Posted on 06/21/2023 10:46:40 AM PDT by CFW
President Biden took another swipe at Second Amendment supporters Tuesday evening, reminding them that they would "need an F-16" to challenge the U.S. government.
Biden's remarks at a fundraising event in a private residence in California came as he discussed gun violence in America and stressed the notion that Americans do not need AR-15s.
"We have to change," Biden said. "There’s a lot of things we can change, because the American people by and large agree you don’t need a weapon of war. I’m a Second Amendment guy. I taught it for four years, six years in law school. And guess what? It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Now, he actually taught the 2nd Amendment!
One does not need an F-16 to shoot the guy giving orders to the pilot of the F-16.
That’s where an Ar-15 can be useful.
Well, we’re getting closer. Last time he said we needed an F-15. And F-16 is more affordable.
“It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon.”
No it doesn’t, and yes you could.
He’s repeated that same line about 3 or 4 times that I know of, he must think it is a fresh quip of the top of his head.
“Americans do not need AR-15s.”
But Joe says we need an F-16. Is it my fundamental constitutional American right to have an F 16? I’ll go along with that. Send one over.
All we previously needed was a vote.
” It (2A) says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious.”
It says no such thing. And yes, if you could afford to buy and feed one, one, you most certainly COULD own a cannon and some did.
Funny, all you Democrats needed was election fraud at historic levels to steal the government, not F-16.
What do you expect from a dog-faced pony soldier?
President Retard threatens to bomb political opponents
Again
Ok. I’m just going to say it. You don’t need an F-16 to challenge the government.
Half or more of the actual combat troops wouldn’t fight Americans who are simply trying to survive a tyrannical government. Your heavy-hitters such as infantry, tank drivers, and pilots are going to say, “nope.”
How do I know? I’m one of those guys mentioned above. I interact with those other guys mentioned above. Now, your logistical support? That’s where they guys and girls who wanted free college money and are less likely to be patriotic reside.
Also, I, and others, just spent 20+ years prosecuting a war against an insurgency. Let’s just say that F-16 wouldn’t drop a bomb danger-close to what it’s trying to protect. And this fight would be danger-close...small arms range in mostly urban and suburban environments.
It’ll be ugly and costly. Let’s pray it never happens.
He’s admitting it’s the government against the American people.
How'd that turn out for the feral...err...I mean federal governmdnt.
And, Creepy Uncle Joe, you can own a cannon and a machine gun, today.
Well regulated means equipped with the weapons of the day.
But, ya know, an F-16 is much more deadlier than an F-25 ... 'cuz 16 is bigger than 15.
Isn’t this the same guy that says you can’t own a cannon?
And indeed, yes you can. Not to mention people owned full warships, fully armed with many cannon.
He’s still on the “you can’t own a cannon” trope. Yes, you can, then and now. And there are fewer restrictions on them than there are on AR-15’s. Goggle up “cannon for sale” it you don’t believe me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.