Joe Biden: Ban ‘Civilian Ownership’ Of ‘Assault Weapons’

Breitbart – by AWR Hawkins

Vice President Joe Biden called Friday for a ban on “civilian ownership” of “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines.

He called for the ban after a WhiteHouse.gov petition for an “assault weapons” ban garnered more than 185,000 signatures. And that sounds like a lot of signatures, but it is a small proportion of the population of the United States, now 320,000,000.  

According to ABC News, “Biden says Congress should renew the expired assault weapons ban.”

Biden also said Congress should expand background checks to cover all sales–private and retail.

He did not mention that the Orlando attacker bought his guns at retail, also passed a background check to acquire them, and also submitted to a waiting period for a handgun before taking it home.

Biden also wants a ban on “high capacity” magazines and he wants persons “terror watch lists” to be barred from buying guns, although many of those people have never been convicted of a crime.

Breitbart News previously reported that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is pushing for a watch list comprised of persons who used to be on watch lists. They, too, would be banned from purchasing guns.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/17/joe-biden-ban-civilian-ownership-assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines/

15 thoughts on “Joe Biden: Ban ‘Civilian Ownership’ Of ‘Assault Weapons’

  1. “Biden says Congress should renew the expired assault weapons ban.”
    “Biden also wants a ban on “high capacity” magazines…”

    No problemo, Joe.

    Come and get them.

    “He called for the ban after a WhiteHouse.gov petition for an “assault weapons” ban garnered more than 185,000 signatures. And that sounds like a lot of signatures, but it is a small proportion of the population of the United States, now 320,000,000.”

    319,999,999 could sign it and it STILL doesn’t affect anyone’s UNALIENABLE right.

    1. Yup…it will be a great day when these weak bellied homo authoritarians order enforcement of their politician scribbles….

      Ban everything, force the majority population to accept this transgender crap etc..now try to enforce it….

      they will be crowned in history as the instigators of the American Revolution part two…

      Stupid disgusting human vial filth… And that’s just their handlers, these meat puppets like Biden et al…are less than maggots…

        1. I Know right…! I’m always like, why can’t we all just get along….

          at 50, I like many have had it up to the gills with all the tyranny we can stand…the sooner these pukes try it the better…we ain’t no Australians….!

      1. “Stupid disgusting human vial filth… And that’s just their handlers, these meat puppets like Biden et al…are less than maggots…”

        Unchallenged.

  2. It’s about time that an English lesson be given to government employees, especially the elected ones.

    “Keep and bear arms.”
    “Keep” does not imply – and is only inferred by nitwits who willingly give up their rights – “keeping” them in one’s home, to be used only in case of a home invasion.
    “bear” – the relative definition from //gmerriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear is ” to carry or possess arms”. It certainly isn’t logical that the Founding Fathers meant this as “to carry arms in your dwelling, not to be taken outside, but only to protect yourself in your home.”

    “infringe”
    From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
    “to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s rights)”
    And yet, this is the primary purpose of “gun control.” Control – by restricting – rights is what they want, not “safety” by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

  3. Don’t like us having these weapons, Joe? Then come take them from us, you totalitarian punk. Send out your mindless goons. Let’s see if they’re as willing to risk death for a paycheck as some of us are willing to die for what we believe in.

    On that note, the commenters at Breitbart who are parroting those tired lines about “boating accidents” need to pull their heads out of their asses. Those who fail to resist mass confiscation AS IT HAPPENS are pathetic cowards who will only make things harder on those who have the balls to resist.

    1. When Andrew was murdered, Breitbart ‘got the message’ from Obama that ‘reporting’ was no longer tolerated, and only ‘parroting’ would be tolerated, as far as pertaining to the US government and it’s policies.

  4. Great thing about America is that everyone can have an Opinion, and having an unpopular opinion is Constitutional Protected in the eyes of people that believe in that document.

    But having an Opinion that is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution AND having a high executive office that has as function description defending the Letter, the Meaning and the Spirit of the Constitution..

    Why did that Fncker even run?
    Or does he think that Future generations of Americans should have less Rights then present or past generations, and if he did, didn’t he lie when he applied for the job?

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.


*