Biden: 2nd Amendment Isn’t Absolute

Biden: 2nd Amendment Isn’t Absolute

Biden: 2nd Amendment Isn’t Absolute

The 2nd Amendment, nor our Constitution are absolute according to the brilliance that is Joe Biden. That’s quite a message to impart on Memorial Day isn’t it?

Today, as we honor, remember, and grieve with Gold Star families, Joe Biden decides to tell the world that all we fight for should be wiped away in the interest of appeasing gun control advocates

A day after promising residents of Uvalde, Texas, action to address gun violence, U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday sought to appeal to “rational” Republicans to curb high-caliber weapons and take other steps to prevent more mass shootings.

“Things have gotten so bad that everybody is getting more rational about it,” Biden, a Democrat, told reporters as he returned from his weekend trip to memorialize the 19 children and two teachers killed last week in the nation’s worst mass school shooting in a decade.

“The idea of these high-caliber weapons — there is simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting,” Biden said.

Oh, so evidently his “Do Something” involves blasting our Constitutional rights to smithereens. Here’s something that the media is completely leaving out of Biden’s “rational” commentary. 

First, finding out a 9mm bullet can just blast a lung right out of someone’s body is definitely a new one! Second, can someone point me to that manufacturer? I have questions! Third, no wonder the media is covering for Biden on this, his comment, like most comments, are a word salad of idiocy! 

Biden, from the very start has had ZERO clue about guns of any kind.

That hasn’t stopped breathless reporting regarding Texas law and the implication that it’s the “relaxed” Texas laws that gave the shooter the idea to shoot his grandmother and kill nineteen children and two teachers. 

Which completely ignores the fact that A. The shooter legally purchased the rifles and in fact waited over a week to pick them up. B. The shooter by both Texas and federal law wasn’t allowed to purchase handguns. C. Where did the shooter come up with the money to make these purchases??

Yet here is Biden parroting the Democrat party line once again, with an added twist. 

“The Second Amendment was never absolute,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn’t go out and buy a lot of weapons.”

There is nowhere near enough support from congressional Republicans for broader gun measures popular with the public — like a new ban on assault-type weapons or universal background checks on gun purchases. Still, Democratic advocates hope meaningful measures could still pass.

Biden said he’d not spoken to Republicans on the issue “but my guess is … they’re going to have to take a hard look.”

The president also said “it makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds” and added, “The idea of these high powered weapons, there’s simply no rational basis for it.”

Wow. Did you catch that implication? If Biden and the gun grabbing Democrats had their way, the 2nd Amendment would be erased from our Constitution. Period. However, folks are jumping on that with both feet and scissors. They’d love nothing more than to have our 2nd Amendment erased from history. For example:

Yes, indeed. The 2nd Amendment magically appeared during the Heller case. The awful thing is, people actually believe that because they’ve never read the Constitution nor were taught about it in school. 

At least Biden admits that he actually can’t “outlaw a weapon” nor change anything about background checks. Which is kind of a tacit admission that the background checks DID work for the Uvalde shooter. 

As to Biden’s comment about a high-powered weapon that fires “300 rounds,” please point me to the weapon a civilian can LEGALLY own that does so. Biden’s comments once again fit right into his lying about anything to do with guns or our 2nd Amendment. Waiting for the Washington Post to issue yet another fact check… 

Biden and the rest of the gun-grabbing Democrats hate our Constitution and they especially hate the 2nd Amendment. They want to ban it all as that is, according to their rationale, much easier to do than to address the REAL elephants in the room, which includes fractured families, drugs, and mental health issues. 

Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment won’t change what happened in Uvalde, Texas. It won’t magically make tragedies like this non-existent. It will embolden criminals and leave law-abiding citizens in peril. 

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Feature Photo Credit: Original artwork by Victory Girls Darleen Click 

Written by

17 Comments
  • Ralph R Jaeger says:

    What a colossal dumbshit! I just returned from the range where I fired off about 100 rounds of 9 mm at 20 yds and the walls behind the target were still standing . According to Pedo Joe, the concrete should be completely obliterated.

  • LTC Ted says:

    Anyone who reads thriller novels know many ways to commit mass murder without a single firearm. I read somewhere, accuracy unknown, that the U.S., by the study’s measure didn’t break into the top 50 or 86 countries reporting mass murders. Seems odd, considering how the MSM reports everyone outside U. S. urban areas is armed to the teeth, albeit the teeth are few.

    • GWB says:

      I think it was 49th, actually. It was linked in a few places about two weeks or so ago.
      (I think I’ve also seen 14th. It’s usually done as a per capita measure. We went WAY down the list if you do it by the estimated per guns owned measure.)

  • Erasmus says:

    “9mm is a go-to for most women. Might as well say he’s going to disarm women wanting to defend themselves against potential attackers.” – seen on Twitter, and absolutely correct.

  • Erasmus says:

    “The Second Amendment was never absolute” And there we have it, Biden putting slavery back on the table.

  • MikeGiles says:

    Will someone inform the senile clown we have as POTUS, that the shooting started, in the Revolutionary War when the British decided to enforce some gun control on the colonists in a couple of little towns called Lexington and Concord. Also, most ships carried cannons during the era when the Constitution was written, INCLUDING PRIVATELY OWNED ONES. for protection against pirates.

    • Douglas Loss says:

      And further, most of the cannons used by the colonial forces during the Revolutionary War were loaned to them by private owners. It would be interesting to find out just when private ownership of artillery DID become illegal (if in fact it is…it’s possible that no such law is actually on the books).

      • Douglas Loss says:

        Here it is, from guns.com:

        ‘It was in 1968, that the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, introduced as H.R. 5037 by U.S. Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY) and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson (D), regulated most “destructive devices” with a bore over .50-caliber. This meant that modern artillery “such as bazookas, mortars, antitank guns, and so forth” were placed under ATF restrictions in a kind of retroactive addition to the NFA. Before that time, you could buy surplus hardware such as working Boys and Lahti anti-tank rifles at local outlets, cheap.

        ‘With all that being said, modern breechloading artillery is still available in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,” provided it is registered with the federal government and properly taxed. Still, legacy artillery systems like muzzleloading black powder field guns, such as Hamilton and Madison would be familiar with, do not require tax stamps.’

    • GWB says:

      Note also that some of what the Brits were coming to capture was privately owned (but kept in a common armory) cannon.

  • Joe R. says:

    The Second is NOT “absolute” as it can be amended per Article V of the Constitution. What cannot be repealed or amended is The Declaration of Independence, which states 2 x in its ‘flesh-language’ that you are to chuck your government (merely comprised of your idyet ay-whole neighbors who needed a job) “whenever” you deem necessary. One of those times it recites that it is your “duty” to.

    All your idyet ay-whole neighbors who needed a job are mortal and they all sleep somewhere.

    THE CAVALRY IS NOT COMING.

  • GWB says:

    there is simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting
    Says the guy who is protected by those same calibers, and has probably never been really hunting in his life.

    C. Where did the shooter come up with the money to make these purchases?
    He worked at Wendy’s until he had enough money to buy them. He actually told co-workers he had a monetary goal in working there. Then he quit. (Hey, how’s that $15/hr thing coming along?) (At $15/hr, after taxes, he only had to work 5 weeks to afford those rifles, since someone else was paying for his room and board.)

    like a new ban on assault-type weapons
    Yeah, because the last one worked soooo well.

    universal background checks on gun purchases
    Yep, because those background checks stopped this guy from getting a gun. Wait, what?

    it makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds
    Yeah, disposable guns are so much better. (Because he doesn’t even know the difference between quantity and rate.)

    please point me to the weapon a civilian can LEGALLY own that does so
    Ummm, Nina, all of mine can. I’m hoping they shoot upwards of 10,000 rounds (before needing a re-barrel or some such).
    Of course what he meant was “300 rounds from one magazine” or “300 rounds in some amount of time.” I don’t own any of those, but they certainly exist. You can legally own them – but it will cost you an arm and a leg, a government license, and good luck finding one for sale. (I can probably fire 300 rounds in a few minutes from my 1911. But it would require a lot of magazines to already be loaded to do so. But the rate is still 100 rounds a minute for the 1/3 of a minute I can sustain.*)

    (* FYI, I don’t require 300 rounds/minute for my personal self-defense weapon. I don’t require 300 rounds at all, since I don’t plan on a set-piece battle with bad guys. But that rate might come in handy in other situations, and I really don’t want “experts” *hoch ptooie!* trying to figure that out for me.)

    they especially hate the 2nd Amendment
    Because they know and understand it’s the one that keeps the rest of them in place. Period.

    the REAL elephants in the room, which includes fractured families, drugs, and mental health issues
    The real elephant is the lack of morals in our society – leading to all that other stuff. If you can govern yourself (morals) then you can be free. Otherwise, you will be governed.

    • Scott says:

      One of the foremost constitutional theorists of the founding generation, John Adams, observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

      And they were rightly suspicious of the accumulation of governmental power by one person or a small body — “the very definition of tyranny” according to Madison.

      Seems you’re not the first person to think such things GWB.. I do believe you are in good company

  • GWB says:

    Well, yeah, I never said I made it up myself. 🙂

  • Kaden Cheng says:

    “shall not be infringed”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead