Analysis Of The Joe Biden Google Hangout

Richard Ryan breaks it down:

If you missed the Joe Biden Google Hangout watch it first… it went VERY well for gun owners.

The star of the show by far was YouTuber Philip DeFranco.  (Side note: The guy is real funny, and you should make sure to check his vids out) I just wish he would have made Biden call him by his YouTube name “Sxe (Sexy) Phil”.  That would have been the icing on the cake, and an additional reward for how much Philip was able to coax foot-in-mouth answers out of Biden.

M16 Selector Switch T-ShirtRatedRR-Richard-RyanRichard is wearing the M16 selector fire switch t-shirt.  The first ENDO t-shirt ever, and one of my personal favorites… a classic.

17 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

A January 28, 2013 at 05:20 am

Biden made two separate arguements for the AWB invoking police safety. I know that arguing against police is considered to be “anti-social” or “extremist” behavior, and the gun owning community needs all the good press it can get. But I think “appeal to cop” is an arguement we need to shoot down, and not just by saying “well there are cops who would disagree with the AWB.”

We have seen too many cases in the US of police brutality, particularly against legal gun owners. There was the Canton, OH police officer Daniel Harless who got caught on dash cam threatening to execute CCW holders. There was the SWAT killing of Jose Guerena during a no-knock raid. And the most recent threat by the Chief of the Chicago PD to instruct his offiers to shoot anyone they find with a gun, CCW permit or not.

Yes, there are many good cops out there. But there are many bad ones too. There are police who feel that our civil rights are a inconvenience to they doing thier duty. Arguing for gun bans by “appeal to cop” very much feels like an arguement to make it easier for the bullies to bully us. ESPECIALLY when the police are always exempt from AWB’s and other gun laws.

Should the gun rights of law abiding citizens be in the hands of people who beat up bartenders (http://abcnews.go.com/US/chicago-police-found-guilty-covering-bartender-beating/story?id=17716840), massacre citizens during a natural disaster (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/us/06danziger.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), or shoot unarmed people due to road rage (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57526928-504083/nypd-officer-shot-unarmed-national-guardsman-during-traffic-stop-witness-says/)? But that really is the point of gun bans, isn’t it? To concentrate power in the hands of the government. But there I go again, sounding crazy, for not blindly trusting the people who want to have power over me.

P.S. I think the most infuriating part of the gun control “debate” is having the antis argue against something they know nothing about, of course, I doubt Biden actually knows anything.

Reply

Church January 28, 2013 at 05:21 am

Awesome breakdown.

Reply

Chris January 28, 2013 at 09:03 am

I watched the whole piece. Biden really comes off as concerned but ignorant. We have to understand that this is an agenda guys. This isn’t just a bunch of liberals sitting around trying to make the world better. This is a purposeful deconstruction of our Constitution to satisfy the a one world government of tyrany and control. The following is written by a person who used to be a lobbyist at the UN and ended up realizing the agendas behind much of their plans.
“This is an 8 minute video on the affect of gun-control that morphed into a gun-ban in Australia. Gun control to reduce gun violence is the act of a nation attempting to cure the symptom of gun violence while doing nothing about the disease of moral-relativism. Gun control also makes the assumption that sociopaths never make their way into government. Long term, gun control reduces a very small portion of ‘NOT FOR PROFIT MASS MURDERS’ while setting citizens up for a well documented mass murder that is far less frequent, but is many time greater in volume. Please keep in mind that multiple nations that have had their citizens disarmed by government prove that local gun registration is eventually followed by a national gun registry, that is later followed by gun confiscation. The past 100 years in Europe has repeatedly evidenced a far more dangerous issue than “citizen on citizen” gun murders evidences. This evidence proves that attempting to resolve citizen on citizen gun violence by disarming citizens creates a far greater long term danger in the form of creating nations of “citizen victims in waiting.” Europe, Russia, Cambodia, China and other nations where citizens foolishly allow government and criminals to achieve a monopoly on gun-based lethal force have had their governments mass murder over 150 million of their own citizens over the past 100 years. Like the U.S. today, past nations allowing themselves to be disarmed had existed long enough without tyranny such that a new generation had grown up for whom tyranny seemed a distant thing of the past, unlikely to reoccur in their new age of ‘enlightenment.’ Because tyranny always eventually forms in governments unrestrained by armed citizens as a matter of human-nature, tyranny is rarely more than 100 years away for disarmed citizens. 150 million murdered by their own governments was only possible after citizen disarmament, in the name of reducing gun violence, removed the safety factor that citizen gun ownership provides – private gun ownership ensures government maintains a HEALTHY-FEAR OF ITS OWN CITIZENS. And as America’s government is increasingly governed by democrats and republicans who interpret the U.S. Constitution in whatever way suits their ‘enlightened’ agenda, we are fools to believe tyranny cannot occur in America. Tyranny only requires the fertile ground of gun-control and politicians deceiving citizens as to their true nature, for it to grow – then the mass murder by the hundreds of millions begins. And with todays technology, the global governance structure being built, and the proven sociopathic nature of “human enlightenment” that is creeping into the world’s governments, mass tyranny has never been so possible. America is the only nation left powerful enough to end our world’s trendctowards ‘global government under the pretense of global problem solving’. And we have the obligation pass along liberty instead of tyranny to our future generations. Which is only done by you investing time to represent yourself in your representative government on a greater level than mere voting. You must bind with other citizens, and within the law, cleanse our government of the constitutional-deconstructionists who are destroying our government (especially conservative impostors). And then replace them with citizens who will preserve, protect and defend America’s amended constitution. This is an obligation not an option.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

Reply

AKFTW January 28, 2013 at 09:36 am

tl;dr

Reply

ringo45 January 28, 2013 at 04:38 pm

Too lazy; didn’t read

Reply

032125 January 28, 2013 at 03:03 pm

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Reply

DoubleTap January 28, 2013 at 09:42 am

The same people that want to ban firearms and do away with the second amendment are the same people that would rather hand out a life sentence to a criminal who kills some one than issue a death penalty. We have enough laws regarding firearms, but the punishment for criminals who use firearms to kill people are a joke. In prison with in the different gangs, security threat groups there is a pecking order and the top of the order are killers. So as long as you have not co operated with law enforcement or turned states witness you have nothing to fear in prison. I walk behind the walls of a institution every day, prison is not exactly the way it is seen on t.v. Take for example First 48, when the show is all wrapped up and they do a final interview with the family of the victims you hear from time to time “Im just glad they got the person who killed my son and he will be locked and will never see the light of day again”. Sorry to break it you folks the killers and murderers are not locked up 24/7, that would be cruel and unusual, their punishment is not to be locked in a cell 24/7 but rather confined within the facility. Again there are ENOUGH LAWS regarding firearms. The real problem is with the sentencing criminals and the punishment they receive for their crimes. Start handing out the death penalty and DO NOT let them have appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal…..where was the appeal for the person that was murdered?

Reply

Chrontius January 28, 2013 at 05:40 pm

With the rise of DNA evidence, it came to light that America had recently executed a *lot* of innocent people — and left a lot of murderers wandering around as free men.

That’s why we give them lots of appeals.

Reply

Steve D. January 30, 2013 at 02:40 am

Good point, but it also has a flip-side. With the age of DNA we’re able to prove beyond reasonable doubt (providing evidence was not planted) that a person is guilty. This should be a case for the death penalty.

…if the Patriot Act and NDAA can be used to execute anyone the government likes, then why not proven criminals.

Reply

enfieldem2 January 28, 2013 at 04:08 pm

I am a fan of double barrel shotguns, preferably with hammers. But if I was in a collapse of infrastructure, roving gangs situation give me a military pattern rifle anyday.

But does this mean that Joe bidens secret service detail is only going to be equipped with double guns now?

Reply

Taylor TX January 28, 2013 at 06:49 pm

the barrel of a coach gun slyly sticking out of a secret service coat would be great

Reply

Steve D. January 30, 2013 at 02:47 am

His “double-barreled shotgun” comment was absurd!

If he and Frankenstein get their way, folding (or collapsing) stocks would be banned, so would pistol grips… so what we are left with would be a full length wooden stock on a minimum 18″ barrel + action shotgun. That would be approximately 39″ long (Remington 870). I can’t imagine anything more cumbersome for home defense.

Reply

ringo45 January 28, 2013 at 04:47 pm

Maybe there are no home invasions where the anti-gun politicians come from, but there are certainly home invasions where I come from (reality). Multiple criminals invade homes wearing bullet proof vests. That is precisely why I will not leave it up to Obama to tell me how to defend my family from these attackers. The most effective way to stop them is with a so called “assault weapon.” And no one in their right mind would ever wish that they had only ten rounds in their “assault weapon” while in a firefight against multiple assailants wearing bullet proof vests. That would be stupid. So, Mr. President, you can take your illogical gun restrictions and apply them to your body guards, but as for me and my family, we will stick to our guns (quite literally).

Reply

John January 28, 2013 at 05:33 pm

I think the VP is just expressing how we need to pass laws to keep cops safe; Mr. Biden know how Cops aren’t very good at keeping the public safe. VP Biden knows how bad the police are (even with body armor) at protecting themselves. Mr. Biden option is that as long as assault weapons are out on our streets that the police can’t keep the public safe or even themselves.

Reply

mike January 29, 2013 at 09:50 am

the sxe stands for straight edge not sexy just fyi

Reply

JohnTheBaptist January 29, 2013 at 08:52 pm

Just curious are double barrel shotguns considered rare? Up here in the mountains of North Carolina it’s pretty common for everybody to have one.

Reply

Dan January 29, 2013 at 11:14 pm

LOL @ 1 3/4 sec for a pro to reload and a minute or two for everyone else.
Most of the shooting I’ve done has been in CA using a ridiculous bullet button, but without one I can still reload in about 3 seconds using a mag stuffed in my back pocket. My guess would be a “pro” could do it in about a second.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: