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 ...
a relative owns a cannon
fires it every Independence Day
the cops always show up
they chat for awhile
and then leave
“you most certainly COULD own a cannon and some did”
I’ve known 2 people who owned cannons.
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.
And the court stenographers never challenge him. Which tells you something about them.
“... 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”
Is that a challenge?
Did he just throw down a gauntlet?
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.
Remind me, how many F-16’s did the Taliban have?
Still can own a cannon. We need cannon control.
Then there was the little Cuban Boy...no one can forget that picture.
“Remind me, how many F-16’s did the Taliban have?”
How many did they have, or how many do they have now?
Or more banana peels on the stairs to Air Force One.
I thought he’d escalated the situation. One more F. Sadly, I’ve no Fs to give him. Wait...found one...FJB.
The Taliban doesn’t have F-16s. What they had was patience and determination.
"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.
Ahh, but you CAN own an F-16 and a cannon. You just have to have the money.
Why does the govt need an F-16 in this context?
And a willingness to trade lives.
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.