« | »

Biden: No Reason Weapons Ban Shouldn’t Pass

From an unquestioning Politico:

Biden: ‘No reason’ assault weapons ban shouldn’t clear Congress

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | December 20, 2012

Vice President Joe Biden is "absolutely committed" to fighting gun violence, he said Thursday as he hosted his first meeting responding to the Newtown shooting.

"We have to have a comprehensive way in which to respond to the mass murder of our children that we saw in Connecticut," Biden told law enforcement officials and members of the Cabinet at the start of the meeting. He and President Obama agree that "even if we can only save one life, we have to take action."

There’s "no reason" why Congress shouldn’t be able to pass a ban on assault weapons, he said. Referring to the bill he authored in 1994…

Someone should tell ‘Bite Me’ that Connecticut already has a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ that is identical to the lapsed 1994 federal ban. And it did not stop Mrs. Lanza from buying that Bushmaster rifle legally.

So his "comprehensive response" would not have saved a single life in this case.

Obama launched Biden’s group on Wednesday, instructing the vice president and members of the Cabinet to generate "concrete proposals" by January to respond to Friday’s school shooting. Obama said the panel will consult with outside "stakeholders," but has not specified whether that will include pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association.

Oh, yeah. The NRA will be included, for sure.

Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, are all on the panel and were at Thursday’s meeting…

Who can doubt that the Second Amendment is in good hands with these fine people?

But, the terrible truth here Obama won’t need Congress to write any laws. If he doesn’t get exactly what he wants from Congress, he will simply issue an executive order and ban whatever guns he feels like banning.

As they say: ‘Stoke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.’ And the Constitution be damned.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, December 21st, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

18 Responses to “Biden: No Reason Weapons Ban Shouldn’t Pass”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    Lots of blather about ‘assault weapons’.

    But no definition of ‘assault weapons’.

    What’s an assault weapon, Daddy?

    Whatever the Neologists say it is, son.

    If I assault you with this spoon, does that make it an assault weapon, Daddy?

    You’ll have to ask Emperor Biden, son. He controls everything.

  2. River0 says:

    “No reason” is the mantra of the decade for Joe and his ilk. The last Assault Weapons Ban authored by Lady Di Feinstein failed utterly and was allowed to expire.

    “No reason” not to bring it back! “No reason” not to pass all kinds of rules, all the time. If we have a problem, there’s “no reason” not to outlaw it.

  3. Tater Salad says:

    When will Hollywood and movie/video producers attack this problem that they are responsible for creating and for “profit”? They attack gun owners but insulate themselves from the same:

    How about the militant people that have taken over Hollywood and the video empires. Guess who were/are the biggest supporters of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party?

    Here is a video that corrupts America’s young minds and yet Hollywood lets it continue for profits and then blames the NRA and conservatives. Liberals like Michael Moore should take note! Do you think that Adam Lanza watched this video?


  4. canary says:

    If Obama & Biden would ban partial-birth murder he could save more than one child. He really needs to attend just one of these births.

  5. canary says:

    Should Hillary sending F-16 Fighter Jets to Egypt as she works from home with brain trauma injury stemming from concussion?


    December 18, 2012

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Amidst current unrest in Egypt, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), yesterday called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to halt the planned delivery of 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt. Due to a FY’10 foreign aid appropriations bill concluded during the presidency of Hosni Mubarak, the United States is scheduled to deliver the first four F-16s to Egypt by Jan. 22, 2013.

    “In light of President Morsi’s dictatorial decree and absence of promoting promised democracy, the delivery of the F-16 fighter jets must be delayed,” said Inhofe. “The Obama Administration should not be putting top-of-the-line aircraft in the hands of a government that is perpetuating instability in its region and showing aggression towards our ally, Israel. While this agreement for the F-16s was forged two years ago, Egypt’s leadership has since changed hands, leaving open the question as to how this equipment might be used. Until Egypt is able to establish a democratic parliament and ensure stability for its people, I have asked Sec. Clinton to postpone all deliveries of F-16s for further review.”

    A copy of the letter is available by clicking here.


  6. yadayada says:

    funny thing is…
    an assault weapons ban was already in place one upon a time. and it expired because everyone agreed there was “no reason” to keep it around.

    but…as long as the mainstream media is in bed with them, “tried that already and it failed miserably” will not be a deterrent to libs.

  7. yadayada says:

    funny thing is…
    an assault weapons ban was already in place once upon a time. and it expired because everyone agreed there was “no reason” to keep it around.

    but…as long as the mainstream media is in bed with them, “tried that already and it failed miserably” will not be a deterrent to libs.

  8. chainsaw says:

    I am ashamed that our VP has a name tag “The Vice President” in front of him. What gives with that? Some sort of royality? Words can not express my disdain for this hb (human being).

  9. Anonymoose says:

    The arrogance of this administration is beyond belief. I can only see three ways Assault Weapons Ban II can be different from the first: stopping transfers of banned but “grandfathered” guns from one individual to another, requiring manufacturers to completely redesign their weapons so they can’t accept older magazines over ten rounds, or just banning detachable magazines altogether so we’re back to using stripper clips.

    We should just start playing their game against them.

    Remind them at every chance that Assault Weapons Ban I did no good. Columbine took place right in the middle of it.

    Remind them that Ban I expired in 2004, and it’s been EIGHT YEARS. What we have is a handful of spree shootings that are tragic but have been played up at every chance by the media, not the out of control post-apocalypse scenario the liberals portray.

    Ask them what have they done about mental illness and keeping those people away from guns.

    Ask them about supposedly safe England:

    First was Hungerford, they banned all centerfire semi-auto rifles.

    Then was Dunblane, they banned all pistols and 22 semi-autos.

    Then was Cumbria, done with a bolt action rifle and a double barreled shotgun. What next?

    Ask them about China and the slashings of schoolchildren with a knife; there’s been several. If they say it’s “better” than being shot SCREAM at them about how they’re saying knifing children is okay. It’s their own logic used against them.

    Ask them about how “safe” England, Australia, and Japan are. England and Australia have lower homicides but a much higher risk of robbery, assault, and theft. In England they have criminal “companies” that take orders for “obtaining” cars and motorcycles. All three have much more severe restrictions on personal liberty, search and seizure, and property.

    Ask them about the “stats” from Assault Weapons Ban I showing how “necessary” it was, how the language was usually “weapons affected by the ban” which meant semi-auto pistols that were capable of taking a large capacity magazine but used with the “legal” ten rounders.

    All they can come up with in the end is the same old saw, guns are bad, more “restrictions” are needed, you can’t tell them no. The only way they can “guarantee” this will never happen again is to ban all guns, which in the end is all they want.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”Ask them what have they done about mental illness and keeping those people away from guns…..”

      Well, for starters, we elected them to positions of authority within the government. Then we allowed them unlimited terms in office. Then we allowed them to treat themselves like royalty and granted them wealthy retirements. Then we allowed them to protect themselves at our expense with their own personal bodyguards. We’ve given them license to bribe their constituency with public funds in order to get themselves re-elected.

      In short, we’ve allowed them to propagate the species

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      And most recently in China, a father of two murdered children, angry about the failure of the state to charge the perpetrators with murder, mowed down a bunch of kids with his car.

      Therefore, cars must be banned, right?

      Given that I tend to think of things in their simplest terms while still understanding the complexities of the human mind, or, more accurately that the human mind is complex, I will state the following:

      It’s not the choice of weapon, the circumstance, the individual but more a combination of all three. When examined in court, what do the prosecutors try to pin on the defendant? Motive, opportunity and means. Remove any of those three and you have a different situation.

      However, guns are not the problem inasmuch as it’s not the storm that floods the town that’s the problem. It’s the person’s, the individual’s response. I don’t want my kid to get shot so I send them to places where, either I’m there with them and I’m carrying a weapon, or a send them to places where odd people with guns cannot gain access to my child. Or, if by some chance they do, they will be killed before getting the opportunity to do so.

      It’s very interesting that many of the people who insist on gun control send their kids to schools with very heavy security, including that twit Gregory who brandished a magazine, forbidden by DC law, on national TV.

      So, Mr Gregory, why is that an unacceptable tack for me to take with my own kids? Or, does it tend to bring you down a notch in your elitist universe. Armed security not good for the masses? Just for our “elected” officials and for popinjay dullards like yourself?

      When someone is so angry, so enraged as to be blinded to good sense, they will find a way to carry out and act upon their anger. Indeed, the murder mystery writers in Europe have to come up with very clever ways to kill off the object of their writing, since guns were “abolished”. Scissors, drowning, run over by a car, thrown from a train, electrocuted, strangled (a most popular method in the pages of fiction) and all sorts of ways that the murderer can accomplish their desired task.

      So…..here we are once again where the socialists, ever the idealists, always search for the easy answer which is all-too-often incorrect. I’ll use the analogy thusly:

      Kids aren’t doing well on the tests that the teacher gives out. When you ask the kids why that is, they say, “Teacher asks questions that are too hard.” But when you further ask the students what the teacher taught and none of them can remember, well, then, one can see the problem.

      “Did you study the material?”
      “Did you sit down and do your assignments?”
      “Did you do as the teacher recommended and read the lesson the night before in the text book?”

      If the answer to all three questions is “no” then you deserve a failing grade.

      The socialists’ answer to this situation? Dumb down the tests. Make it so easy that everyone gets an “A”. The end result is a two-fer. The students then all think they’re brilliant and also, the school gets more funding because they have such high scores.

      Now, let’s move that to the gun argument.

      The socialists say, “It’s the gun’s fault. Without a gun, that person would never have done that.”

      How would they know? This is the first incorrect assumption made by the socialist. They claim to understand the human mind and emotions so well that said violent criminal wouldn’t be had there been no gun.

      So, let me ask. “What was the killer’s motivation?” “If there was no gun, would the killer have then studied bomb-making and satisfied their anger that way?”. “If no bombs, would the killer have waited outside the school until their target appeared and then driven their car to run them over?”. “Without a gun, would the killer have plotted a more complex plan to attack the people he wanted to hurt?”

      With the exception of the first question, the answer to all the others would be “yes”.

      The banning of guns is just the simple-minded person’s way of dealing with reality. It’s the same with the person who constantly runs into “bad luck”. If the person who never repairs their car keeps getting pulled over for inoperative taillights, they only see that the “cops are following them around”. When they show up at the grocery store without enough money to pay for the goods they’ve selected, it’s because, “They raised the prices too high and kept me from getting what I want”. And though the latter is partly often true, it’s because of that very line of thinking that we’re in the mess we are.

      Always looking for the simple, unexplored, parochial “fix” to some problem that either didn’t really exist or became a problem because government tried to fix it.

      Although the tragedy in Connecticut is every bit as dark as it can be, it’s not the guns’ fault. It’s the fault of a particular individual or individuals to take proper responsibility to prevent such behavior. Back in the 60’s the ACLU went to court a great many times to curtail the institutionalizing of mentally unstable people. We have reaped the rewards of government “fixing” that problem ever since.

      But, to be fair, when a sane person decides to “go off the deep end” and otherwise seems perfectly normal, you can neither predict nor prevent that person from doing something outlandish.

      It’s technically, and unfortunately, part of the “human condition” and will always be with us.

      But the real problem is that socialists never want to face any cold, real realities. People can’t afford homes? Fine! Make it so everyone can get a mortgage, even if you’re already on food stamps and make $11,000 a year! What could possibly go wrong? Well, they were told what would and what eventually did go wrong but they denied their responsibility to it.

      You cannot help those kinds of people. When I was a kid in school, teachers often pointed out that I had done something stupid and “now do you see why that’s a bad idea?”. Teachers are prohibited from saying anything of the kind to kids today.

      The “system” has confused discipline with cruelty, thinking they are one and the same. They have invented a fantasy land where kids will develop into responsible adults simply by osmosis. But the teachers themselves are bad examples so the osmosis theory probably does work to some extent when the kid who can’t read or do basic math graduates from high school and can’t seem to hold a job, gets into drugs, etc.

      Socialism destroys things. It’s designed to do-so. The architects and mechanics who use it love that about it.

  10. Mithrandir says:

    For democrats, anytime is a good time, to start burning the Constitution.

  11. canary says:

    We need protection from the new order is which is one of disorder and violence around the world.

    Further we have yet to see the backlash of the dream act and growing vicious drug cartel crossing our borders.

    Men and Women wearing bombs killed 300 and injured many other children

    Jihad at Russian School murders 300 children first day of school. Sept 1, 2004


    Columbine was 3 students. What happens with growth of mob flashes like the 300 that walked into a Walmart destroying lights and camera as they robbed the place laughing and terrorizing workers and customers. Florida.

    Okc fed building blew up an entire building to include babies.
    (The body count is higher after a long, nearly 2 decade fight for victim’s families to get unborn babies
    fetuses counted as)

  12. Kytross says:

    Here’s CT Assault Weapon Ban:


    Notice that most of the weapons that are made illegal in subdivision 1 would not be banned by the criteria listed in subdivision 3. The people who wrote this obviously knew little to nothing about guns.

    This amazing piece of paper is what Joe Biden is proposing on a national scale. It can’t stop sociopaths from stealing guns and murdering family members and innocent children in CT.

    • canary says:

      Hypocritical is an understatement.

      It was Rahm Emanuel who told reporters the liberals were going to enforce every U.S. citizen to serve in the military in order to expand military all over the U.S. to protect it.

      So, are Rahm Emanuel’s children in the police protected University going to at least join the Reserves or National Guard?

      Most likely the Chicago Mayor also asked for more armed protection when the teachers boycotted and protested this year.

  13. Anonymoose says:

    Here is what Feinstein is going to introduce:


    Whether this is what Biden and his “commission” will use or something even worse who knows, but it’s the nightmare scenario I was dreading.

    The NFA registration is the real killer–it would require registering every AR-15, AK-47, MAK-90, FN-FAL, or any other semi-auto “military like” gun ever made as if it were a machine gun, and would include deliberate bans on thumbhole stocks and the like. I’ve been out of firearms for so long I admit I had to look up what a “bullet button” was. We’re talking numbers in the millions–last I heard the file the ATF had on NFA weapons was something like 70,000 guns.

    In a bit of weirdness it looks like flash hiders and bayonet mounts would be allowed this time. (?) So a Mini-14GB (police model also sold to the public) with a flash hider and bayonet lug is legal, but one with a folding stock is suddenly much more dangerous? Or maybe it’s just pre-emptively on the list.

    “Antique weapons” are allowed, but what does that mean? Pre-1898 as defined in the ’68 Gun Control Act? Or the Curo and Relic list the ATF uses? If it’s 1898 there are none, the Curio and Relics list would allow some things like M1 carbines–at least until someone uses one of those in a shooting.

    I see an exact return to the panicked environment of the 1990’s–people wondering if they’d go to jail over a pistol grip or a threaded barrel, and batches of guns suddenly getting “recalled” because of a new ruling. One I remember was a long barreled AK that had a bipod attached to what doubled as a bayonet mount and suddenly they were dreaded “assault weapons” that had to be gotten off the street. All of this amplified by a registration requirement and serious jail time if a mistake is ever made.

    And none of this means squat. It’s all about scary appearances–a pistol grip does nothing. Even with a folding stock a rifle still won’t fit in your pocket. Spree killers would just take the stock off. The only thing that has mattered marginally has been high capacity magazines and the ability to swap them out.

    But—–these high profile shootings have almost always been against unarmed crowds. People who aren’t shooting back, and are unlikely to rush the shooter to disarm him or her.

    I don’t know if a generic Mini-14 is on this list, if not it’s the same type as used in Norway. So instead of 30 round magazines the killer would use 10 rounds, and be just as deadly.

    An old SKS remains perfectly legal with it’s bayonet, and it can be reloaded fast with stripper clips.

    Older “battle rifles” that only took 10 round magazines–Hakim, Swiss AVB, etc. Also are still legal.

    A semi-auto handgun can be reloaded just as fast as before, and most of the larger calibers are only 10 or 12 rounds to begin with.

    Or they can do what the cowboys did with their revolvers and carry more than one.

    No one has made this combination to my knowledge but it sounds like a pump action AR-15 (I know someone made one under Ban One) with a permanently mounted 100 round drum magazine would be perfectly legal. Think someone couldn’t do a lot of damage with that? Go figure. Heck, a lever action rifle with a Calico/Bizon spiral tube magazine could also be made.

    And just like Ban One this will be a response that was shown ineffective in the 90’s. The people killed most often by guns will still be killed by the same things: revolvers, .22 rifles, cheap .9mm or .25 semi-autos, and old shotguns. The result will be a lot of turmoil; a legislative and a legal nightmare for almost no benefit. Well, they will make it such a minefield that many people will decide it’s safer not to bother with guns, which is probably the goal.

    And they won’t do a SINGLE THING about mental illness or keeping criminals off the street.

    I keep hoping Feinstein and her partner in legislation Schumer will finally decide they’ve done enough damage and retire, but like all Democrats they’ll keep on until old age stops them as it’s not about making a better country, it’s all about power and their egos.

  14. canary says:

    AP: NY woman hit with federal, state charges connected to guns used in firefighter ambush slayings

    Dec. 28, 2012

    WEBSTER, N.Y. –
    The neighbor, Dawn Nguyen of Rochester, was arrested Friday. She faces a federal charge of knowingly making a false statement for signing a form indicating she would be the legal owner of the guns, Hochul said.

    She also was charged with a state count of filing a falsified business record, State Police Senior Investigator James Newell said.

    He also had a .38-caliber revolver, but Nguyen is not connected to that gun, Newell said.

    He wounded two other firefighters and an off-duty police officer who was on his way to work.

    A Webster police officer who had accompanied the firefighters shot back at Spengler with a rifle in a brief exchange of gunfire before the gunman killed himself.

    They have said they believe the remains are those of his 67-year-old sister, Cheryl Spengler, who also lived in the house near Rochester and has been unaccounted for since the killings.

    In all, seven houses were destroyed by the flames.


    Remember that Jamaican on the New York subway that obtained a gun in California when he was not a US citizen but illegally obtained a fake drivers license and went back to NY and shot all those people on the subway.

    Remember that Austin college shooter from the clock tower with the brain tumor that shot his family and killed all those students.

    It was a couple of guys with deer rifles driving by that stopped and climbed the tower and shot and killed him as he had plenty of ammo left.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »