Biden Recommends That People Break the Law

[Night Strike]

The Democrats have been a bastion of giving horrible advice while trying to enact their ban on scary looking weapons. Besides their members recommending that women pee or puke on attackers, relying on "campus safe zones", or that women aren't discerning enough to know when to use a gun (all of which are on the same level as "legitimate rape", yet these are absolutely ignored in the media.....fyi), the Vice President himself recommends that women people take actions with their shotguns that are already illegal to take.

Vice President Joe Biden told Field and Stream in a report published Monday that “if you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” That same day, a 22-year-old man in Virginia Beach, Va. followed Biden’s advice — and was charged with reckless handling of a firearm.

The man was in his bedroom when two armed masked men leaned through the window and warned him to close his bedroom door, WAVY-TV reports. The 22-year-old then stepped into the hallway, grabbed his shotgun and fired several shots through his closed bedroom door, toward the window.

The only person who got arrested that night was him. Police reportedly arrested the man on reckless handling of a firearm charges. The two burglary suspects have not been found and no injuries were reported.

While it’s unclear whether or not the man was acting on advice from Biden or not, it certainly shows how flawed Biden’s gun advice really is. Keep in mind, Obama selected Biden to head an actual gun violence “task force.”

In another recent interview, Biden said he tells his wife that if she ever feels threatened by a home intruder, she should just “walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.” Once again, this is very flawed and reckless gun advice.

In Delaware, where Biden and his wife call home, it’s a felony reckless endangerment violation to fire a weapon into the air, according to attorneys.

Biden also claimed in the same interview that a double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun is easier to use and aim than an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a claim that gun experts have debunked thoroughly.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/01/homeowner-takes-joe-bidens-gun-advice-and-gets-arrested-for-reckless-handling-of-a-firearm/


How are people who are this ignorant about current gun laws or basic gun safety/use tasked with writing even more laws/bans on our Constitutional rights?

[notyou2]

Mormons break the law all the time by marrying more than one wife.

[Night Strike]

Mormons break the law all the time by marrying more than one wife.

As far as I know, those are religious ceremonies that don't involve the civil authority (government), so they're not actually breaking any laws.

[notyou2]

ahhh.....good dodge

When you running for political office?

[Symmetry]

Oh, Diamond Joe...

[AAFitz]

..all of which are on the same level as "legitimate rape"

Not really.

[Gillipig]

Finally a politician I can support!! The prospect of breaking laws is what makes life worth living!
Speeding, peeing in public, flashing, smoking pot, downloading copy right protected music and movies are all excellent examples. Oh and did I mention killing? That stuff is hilarious!!

[notyou2]

Best yet, lying on your tax return.

[Lil_SlimShady]

Laws are meant to be broken. Biden is doing everything right

[rishaed]

Ooooh So that means I would be okay If I buy an AR right? I mean if I'm going to jail anyways I might as well have the report say I had an Assault Rifle, and scare off any potential robbers, then go to jail for reckless gun usage.

[Night Strike]

..all of which are on the same level as "legitimate rape"

Not really.

So you agree with the Democrat who said that women aren't smart enough to trust their feelings of being threatened and therefore aren't smart enough to carry a gun?

All the instances mentioned in this thread, and the many more that will undoubtedly come, just show which politicians are the true perpetrators of a war on women.

[AAFitz]

..all of which are on the same level as "legitimate rape"

Not really.

So you agree with the Democrat who said that women aren't smart enough to trust their feelings of being threatened and therefore aren't smart enough to carry a gun?

All the instances mentioned in this thread, and the many more that will undoubtedly come, just show which politicians are the true perpetrators of a war on women.

Actually, by not really, I simply meant it was not on the same level as legitimate rape.

Suggesting that means I agree with someone else because I disagree with that particular sentiment...is pretty ridiculous.

You wont see it because your definition of ridiculous is quite a bit different than mine. But its there.

[Metsfanmax]

[AndyDufresne]

[Anger]

--Andy

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Mormons break the law all the time by marrying more than one wife.

As far as I know, those are religious ceremonies that don't involve the civil authority (government), so they're not actually breaking any laws.

So then you're for gay marriage?

-TG

[thegreekdog]

Mormons break the law all the time by marrying more than one wife.

As far as I know, those are religious ceremonies that don't involve the civil authority (government), so they're not actually breaking any laws.

So then you're for gay marriage?

-TG

Nice trap guys!

[notyou2]

..all of which are on the same level as "legitimate rape"

Not really.

So you agree with the Democrat who said that women aren't smart enough to trust their feelings of being threatened and therefore aren't smart enough to carry a gun?

All the instances mentioned in this thread, and the many more that will undoubtedly come, just show which politicians are the true perpetrators of a war on women.

1. Source please for the Dem that said that.

2. I personally believe religion is the number one perpetrator of a war on women. It seems only the progressive religions treat them as equal.

[Night Strike]

..all of which are on the same level as "legitimate rape"

Not really.

So you agree with the Democrat who said that women aren't smart enough to trust their feelings of being threatened and therefore aren't smart enough to carry a gun?

All the instances mentioned in this thread, and the many more that will undoubtedly come, just show which politicians are the true perpetrators of a war on women.

1. Source please for the Dem that said that.

[Metsfanmax]

So you agree with the Democrat who said that women aren't smart enough to trust their feelings of being threatened and therefore aren't smart enough to carry a gun?

All the instances mentioned in this thread, and the many more that will undoubtedly come, just show which politicians are the true perpetrators of a war on women.

So your argument is that the idea that a woman's body can biologically "shut down" the results of rape, is no more abhorrent than the idea that women might make a mistake and shoot somebody who was not actually threatening them?

The problem with Salazar's comments is that there's not necessarily a clear reason why women are less able to discern the proper situation in which to fire a weapon, than men. The problem with Akin's comments is that it displays a fundamental ignorance of reality.

But what is the point of playing the "find a gaffe" game? Let's talk about things that actually matter, that a substantial fraction of people actually believe. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

[Night Strike]

But what is the point of playing the "find a gaffe" game? Let's talk about things that actually matter, that a substantial fraction of people actually believe. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

Actually, these "find a gaffe" "games" are very important because all of these "gaffes" are coming from people who are either pushing for or actively voting for massive restrictions on the 2nd amendment. If they can't even understand basic principles of gun ownership and the laws that are already on the books, how can they be trusted to pass even more laws? These Democrats that have made several absolutely stupid and berating comments toward women who want to carry guns are mostly in Colorado, which is currently in the process of approving 7 new laws that will effectively nullify the 2nd amendment within their state. I'd say their comments and beliefs on guns are completely relevant.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Mormons break the law all the time by marrying more than one wife.

As far as I know, those are religious ceremonies that don't involve the civil authority (government), so they're not actually breaking any laws.

So then you're for gay marriage?

-TG

Nice trap guys!

[Metsfanmax]

But what is the point of playing the "find a gaffe" game? Let's talk about things that actually matter, that a substantial fraction of people actually believe. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

Actually, these "find a gaffe" "games" are very important because all of these "gaffes" are coming from people who are either pushing for or actively voting for massive restrictions on the 2nd amendment. If they can't even understand basic principles of gun ownership and the laws that are already on the books, how can they be trusted to pass even more laws? These Democrats that have made several absolutely stupid and berating comments toward women who want to carry guns are mostly in Colorado, which is currently in the process of approving 7 new laws that will effectively nullify the 2nd amendment within their state. I'd say their comments and beliefs on guns are completely relevant.

The belief that women are not trustworthy to use a firearm with proper discrimination has nothing to do with an understanding of the "principles" of gun ownership and laws that are already on the books. As Salazar later pointed out, the context for his remark was a discussion about whether concealed carry permits should be allowed on college campuses. He was making the argument that these weapons would not make you safer, and chose as an example a woman who felt threatened and might respond by firing recklessly. The larger point is that guns will not improve overall safety, because someone who feels threatened is at least as likely to fire at someone who isn't a legitimate threat as someone who is. This is a point of factual contention, in principle. It is possible he is wrong. But the fact that he chose a woman, who felt threatened of being raped, as an example of that point, is completely irrelevant to the main argument. If you would like to interpret him as saying that women are even more likely than men to use a firearm improperly, you are welcome to do so. That's not an actual response to the real gun safety issue we're discussing here. Even if you buy that latter interpretation (which I don't), calling it an extension of a "war on women" and equating it to Akin's comments (which represent a much more fundamental misunderstanding of reality than Salazar's comments could ever have been) is a stretch.

[Night Strike]

The fact that you believe that people who have concealed carry permits will just shoot at anyone due to a perceived threat shows that you have absolutely no clue about what it actually means to own a gun. People who own a gun for self-defense don't just go pointing their guns at others for any reason. That goes even more so for people who have had to go through further training to own a concealed carry permit. If women are going around pulling guns on people incorrectly, why aren't there stories about it all over the place? Remember, people are currently allowed to carry concealed weapons off of campus, so these instances should be happening in those places if there's to be any belief that they will happen on a campus. Also, criminals don't care about boundaries, so why should potential victims be forced to be victims simply because they are on one side of a government-imposed artificial line? Banning guns only makes the criminals safer, not the potential victims.

[Metsfanmax]

The fact that you believe that people who have concealed carry permits will just shoot at anyone due to a perceived threat shows that you have absolutely no clue about what it actually means to own a gun.

There was no reason to extrapolate that this is my belief based on my post. Anyway, I don't expect that anyone should make policy based on assumption, either way. They should make it based on the actual data. If the data show that people who have concealed carry permits are safer, and that when people carry concealed weapons that an area is generally safer, then that is a significant argument in favor of allowing concealed carry permits. Saying that "people who have concealed carry permits obviously know how to use a weapon responsibly" is not an argument; it is an assertion on which actual firearm policy should not be based.

The results of a study on concealed carry permits seem to suggest that one university that allowed CCW had significantly less crime than another university that didn't. Could just be a case of correlation not implying causation though; the sample size is fairly small. But suppose it's not; it could just be a pure deterrence effect. I posted this experiment a while ago, where a bunch of random people demonstrated that they could not fire a concealed weapon properly when needed. Again, too small sample size to draw conclusions. It seems plausible to me that there's a selection bias at play: the people that actually do get concealed carry permits are the ones who are more able to think quickly on their feet and have experience drawing and using their weapon. That might explain why concealed carry holders are safer, if that is indeed the case. But like I said, the pure deterrence effect might explain it too. Both sides need to stop making grand assertions about the way things ought to be, and start looking at the data, or pushing for more relevant data where necessary.

Also, criminals don't care about boundaries, so why should potential victims be forced to be victims simply because they are on one side of a government-imposed artificial line? Banning guns only makes the criminals safer, not the potential victims.

Another study points out that, in general, it has been difficult to establish a clear link between CCW permits and crime rates, and took the approach of comparing crime rates between those with concealed carry permits and those without. They found that concealed carry permit holders committed far fewer crimes, but the nature of their crimes tended to be more serious (e.g. sexual assault, murder as compared to burglaries, etc.). They argue that there is a small increased risk of crime rates when we expand the settings where people can carry concealed weapons. So I implore you to actually consider the data.

[Neoteny]

That's silly. Women can use a 12 just fine. Using a bunch of ladies who don't know what they're doing is a little dishonest.



I wouldn't necessarily suggest firing both barrels of a double at the same time for anyone. My scrawny ass would probably go flying too.

Here's one that goes all the way up to ten.



Perhaps it just comes with the accent. "Damn, I don't see any point in shooting the other TV, do you?"