Biden Versus Multiple Round Magazines

| September 3, 2019

Blaming the gun, and not the actual variables related to someone committing a mass shooting. (r/The_Donald).

When a non-law-abiding individual decides to shoot multiple people, killing a few, the inevitable happens. Presidential candidates from a certain party call for ways to add restrictive rules related to weapons. Their followers flood social media with anti-Second Amendment posts.

A familiar Presidential candidate rolled out yet one more “brilliant” idea on how to deal with this. Joe Biden argues against the use of magazines that hold multiple rounds. One of his justifications is that such a regulation wouldn’t violate the Second Amendment.

From @NRA (Twitter):

Their solutions wouldn’t stop those with ill intent. Even in the Old Testament, consequences are prescribed for those who commit murder. Not much is said about restricting the murder weapon. Ancient civilizations had laws regarding murder.

Our own recent past shows that people who intend to commit murder will find a way to do so. Just ask the guy that used a vehicle as a murder weapon, or the other guy that utilized an improvised explosive device. Folks should be looking at the cause and intent, and not the tool used to carry that intent out.

You could read more here.

Category: Politics

Comments (65)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. MI Ranger says:

    The thing they first need to do, is ask: “Would what I am proposing have stopped the event that I am complaining about?” In 99.9999999995% of the time the answer is NO.
    If you get right down to it, abortion would solve more mass murder problems than gun regulation. (I am saying if abortion were legal then some of the people who kill people would not be born and suffer and grow up to commit crimes. I don’t have the actual statistics but it is something like 0.0000000004% of crimes would be prevented.)
    Here is an even more novel idea: How about we enforce the laws already on the books and help people with mental problems and social issues and we all learn to accept that other people opinions don’t affect us, but voting does!

    • Ret_25X says:

      If you are unaware that abortion is not only legal, but subsidized in all 50 states, territories and for illegal aliens, you might be a student at Berkeley….

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Never waste a crisis. The goal is to impose Progressive Orthodoxy, not “solve problem X”. The lack of Progressive Orthodoxy -is- the problem, from their point of view.

  2. The Other Ahitey says:

    Creepy Drunkle Joe can continue fucking himself into the dumpster of forgotten minor politicians. Meanwhile, my oldest daughter, who just started Kindergarten, announced this weekend that she wants to be the first girl on the Marine Silent Drill Platoon. She saw a YouTube video, noticed that they’re awesome as all hell, noticed that they carry M1 Garands like Daddy’s, and asked if I could teach her how to do that. I can certainly teach her to shoot, but twirling the rifle is beyond my skillset.

    Should that senile old fuck ever try to put his gropey hands on my little girl, she will know how to snap them right off, never mind that he’d have to get through me first.

  3. Roh-Dog says:

    Someone please tell Creepy Uncle Joe that there are no ‘clips’ in AR-style weapons. There are a few rollpins, a whole lotta springs and rings because Eugene Stoner was a genius.

    • I just inserted around 18 2 inch Office Depot paperclips into the mag well of my Springfield 9MM XDE SC but if I took my time, I maybe could have fit a few more in. So this means that a barbershop could only hold as many people in it that the Fire codes allow unless: Are you TAH Gals & Guys ready for this. The shop is a real “CLIP” Joint.

      P.S. For safety reasons, I cleared the paper “CLIPS” from the XDE.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I have CLIPS in my hair, except when I’m sleeping.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      You two…
      I’m laughing yet not necessarily happy about it.

  4. Sapper3307 says:

    And now I cannot buy “short barrel rifle ammo” at Walmart.
    #lenghthmatters
    I have been told.

    • Graybeard says:

      Walmart is being driven over the PC cliff by the current suits in Arkansas.

      No pistols or AR-looking rifles, no open carry where legal, but planning on stocking dildos on the aisles where children can see them.

      I’m gonna have to go back to the Mom-and-Pop stores for everything soon.

      • Twist says:

        The no pistols and no open carry in Walmart doesn’t apply to Alaska thank goodness. I’m pretty sure that they still sell ARs at the one here in Fairbanks, but I haven’t looked in a while.

      • Anonymous says:

        Folk I ran into at Walmart today (here in the middle of Oklahoma) expressed that they can shop elsewhere and sure don’t see a whole lot trendy liberal types dropping $$$ at Walmart anytime soon to make up for that… Just sayin’.

    • David says:

      I suspect that high pitched whine coming from Sam Walton’s grave is him turning at several thousand RPM.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      I saw this, supposedly it’ll apply to pistol ammo too.
      With ammo prices at an extreme low and all this crap going on, my ‘buy recommendation’ couldn’t get any stronger. YMMV.
      [look at precious metals too, jic the trade war/recession/fed monetary policy problem(s) get any worse(r)]

  5. 5th/77th FA says:

    “…Shall not be infringed!”

    It has never been about the control of gunz, it has ALWAYS been about the control of the people. This Republic has lasted as long as it has because the overpowering gubmint never completely controlled the people. The knowledge that millions of American would resist any attempts to subjugate us to their will made their progress to do so slower. Our studies over this past summer that VoV gave us on the “Bill of Rights” showed how the gubmint has chipped away at these rights by legislation. Why am I preaching to the choir?

    We will not speak of the examples thru out history of citizens oppressed by the gubmint when the possession of firearms was not allowed. We will not speak of the millions of armed Americans who help deter a foreign invasion. We will not speak of the NRA being an organization started by the Republican Members of the Grand Army of the Republic. Maybe that’s why the demon rats hate the NRA so bad?

    Can’t say it as eloquently a ChipNASA did on Friday’s WOT but phuque off creepy joe.

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      This is the right direction, in that it’s not about the weapons.

      The second amendment was not written about any weapon at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with any specific type of firearm at all. The second amendment was not written as a permission slip for the people. The second amendment was written as a restriction against government to limit government and prevent government from having any power at all over what kind of weapons the people might choose to own and possess. In keeping with the mindset of the framers the second amendment was written to keep government small, weak, and fearful of those it was trying to govern.

      Our fellow Americans are only too happy to continue to live in fear of their government and humbly ask permission from their government to wipe their asses . They’ve been trained to accept the idea that their government is their lord and master and that government solves all problems.

      That was never the intent of the framers. Government was never going to be big enough to do anything beyond defend the country and maintain some infrastructure in their view…

      I keep hoping my fellow Americans will come to that understanding but as I watch the current political drama unfold it occurs to me that my fellow Americans are more likely to be Good Germans than they are ever likely to once again become actual freedom loving, fiercely independent Americans relying on themselves for success or failure.

      • USMCMSgt (Ret) says:

        Adding to VOV’s comment:

        From a historical perspective, the types of rifles (and pistols for that matter) used by colonial forces and the British army were similar in size and caliber.

        The typical caliber of 18th century smoothbore rifles ranged from .45 to .60, with the exception of the Charleville musket that was .69.

        Some people make the argument that the Framer’s didn’t intend for Americans to have the same kinds of “arms” that the military used during the Revolutionary War. The 18th century of “arms” wasn’t specific to make, model or type. “Arms” were firearms that were common at the time and could be found within military arsenals. Those “arms” were the same ones that could be used for self-defense, hunting or competition. Those “arms” were the same ones privately owned by civilians – similar to the ones used by the British Army. Examples of such rifles include the “Brown Bess”, Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles, and the Charleville musket – which were all similar to the Ferguson rifle and other rifles used by the British. In other words, the “average” American fired a smoothbore rifle that was similar to the one used by his British counterpart. There is no distinction between “military style” and those reserved or designed specifically for “civilian” use.

        Some people argue that the Framer’s never anticipated how firearms would be improved over time and that military firearms weren’t intended for civilian use.

        That’s not true.

        People who lived in the 18th century would have witnessed the advancement of firearms that used a matchlock method of firing to flintlock. After the Revolutionary War, firearms continued to evolve and change. Eventually the rifled barrel would become part of almost every firearm in existence. Major advancements to firearms occurred during the 19th century with the introduction of the “Minie ball”, percussion caps and eventually the bullet cartridge – of which all those advancements were attributed to firearms used by armies and civilians alike.

        If someone is going to use the argument that the Framer’s didn’t anticipate the advancement in technology to arms in the Second Amendment, then they couldn’t have possibly anticipated the advancement in media technology as applied to the First Amendment.

        YMMV.

        • ArmyATC says:

          The Founders were aware of advances in firearms technology. They were proponents of fast-firing, multi-shot firearms such as the Puckle Gun, Superposed Shotgun, and Girandoni Air Rifle. Pres. Jefferson was so enamored of the latter he had the Lewis and Clark expedition outfitted with it.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          Some corrections:

          A musket is a smoothbore. Only a rifle has rifling.

          The primary musket of the British was the “Brown Bess” Land pattern Musket, and it was a .75 caliber arm.

          The typical smoothbore civilian arm was called a Fowler – intended for either shot or patched ball. Range was similar to military muskets, about 50-75 yards.

          Rifles were common in clinical use, and calibers ran fairly small, .32, .36, and .45 were common. Range was 200-300 yards, and double (or more) for an expert with a particularly fine weapon.

          Rifles are slow to load. 1-2 per minute, but have great range. Smoothbore have short range but load faster 3-4 per minute.

          Neither rifles nor fowlers typically had bayonets, nor did they have the strength to use them. Typically only a military musket had the fitting and strength to be equipped with a bayonet.

          many civilians had military muskets from militia service or prior war service, but the civilian arms were far more common.

          Rifles in military service during the Revolution were fairly rare, limited mostly to skirmishers and some specialist units.

          The rifle was hands-down considered the superior arm for all work except shoulder-to-shoulder combat, where the proper Musket and bayonet ruled.

          It is essential to understand that “well regulated” referred to the regulation of Militia, that is ensuring the Militia were as Regulars – professional soldiers. A well regulated militia is one armed, equipped, provisioned, and trained as Regulars.

          They wanted the civilian militia to have the same capabilities as Regulars. Consider what that meant. Every man was expected to bring with him a militarily suitable weapon, ammunition for a hard battle, provisions for the march, clothing and accouterments for filed service, and the trained skill set of an Infantryman.

          The modern equivalent would be a man with his own M-4 rifle (select fire capable) and sidearm, bayonet, basic load, clothing, LBE, ruck, boots, supplies, msc bits, and the willingness and ability to use it all.

          The Founders said what they meant, and meant what they said. Modern efforts by willing castratti to geld the idea of a Regularized Militia are of no truth nor value. And those efforts serve only a sinister purpose.

          • 5th/77th FA says:

            Spot on and well said 11B. You may have had a peek at VoV’s lesson plan for the upcoming class on the 2A.

            For a good example of a “Well Regulated Militia” see Switzerland. Or diaries and histories from Southern States before the War Between The States.

          • USMCMSgt (Ret) says:

            You’re right. I used the term rifle and musket interchangeably, which is incorrect. I agree in the distinction.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              Adding to the fun, a later period weapon was called a “rifled musket”, and it was.

              “Privateers” can be a whole ‘nuther fun thread.

  6. charles w says:

    By this logic I should be able to own a destroyer. The first ships in the American Navy were privately owned.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      False equivalence. But you knew that.

      The same old tired shibboleths are used to deny the unequivocal meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    • OldManchu says:

      By your logic, you shouldn’t freely comment on the internet. There was not an internet when the 1st Amendment was written.

      But we both know you aren’t trying to be logical. That’s just your cover.

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      If you could afford one why not? Who would be in danger if you did?

      I always wonder why people fail to understand what the second amendment actually is as opposed to what they want it to be.

      • Just Lurkin says:

        Suppose, after WWII, some super wealthy individual (one of the Gettys or Rockerfellers for instance) had purchased a surplus USN warship, maybe a cruiser. They could charge to take people on cruises and maybe have some sort of target range where they could fire the big guns and people could have some idea about what it might have been like to sail at Normandy or in the Pacific (minus the return fire). How cool would that be?!? I’d pay for that.

        More to the point, you’re exactly right about private nukes. Anyone who could purchase a private nuke already has the resources to cause all sorts of trouble, if they were so inclined. They could use that money to spread disease or send a drone over some sporting event carrying an aerosolized chemical weapon, just for example. There’s only so much that can be done to prevent an evil person from acting on that impulse. Frankly, I’d rather them do something high profile, like buy a nuke, so that people would be on watch, than try something more stealthy.

        • Just Lurkin says:

          Sorry, I somehow mixed this up with the standard shibboleth about “private nukes” that always gets thrown out. Still, the point stands.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            “Arms” often is taken to mean “point attack by a single man operator on a single man target”, although the evidence of the Revolution for privately owned Cannon early in the war kinda refutes that limit.

            Some rich men provided -cannon- to the war effort, and often units trained to use them.

            The cannon of the era was -not- a single-man weapon.

            • Just Lurkin says:

              For that matter the clause about “letters of marque” also speaks to privately held warships. Private artillery was still a thing up through the Civil War, as the Washington Artillery from New Orleans was part militia and part social club in the antebellum years. They formed as a legitimate military unit when the war came, but before that it was mostly a bunch of rich guys who liked cannons.

        • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

          Hell, one could buy a Warship and sell cruises off the coast of Somalia where they could shoot ALL the Pirates they want to!

        • MSG Eric says:

          Private citizens own a variety of tanks these days, whether for collections or not, how many of them are functional?

          It’s not impossible to consider the realities of that. I’m sure there are private owners of PT boats and those were pretty badass over the years too.

        • Twist says:

          In 1990 the Soviet Union traded a bunch of warships to Pepsi Co. For a very brief period of time Pepsi had the 6th largest military in the world.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      In case you’ve all forgotten, John Wayne bought himself a decommissioned wooden-hulled USNavy minesweeper, a YMS-1 class ship YMS-328 (1943–1948) decommed after WWII and sold to Harold Jones, the owner of Vancouver Tug and Barge and named La Beverie (1948–1956). When he died, Max Wyman bought the ship and renamed her Wild Goose II (1956–1962), then sold her to John Wayne, who renamed her Wild Goose (1962–present) and did a major renovation on her.

      So, following that logic, you could buy a decommissioned destroyer, turn it into a yacht, and sail the world’s oceans – if you have enough money to do so.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Actually, you can. Lots of warships on the secondary market. Normally sold/bought as scrap, but some nations buy their navy thusly.

        You could buy MIG-21s in the 90s. BATFE, the killjoys, required removing the guns and hard points. The FAA required removing the ejector seat.

        There are folks who collect working tanks. I once worked for someone who owned several fully operational tanks and at least one field gun. The cannons and MGs were properly papered with the BATFE. He only had solid shot for the cannons.

        I love this country!

  7. 2banana says:

    All gun control politicians should immediately have all their armed body guards permanently removed.

  8. Maybe the Military should go back to semi auto weapons so they would be equal with us civies. Wasn’t that the case back in 1776 although Flintlocks were used at the time.The deal was that if their were a standing army, the citizens would also would armed also so as to avoid another King James of England type of tyrant.

  9. Tucker Carlson’s Fox show had an anti 2A demorat on asking why we have to use an “assault rifle to go hunting. On every show I watch, Nobody explains the reason for the 2A Like I commented on the above comment. it seems like all these conservative pro 2A news peeps don’t know why the 2A was written.

    • Mason says:

      Because they know that the next line from the freedom-haters is “well nobody needs a tank or cannon to go hunting”. Nope, we need those for the same reason we need the rifles, to defend ourselves against tyrants. The 2nd Amendment never should have been encroached upon to restrict fully automatic rifles.

    • Anonymous says:

      ‘Merica, that’s why.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Obvious question, Jeff: Don’t people who go hunting usually use rifles suitable for the task, such as Winchesters loaded with birdshot for hunting quail, pheasant, or geese, or a larger load for hunting deer?

      No one’s out shooting elephants these days (except poachers) so no one has any use for an elephant-appropriate gun.

      I may have to go over to the shooting range and talk to the guys who run it. I’m having difficulty understanding the mindless psychobabble coming out of the lefterds about all of this.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Whaaaaaaat?

        People hunt with all sorts of things. Shotguns generally for birds, but some folks take deer with shotguns loaded with slugs, or buckshot.

        Rifles are used for most ground-dwelling stuff, but again shotguns for the same stuff and sometimes bigger stuff.

        Handgun hunting is a thing, also. More challenging that using a rifle.

        “Winchester” is a brand. They made both shotguns and rifles.

        • Fyrfighter says:

          And it’s possible to still hunt elephants in some areas.. expensive as hell, and I don’t believe you can bring back the ivory anymore, but Big Game safari’s do still exist. Fees from this are largely used to fund anti-poaching efforts in those areas..

  10. OWB says:

    Well, creepy Uncle Joe, here’s the easy answer for ya:

    If you don’t want one, noone is forcing yu to have one. OK? Meanwhile, you and your ilk seem to think that you can force the rest of us to buy stuff even when we neither want nor need it. That might just be the biggest difference between you and yours and me and mine.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      But they KNOW what is best for US!
      Just do what you’re told, pay your taxes like a good citizen and no one gets hurt.

      Biden for Party Chairperson 2020!

    • rgr769 says:

      I have an idea. Since creepy ol’ Unka Joe thinks no one needs a gun with a magazine holding more than one round, he should order his armed guards limited to only one-round magazines.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I think maybe those 18th century ball & powder pistols might be even better. More visible and they need only one round to do the job.

        • rgr769 says:

          I suspect you are referring to a muzzle-loading flintlock pistol. And yes they are single shot, and the ones who don’t have rifled barrels are notoriously inaccurate. They are also likely to misfire from damp powder in the flash pan. They are where the old saying, “keep your powder dry” and “flash in the pan” come from. So, if Unka Joe wants something as ineffective as firing a shotgun blast into the air, then yes they would fill the bill.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            Good bores and a tight patch can do wonders with those flintlocks.

            My .60 caliber pistol and pair of .45 Deuling guns will easily hit a paper plate reliably at 25m, properly loaded. More than enough.

            What? Doesn’t every proper gentleman have pair of Dueling Pistols?

  11. OldManchu says:

    Joe “shotgun blast in the air” Biden. I love it when he tells us his ideas.

  12. MSG Eric says:

    Large Capacity Magazines? I know the answer! “Things that are smarter than Joe Biden…”

  13. USMCMSgt (Ret) says:

    Should ammunition be difficult to find, check out this website that uses an algorithm to capture a good number of online ammunition dealers and sorts the caliber by price, quantity and availability. It takes a little bit to figure out but once you get the hang of it, it’s pretty simple and straightforward: http://www.gunbot.net

    • OldManchu says:

      ” It takes a little bit to figure out but once you get the hang of it, it’s pretty simple and straightforward….”

      Statement made by most Marines when learning to play rock paper scissors. 🙂

    • 26Limabeans says:

      Back before the boating accident I bought all
      my ammo from these people:

      https://www.sgammo.com/

      Everytime the politicians open their yaps
      they get flooded with orders.

  14. FuzeVT says:

    If politicians wanted to stop murders, they should just pass a law against it! Apparently, that’s all you have to do to stop something, right?

    As for me, I’ll take my chances with my personal weaponry and little box thingies with multiple bullets in them.

  15. Thunderstixx says:

    The clowns on the left are now pushing a poll which says that enhanced background checks are agreed to by 89% of the American public…..
    I would love to see the questions on that because what they always do is ask that simple question and put down that answer, it’s when they get into the nuts and bolts of the background checks that it falls rapidly to about 40% along with all the rest of the restrictions on firearms.
    They are fashioning these polls to dishearten conservatives and suppress the vote of us coming up to the election.
    Bret Baier, one newscaster that I continually enjoy watching has been part of the push to put gun control on the agenda, which really sucks. He’s right down the middle and always knowledgeable about the subjects he discusses.
    So the biggest thing to remember is that more and more people are buying guns and the corresponding crime rate continues to fall…
    Only one of the talking heads on “Special Report” last night brought up that the same number wounded were higher in shitcago over the weekend and the same number killed as in the Odessa Midland shooting.
    That death toll was 7.
    That guy was a scumbag asswipe and had no business being out of prison….
    Ever………

  16. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    Because the next step after “you can only have what is needed for hunting” is “Buy your groceries at the store. No one needs to hunt.”

    The Second Amendment is not about Ducks and Deer.

  17. Templar1312 says:

    It’s not only a certain party anymore. Eventually the ‘conservatives’ will cave. All of these empty threats of boycott are just that empty. Bubba isn’t going to boycott The Walmarts for any reason. Access to cheap goods, cheap beer (or booze also, depending on where you live), and cheap tobacco will keep them going.