Biden on Gun Control

[MilitaryArms]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCWYuxo01lM[/ame]

 

[SmileDocHill]

I took his "as we've defined them up til now" statement as saying...
Well, once we get it passed that "assault weapons" are banned, we'll be able to just change the definition in the future to include the next type of weapon we want to go after. That way in the future we won't have to go through all this process of making new laws, but rather we'll just add the type of guns that qualify for it under the existing law.

 

[NastyNate]

Great video. Joe Biden might just help our cause if he keeps talking!

 

[BRILEY]

I still can't seem to wrap my head around how these two managed to get elected the first time around let alone AGAIN?

Hey full-auto, you had mentioned in a video once that the Fedarilst Papers directly addresses the Second Amendment and what it's intended purpose was, can you please refresh my memory? Something along the lines if; the People being equally armed to that if the Government?

 

[bluegrassrules]

We as responsable gun supporters need to stop letting the politicians create the impression that gun owners are all pro volience. We need to change the the preception of the debate, they we are pro choice, pro freedom, pro self protection...that we do not ask premission from the goverment to be safe. 50 to 80 million guns owners in America peacefully and responibly care for their gun every hour of every day.
Cheers

 

[BravoMike]

full-auto,

Thanks again for your continued activism and being a good voice of reason within the gun community.

I think that a limit on capacity of number of rounds held in a magazine is almost as bad as an AWB. It would limit those of us who have guns for protection and opens the door to further limiting magazine capacity (Example: NY & CT).

There is one thing I never hear in a pro-gun argument and that is the fact that a 10 round limit doesn't matter if no one is shooting back. Maybe I don't understand tactics that much, but to me it seems that if an active shooter is in the dominant position in a fight where no one is shooting back, they control the lulls in the fight. This means they can reload when they want to. In the case where it is a true gun fight, such as home defense or for those who carry, you may not get that option when fighting to save your life.

Do you think this is a legitimate argument to combat the argument that magazine capacity needs to be limited? I realize that the Tuscon shooting was stopped because he had to reload, but that is the only example I can thing of. He also was in the middle of the crowd (not only was he crazy, he was stupid) and people there were ready to fight back. Most of the time in such shootings, people flee or cower.

 

[pudly]

Another excellent video. You are doing a great service for the community. Thanks!

 

[TopDog]

Danger Will Robertson Danger...

The King and his muppets are changing strategy because they don't think they can get the AWB though. But they do think they could push a magazine ban though.

No, hell no, no compromise. Settle for no infringements. When you contact the Kings men make sure they know you want NONE of the AWB to pass. No infringements. As has been stated they want to take us down with a thousand paper cuts. I am sure Feinstein wrote the current proposed AWB so ridiculously all encompassing knowing not all of would get passed. But the Democrats can claim they are compromising by only passing certain parts.

Give no quarter, there goal is complete disarmament if they have to do it in baby steps, they will settle for that. We should settle for none of it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Give no quarter

It's about time someone on INGO started making sense.

 

[jgreiner]

Well done!!!!!!

 

[Mark 1911]

Great video. Joe Biden might just help our cause if he keeps talking!

I agree. The more these guys push their unconsitutional anti-2A agenda, the more it looks like it's going to blow up in their faces. Can't wait!