MaverickNH
NES Member
Joe Biden: AR-15 Used to Stop Texas Church Massacre Should Not Be Allowed
"On Today, audience member Brianna asked, “How do you justify the Democrat view on gun control when the shooter was stopped by a man who was legally licensed to carry a gun?”
Biden replied, “Well, first of all, the kind of gun being carried he shouldn’t be carrying.”
Knowing Biden's AWB background and other statements, it's not sure if he meant:
1. While the good guy with a gun responded with a positive outcome using a gun, if AR15s were banned, he shouldn't have responded with an AR15.
2. The shooter shouldn't have had an AR15 as he was a prohibited person.
3. The shooter shouldn't have had an AR15 if AR15s were banned - he shouldn't have had one.
The 2nd/3rd assume that background checks really work or gun bans really work, both of which as pretty much false. Criminals shouldn't break laws - but they persist in being criminals. As best, after 20, 30, 40 years of a AWB/semiauto-ban only criminals would have Russian/Chinese AKs from the Black Market after civilian-hoarded ARs slowly dry up and disappear from civilian ownership. We'll make the Black Market doubly-illegal, for sure, to no useful end.
The 1st is probably true - if there was another "Assault Weapons Ban" the responder, being an honest, law-abiding citizen, probably would *not* have had an AR15. Anyone would think twice before rushing into a situation like this one. Only someone with loved ones there or someone really, really brave would rush a shooter with an AR15 and body armor with a revolver or bolt-action deer rifle - pretty much all that would be legal after "Military-Style Assault Weapons of War" are conflated with semiautomatic firearms and "high capacity magazine" and banned. When seconds count, we would have to wait minutes for police to come, set up cordons, call over bullhorns for the shooter to surrender - as everyone dies.
"On Today, audience member Brianna asked, “How do you justify the Democrat view on gun control when the shooter was stopped by a man who was legally licensed to carry a gun?”
Biden replied, “Well, first of all, the kind of gun being carried he shouldn’t be carrying.”
Knowing Biden's AWB background and other statements, it's not sure if he meant:
1. While the good guy with a gun responded with a positive outcome using a gun, if AR15s were banned, he shouldn't have responded with an AR15.
2. The shooter shouldn't have had an AR15 as he was a prohibited person.
3. The shooter shouldn't have had an AR15 if AR15s were banned - he shouldn't have had one.
The 2nd/3rd assume that background checks really work or gun bans really work, both of which as pretty much false. Criminals shouldn't break laws - but they persist in being criminals. As best, after 20, 30, 40 years of a AWB/semiauto-ban only criminals would have Russian/Chinese AKs from the Black Market after civilian-hoarded ARs slowly dry up and disappear from civilian ownership. We'll make the Black Market doubly-illegal, for sure, to no useful end.
The 1st is probably true - if there was another "Assault Weapons Ban" the responder, being an honest, law-abiding citizen, probably would *not* have had an AR15. Anyone would think twice before rushing into a situation like this one. Only someone with loved ones there or someone really, really brave would rush a shooter with an AR15 and body armor with a revolver or bolt-action deer rifle - pretty much all that would be legal after "Military-Style Assault Weapons of War" are conflated with semiautomatic firearms and "high capacity magazine" and banned. When seconds count, we would have to wait minutes for police to come, set up cordons, call over bullhorns for the shooter to surrender - as everyone dies.
Last edited:
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
