Biden's Memorial Day 2022

Biden spoke on memorial day about the great sacrifice of our passed veterans, just kidding. He did a dumb gun rant instead.

Biden spoke on Memorial Day about the great sacrifice of our passed veterans, just kidding. He went on a dumb gun rant instead, and got all the facts wrong, as usual. Never miss an opportunity to divide us, or take cheap political shots. He always knows the wrong thing to say, at the wrong time.

ℹ️ Info

~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2022-05-30

After screwing COVID, Immigration, Energy, Inflation, Afghanist, Ukraine, Biden decided to add divisive commentary on gun control. His ability to get the facts wrong, is only exceeded by his ability to do it in a way that alienates anyone who might be on his side.

His statements included:

“The Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute,"[edit | edit source]

Not overall, but "shall not be infringed" is a fairly firm part. And there's a way to amend the constitution. You can't just ignore the parts you don't like or legislate over them, you need to remove/replace them first. That's something Democrats have been unwilling to do, trying instead to just regulate our liberties to death, without the authority to back it up.

Americans were unable to purchase a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed[edit | edit source]

This is complete ignorance. You could -- that was in fact the point. Even far left places like WaPo had to admit that he got it wrong. And keeps repeating it despite it being fact checked as wrong. He just counts on his base either being too dumb to know better, or too partisan to care that he's lying about it. Go team blue!

and you couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weapons[edit | edit source]

WTF Joe? You could buy a private army and supply them if you wanted. Ever heard of privateers? Those were the equivalent of battleships owned by private citizens. You could own every weapon that the military could. And more weapons than they had.

Biden on bullet calibers and the damage. “The 22 caliber bullet will lodge in the lungs and we can get it out,” Biden said. “A 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”[edit | edit source]

You can do this... with say a .9mm against a small rodent (say a squirrel). So I guess that's a lung and a body, just not a human body. As for humans? He's moronically wrong. (a) he's saying an AR bullet is safer than a 9mm, since it is only a 22 caliber bullet? Really? (b) he's saying a 9mm (a low power bullet) has magical powers to surgically extract organs? (c) a .50 BMG can't really blow a lung out of the body... but it'll put a hole through one. How does 0.2 oz (less than 1/2" across) pull out a 23 oz, that's 10 x 8" of lung? It's not just that he's wrong, but he's said this before, been corrected before, and keeps just lying about it. But he exposed his agenda, he not only wants to ban assault weapons, he's going after the most popular small caliber pistol rounds. No gun is safe from his demogoguery, and his base doesn't know enough to question. But if you can outlaw the 9mm, it shows that he wants no guns in the hands of civlians.

“The idea of a high caliber weapon, there is no rationale for it in terms of self-protection, hunting,” he said.[edit | edit source]

Ultra stupid. You use the term large caliber or high power, they mean different things. High caliber just means big (large) caliber. Large Caliber is the diameter of the bullet, but not the power. This isn't just semantics, it's basic knowledge. Like saying, "I have a fast horsepower truck". Gobbledygook. Physiscs 101: mass x velocity = energy. It's not clearly one is better/worse. They serve different roles. a .223 (a 22 caliber bullet that the AR-15 fires) is smaller, but faster (good for mid range), and delivers about 100 FPE (Ft. Lbs. Energy) the 9mm he thinks sucks lungs out, is bigger but slower (good for close range) and about ≈400 FPE (or under half as powerful) The damage they do depends. The .223 is so fast, it often just leaves a small hole through you, and delivered a fraction the total energy, while the 9mm stops inside and imparts the total payload -- but the .223 can go through light body armor. And in the military, wounding is often better than killing, as it takes more people to tend to the wounded than to bury the dead. Hunting: but it's the opposite of what he says. Elk, Moose, Bear, Rhinos... they're bigger than people, and you need bigger calibers (size and velocity). Humans are small, soft targets. Assault Rifles were created to use weaker rounds than big hunting rounds, so people could carry more ammo and make the gun lighter. High caliber weapons are hunting (but overkill for people), low caliber weapons are too weak for hunting. You often can't hunt deer with an AR-15 because it's too low powered.

Civilians don't have nukes or fighter jets[edit | edit source]

Biden went on to talk about civilians not having tanks and fighter jets. Similar to Eric Swalwels dumb claim that civilians don't need guns because the military has Nukes. The meat of his argument is: Since we don't have equal tools to the military, we can't have an insurrection or get the government to back down. History says otherwise. Last time this happened was way back after WWII with the Battle of Athens, so just a little before my lifetime. And we had nukes and planes back then. Globally, most insurrections/rebellions are successful with small arms. There's big questions as to whether the military is going to shoot on it's own civilians. (Democrats will, but the military is conservative-heavy). The point is if people are willing to die or kill for something they believe in, then it's rare that good people will kill them for standing up. Democrats will, because power is more important than ethics. But most good people won't. So there's no real point here. What he's really saying is that if you don't do what he wants, he'll let loose tanks and jets on civilians? Scranton Joe. What a guy! Like Swalwell with 1/3rd less CCP Concubines. If he's saying civilians should be able to own tanks or aircraft? Why not? Do you really think people that can afford $10M are a threat to public safety? If they want to do mass casualties, they can just buy/make some chlorine gas and put in a subway inlet. The left is so profoundly ignorant on military and tactics. So the reason they can't is because the left wants no one to have the power to challenge them. It's called authoritarianism.

Biden admitted he had not had any conversations with Republicans on the issue of gun control[edit | edit source]

Joe doesn't want to unite us, get informed, or see what he could do to succeed. If he had any skills as a statesman, the first thing he would have done is reached out to the other side and say, "what will it take". The fact that he's 2 years in, and hasn't bothered even having a conversation with Republicans? That tells you all you need to know about Joe.

“I know that it makes no sense to be able to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds[edit | edit source]

All guns can fire 300 rounds. I think the average gun probably has a lifespan of a few hundred thousand rounds, before having to replace a part or two. What I think he meant to say is rate of fire. But that has a time on it. Per minute, hour, week? There's also is he talking peak or sustained rate, is he talking fully auto, or semi-auto? It's nonsense. Usually you use that on sustained rate, and fully auto. The problem is no civilian guns can do that: fully automatic have been controlled since the 1930's (banned since the 1980s). I have a pellet gun that does that, fully auto... and the left is too dumb to know that some of them are powerful enough to hunt bear with. But that's not what Joe is talking about. If he's talking sustained rate? You need a belt fed gun, and a partner to feed the ammo, to sustain that rate. Otherwise, you're just doing it for one magazine. And no civilian gun can maintain that rate of fire for any time without overheating. So he can't be meaning sustained rate. If he's talking about peak/burst rate, on semi-automatics (meaning how fast can you pull the trigger)? Well most guns can do that. I can bump fire a 1911 (a pistol designed in the year 1911) at that rate. (Virtually all semi-automatics, revolvers, lever actions and pumps). So if he's saying we shouldn't have that power, we should outlaw 90% of the guns? That would violate the 2A pretty clearly. And does he really think that 200 rounds per minute is going to be safe and OK for the public? The average mass shooter is shooting at a rate of like 5 rounds per minute..

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

To summarize. Joe made a series of stupid statements, in an abbrasive way, that showed he knows nothing about guns or gun terminology, he knows nothing about diplomacy and statesmanship and never reached out to the other side, all because he knows his FakeNews media and gullible base won't call him on it. Either they aren't bright enough, or don't have enough integrity to care. They just cheer, go team blue. No matter how stupid what team blue is saying.

🔗 More

Joe Biden
Lifelong racist, child sniffer and gaffe machine became 46th President under illegal election and thinnest margin.

Gun Control
Gun Control is about people control.

🔗 Links

Tags: Joe Biden Gun Control