Biden Enjoys Armed Protection While Fighting to Disarm Americans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest

Biden Enjoys Armed Protection While Fighting to Disarm Americans​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

AP Photo/Nati Harnik

AWR HAWKINS

4 May 2020 Breitbart News

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden is enjoying the benefit of armed protection while campaigning on a platform of disarming his fellow Americans.

On March 17, 2020, Breitbart News reported Biden began receiving Secret Service protection. Not only does this mean he is surrounded by good guys 24 hours a day, but it also means he is protected with the very guns he is trying to take from average Americans.

For example, a source told Breitbart News the Secret Service will protect Biden with pistols, semiautomatic rifles–perhaps ARs and/or Sig Sauer MCX platform firearms–and that fully automatic firearms will most like be part of the equation too. The full-auto firearms often consist of submachine guns on a sling, which allows them to be carried out of sight under a jacket or coat.

Ironically, Biden is campaigning on banning the average man from owning rifles such as AR-15s, AK-47s, and Sig Sauer MCXs.

On August 6, 2019, Real Clear Politics posted video of CNN’s Anderson Cooper asking Biden, “So, to gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for guns?”

Biden answered, “Bingo. You’re right, if you have an ‘assault weapon.’ . . .

. . . But Biden is protected by the very weapons he says “should be illegal, period.” Moreover, he was protected by them during his eight years as vice president to Barack Obama. . .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

. . . Also, the Secret Service is using standard-sized magazines in their rifles, i.e., which means 30 rounds. But Biden is campaigning to ban average Americans from having “20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon.”

The bottom line–Biden lives behind layers of safety bolstered by guns that he says “should be illegal, period.” He is enjoying the benefits of those guns while working hard to be sure average Americans cannot own them.
Click to expand...
www.breitbart.com

Biden Enjoys Armed Protection While Fighting to Disarm Americans

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden is enjoying the benefit of armed protection while campaigning on a platform of disarming Americans.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
Last edited:
Biden should be protected by the same weapons that protect Trump.

But don’t be a “do as I say, not as I do” authority around this.

When politicians tell people they “should” do this or not do that, we should always be replying “you first!”

Don’t be telling us to disarm unless you’re willing to do so too.

Really maybe it’s about time people recognized that a lot of gun control consists of going after law abiding citizens because it’s racist to go after the inner city criminals who shoot each other at rates far beyond the rest of the country.
 
I cannot believe Biden and the risks he faces are being compared to the general public.
Even moreso for Trump by the way.
 
Last edited:
Zzyzx_Road said:
Really maybe it’s about time people recognized that a lot of gun control consists of going after law abiding citizens…
Click to expand...
There are plenty of examples of law-abiding citizens being inconvenienced and deprived of certain liberties. Just look at what has become of the airport security check points after 9/11. Law abiding citizens cannot retain the dignity of keeping their shoes and belt on during screening. Sure, it would be nice to inconvenience only those that are going to commit criminal acts and leave everybody else alone. But sometimes (as with airport security) is just not practical to do it. And so we as a society put up with these inconveniences in order to have a more peaceful society.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There are plenty of examples of law-abiding citizens being inconvenienced and deprived of certain liberties. Just look at what has become of the airport security check points after 9/11. Law abiding citizens cannot retain the dignity of keeping their shoes and belt on during screening. Sure, it would be nice to inconvenience only those that are going to commit criminal acts and leave everybody else alone. But sometimes (as with airport security) is just not practical to do it. And so we as a society put up with these inconveniences in order to have a more peaceful society.
Click to expand...
Very few examples of inner city shooters being inconvenienced and deprived of certain liberties when it comes to their arms.

This is the fundamental flaw, Leaf. Reams of arguments and laws made that when broken down, amount to more emphasis against law abiding citizens than against inner city shooters. We had this debate before and we found out how little is actually done with the inner city shooters due to lack of enforcement, lack of arrests and plea bargaining. Throw in the lack of economic development while we’re at it. So people such as yourself play the racially safe game, go regulate law abiding citizens while we pretend those inner city lives don’t merit coverage.
 
You are talking about enforcement against criminal conduct here. I was not. It may be true that laws should be enforced more against inner city crime. But that does not preclude the use of gun regulations in addition to any improvements in enforcement you might suggest. It is not a dichotomy. But you did not address the fact that similar things are done in airport security, where law-abiding people are inconvenienced.
 
Maximus1 said:
I cannot believe Biden and the risks he faces are being compared to the general public.
Even moreso for Trump by the way.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…Let’s say I lived in the south side of Chicago…the risks faced there everyday are greater than Biden or possibly Trump.
 
We’re not talking about airports Leaf, why do you keep going back to that?

Why does gun control exist to begin with? Because gun crime is too high? If that is the case that is being made, then one has to go where the crimes are happening in the largest numbers. If it is desired to do regulations on everyone else, fine, but the bang for the buck in truncating gun crime and gun deaths has always been the inner cities. But you among others keep moving the goalposts because you don’t want to go there.

Hence this has never been about inner city crime, it’s about the rest of us even though we don’t commit gun crimes in the numbers that occur in the inner cities.

Stop moving the goalposts.
 
Last edited:
Zzyzx_Road said:
We’re not talking about airports Leaf, why do you keep going back to that?
Click to expand...
Because you seem to think it is totally unacceptable to inconvenience law abiding citizens in an effort to stop the lawless. I am showing you that sometimes it is quite acceptable.
 
Bjorn1066 said:
I think all guns should be legal for all Americans. If you’re too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm you’re too dangerous to be out of prison.
Click to expand...
OK, where can I order a surface to air missile? Those pesky jets from O’Hare are too noisy.
 
Maximus1 . . . .
I cannot believe Biden and the risks he faces are being compared to the general public.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. If a single mom gets killed by her “ex”
ignoring his restraining order,
she is just as dead (or injured)
as politicians who were victimized by the bad guys.

She deserves her protection too.
 
Last edited:
It is true people are in more danger, but a president is more important to the nation than us
 
Maximus1 said:
It is true people are in more danger, but a president is more important to the nation than us
Click to expand...
But there is a win/win situation here: President’s body guards protect the president, and that law abiding citizen in south Chicago should get to protect their selves too.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Because you seem to think it is totally unacceptable to inconvenience law abiding citizens in an effort to stop the lawless. I am showing you that sometimes it is quite acceptable.
Click to expand...
Show me where I said that in bolded or take it back. I’ve never said no regulation, period. But I have questioned the degree of regulation and I am questioning the emphasis of that regulation.

My point that keeps being dodged by yourself and many others has been that there is far more emphasis on law abiding citizens than on the inner city shooters.

Stop moving the goalposts.
 
Maximus1 . . .
It is true people are in more danger, but a president is more important to the nation than us
Click to expand...
Part of the caste system the leftist media wants you to follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top