Gun Control

Joe Biden Learns To Love Gun Control by Presidential Fiat

The president's unilateral restrictions are legally dubious and unlikely to "save lives."


During a 2019 presidential debate, Joe Biden scolded Kamala Harris, then his opponent for the Democratic nomination, for promising to impose gun control by executive fiat instead of through legislation. "Let's be constitutional!" he said. "We've got a Constitution."

Today President Biden and Vice President Harris, frustrated by the legislative branch's failure to approve the new firearm restrictions they favor, announced "six initial actions to address the gun violence public health epidemic." All of these actions, they say, will "save lives" and are "fully within the Administration's authority and the Second Amendment." There are sound reasons to question all three of those claims.

One of Biden's "six initial actions" is the nomination of gun control activist David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which understandably alarms gun rights supporters but is subject to approval by the Senate. Biden also touts a "$5 billion investment over eight years to support community violence intervention programs," which is part of his American Jobs Plan and likewise requires congressional approval. And he wants the Justice Department to produce an annual report on "firearms trafficking."

The other three "initial actions" are legally dubious, and it seems unlikely that any of them will in fact "save lives."

Pistol Arm Braces

Within 60 days, Biden says, the Justice Department will issue a proposed rule to "make clear" that the addition of a stabilizing brace "effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act." That means anyone who owns a pistol with a stabilizing brace, such as the Ruger AR-556 reportedly used by the perpetrator of last month's mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado, would have to register it with the ATF and pay a $200 tax. Gun Owners of America warns that the new policy "is certain to result in the confiscation, destruction or coerced registration of millions of pistol AR-15s and other legally purchased pistols."

Do such pistols actually qualify as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA)? The ATF has repeatedly said they do not.

The NFA defines a rifle as "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder." In 2017, the ATF reaffirmed that "stabilizing braces are perfectly legal accessories for large handguns or pistols," although an accessory "employed as a shoulder stock" would make any firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches long "an unregistered NFA firearm."

Biden is telling the ATF (which is part of the Justice Department) to reverse that position, meaning that any stabilizing brace would qualify as a shoulder stock, even if the pistol to which it is attached is not "intended to be fired from the shoulder." That seems inconsistent with the statutory definition, although not quite as inconsistent as the Trump administration's arbitrary determination that rifles equipped with bump stocks qualify as machine guns.

Why does Biden want the ATF to reinterpret the NFA in this way? Because pistol arm braces "can make a firearm more stable and accurate while still being concealable." That improvement in stability and accuracy, he believes, makes such weapons especially appealing to mass shooters.

Never mind that mass shooters actually favor ordinary handguns, or that mass shootings account for less than 1 percent of gun homicides, or that the absence of stabilizing braces, like the absence of the "military-style" features targeted by the proposed federal "assault weapon" ban that Biden supports, cannot reasonably be expected to have any noticeable impact on the frequency or lethality of such crimes. For Biden, the fact that the Boulder shooter used a pistol with a stabilizing brace is enough to make such accessories intolerable.

Gun Kits

Within 30 days, Biden says, the Justice Department "will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of 'ghost guns.'" He is referring to "kits containing nearly all of the components and directions for finishing a firearm within as little as 30 minutes and using these firearms to commit crimes." Mark McDaniel explained how that works—and why it is perfectly legal—in a 2018 Reason tutorial.

Restricting or banning "80 percent" gun kits without new legislation would require some more creative reinterpretation of federal law, changing the definition of firearm to include parts that currently do not qualify. "I want to see these kits treated as firearms," Biden says.

What is the point of this exercise in executive-branch lawmaking? "When these firearms turn up at crime scenes," Biden says, "they often cannot be traced by law enforcement due to the lack of a serial number." He does not say how often that happens, or explain the chain of logic between forcing criminals to use guns with serial numbers and preventing them from killing people in the first place. Presumably the idea is that eliminating the option of homemade guns would raise homicide clearance rates enough to enhance deterrence and "save lives."

Whether or not you buy that, eliminating the option of homemade guns is simply not possible. As J.D. Tuccille notes, "The problem with imposing legal restrictions intended to stop a practice that is designed to evade legal restrictions is that you were outflanked before you even started."

If the Biden administration actually succeeded in unilaterally restricting or banning 80 percent kits, hobbyists might have to take a few more steps or invest in a 3D printer. But there is no practical way to prevent them from making their own guns if they are determined to do so. As Tuccille puts it, "Placing tighter restrictions on 80 percent receivers or other precursor parts for firearms is equivalent to the old Soviet regime trying to shut down the samizdat underground press by regulating copiers; it was an inconvenience, but the publishing network worked around the restrictions."

'Red Flag' Laws

"Within 60 days," Biden says, the Justice Department "will publish model 'red flag' legislation for states." Such laws are plagued by due process deficiencies and often strip people of their Second Amendment rights based on little more than bare allegations that they pose a threat to themselves or others.

Perhaps Biden's model legislation will address that problem by recommending robust safeguards for gun owners who might be wrongly deemed dangerous. But I am not optimistic, since he wants to let "family members" as well as "law enforcement" petition courts for gun confiscation orders. That policy eliminates a layer of protection by letting a long list of possibly biased or aggrieved relatives file petitions directly without having their complaints vetted by police or prosecutors.

Biden tries to preempt criticism of his plans by redundantly asserting that he is responding to a "gun violence public health epidemic." Violent crime, he says, "is actually a public health crisis."

Democrats have for years described gun violence as an "epidemic," even when homicides committed with firearms were falling, and news outlets such as The New York Times routinely echo that language. Since major cities saw big spikes in homicides last year, you might say that reality finally has caught up with Democratic rhetoric. But the "epidemic" label is still misleading in a couple of ways.

First, it implies that gun violence is analogous to a deadly microbe that spreads from person to person without conscious human choice, when in fact it results from deliberate decisions to commit criminal acts. That analogy shifts the focus from targeted policies that might change the incentives underlying those acts to broad restrictions that impinge on the rights of many peaceful, law-abiding people.

Second, Biden's "public health" rhetoric applies a quasi-medical, pseudoscientific veneer to policies that should be critically examined on their merits. It implies that contentious measures are beyond serious debate, because public health experts know how to control epidemics, and their wisdom should not be questioned.

In Biden's view, protecting public health requires an arbitrary federal ban on "assault weapons" and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; expanded background checks for gun buyers, aimed at enforcing absurdly broad rules that deny millions of harmless people the right to armed self-defense; "red flag" laws that have a similar effect on a smaller scale; and repeal of a federal law that protects gun suppliers from potentially ruinous liability for crimes committed with their products. Just as politicians cited the threat posed by COVID-19 to justify sweeping restrictions on millions of Americans, whether or not they were actually infected by the coronavirus, Biden is citing the threat posed by violent crime to justify population-wide interventions that affect millions of Americans, whether or not they pose any sort of danger to public safety.

NEXT: Biden Willing To Compromise on $2.3 Trillion Spending Bill So Long As It Spends $2.3 Trillion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’s your guy, what did you expect?

    1. Please donate to keep Reason magazine in circulation. The remaining Koch brother can’t do it all by himself.

      1. If Charles Koch and managed to survive the #DrumpfDepression, during which Mr. Koch lost $5 billion in 2020 alone, they’ll have no problems during the #BidenBoom.

        (Of course the annual webathons should continue.)

        1. JOIN PART TIME JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. That’s not fair. Nobody knew the address of his campaign website. It was too well hidden. Nobody could have known.

      1. Thanks a lot MAGA losers for helping Biden get elected! You get the government you deserve!

        1. Well this is dumb.

        2. Eat a dick you fucking leftist simp faggot.

    3. Wooo, scary, scary “executive actions”. Oh wait, they aren’t “executive orders” so they aren’t legally binding and carry about as much weight as a piss hole in the snow.

      Actions are bluster meant to intimidate, orders actually have legal meaning. This is meant as appeasement to the “do something” crowd and about as much as he can without stacking lawsuits a mile high that he could potentially lose.

      1. ACA was also a memo. Courta said Trump couldn’t rescind it.

        1. Sigh, from the linked article:
          Executive actions are also different from executive memoranda. Executive memoranda are similar to executive orders in that they carry legal weight allowing the president to direct government officials and agencies. But executive memoranda are typically not published in the Federal Register unless the president determines the rules have “general applicability and legal effect.”

          1. And up until aca both were considered non law, but merely interpretations of law. aca did not go through normal rule making even at the agency level, but was upheld as if it had been.

            Do you actually understand this? Or are you trying to find a smidgen of difference to claim your argument matters?

          2. Executive memoranda are similar to executive orders in that they carry legal weight allowing the president to direct government officials and agencies.

            So, right there, at best you’re suggesting a distinction without a difference. Or, more accurately, explaining how a/the memorandum is actually worse than an EO. The EO must be written into law while the President can order everyone in violation of the memorandum to be arrested without having any reason for their arrest written into law.

            1. Let me know when you actually read the linked article. Executive actions are different from both executive memos and executive orders. Actions carry no legal weight, orders do, and memos can but don’t necessarily do. Anything carrying legal weight is recorded in the Federal Register and can be contested in court. Biden is trying to avoid a court battle at all cost until he can pack the Supremes.

        2. DACA was a memo.
          “Dear Colleagues” was an open letter.

          On its face an Executive *Actions* ordered by a CIC would appear to be carry more force than something as benign as an Emancipation Proclomation.

      2. Were they written in a room with gold fringe? Only then is it not legally binding since its done via an admiralty court.

    4. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started Copy This Link For Full Detail…USA Dollars

    5. No TDS infected sheep bleated more enthusiastically than sullum.

    6. He got what he wanted – NO MORE MEAN TWEETS. Who cares about unconstitutional law making. the MEAN TWEETS are gone.

  2. David Chipman burned how many Christians alive at Waco? My dick is about to pop!

    1. Oh NOW we care about the Christians!

    2. Koresh’s Branch Davidian cult was hardly “Christian” in any meaningful sense at that point, not that it would’ve mattered.

      1. they were targeted because of their religion and thats what is scary

        1. I thought Koresh was diddling kids.

          1. Not according to survivors.

          2. ATF went in because of a grenade charge.

            1. ATF went in because it was Budget Season, and they wanted a high-profile bust on someone committing a bunch of what could be spun as heinous crimes, beyond mere gun stuff. Something to take away people’s memories of the Ruby Ridge fuck-up the prior year. Which, if you’ll remember, also started with Feds trying to jam someone up on a gun charge.

              1. True. And I remember ruby ridge quit well, I grew up less than 90 miles from it. Remember how different the local news was from the national news also.

                1. It’s too bad Poppy Bush lost. It would have been interesting to watch Horiuchi actually stand trial.

                  I can imagine just how the different the news was for you guys around there, versus sitting on the coasts.

                  1. My favorite was a KXLY reporters reaction to the shoot to kill order for anyone with a gun. “It’s hunting season in Idaho, everyone is carrying a gun” to paraphrase.

                  2. Ruby Ridge took place while George the First was in the Oval Office. The Waco “investigation” began while George the First was in the Oval Office.

                    See a pattern? Why do you think that Horiuchi would have stood trial?

                    If the court findings in the Ruby Ridge case had taken place before the initial assault by the BATF, that assault would likely have been called off.

                2. I live less than a hundred miles from Ruby Ridge. I have a few friends that are acquaintances of Randy Weaver. What they did to his family is a prime example of the state not leaving people alone.

          3. Even if true, that would be a matter for STATE law enforcement to investigate.
            And definitely not something for the federal gooberment to wind up doing stupid stunts that resulted in the children being burned alive.

          4. I thought Koresh was diddling kids.”

            If that were the case why leave the catholics alone

            1. touche’

          5. The single eyewitness to make the claim was . . .wait for it . . .A BLIND GUY.

          6. Well now, that not just explains but justifies why BATF-P(edophilia) burned the place down with the kids inside.

  3. “fully within the Administration’s authority and the Second Amendment.”

    Yep, not a single one of those Royal Edicts could possible be construed as an infringement. How about he swallows a consistency pill and enacts a voter registration card as a federal concealed carry permit overriding all state laws? Treat all constitutional rights the same and all that jazz.

  4. But no mean tweets.

    When they string these cocksuckers up by their necks, the entire cast of Reason should be lined up beneath them with their mouths wide open, and then shot.

    1. bit much

      1. Hey, you got the guy you wanted.

      2. Is it because they aren’t 10 year veterans protesting government? You did say they deserved to get shot.

        1. It’s DEL, valor thief extraordinair. So only marxists get a pass.

          1. You are wrong about DOL. I have had conversations with him. He is legit.

    2. They will still be yelling about mean tweets even then.

  5. Watched his speech. The fool screwed up the acronym for the ATF (called it AFT).

    1. As I was on my morning constitutional, my thoughts turned to how stressful it must be to be one of Biden’s handlers. That job has GOT to be one of the highest-stress jobs in the country right now.

      1. Meh.
        There aren’t any consequences for anything the left or a leftist does, so really no need for stress

        1. Yeah. Between ‘lying dog-faced pony soldier’ and a televised confession to being Burisma’s bagman, I can’t imagine what he’d say that would have his handlers sweating their positions. Maybe there’s a more existential dread of imposter syndrome or the fact that the electorate might wake up and realize who Joe is, but even then, the repeated incidents like those described would seem to assuage those fears.

          1. Or his confession of having the largest, best organized election fraud team?

      2. They do an amazing job. I can hardly even see the strings.

      3. He gets such a big hall pass for his idiocy there is nothing to worry about. Samantha Bee even said comedians shouldn’t make fun of him because they agree with him politically.

        1. Samantha Bee Jews noted comedy, or comedians. She’s just a professional cunt. Without any of the redeeming values of a cunt.

          1. ‘Knows nothing of’

    2. Absolute Fucking Tards?

    3. He (Biden) is scary with the repeated senility. When crisis strikes, then what?

      1. By then, we will be so used to it that nobody will notice.

      2. I’m amazed that this didn’t more attention….


        “Over thirty House Democrats are asking President Biden to consider renouncing his authority to launch nuclear weapons.

        In a letter sent Tuesday but publicized Wednesday, 31 lawmakers led by Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) urge the commander in chief to “consider modifying the decision-making process the United States uses in its command and control of nuclear forces.””

        Even democrats think this turd is senile.

  6. Biden also touts a “$5 billion investment over eight years to support community violence intervention programs

    Ending the war on drugs wouldn’t cost a thing.

    1. Except a shitload of federal jobs and contracts, and that’s what really matters.

      1. +

    2. There is actually a negative externality cost associated with crime. But that cost is there even with enforcement at the federal level. So can’t say there is zero cost without knowledge if crime rates go up or down.

      Not saying feds should remain involved, just clarifying.

      1. Yeah. Not to say that we should continue the WOD but, no *direct* costs. Probably a fair amount of indirect costs when everyone from the corner dealer to the cartels are forced to learn to code… or not.

    3. It would cost the State a lot of power.

      Think about how many freedoms we’ve lost in the name of the war on drugs. Your banking is spied on, your home and belongings can be confiscated without any kind of proof of a crime, and they can get secret, sealed warrants to break down your door and kill anyone who seems to be a threat as they do so.

    4. Government doesn’t make investments. I feel a sweet of rage when I hear a politician refer to government spending as ‘investment.

    1. But they aren’t coming after your guns.

    2. I’m honestly stunned he didn’t pick that sniveling doofus Robert O’Rourke for the job.

      1. Listen to the lyrics from the song ‘Disco Man’ by The Damned. It totally describes Beta O’Rourke.

  7. Did he “learn to love it,” Sullum, or did he always love it, and now he just doesn’t have to lie about it anymore?

    But no mean tweets, right?

    1. Does Joke Biden even know what he’s saying, or does he just wag his finger and read whatever his puppet masters put in front of him?

  8. Right now I am certain the NRA is calling every member in West Virginia, Utah, Alaska and Maine to oppose the nomination of Chipman and let their Senators know.

    1. The NRA has largely been AWOL over the past year; they are consumed with problems of their own making and until Lapierre goes, nothing will get any better. I’ve stopped any and all contributions, money is much better spend on the SAF, that actually does things like file lawsuits against overreaching governments.

      1. The NRA has been public already on these issues. Released a statement last night and a call to action today.

      2. The 2AF also is fighting this as is GAO. Between the three the can mobilize a lot of voters.

        1. *GOA

      3. Curious about your ‘any and all contributions’ to the NRA. While I am a lifetime member I have never made a contribution. However I do compete in NRA sanctioned matched. You don’t seem to be aware that almost every competition in the US is sanctioned by the NRA and almost every local gun club and gun range requires NRA membership, and the insurance it provides. The NRA also trains and certifies range safety officers that are required at competitions. Just as an aside you don’t want to get on the wrong side of any NRA certified range safety officer.

        The NRA has always done a lot more for a lot more people in actual fire arms training and running events than it does lobbying.

        1. We need them all. The NRA bashers aren’t being pragmatic. Which is a typical disease for libertarians, lack of pragmatism. It is all or nothing for them. Rather bitch about how bad things are then make incremental changes. .

          1. Which is a typical disease for libertarians, lack of pragmatism.

            Maybe add a modifier like ‘civil libertarians’. Maybe.

        2. I too am a life member, and the NRA has compromised itself due to Lapierre’s self enrichment and cronyism. The organization has been essential for decades but due to his mismanagement they are not front and center on this or any other pressing matter. If North and Cox has succeeded in their “coup” and cleaned up the mess that is now the NRA, they would have gotten ahead of the NY AG; instead they have been put on the run.

          Any and all contributions means financial donations I actually make, which goes to SAF, not the NRA, until they get their house in order.

          1. Give money to them all, were in for a family fight.

            1. *in for a fight not family fight. Fucking predictive text.

              1. I took it to mean anyone bound by blood or marriage. Donations to crazy liberal aunts by marriage who only keep an unloaded .38 revolver in the nightstand accepted.

          2. The organization has been essential for decades but due to his mismanagement they are not front and center on this or any other pressing matter.

            Disagree. The organization absolutely appears to be mismanaged, but the association between their mismanagment and failure to appear doesn’t quite jive with Hunter Biden’s mismanagement failing to be front and center.

    2. I contacted my Senators and Congressman but mostly wanted to contact Senator Tester’s office to let him know my views. Hopefully he gets flooded with calls (also called for my fellow montanans to call his office). He is another possible no vote as he runs on his 2A support.

  9. If Biden really supports gun control, he should demand that Hunter Biden be prosecuted for lying on his ATF Form 4473 when he stated he was not an illegal drug user.

    Yeah. Right.

    1. That would be Biden control. He is against that.

    2. LOL

      All Hunter Biden “scandals” are merely Russian disinformation. Countless national security experts have gone on record establishing this.


      1. Is the fact that he has admitted to having an affair with his brother’s widow also the Russian’s fault?

        1. “It bears all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation!”

        2. And his brother’s widow’s sister!

          1. And fathering a child with a stripper. And impersonating his dead brother to skip out on child support. The guy fucked up harder in a single year than most men would tolerate from their sons in a lifetime. Lots of morally compromised people would need to exert considerable effort to fuck up as hard as he has.

        3. Russia mind control!

      2. “Countless” . . ? You mean, “Zero” . . ?

        He was thrown out of the Air Force for using dope. That is known.

        He stated on a Form 4473 that he is not a user of illegal drugs. That is known.

        You figure that’s not a scandal . . ?

        1. Well, you can’t count to zero, so yeah!

        2. Hey, they could have read his autobiographical text.

        3. Navy, but the point remains the same.

      3. So, it was a Russian spy that dropped off the laptop? I watched him in an interview today. He doesn’t even believe that Russian nonsense. Countless? C’mon, Man! Countless? Do you have names and political affiliations of these “countless national security experts”?
        You are aware that all of those “experts” work for Biden, right?

  10. “… the old Soviet regime trying to shut down the samizdat underground press by regulating copiers;”

    You don’t need to be giving him any ideas, thanks.

    1. The modern tactic is to threaten the makers of copiers with being held responsible for the supposed misinformation spread by the users of copiers.

      For instance, they must reposess copiers from a medical doctor who does not toe the government’s line on an epidemic.

      1. Actually, the modern tactic is to threaten the makers of copiers with being held responsible while staring Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Visa squarely in the eye and then approving when the local AG files RICO charges against the copier-makers’ bank.

  11. “Biden is citing the threat posed by violent crime to justify population-wide interventions that affect millions of Americans, whether or not they pose any sort of danger to public safety.”

    Yep. I’d say this is targeted at about 99.99% of gun owners who will never contemplate being a criminal, until they [we] all become felons by default. Maybe that is the whole point?

      1. Well, to paraphrase a popular line, if everyone is a criminal, then I guess no one is.

    1. Take the gloves off.
      Hey, if we’re all criminals anyway, might as well…

      1. If the democrat push Americans to exterminate them, it will be 100% self defense.

        1. Precisely.

  12. Dementia within normal parameters!

    1. But no mean tweets!

  13. at least he is not calling it a “gun violence public health PANDEMIC” since then he would just have everyone go into lockdown and problem solved

    1. Then you would see guys rolling pallets full of cleaning patches, and an 8-ounce bottle of Hoppe’s would bring several hundred dollars on eBay.

    2. “gun violence public health PANDEMIC”

      Exactly the reason that everyone should understand that the CDC picked a side a while back.

  14. How does Sullum feel now that he is a “science denier”?

    1. Stupid. Very, very stupid.

  15. It’s a sure bet that at some point they will pick some unsuspecting patsy target or group and bring the long arm of the law down to prove it was worth spending billions to fight (crime,drugs,guns,terrorists). Then the real gun laws get enacted by terrified congress people, and they lose the next election, and the cycle starts again.

    But Biden wants his trillions to fund…whatever. I imagine Obama and Rice are laughing it up as they pull the levers here.

    1. ‘White supremacist insurrectionists’ are being tracked by the FBI as we speak.

  16. Promises made, promises kept.

  17. seems you guys had the opportunity to not support JB but you did

  18. President Biden and Vice President Harris, frustrated by the legislative branch’s failure to approve the new firearm restrictions they favor, announced “six initial actions to address the gun violence public health epidemic.” All of these actions, they say, will “save lives” and are “fully within the Administration’s authority and the Second Amendment.”

    But somehow Trump was the authoritarian tyrant. The Reasonistas are getting exactly what they wanted good and hard.

    1. You can tell it is within their power, because they have to tell you it is.

  19. “Libertarians should be glad that Trump lost because . . . ”

    I defy anyone to finish that sentence with a non-sarcastic, well-reasoned, and fact based response.

    1. We are all so happy there are no more mean tweets.

      Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

      1. Incidentally, Twitter is doing what they can to undermine the National Archives and Records Administration’s efforts to preserve Trump’s tweets for posterity.

        “Twitter will not allow the National Archives to make former President Donald Trump’s past tweets from his @realDonaldTrump account available on the social media platform, the company told POLITICO on Wednesday, in the latest display of Silicon Valley’s power over communications channels used by the U.S. government.

        The statement came as the National Archives and Records Administration has been working to create an official online archive of Trump’s tweets as president, including those that prompted Twitter to permanently suspend him earlier this year as a threat to public safety.”


        April 7, 2021

        It is not enough that he is gone. He must also be forgotten.

        1. Dorsey will be gone & forgotten before T will.

          1. Trump could win the Republican nomination in 2024.

            1. in.

              also, how do you swing a bat so hard you separate a shoulder?

              1. It was a preexisting injury. He was batting .175, and he made five errors in his first few games. He was playing hurt all that time. I think he was feeling a ton of pressure to play after getting the big contract. It would have been better if he hadn’t been playing all this time, especially when we have the newly acquired Kim to back him up at shortstop.

                The real issue now is that starting April 15th, we play the Dodgers seven times in ten days. If he isn’t 100% for that, I hope he doesn’t come back, but that series could easily decide the division this year.

                Oh, and in the meantime, our pitching has been fantastic, which was our Achilles’ heel last season. Yu has been great. Snell has been great. The bullpen has been fantastic late. Manny is streaky, and when Tatis come back, we’ll go on a rampage again. We’d have won yesterday if it hadn’t been for a freak play. Our center fielder went up against the wall to make a catch and accidentally knocked the ball out of the park for a two run homer.

                1. >>accidentally knocked the ball out of the park for a two run homer

                  takes after the Rockies’ LF

          2. “The first battlefield is to rewrite history” – Karl Marx

      2. I am very happy that there are no more mean tweets…because they were what Trump did instead of his job. We’ve never had a more shallow, ignorant or incompetent President. Biden is not perfect, but at least he pays attention and does his job–instead of pouting on social media while ignoring the worst pandemic in a century., which is ALL Trump did after he lost the election.

        1. You’re a moron. A prime example of how stupid, weak, and facile democrats truly are.

  20. “Within 60 days,” Biden says, the Justice Department “will publish model ‘red flag’ legislation for states.”

    I wonder if it’s possible to red flag the US government as they are a danger to themselves and others.

    1. The US government has killed more innocent people in the last 20 years than gun owners have, including our richly diverse gangbanger population.

      1. Doanld Trump caused hundreds of thousands of Americans to die by neglecting a politicizing the worst pandemic in a century. Fortunately, Joe Biden realizes that gun violence is also an epidemic–even if the NRA and its irresponsible followers refuse to acknowledge this.

        1. Florida proves that your stupid democrat ideas did nothing about KungFlu. And gun violence isn’t about the guns, it’s about violent hellholes like a Chicago made so by more bad democrat ideas.

          Simply put, it’s all your fault. Like most terrible things.

    2. The moderate, normal president proposing legislation to remove civil liberties based on a judge buying into a suspicion of future criminal behavior.

      That will certainly work just as well as warrants for no knock, SWAT Team raids. Right?

      1. Democrats: Police are horrible racists engaged in a campaign of genocide against Black men!

        We should empower them to come into your home and seize your property, even if you haven’t actually committed any crime, on the basis of an angry phone call from your ex-wife and a rubber stamp judge.

  21. I don’t know what y’all are bitching about – Joe said we could buy all the guns we wanted at a gunshow without a background check, which is kinda the opposite of gun control if you ask me. I’m off to the gunshow to buy me a couple of M134’s right now!

    1. Ma Deuce or nothing. Reach out and touch someone.

      1. Apparently Barrett 50 cals can bring down Hueys, so why not go with the more affordable option?

        1. Because automatic fire that’s why.

          1. Also anything been in service for over a century with few modifications must be worth it’s weight in gold. Tough, dependable, range and accurate.

            1. When they come, they’ll come in armor. Get some HE. Preferably Javelins and Stingers.

              Or, they’ll sell you the -134, but you have to buy your own ammo. Gulp.

        2. If you can effectively engage a *single* attack helicopter at range with a semi-auotmatic weapon, I tip my hat to you and politely request that I be allowed to put some distance between us when the time comes to engage more than one.

    2. Let me know if you see any M-249s.

      1. MK-19s? M-61A (got to have some ADA capabilities)? It’s for bird hunting I swear

  22. I’m so disgusted with Sullum that I can’t even read his hypocritical maunderings about this.

    1. Well, if you have a need to induce vomiting, it’s available.

  23. For Biden, the fact that the Boulder shooter used a pistol with a stabilizing brace is enough to make such accessories intolerable.

    What happens when Biden realizes the shooter used a car to get his pistol to Boulder?

    1. If it wasn’t an electric car, he’ll decide that it’s an excellent reason to ban cars that run on gas and diesel.

  24. Most libertarian President evuh!!!!!

  25. The answer here is quite easy. The law should require that the target of the Red Flag law must be paid $500 per day for each day he is denied his guns – 30 days, $15,000. This money must be paid out of public school districts funds or some other sacred cow fund.

    I’m a little hard up for cash right now. Could you please take away my guns for a year? ($182,500)

  26. The only one of those that will go anywhere is the brace ban. And it will do nothing.

    The DoJ isn’t going to be able to define parts that make a firearm as the only thing that really ‘makes’ a firearm is the part with the serial number. Which can be as little as a bent piece of metal (see the Sig Saur P365) inside the grip. And in the case of glocks and AR’s – indeed, pretty much any polymer framed firearm – 3d printing already allows you to make your own grip modules (check out the P80 options) and lower receivers.

    ‘Model’ Red Flag laws only work if states adopt them. The states that would adopt them have already adopted strict gun control regimes *and* even stricter red flag laws.

    As for the pistol braces – how does anyone think this makes a gun more dangerous? Like the only reason the stocks are banned on short barrelled firearms is because of a *section of the NFA that was removed before it became a law*. Like the intent of the NFA was to eliminate handguns. No point in eliminating handguns if you can just cut the barrel of a rifle down. But that got stripped out before passage – making the stock restrictions moot.

    And no one who is going to commit a crime with a rifle is going to worry about whether or not its legal to take a hacksaw to a barrel. Which then gives you the non-registered NFA-violating SBR that the braces are a work-around for.

    1. As for the pistol braces – how does anyone think this makes a gun more dangerous?

      Well, Biden say braces “can make a firearm more stable and accurate”…

      And we all know that nothing is safer than being unstable and inaccurate while firing your gun.

  27. Joe’s pushing all his chips into the middle, and is going for broke. Two reason other idiots haven’t tried this before,

    The first: An unfavorable ruling by the S. CT. on the matter is precedent, stare decisis, would seal the fate of future efforts, of that kind.

    The second? Nobody’s really stupid enough to antagonize people pointlessly, no good will come from driving down that road.

    Progressives are going to get their hands slapped real hard for their over-reach, and they’ll repeat the same mistake with Roe. That’s the reason there haven’t been any attempts to “codify Roe” before; they don’t have the muscle to pull it off.

    1. Roberts, Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh will fold. Sorry.

  28. “…to address the gun violence public health epidemic.”

    See the new paradigm? “War on” is too violent, and frankly too obscure for Americans in 2021.

    From now on, every new tyranny will be framed as “curing the X epidemic (x = gun violence, drugs, sex trafficking, hate speech, etc etc)

  29. Biden should concentrate on his bowel control. The dog’s tired of getting the blame and his Bidettes need to give their tongues a rest.

  30. The new head of the EPA said he’s releasing updated emissions standards for cars at the end of July.

    Regan did not rule out future emissions requirements that create a de facto ban on new conventional, gasoline-powered automobiles, like an explicit phase out ordered by California Governor Gavin Newsom.

    “We’re taking a strong look at what the science is urging us to do. We’re looking at where technologies are,” Regan said. “We’re marrying our regulatory policy and what we have the statutory authority to do with where the science directs us and where the markets and technology are.”

    —-Bloomberg News

    He’s basically claiming to have the authority to set emissions and mileage standards so high that conventional gasoline powered engines can’t possibly meet them. Whatever law he’s talking about needs to be repealed, and that can’t happen until there is a Republican in the White House.

    1. This will just keep driving up the price of used cars. Electric vehicles aren’t practical for half the country at least.

      1. Yeah we’ve talked about this before try Kalispell or Missoula to Billings or better yet Miles City sounds like an extra long fun trip..

        1. Especially in winter when it’s 20 below. Hell my plugged in F-150 doesn’t like those mornings.

          1. Eastern Montana, where a high of zero is considered a warm day.

            1. And 20 mph winds are a light breeze.

        2. Take the high speed train!

      2. Whenever I get tempted to think that they won’t do something stupid because the associated costs are too high, I always think of the drug war, which demonstrated so well that there isn’t any policy so expensive, so destructive, and so futile that the government won’t persist in pursuing it for decades–so long as it involves financing more government and people remain convinced that they’re doing this stupid thing because it’s a crisis, and there really is no other choice.

        I certainly wouldn’t put it past them to make building new combustion engines illegal–just because doing that made life hard for ordinary Americans. Forcing ordinary Americans to sacrifice their standard of living because of something like climate change is what they’re all about.

        1. Ah, yeah, beat me to it. The fact that they’re willing to infringe on the 1A in an attempt to ban guns pretty clearly indicates that there is no peak stupidity.

      3. This will just keep driving up the price of used cars.

        I’m not the only one who had the thought ‘ban ghost cars’ and got nauseous, right?

  31. Psaki quoted as saying Biden will use his “political will” to get more gun control enacted.

    Yeah will to power – now that sounds familiar. It’s no longer shocking that the left is emulating some of the 20th century’s greatest hits.

    1. Yeah but Trump was an authoritarian. I read it right here at Reason. Pretty much every day for 5 years.

      1. He was a wanna-be authoritarian. He was too stupid and lazy to do anything substantial, even be an autocrat. That would have required actually ingesting information and making thoughtful and sound decisions.

    2. If you look, you find that most of the 20th century’s “greatest hits” were DONE by leftists, starting with the Armenian Genocide and running to the Rodney King riot, in a pretty much unbroken string.

  32. Since we have reached a point in this country where words don’t mean anything it’s no surprise that Biden uses words that don’t mean anything.

  33. After the 6th Circuit bitched slapped Trump’s bump stock ban I have to wonder how long it will take for the brace ban to get bitched slapped.

    1. The ghost gun one also.

      1. Yes.

        The executive branch can’t simply go around Congress and make up law as they go. Literally addressed this a couple months back.

    2. This.

      They can’t simply make the criminal law theyre then supposed to enforce, and that’s exactly what they’re doing by defining a pistol with a brace as a SBR.

  34. Why do people continue to pretend like gun control is done for any express social benefit? It exists solely to “own the hicks”. It is an exercise in aggravating people on the right and painting them as supporting mass murder.

    1. And backfires. Almost like Biden wants to lose control of the HoR and Senate. Then he can blame Republicans for not getting anything done.

      1. We can only hope. America won’t survive long with these traitors in charge.

  35. Ah, the irony: Published: Apr. 8, 2021 at 3:49 PM EDT|Updated: 13 minutes ago
    BRYAN, Texas (KBTX) – Police confirm multiple people were injured and one was killed during a shooting Thursday afternoon at Kent Moore Cabinets in Bryan. The suspect in that shooting remains at large and an active manhunt is underway.

    1. Better headline from an alternate world:
      Employee at Kent Moore Cabinets drops gunman like a rabid dog before anyone else is shot.

  36. Murder and mayhem caused by the use of firearms by felons already prohibited from possessing firearms is never mentioned, let alone the horrible murder rate in inner city urban areas controlled by the (D) party.

  37. Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

    The common “80% lower” pistol frame does not have a portion to receive the barrel, nor does it hold the striker (hammer). It is no more a “firearm” than an AR15 lower is. In both cases, these functions are handled by the upper.


  38. Toddler gets ahold of gun, dies horrifically, family will never be the same

    If you’re buying for self protection you honestly shouldn’t bother because the gun will more likely to kill you or someone you love then it is to save you. This dad apparently wasn’t aware of the odds when he purchased his gun for protection.

    1. True but gun owners will protect me when the socialists attack. Some collateral damage is inevitable.

      1. No they won’t. Get your own gun – protect yourself.

        1. Nope. That’s your job. It’s fine if you spurn it, but then don’t expect people to support you. In fact they will deny your right to self defense.

      2. Well whatever keeps you up at night.

        1. Obviously, perpetuating myths keeps you up at night.

        2. If you’re trying to reassure me you’re failing miserably. And many others will feel the same way. Which is fine but it’s no way to support self defense rights. In fact it’s a sure path to lose them.

          1. If it every comes to the point where you’re under attack from the Antifa US military having or not having a gun will be the least of your problems. Society will have collapsed and you’ll probably starve to death or die from lack of medicine. And the fact that you even have the luxury to prepare for a doomsday gun fantasy means you’re living a privileged life. You have too much time on your hands.

            1. Telling myths shows you have to much time on your hands.

              1. I definitely have too much time on my hands.

            2. Well whatever keeps you up at night.

            3. The only society which can collapse is that of the cities.

              The food comes into the cities from the people outside. People who have guns. People who didn’t have to buy pallets of toilet paper, because we already buy bulk packs of everything, and we knew that the paper mills were still running so there would be plenty on the shelves by the time we wanted to buy some.

              The energy mostly comes from outside of the cities, too. As does the clean water. And the ammunition. And the tools. And the medications. And the Internet. And pretty much everything that the cities use. This means that when “society” collapses, everything we need will stop flowing into the cities, but still be available from manufacturers, farmers, refiners, distribution centers, etc.

              1. Making your own penicillin, just like pappy taught us.

              2. I’m sorry, you were talking about country folk. Let me adjust my example:

                Make our own insulin, just like pappy taught us.

            4. If you even consider the whole antifa thing to be a threat, you not only have too much time on your hands, you don’t have the intelligence of a flea.

    2. More kids drown in pools than in accidental shootings. It’s a myth that you are more likely to die from your own gun than use it for self defense. According to the DoJ there are 1-2 million defensive gun uses every year. All gun fatalities, including accidental deaths and suicide, number about 30,000 each year. That means for every one person killed by a gun 33 to 67 people use guns defensively. Most defensive use of guns never result in deaths or firearms being discharged.

      1. That is a minimum of a 330% increase in defensive gun use (minimum) to dieing from a firearm. Keep pushing easily discredited talking points.

        1. 3333% increase not 330.

        2. Get a fake gun then. You can use it defensively and your kid won’t blow his head off.

          1. What a stupid fucking statement. Wow you get disproven and you come up with this bullshit. I have a real gun for when I do need it and keep them locked up and all my kids are taught not to touch them without supervision andhow to use them safely. That is how you stop accidental deaths. Most accidental deaths occur whenin households where the kids aren’t taught how to handle guns safely.

            1. We’d be better off if there no guns in America. Next best would be a driver’s license like system to regulate their use and possession.

              1. We would be better off with no cars and no fat people too if the criteria is just one life.

              2. Again a dumb analysis based upon fear. 80+ million gun owners. If we were the problem, you would see a much higher death rate from guns.

          2. “Lord of Strazele : Get a fake gun then”

            That is a really stupid idea , but a great way to get yourself injured or killed. You display a fake gun and then you give someone with a real gun the right to shoot you.

    3. Yes, but actually no. Not even close.

      Funnily enough, my guns have already saved me once – but none of them have jumped up and tried to kill me.

    4. Imagine a parent having a toddler at home and leaving the pool accessible and the toddler unsupervised to the point that the toddler drowns. Now imagine blaming the pool. Now imagine punishing pool owners at large.

      Imagine a parent leaving a toddler unsupervised to the point where the toddler wanders into the driveway. Now imagine the parent so incapable of operating a vehicle that they back over the kid. Now imagine blaming the vehicle. Now imagine punishing vehicle owners at large.

      Both of the above are more abundant than child deaths from ADs.

    5. He didn’t secure his firearms properly if a toddler was able to get ahold of it. Oh, and your claims are utter bullshit.

  39. “”No amendment to the Constitution is absolute”. Biden – today’s speech
    Found the Fascist

    1. While fascism was born from progressivism.

      1. Fascism is merely one FORM of Progressivism.

    2. Yet they don’t want to follow the rules to change it……

  40. Biden also touts a “$5 billion investment over eight years to support community violence intervention programs,”

    This is actually a huge incentive for violence. It’s basically paying people billions to get people in their communities to kill each other.

    1. Feature, not a bug.

  41. So this is what normal parameters look like. Congratulations Jacob. You got exactly what you wanted. Oh and fuck you. After 5 years of making an ass of yourself one might think you’d maybe take a moment of self reflection. But your ability to beclown yourself is seemingly without limit. Oh and fuck you Jacob.

    1. It’s fine you disagree with him. But why so angry and resentful? You are perfectly capable of expressing your opinion here in the comments. You should be thanking him for that opportunity.

      Plus you are perfectly capable of expressing your opinion on your blog and plugging it. What more could you ask for?

      You seem to think that everyone has the power to persuade except for you. Which begs the question of why you are even responding:

      1. You are perfectly capable of expressing your opinion here in the comments. You should be thanking him for that opportunity.
        More like thanking the founding fathers.

      2. I actually was a Sullum fan in years past. Even after the TDS began rotting his brain I came here many times and praised his reporting on police abuse. When he endorsed Clinton, parroted every lefty talking point on the 2016 and 2020 elections, praised assholes like Liz Cheney and spent 5 weeks repeating the “most honest election in history” mantra and then memory holed Ashli Babbit I finally had enough. Sullum is the worst that journalism has to offer and that’s a pretty high bar. But he’s well within normal parameters so he’s got that going for him.

        1. Ashli Babbit was not a hero. She was an insurrectionist. It’s preposterous to criticize Sullum for not defending her. (Or to hold him solely responsible for that job.)

          All the insurrectionists will turn on Trump at the trials. It’s preposterous that you’re still cucking for them.

          If you’re going to extol Ashli, then you need to prove that you’ve advocated her memory somewhere other than here. Otherwise you’re just a hypocrite, demanding that others do what you refuse.

          1. You call her an insurrectionist, but of the 400 people arrested for the Capitol riot, none of them have been charged with sedition. Do you know more about them than the prosecutors do?

            “Many Capitol rioters unlikely to serve jail time”

            The cases could embarrass the Biden administration, which has portrayed the Jan. 6 siege as a dire threat to democracy.


            Meanwhile, trespassing doesn’t justify shooting unarmed protesters–even if they aren’t heroes.

            1. Her death was tragic but the shot was justified. There was no excuse for her to resort to force like she did. I guarantee you none of the insurrectionists had fought online. Or they fought and got their asses handed to them. They will also turn against Trump. This will be obvious at the trials. It’s pathetic that you’re cucking for them.

              Anyway like I said, prove you ever defended Babbit on another platform before you criticize Sullum:

              1. .. but the shot was justified.
                You now rank below tony. Just amazing how depraved a person can be.

                1. It was a rampaging mob intent on insurrection. The job of the capitol police is to protect the government from such threats. The shot was justified, as you’d readily assert if it was BLM. You are just trying to turn her into a martyr to justify resorting the violence. But there is no excuse for force, as the people you pathetically cuck for will tell you at the trials.

                  If you and your allies here had fought for Trump before the election on enemy terrain online with the persistence and cohesion you’re showing here, then Trump would have stood a chance. But you didn’t and he lost and you have only yourselves to blame. There is no excuse for violence, insurrection, breaking into Congress, or intimidating judges or journalists.

                  Prove you ever posted anything about Babbit elsewhere and won the argument in open debate before you criticize Sullum as GG did (as you’ve likely forgotten):

                  1. “It was a rampaging mob intent on insurrection.”

                    Your emotions aside, trespassing doesn’t justify shooting an unarmed protester.

                    You understand what facts and principles are, right? They’re things that are true regardless of how you feel about them.

                    Shooting unarmed protesters isn’t justified by trespassing–or your feelings of anxiety.

                    1. Yes the shooting is justified if you reasonably believe the mob is bent on violence or insurrection. As you would insist if it was BLM in the same situation. Facts don’t care about your feelings.

                      Regardless, you have no right to demand Reason post your propaganda, especially if you refuse even to prove that you posted it anywhere.

              2. “AddictionMyth :Her death was tragic but the shot was justified.”

                Bullshit! I assume she was shot by a Capitol Police officer. There are rules of engagement for police officers which define when an officer is allowed to use deadly force. Generally , LEOs can use deadly force if their live or the lives of others are in immediate danger. Usually that means the person making the threat has to have a weapon such as a gun or a knife . Babbit was unarmed. If shooting her was justified , then every other police shooting of unarmed civilians is justified .

                1. The shot was justified. That’s not the point. The point is that if you’re going to criticize Sullum then you need to prove that you’ve advocated for Babbit on another forum and won the argument in open debate. Otherwise your criticism of him (perhaps you forgot the original point of the thread) is hypocrisy.

                  Gosh if only you guys had fought for Trump with the same cohesion and persistence that you now try to excuse the violence of a rampaging mob, he would have stood a chance. But you didn’t and he lost and you have only yourselves to blame. There is no excuse for violence as they mob will admit at their trials. It’s pathetic that you’re cucking for them.

                  1. Not criticizing Sullum. I am criticizing You since you are the one who said the shot was justified.

                    1. Gosh if only you had fought for Trump with this persistence before the election (like I did). But you didn’t and he lost and you have only yourself to blame. Regardless of whether the shot was justified (the trials will make it obvious), you have no excuse for violence.

                  2. Why do you have this bizarre fixation on demanding that other people prove their online advocacy to you? It’s a bizarre form of Ad hominem where the argument’s standing depends on who is making it.

                    1. you are not entitled to this proof. who do you think you are?
                    2. the arguments either stand on their merits or they don’t
                    3. It’s evidence that you are not rational

                    1. LOL what? You don’t have to prove you posted your propaganda. But then your demand that Reason post it is pure hypocrisy. (Of course you will deny demanding anything, but just read the thread.)

                      Regardless, you do not have the right to resort to violence, insurrection, or intimidation of judges or journalists. Hopefully you know that.

                    2. No one has to prove shit to you. You’re just flat out wrong. For the reasons outlined in this thread and many others.

                      Stop beclowning yourself.

              3. the shot was justified.

                Then why do we still not know who it was that shot her. The DOJ doesn’t have to dox the officer/agent who fired, but if it was so “justified” why are we all still here having to assume that it was Capitol Police?

                1. If you really believe that then let me post your encomium to Babbit on my blog and let people openly debate it. Fine if you refuse, but then you have no justification to demand that Reason publish your propaganda. (Nor do you have an excuse to resort to violence, insurrection, or intimidation of judges or journalists.)

                  1. No insurrection took place. What an absurd notion.

      3. You should be thanking him for that opportunity.

        Why? I could maybe understand thanking the Kochs or Reason donors. I can’t fathom why he would thank Sullum.

        1. Might as well say he should thank Joe too for raising such a lively topic of debate and providing a forum for the discussion.

  42. All the executive orders Biden issues and gun control laws Congress pass will not stop criminals from obtaining and using firearms.

  43. Biden IS a major threat to my rights, this all Americans rights. His idea that only fire arms companies are exempt from law suits is also mid informed. . . Our misfortune, his MO.

  44. How about an EO requiring criminals to turn in their guns?

    Boom! Problem solved!

    1. And another EO bestowing magic force fields on all individuals to protect everyone.

  45. If Biden loved gun control, government actors would have to find a different means of self defense.

  46. Expanded legal liability for firearms manufacturers, thus they won’t be producing weapons, with the advent of effective 3D printing of weapons, equals my obtaining said 3D-Printer (they can even print themselves from kits) for my own weapons production. Already on the Honey-Do list for printing odd parts for home repairs and such. My other half is also an engineer. Just moved up to the top.

    I long ago started collecting schemas just as I do with any other book, article, diagram, or leak I suspect will be censored later.

    1. (they can even print themselves from kits)

      It’s been a long-running joke in 3D printing circles that Step 1 in building a 3D printer is to have a 3D printer to print the parts.

  47. What’s really offensive is how gun nuts and their enablers sleep at night, what with the knowledge that they have the blood of so many tens of thousands of gory deaths, including children in their classrooms, on their hands, all for a hypothesis that maximum gun availability is necessary for regime of individual rights.

    Fuck y’all and the blood you bathe in. You have no right to an opinion here.

    1. My opinion is that self-defense is a human right.

      1. Self defense is a human right… thus I get to own a nuclear weapon?

        You’re not talking about the issue I am.

        These people are in a cult, enthralled by a mindless absolutist dogma, and their golden calf is a weapon designed for the purpose of violent murder.

        Sorry for not speaking in euphemisms. There are a lot of them flying around already.

        1. .. weapon designed for the purpose of violent murder.

          Yes, the socialists and communists you love.

          1. You think a machine that explodes human tissue is a magical object beyond the scope of regulation precisely because of its human-murdering potential.

            The definition of insanity is believing insane shit.

            1. Humans do all the murdering.

            2. If it doesn’t explode human tissue, I don’t want it.

            3. At the pace that tech is progressing, we’re probably 5-10 years from the point where the equipment needed to produce the regulated portion of many common models of semi-automatic pistol in any residential home in the country will cost less than the purchase price of one of those weapons.

              The function of the machine isn’t what makes it beyond the scope of regulation, but the ease of producing a “home-made” version of one will be in a relatively short amount of time.

              10 years after that, it’s entirely possible that the same will be true of the tech needed to produce the regulated part of “Armalite Rifle” style weapons as well.

              1. It’s even easier to rape your children, but you don’t do it because it’s a moral abomination and, more relevantly to this discussion, will get you thrown into a nightmarish hellsccape forever by the authorities.

                Lots of things that are easy to do are illegal.

        2. I’m talking about the real issue.

          You’re talking about nuclear weapons and stereotypes.

          1. I thought the issue was regulation of murder machines. Here’s the thing about those: they tend to develop according to an arms race model, since they are, in fact, arms.

            So you tell me where you draw the line. What sort of weapon do you think citizens should be restricted from possessing? I know where my line is. Where’s yours? Then all we have to do is negotiate.

            1. They’re not murder machines because it’s completely legal to use them for self-defense. That’s why you’re not taking about the real issue. You’re stuck in a question-begging loop of bad assumptions and caricatures of people you either don’t understand, or are too dishonest to represent factually.

              Legally, we have the right by the second amendment to keep and bear arms suitable for service in a militia, namely, a variety of rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

              Your arms race point is ridiculous. Gun ownership has been popular in the US for centuries, and there haven’t been any huge technological advances for decades. Exactly who’s racing who, and how are they trying to “win”? And what’s the difference between buying guns for self-defense and an arms race? I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make with that.

              As you’ve stated so clearly before, we have a democracy with specifically selected rights that require a super-majority to overrule.

              Good luck. I encourage you to make a big deal out of calling all gun owners murderers before the 2022 election, since what you say will have such a pragmatic impact on the course of human events, to be sure.

              1. The second amendment clearly should be repealed, but since the constitution sucks and is broken, it won’t be any time soon. Given the existence of this pointless relic in law, I can get behind much of your policy proposal. Let’s keep the tradition of citizen militias around, why not? It’ll cost some human lives, but government work is about these kinds of hard decisions.

                See, we’ve come a long way already in our negotiation.

                Because, as I said, the point underlying all of this is where we draw the line. There is no pro-freedom side and anti-freedom side. I’m not saying the arms race has been in technological improvement, but in the types of weapons people feel they need to own for self-defense. If all the criminals have automatic weapons, you need one too, in theory.

                Of course, every time someone shoots up a movie theater or school, it’s far from clear that having everyone else armed with similar weaponry would result in less death. That sounds like an NRA fantasy to me.

                Not that technology isn’t also at play. We actually arms raced our way to mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons in this world. As powerful weapons become smaller, we should probably stop worrying so much about the theoretical rights people have to kill other people and more about how to control the weapons they have access to.

                1. So interesting. Good luck.

    2. Oh! Now do government boot lickers!

    3. To what knowledge are you referring? No blood on my hands, I shower before bed.

    4. I’m pretty sure the people who have blood on their hands are the actual murderers, not me for believing I have a right to defend myself. Maybe the people who have the blood on their hands are the neurotic hoplophobes like you that push to so regulate away that right to self defense that people either are legally prevented from such self defense or are infected with your very same neurotic tendencies that they won’t think to protect themselves in the event that a criminal intends to murder them and savagely rape their corpse. When you consider the vast majority of victims of violent crimes did not have the tools to defend themselves, it sorta seems like you’re the one who got them killed. Hope you sleep well at night thinking about all those defenseless innocents you condemned to death my denying them the best tools to preserve their lives. The more I think about it, you’re a sick human being. God help you.

      1. I think that historically the people with blood on their hands are the kind of people who say things like:

        You have no right to an opinion here.

    5. Well Tony, you’re a communist. You have the blood of hundreds of millions on yours.

      So how do you sleep at night, faggot?


    This might be the most dangerous thing a President has said in my lifetime.

    BIDEN: “No amendment to the Constitution is absolute”

    1. “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.” That’s the idea.

      “But by all means, fire weapons in a crowded theater.” –You

      1. Always be vulnerable.

        1. One can’t help it what with the bullets whizzing by our ears at all times, for freedom.

          1. Trouble sleeping with blood on your hands, bullets whizzing past your ears… Tony I get the impression that you may not be the upright citizen you try to efface.

          2. Stop trying to rape people and maybe you won’t hear so many bullets wizzing past you.

      2. You literally can shout fire in a crowded theater. You’re encouraged to do so if there’s a fire in a crowded theater, whereby your shouting is what alerts people to a dangerous fire.

        The fire in a crowded theater example is a stupid example because it was one cited in an opinion dissenting from a majority ruling in a free speech case (aka the losers argument). It’s a loser judges comment trying to inject a hypothetical point that has never had any legal weight in US constitutional law.

  49. Biden said ” No amendment to the Constitution is absolute”. And these lying fuck-wits called Trump a dictator?

    1. He’s warming us up for when Kamala “No Amendment to the Constitution is Relevant” Harris takes over in a year or so.

  50. Supreme Leader and Generalissimo Joe Biden Learns To Love Gun Control by Royal Decree

  51. www. relax24. club (removе spacеs!)

  52. I’m making a fair compensation from home 3000 Dollars/week, that is awesome, under a year agone I used to be jobless during an abominable economy. I pass on God consistently I used to be blessed with these headings and as of now it’s my obligation to show preemptive kindness and offer it to everyone, Here is I begun Copy This Link For Full Detail Read more

  53. Trump also tried to ban ‘bump stocks’ and was shot down by the courts.
    Not sure why Biden’s proposal wouldn’t suffer the same fate.

  54. Joe Biden Loves Gun Control

  55. At this rate, Joe will quickly surpass Donald in his Pinocchio collection.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.