don't like authoritarian control freaks from far away places coming in and telling them how to live.

I can appreciate that. :)
 
As on most subjects, you aren't really informed on this subject. It was the Democrats who walked away from the Vietnam War, after it had been won. The NV would not have been in Paris suing for peace if they were really on top. What they detected was the lack of will on the part of the Democrat Congress to pursue victory that was entirely at hand. Instead they shrugged off the deaths of 58,000 men as if that sacrifice meant nothing and cut off funding for the war.

What happened at the Paris peace talks was that LBJ's people had a peace deal all "cooked," but Nixon, working through backchannels, scuttled it, convincing the NV that they could get a better deal when he was president. This is all very well documented. And Nixon only did that so the war would still be there for him to run against in November. And then he didn't even end it, that was left to Ford. But there never came a point, not even after the Tet Offensive, when the war "had been won" by the U.S.
 
The guiding principle one must follow in order to predict and understand Biden is to know he has never been right on an issue in his life. He's always lied, misinterpreted truth, and plagiarized the thoughts and writings of others and claimed them to be his own. He has never had an original thought. On top of all of that, he's now dangerously mentally impaired and the most serious national security threat extant.
 
The guiding principle one must follow in order to predict and understand Biden is to know he has never been right on an issue in his life. He's always lied, misinterpreted truth, and plagiarized the thoughts and writings of others and claimed them to be his own. He has never had an original thought. On top of all of that, he's now dangerously mentally impaired and the most serious national security threat extant.

You lied about Obama for 8 years, so why should we believe you about Biden?
 
This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen on Lit.

Well done, Vette!
 
What happened at the Paris peace talks was that LBJ's people had a peace deal all "cooked," but Nixon, working through backchannels, scuttled it, convincing the NV that they could get a better deal when he was president. This is all very well documented. And Nixon only did that so the war would still be there for him to run against in November. And then he didn't even end it, that was left to Ford. But there never came a point, not even after the Tet Offensive, when the war "had been won" by the U.S.

I studied the actual history. I don't need to hear your partisan interpretation of known events. Here is the truth. Nixon ordered the B-52 bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong it was savage. He told the North if they would come back and attend the Paris peace talks, they had left earlier, he would stop the bombing. They came, we halted the bombing. On the 23rd of January 1973, Nixon addressed the nation and announced an agreement had been reached and had been initialed by the US, the NV, the SV, and the VC. When they did so, they for all intents and purposes the North gave us and the South, victory. The agreement included a pledge by the US that if there were any further aggression by the North to the South the US would replace piece for piece any equipment lost by the South. The following year the 94th Congress was swept into power, after Nixon was forced to leave office.

This Congress was Democrat and some of it's new members were anti-war activists. When Gerald Ford came to Congress to beg for the money to back up the US commitment contained in the accords, those anti-war Democrats walked out of the building and the funding was rejected. Immediately thereafter the South surrendered, the evacuations began, the boatpeople hit the waves, and the Communist reeducation began.

I believe the Democrats, like they still do today, did this for the sole purpose of not leaving any kind of a positive legacy to the hated Republican, Nixon, who had in fact turned the Democrat debacle in Vietnam into a victory. They sullied the lives and sacrifice of 58,000 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of wounded, in order to harm a political enemy and satisfy the Democrat AOCs of their time.
 
But there never came a point, not even after the Tet Offensive, when the war "had been won" by the U.S.

BTW dopey, after the "TET Offensive," the VC were destroyed as an effective fighting force, (VC casualties as high as 50,000 dead, 24,000 weapons seized) and never returned to the field in numbers they had during Tet. Little factoid for ya there. Tet was a meatgrinder for the VC and the North.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tet-Offensive
 
Back
Top