“They 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,” Biden claimed. “So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting. Remember, the Constitution was never absolute.”
“You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed,” Biden asserted (falsely). “You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.”
“Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9-mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds,” he added.
If a 9mm will blow a lung out, what about that shotgun Biden advises to blast through front doors with? If that caliber is too powerful, what about magnums? What about .45s? And since he brought it up, what about hunting rounds?
And yes, of course, you could buy a cannon in the Founding era. You still can.
Biden doesn’t even try to make sense. He doesn’t have to. You could go through the list of everything he just blurted out and show in each instance how he flat-out doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but that doesn’t matter to his target audience. The useful idiots who believe him have no intention of looking into the truth for themselves, or of hearing it from somebody else. Biden’s handlers know that when it comes to guns, he can say any damn fool thing that comes into his head, and a dutiful “press corps” will repeat it without challenge – most because they are just as ignorant as those they influence, albeit with a handful knowing better but committed to the propaganda narrative.
It’s interesting he at least admits he doesn’t have authority to ban guns himself just through executive order, not that his ATF isn’t trying through “rule” changes. But the point here is that what he’s talking about is not “commonsense gun safety” measures, but banning guns, something the left insists is just paranoid talk out of one side of its mouth, while advocating repeal of the Second Amendment out of the other (not that the latter would legitimately affect the right).
He and his fellow Democrats talking about the 9mm and AR-15s are talking about banning the most popular handgun and rifle in America. And if they ban those, they’ll be sure to add others. It’s what they do.
This is another reason why it’s critical for Republicans not to give one inch on other measures, whether Democrats are talking red (or yellow) flags, “universal background checks,” and the like—because we know the end game is not about those, it’s to ban guns. Give in on one front and the prohibitionists will be able to free up resources for the next one. Let them establish a beachhead and they’ll use it to launch their next incursion.
Throw circling jackals a scrap and they’ll know it was done out of fear. And move in closer.
What those demanding rights they have no claim to, and those presuming authority to negotiate “on behalf” of their countrymen don’t take into account is government “allowing” people to have guns presupposes the people will allow them to dictate that.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.