Biden mocks Second Amendment supporters, says you 'need an F-16’ to take on government

Fox News ^ | 6/21/23 | Kyle Morris

[joshua c]

a relative owns a cannon

fires it every Independence Day

the cops always show up

they chat for awhile

and then leave

[nuconvert]

“you most certainly COULD own a cannon and some did”

I’ve known 2 people who owned cannons.

[Steely Tom]

He’s saying that the possibility of using the US Military to subdue elements of the American population is on his mind, and on the minds of his senior advisors. It has been discussed in cabinet meetings.

[Tench_Coxe]

"Why is the POTUS even framing the second amendment in terms of winning a conflict with it’s own citizens at all?"

And the court stenographers never challenge him. Which tells you something about them.

[Tell It Right]

Biden: I taught it for six years in law school when Declaration signer George Read of Delaware came though my class as a student after he'd finish video taping FDR's fireside chats updating the country on McArthur crossing the Rubicon at Valley Forge. I remember it plain as day. Beau never made it out of Gettysburg.

[z3n]

“... on the minds of his senior advisors. It has been discussed in cabinet meetings.”

~~~

Makes you wonder how in depth these meetings get, because that is my worry here too. Joe is 80 and can remember talking points, but he can’t remember every time they have to tell him, “Remember Joe, you can’t repeat this conversation”

[metmom]

Is that a challenge?

Did he just throw down a gauntlet?

[airborne]

I suppose taking up a collection here on FreeRepublic for an F-16 is out of the question?

[FLT-bird]

Let's think through the implications of this idiots' argument.

The people do not have sufficient weaponry to take on the US military. (I don't believe this and I also don't buy the underlying assumption that the military would be united in a civil war type scenario). So...the people should give up the weapons they do have and their role in safeguarding their own liberties as envisioned by the Founding Fathers?

No. Its the exact opposite.

If the weapons currently in private hands are not sufficient to safeguard the people's liberty, then they need MORE and DEADLIER weapons. I note that:

RPGs

Fully automatic weapons

Hand Grenades

Land mines

armed drones

small mortars like the 81mm mortar

Are all well within the budget of most citizens.

So Joe. Which of these weapons do you think we need to legalize and get into private hands in large numbers? I'm all ears.

[ALPAPilot]

Remind me, how many F-16’s did the Taliban have?

[SJackson]

Still can own a cannon. We need cannon control.

[Sacajaweau]

I remember watching them go after the Boston Bombers...an army by any other name...something the Constitution says should never happen.

Then there was the little Cuban Boy...no one can forget that picture.

[samiam5]

“Remind me, how many F-16’s did the Taliban have?”

How many did they have, or how many do they have now?

[Malinse]

Or more banana peels on the stairs to Air Force One.

[gundog]

I thought he’d escalated the situation. One more F. Sadly, I’ve no Fs to give him. Wait...found one...FJB.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The Taliban doesn’t have F-16s. What they had was patience and determination.

[Tench_Coxe]

Maybe that's a zinger that could be asked in an oversight meeting:

"Have you, or anyone you know, been in discussions within the administration, or affiliated parties, that involve the use of military or paramilitary assets and/or personnel against the citizens of the United States?"
make it out of the blue, since the prepared responses would be on other topics.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Ahh, but you CAN own an F-16 and a cannon. You just have to have the money.

[proust]

Why does the govt need an F-16 in this context?

[Reily]

And a willingness to trade lives.