Biden in 2008: Obama ain’t taking your guns; Biden in 2012…Out to take your guns.


Is there a campaign promise that Obama hasn’t broken yet?


Joe Biden circa 2008:

“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey. Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you. I got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it. So give me a break. Give me a break.”

Yup, why would we worry about something like that?

President Obama on Wednesday tapped Vice President Biden to lead an administration-wide effort looking at gun control and other measures in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting last week.

…The move marks the first concrete step by the White House toward crafting new firearms restrictions. The president did not announce any major policy decisions on Wednesday, but said the task force of Cabinet officials and outside organizations led by Biden would submit legislative proposals to him no later than January.

…The president said Wednesday that he chose Biden to lead the task force in part because of his role in crafting the 1994 assault-weapons ban. Obama spoke favorably of the ban, as well as proposals to strengthen background checks and ban high-capacity magazines.

And rest assured, the gun control loons are out to get your guns:

Gun-control advocates, seeking new laws in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting, are drawing support from an unlikely source: the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 decision backing the right to bear arms.

That ruling marked the court’s first declaration that the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals. At the same time, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion said the government could impose restrictions, such as bans on gun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill.

…“The Second Amendment doesn’t impose any significant barriers to any of the major reforms being talked about,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and the author of a book on gun rights. “The Supreme Court made clear in the Heller case that there’s plenty of room for gun control under the Second Amendment.”

Ban all you want. The criminals that do these crimes are not getting these guns legally. So banning won’t do a damn thing. Keeping people who are capable of these kind of massacres locked up will. Allowing law abiding citizens to carry weapons to protect themselves and others will.

That’s how you prevent a Sandy Hook from happening.

Taking guns from the citizens of the United States won’t.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


You are trying, like most left wing crazies, to compare apples and oranges.

Show me where the auto industry has ever been sued because some crazy person climbed behind the steering wheel of their product and mowed down an innocent pedestrian or killed someone in a fatal car crash.

If a car is deemed dangerous, it has everything to do with machanics, not use. The auto industry has been sued for building a faulty product that caused crashes due to no fault of the operator.

I own two WWII issue rifles, Tom. In all those years, since they were first used on Normandy Beach, not once have they fired under their own power. If those guns are so dangerous, can you explain why they aren’t going off, at least every now and then, although locked up in a gun safe?

Oh, wait, it takes human action to fire them, just like it takes human action to drive a Corvette at high rates of speed. I don’t see you blaming Government Motors for building a car that can kill.

The policy that Tom, and his fellow travelers support:

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.


Am I cynical or you naive?

I’d like to think that when it comes to things involving a right I hold the highest, that I’m hardly naive, Tom.

Who does fund the NRA? While I don’t doubt that gun manufacturers make up a sizable amount of the donations to the NRA, they also get their funding from the various individual donations and membership fees, on an annual basis. Should a gun manufacturer be denied the ability to donate funds to an organization that protects their livelihood? I don’t believe so, Tom, and I doubt that you believe that either.

The question isn’t the funding, but the direction that funding pushes the organization towards. I haven’t seen any evidence that the NRA puts the larger donors, likely made up of gun manufacturers, ahead of the common NRA member, in defense of the Second Amendment. Now, you might claim that since they don’t support what you believe is “sensible” gun control legislation, that it is evident they are in the back pocket of the gun manufacturers, but that is purely speculation on your part.

So, I’d say that your comment was cynical, Tom. But that’s my opinion, of course.

Anyways, have a safe trip. We had snow in Indiana last nite and I crunched the side of my truck against a guardrail this morning on my way home. At least I wasn’t on the highway yet, where more cars could have piled into me.

Just to add to the discussion of high-capacity magazines:

After the 1993 ban on high-capacity magazines, a NY politician stated that he was ordering 10-round magazines for his police officers. The head of the union representing police officers immediately issued a statement that such action would not be allowed because it would put his members at risk. The answer to the question: “Does anyone need magazines that have more than ten rounds?” The answer is, YES. Police officers, people who can be considered experts in the use of deadly force, routinely say that they need them to survive. After-action reports tend to back this up as shootings frequently require multiple hits to stop an opponent, and there are frequently multiple opponents. If they need them, how can you justify taking them away from private citizens, who have to stand alone against violent offenders until the police arrive? (On average, this takes 5-10 minutes. At Sandy Hook, it took 20.) Do you believe that a violent offenders who will attack a police officer will not attack a citizen?

Would a ban on high capacity help? I don’t think so because reloading is too fast and too easy. Also, the shooter frequently brings another gun. I only know of two cases where a crowd rushed a shooter at a mass killing. One was due to jammed weapon, and the other was the Long Island Railway shooter, where bystanders acted out of desperation, and the shooter didn’t maintain distance, giving them an opportunity. Besides, we’re talking about making schools safer. It’s a bit much to ask elementary school kids to rush someone who is killing their teacher and friends.

And finally, a magazine ban simply doesn’t work. A magazine is a box with a spring in it. The most complex part is the top that feeds into the action and locks in the handle. I can take two 10-round plastic magazines, cut off the top of one, cut off the bottom of the other, and glue the ends together. I’ll need more spring tension, but I can buy a spring at the hardware or piggy-back the two springs together. Either works. Without any skill or any tools more complex than a saw, I can modify the two 10-round magazines into a 18-to-20-round magazine. And I can test it in my domicile until I get it just right. Of course, if high-capacity magazines are banned, it will be illegal, but so is mass murder.


This is the most sense you’ve written in a long time. Point taken, and you’re right. Though, I’d still enjoy the Johnny Cash giving me the finger pic.

@Richard Wheeler:

Exactly my observations. Thankfully our most recent elections kept these people from taking over. Hopefully, we can keep it this way for a very long time. Ironic how they are NOW calling for better treatment for mental health, but still want to kill Obamacare, which does exactly that. Unreal.

How anyone could NOT get emotional after what happened is baffling to me. Emotion is not mutually exclusive from ration or intellect, nor is it a defect. My emotions are why it is so important to think this issue through. Tom and Larry have covered the indisputable facts, I’m done. A post from one of you people honoring the victims was too much to hope for before whining about taking away your guns, something not actually being called for. And you berate me for having feelings after seeing the faces of 20 beautiful children, knowing that each of them had from three to eleven bullets pumped into them. I’ll spare you my rant on the recent statement from the NRA. Shameful.