Joe Biden: If you want to defend yourself against an intruder, all you need is a shotgun

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Via HuffPo:

WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that there’s no reason that people should need to own an assault weapon. They’re hard to aim, they’re difficult to use. But shotguns, well, that’s a different story.

During a Facebook Town Hall hosted by Parents magazine, Biden took a handful of questions from readers about gun violence. One questioner named Kate asked how gun owners would be able to sufficiently protect themselves if Congress passed a bill banning certain weapons and high-capacity gun magazines.

“Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barreled shotgun,” Biden responded. “I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.”

The vice president said that by firing two shotgun blasts, anyone who might be trying to break in would be scared off.

“You don’t need an AR-15,” he said. “Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!”

Forget that! There are so many scenarios where a shotgun simply wouldn’t work. What about a .38 special? Or are they next on the list to ban, too? This guy’s insane. But at least not as off the wall as Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar (D), who has had to walk back dangerously outrageous comments he made on the floor of the Colorado House of Representatives regarding women, rape, and self defense:

The video of a Democratic lawmaker talking about rape while debating a gun bill involving college campuses has gone viral, with Republicans and Second Amendment activists likening Rep. Joe Salazar to failed Senate candidate Todd Akin.

The freshman lawmaker from Thornton apologized Monday, agreeing his comment was inartful but saying he’s not the “boorish, macho, Neanderthal Latino” conservatives are making him out to be.

During debate of House Bill 1226, which outlaws concealed-carry permit holders from carrying in university buildings, Salazar said he was trying to make the point about the potential for misidentifying someone and possibly shooting the wrong person.

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at,” Salazar remarked in the debate late Friday.

“And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”

[…]

Salazar issued a written apology Monday after he was ridiculed and ripped in blogs and on Twitter.
“We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do,” he said. “That was the point I was trying to make. “If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney.”

Which is not really an apology but whatever. Nice to know where he “stands” – and that’s against women being able to protect themselves from rape using anything other than a “whistle” and a “safe zone.” #HeadDesk

But I digress. Continuing on with Biden’s remarks:

Biden fielded a handful of other questions about gun reform proposals. He said he doesn’t support making changes to the Second Amendment and described America’s “really healthy gun culture,” which was a “part of my father’s ethic.” He clarified to another questioner that nobody wants to take away people’s guns.

Might want to tell that to Missourians, pal:

Democrats in Missouri introduced startling anti-gun legislation that would require gun owners to hand over their legally purchased so-called “assault weapons”  to “the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction” within 90 days.

Under the proposed bill, “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.”

Here are some additional provisions found in the gun control bill:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

[..]

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

So essentially the law would turn a law-abiding gun owner today, into a felon tomorrow.

State Reps. Rory Ellinger (D-86) and Jill Schupp (D-88) reportedly introduced the anti-gun legislation, House Bill 545, this week.

A similar piece of legislation is being  discussed in California, where gun laws are notoriously strict and where they are already allowed to forcibly confiscate guns from convicted criminals who have lost their right to own them under California law:

A California law that allows authorities to track down gun owners who lost their legal rights to keep their weapons — and then confiscate those firearms — is being heralded as a model for the nation, according to one media report.

The state, which maintains an Armed Prohibited Persons list, is home to more 19,700 gun owners who aren’t allowed to legally possess their firearms, the state’s attorney general said in an United International Press report. The gun owners, the report continues, were once legal carriers but then lost their rights after committing crimes.

And perhaps soon, in states like Colorado and California, you won’t even have to have committed a crime to have your firearm of choice confiscated – other than the crime of being a law-abiding, rules-following gun owner.

Would someone alert Joe Biden, please? I’d hate for the feds to one day take away his shotguns.  Oh wait, that’s right. That won’t happen, because there are always exceptions made for The Important People. The little folks, on the other hand …

Related: Via Twitchy Team –  Who needs a gun? University of Colorado advises women to scream, vomit, fake a disease to avoid rape

#GunControl: Washington State Democrats forget a little thing called the 4th amendment

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Quick synopsis: Democrats in Olympia have heard their master’s voice from D.C. and have decided to “do something” about gun violence, even if that something does nothing but trample on the constitutional rights of Washington’s citizens. Hence a new gun-control measure was introduced in the legislature to “sensibly regulate” firearms and ban those assault weapons that aren’t really assault weapons but look scary. (1)

And it also gave local sheriffs the right to inspect your home without a warrant:

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

The column’s author, Danny Westneat, points out that the offending section has been excised from the current version of the bill. And I’ll point out that a self-described liberal is the one who first spotted the worm in the apple.

But something smells about Democratic claims that they didn’t know the provision was in there, that it surely would have failed constitutional muster, and that it was the fault of an unnamed staffer. (2) More likely they knew very well that the bill included a warrantless search and thought they could slip it through. The fact is that progressives, going at least as far back as Wilson, and whether they know it or not, despise the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the theory of natural, unalienable rights on which they are based, because they stand in the way of them remaking society in their utopian vision.

This is also another example of the parallel track progressives are following on their anti-Second Amendment quest: Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban is likely dead in D.C., but they’re trying to achieve much the same thing in as many state capitals as they can: New York, California, Minnesota, Washington, wherever Democrats are strong and there’s little chance of people paying much attention because the news is so D.C.-centric these days.

While I think the Washington provision would have been chucked out in court, it’s a remind to us all that the price of liberty is unceasing vigilance — abroad and especially at home.

RELATED: I’ve been saying for a while that an assault weapons ban would be useless, and now it turns out a high-power sourced agrees with me — the US Department of Justice. Go ahead, call them bitter-clingers. Meanwhile, it yet another example that gun-free zones are a tragedy waiting to happen, Pirate’s Cove reports that Adam Lanza, the psycho who attacked the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut, did so in part because it was an “easy target.” Res ipsa loquitur.

Footnotes:
(1) If you’re detecting a whiff or sarcasm and scorn in that passage, you’re not having hallucinations.
(2) They claim they just didn’t read the bill. Gee, where have I heard that before? If true, then they’re only incompetent, not malevolent.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)