Joe Biden: No One Needs a ‘Magazine with 100 Clips in It’

[mikeyp]

And you can only use 3 shotgun shells when you hunt for geese?

Joe Biden: No One Needs a 'Magazine with 100 Clips in It'

During a New Hampshire, campaign stop Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden criticized the ownership of magazines that hold "100 clips."

www.breitbart.com

During a Concord, New Hampshire, campaign stop Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden criticized the ownership of magazines that hold “100 clips.”
Ironically, leftists often refer to ammunition feeding devices as “clips” instead of magazines, but Biden used the word “clips” in place of bullets. He realized his mistake and corrected himself.
CSPAN published video from the campaign stop, where Biden said, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but nobody says you can have a magazine with 100 clips in it.” He quickly added, “100 bullets in it.”


View: https://twitter.com/Jamierodr14/status/1193636683641708545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1193636683641708545&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2F11%2F10%2Fjoe-biden-no-one-needs-magazine-100-clips-it%2F


On November 5, Breitbart News reported Biden’s demand that the U.S. Senate vote on Democrat gun control.

On October 29, Breitbart News reported Biden’s plan that AR-15 and “high capacity” magazine owners either surrender their rifles and feeding devices to law enforcement, or register them with the government.

On October 5, Breitbart News reported that Biden wants people to be able to sue firearm manufacturers for crimes committed with their products. The manufacturers of firearms that are legally made and sold are currently protected from frivolous suits via the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005). Biden said, “No other outfit in history has gotten this kind of protection,” and he claimed the suits would result in “change overnight,” if he were elected president.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at [email protected]. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

 

[Jbarila]

 

[jct61765]

Anyone that deals with the elderly can see he's going senile. Instead of letting him just fade away, the dems are making him look bad.

 

[not new guy]

He's not wrong about needing 100 clips in a magazine.

 

[Dennis in MA]

He’s Mel Tillis!

 

[Prepper]

So if a magazine holds 30 clips, and a clip holds 10 cartridges, that is 300 total. Nice.

 

[Obie1]

 

[KVX]

 

[Warm_Garand]

Sorry, guys--I've got to go with Shit-bucket Joe on this one.

They should be banned by name.

Nobody needs a hundred clip magazine, and only crazy people would want one.

Besides, they'd be WAY better served with a belt-fed.

 

[Varmint]

Please, please, please win the primary!

 

[chrbla2000]

The problem is that the people who he 'reaches' don't know any better either.

 

[greencobra]

Instead of letting him just fade away, the dems are making him look bad.

cause he ain't fading fast enough, he needs a nudge.

 

[Sniper (+)]

And no one needs a president who cant break 100 on an IQ test.

 

[beaker]

Are they high capacity clips? Would 100 low capacity clips be better or worse? Can they be made more deadly by a shoulder thing that goes up? Very troubling indeed

 

[Dadstoys]

None of this stuff is hard to learn or grasp.
Why say stupid stuff that people with any basic knowledge can pick apart ?
Unless of course you are in fact stupid.
I which case , carry on Joe.
Now excuse me while I go outside and fire two blasts into the air.

 

[grey]

None of this stuff is hard to learn or grasp.
Why say stupid stuff that people with any basic knowledge can pick apart ?
Unless of course you are in fact stupid.
I which case , carry on Joe.
Now excuse me while I go outside and fire two blasts into the air.

At this point I think it's a form of virtue signaling. It seems to be intentional. You would figure so-called journalists, politicians etc would put in some time to educate themselves on the subject they wish to abolish just so they wouldn't be making obvious mistakes and to and sound intelligent.

 

[Squire]

"No one needs..."

If enough people agree that no one needs something, then the Constitutional Amendment required to allow the US Government to infringe upon the People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms can pass.

 

[Squire]

At this point I think it's a form of virtue signaling. It seems to be intentional. You would figure so-called journalists, politicians etc would put in some time to educate themselves on the subject they wish to abolish just so they wouldn't be making obvious mistakes and to and sound intelligent.

I think you are right, as the response when they are technically corrected is "What does it matter, it's for the children, who cares about the technical details just ban it."

 

[LoginName]

cause he ain't fading fast enough, he needs a nudge.

What we laugh at and mock, Bloomberg sees as a weak spot and opportunity.

This is the kind of shit he's referring to when he says the current crop of dem candidates don't have what it takes.

 

[grey]

I think you are right, as the response when they are technically corrected is "What does it matter, it's for the children, who cares about the technical details just ban it."

Kind of. I actually think that even if they do know the facts, they dumb it down and say something completely false. Who are you to correct them, some kind of gun nut or something?

 

[PATRON]

You see him fumbling is words,the dirt nap is strong in this one.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Anyone that deals with the elderly can see he's going senile. Instead of letting him just fade away, the dems are making him look bad.

He’s been done for awhile. If there’s anything surprising it’s that it has taken so long for most political pundits to recognize this.

 

[ToddDubya]

Has it already been suggested that he's only running as cover for Ukraine? As soon as Trump's phone call with their president came up the response was "He's trying to get Ukraine to influence an election". With someone dirty still in the race, Trump has to tread lightly. Well, lightly for him anyway. If Biden is out of the race, Hillary, Oblabla, and I'm sure others suddenly have no cover aside from the media.

 

[99105]

So if a magazine holds 30 clips, and a clip holds 10 cartridges, that is 300 total. Nice.

Only if you have a subscription for the magazine

 

[Picton]

Please, please, please win the primary!

Your mouth to God's ears.

 

[Dench]

Your mouth to God's ears.

I suspect it's going to be Warren.

I think that Biden might actually have the best chance of winning out of all the people who the (D) establishment are letting get big. Sanders would have little appeal to undecideds over Biden, whos super safe vanilla democrat man. Sanders is some scary loud guy shouting about free shit. Warren comes off a lot like Hillary, although less fake, still full of crazy ideas. I think her problem with the middle is going to be the ultra expensive proposals that are all dead on arrival anyway.

This is the 2nd election in a row for the (D)'s to give the victory away. I never would of thought 2 years ago that the current line up of (D) candidates would be this unappealing to undecided voters. They are insane.

 

[Picton]

I suspect it's going to be Warren.

I think that Biden might actually have the best chance of winning out of all the people who the (D) establishment are letting get big. Sanders would have little appeal to undecideds over Biden, whos super safe vanilla democrat man. Sanders is some scary loud guy shouting about free shit. Warren comes off a lot like Hillary, although less fake, still full of crazy ideas. I think her problem with the middle is going to be the ultra expensive proposals that are all dead on arrival anyway.

This is the 2nd election in a row for the (D)'s to give the victory away. I never would of thought 2 years ago that the current line up of (D) candidates would be this unappealing to undecided voters. They are insane.

Warren's just as good.

I never thought I'd see a more beatable Republican than Bush in '04, and the idiots ran... John Kerry. I thought I'd seen it all.

Nope. 2016 was a "hold my beer" moment for the Democrats, and 2020 looks like another one so far. Amazing.

 

[TC McQuade]

 

[Dench]

Warren's just as good.

I never thought I'd see a more beatable Republican than Bush in '04, and the idiots ran... John Kerry. I thought I'd seen it all.

Nope. 2016 was a "hold my beer" moment for the Democrats, and 2020 looks like another one so far. Amazing.

The D's don't know who they need to market to. This time around, for god only knows why the strategy out of the gate was to out woke each other with insane shit. Transexual abortions, things like that. Things that are so out of any mainstream discussion that when I heard it I thought I had misheard it, and then I thought it was a gag. And then I said "oh..."

If I had to guess it was because Sanders got F'd hard by Clinton in 2016. And the D's are trying to capture that angry energy from the Bernie crowd. So instead of having 1 Bernie we have like 4-5 on the stage.

They did a massive amount of damage though in my opinion via this experiment. People like beto went completely off the rails with things like mandatory buy backs. And as a person who unfortunately uses reddit, gun owners get straight up laughed at for having fear of losing guns. And then here comes beto like the hero he is saying what all of us have been fearing. But that's not the kicker. If the D's were paying attention they would of denounced him. But they didnt. At best they said nothing. And at worst they supported him. So that cats out of the bag for good. Because now us paranoid gun freaks have had our fears confirmed - which is a large amount of D's have no problem with mandatory gun buy backs. Just most of them are smart enough not to blurt that shit out.

I honestly don't even know why they talk about guns. If the D's could just shut the f*** up about guns for one election cycle they would win. But instead they just ramble on. Their partisan base is going to support them no matter what, so saying they hate guns gains zero votes. But saying you hate guns loses a shit ton of undecided votes.

In this day in age of focus groups and fake as can be political personas you'd figure they'd figure this out.

Shit, i might of said to much

 

[99105]

Only if you have a subscription for the magazine

Some magazine subscriptions have full-automatic annual renewal.
Terrifying.