VP Biden Sees Gun Control “Before The Year Is Out”


At a forum as part of the McCain Institute for International Leadership, Vice President Joe Biden promised that his administration will ensure tighter gun control policies are enacted before the year is out.

“For the first time ever, you have people who are for gun safety, for increasing background checks,” Biden said. “Two out of three of them say it will be a major determining factor in how I vote. That’s the political dynamic that has changed. So I think we’re going to get this anyway. I think this will pass before the year is out, within this Congress.”

With the recent defeat in the Senate of President Obama’s gun control agenda, how can Biden be so confident that efforts to unconstitutionally disarm the American public will pass. While everyone has been focused on the Boston Marathon bomber and explosion in West, Texas, the president himself is giving us an idea of how he is going to implement his gun control schemes that only socialists and big government types support.

On Monday, the BATFE – the organization responsible for killing border agents and unknown numbers of Mexicans through the Fast & the Furious gun-running operation – issued new rules on the US Munitions Import List.

As part of the rules released by Attorney General with approval through Obama’s Executive Order 13637 signed in March, changes to Part 447 (which includes the U.S. Munitions Import
List, or USMIL) include “procedural and administrative requirements relating to registration of importers, permits, articles in transit, import certification, delivery verification, import restrictions applicable to certain countries, exemptions, U.S. military firearms and ammunition, penalties, seizures, and forfeitures.”

On its surface, the layman that doesn’t pay attention to what is said by our politicians say in public would think this doesn’t affect the rights of us everyday Americans to keep and bear arms. Consider these recent quotes:

Bloomberg: “Even though restrictions on military-style weapons will not be part of the bill that goes to the floor of the U.S. Senate, it will get a vote by the full Senate as an amendment to the bill. And everyone’s going to have to stand up and say yea or nay, and then the rest of us have to decide just how we feel about people and their stands.”

Biden: “I am still pushing that it pass. We are still pushing that it pass. The same thing was told to me when the first assault weapons ban in 1994 was attached to the Biden Crime bill; that it couldn’t possibly pass. It was declared dead several times. I believe that the vast majority of the American people agree with us. The vast majority of gun owners agree with us. That military-style assault weapons are – these are weapons of war. They don’t belong in the street, and the recent decision declaring the right of someone to own a weapon in their home for self-protection.”

Obama: “Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.”

Feinstein: “It has become clear over the past several weeks that banning dangerous military-style assault weapons has overwhelming public support.”

Reid: “We can and should make the same common sense approach to safeguard Americans from modern weapons of war, assault weapons.”

Philadephia Mayor Michael Nutter: “No one has ever been able to explain why a civilian should have a military-style assault weapon for anything.”

Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy: “Military grade weapons do not belong in the hands of hunters, sportsmen, collectors, or anybody else.”

There are many other quotes out there from liberals and gun grabbers all trying to paint AR-style weapons as “military-grade” or “military-style” weapons. Why? After all, when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 the military used single-shot, muzzle loaded muskets. The rifling was very rudimentary, but was the latest technology. But, these were the same guns used by the general populace as well. They were the “military-style” weapons of the time. The government didn’t try to restrict the more accurate long guns with rifling to just the government and only permit the citizenry to have smooth bore muskets.

As a matter of fact, the government was transitioning from using the smooth bore Brown Bess longarm to the rifled Kentucky Rifle. At the time, the Kentucky Rifle WAS the so-called “assault rifle” of the time. Then came the Model 1795 and 1816 muskets, which also weren’t banned by the government for use by the people. During the Civil War, the military used the Springfield Model 1861, which was the first widely produced rifled musket. Again, these rifles weren’t prohibited from use by the citizenry. They were the “assault rifles” of the Civil War.

The problem with all this talk about banning “weapons of war” is that it completely ignores the entire purpose of the 2A. The citizenry is SUPPOSED to have these weapons of war to defend themselves against invasion by both foreign AND DOMESTIC threats. If the Americans people are not permitted to own these “military-style” weapons, how can it defend against tyranny? Thomas Jefferson said, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

The government, by design, is supposed to fear the people. In our Declaration of Independence, the founders noted that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Constitution was created to limit the power of government, not the people. Jefferson said also that “when the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

As long as we, the people, are permitted to have weapons that are equal to the weapons used by the government, they must surely and deservedly fear us. I’m not saying that we are a threat to them, but that there are those in the country that will be prepared to defend against a tyrannical and overreaching government.

We cannot afford to allow the conversation about guns to be relegated to just hunting or personal protection in the home. That is not the sole purpose of the 2A. Neither is it strictly to keep a government in check. The 2A is there to recognize what God endowed us with, which is the preservation of our lives in all facets from survival to protection. This means it equally applies to patriots as it does to hunters and sportsmen and collectors.

If the government succeeds in disarming the people or relegating their RIGHTS to only apply to a certain class of inferior weapon, they no longer have to fear the backlash their policies may force. Once the guns are gone, they can encroach on any other rights they see fit.

It is imperative that we, the people, not allow these policies to be enacted. We must stand up to any encroachment to our rights, regardless of those consequences. We must make the stand in the streets as the encroachments happen. When we surrender our rights in the streets, we can’t defend them in the courts.

We must be involved in local politics as much as we are involved in federal politics. How many of you regularly attend your city council meetings? At the very least, if you can’t attend these meetings, it is important to you download the agenda for the meeting so you can at least be aware of what will be discussed and pay attention to areas that are important to you or may encroach on those rights. Know your elected state officials and make sure they know you. Attend legislative meetings at the capital when possible, but definitely make your voice known. If you aren’t engaged at the state level, the federal government will feel comfortable doing whatever it sees fit. The 17th Amendment destroyed the states’ ability to exert its authority over the federal government by making US Senators elected officials. They are now no more than another, smaller version of the House that cares only about re-election instead of the rights of the states over federal encroachment.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

We cannot allow and should always resist any efforts to disarm us. George Mason said, “to disarm is to enslave.” Do NOT become a slave!

6 Comments on “VP Biden Sees Gun Control “Before The Year Is Out”

  1. The problem we face is we have bled away our rights for a long time. We as a people, keep electing officials who do not represent our wishes on a majority. Most elected officials forget that they are not there to determine what is best for the people based on their own bias. They are supposed to support their constituents wishes on majority. To often greed, bias, and peer pressure override common sense. I do realize the audience I am addressing, as CJ I can say is one of the most compelling people I have ever had the pleasure to call a friend. Though I agree with Gary in spirit, but it’s never that easy. We would end up dropping in another set of idiots. The problem now a days is that they keep making a better idiots then the generation before. The 2nd Amendment argument is always interesting to see both sides. It usually falls between the literal wording vs the inferred or interpreted intent. Now this is were I go to the extreme. If it is ok for me to have a “Assault weapon” without a permit or background check. Why can’t I have a machine gun, grenade launcher or even a Bradley Fighting Vehicle? Funny enough I CAN purchase a MIG or a HIND if I can convince my wife to let me put one in the back yard . Now before you all bombast me as a supporter to the assault weapon ban or universal background checks I’m not. at all. However, I do like to look at all sides of the argument for opinions. I also would like to point out that most of this forum are CHL holders and had to go through background checks and even medical review boards to get their CHL. So if your willing to suffer that indignity…..? Now I realize by allowing the background checks to happen, it opens a ambiguous field of restrictions for those to actually own a firearm. So how do we as a people prevent felons, and nut jobs from purchasing a weapon that can inflict a butt load of injuries in a short period of time? In short, we can’t regardless of what laws you put out. Any person can make a WMD with off the shelf products. I believe we should take a page from Vermont. I have had the pleasure in my earlier life hunting and fishing in Vermont and I have relatives who still live there and love it. Mostly because of the liberal gun laws. You can carry open or concealed and dealers are required to keep records of each sale. Except for some minor restrictions with silencers and places you can carry, no issues. So I have ranted, maybe I have made a point, maybe not. The beautiful thing is, I get my say. Come and take it!

  2. Expanded background checks will be abused.

    First instance of abuse is where the background checks are used to create in illegal national gun registry.

    In Pennsylvania it is illegal to have a gun registry… yet one exists !!!!
    In PA the argument for the registry is that it is really not a registry because it is not 100 % complete, because it only includes new gun purchases. This violates the intent of the law.

    Illegal registries already exist out of the abuse of background checks. Govt breaks the law. They find tricks to get around the laws.

    Democrats have already banned or heavily restricted gun in cities that they control… Why would anybody think that their agenda for the rest of the nation is any different???

  3. Shall not be Infringed = Not limited, Not restricted, Not Controlled.

    Well Regulated = Well manned and Equipped. (not govt controlled)

    Militia = All gun owners capable and willing to fighting. (not enlisted men under contract)

    Arms = Ordinary Military Equipment (not crew operated)

    These definitions came out of the 1939 United States vs Miller Supreme Court case.

    Liberty is worth the Risk of DEATH !!!

  4. We need to clean out the white house and half of congress! We soon wont have any rights left!!

    • I doubt you will do anything to cause its cessation when it does happen. Don’t blame the party, blame the individual! After all, we’re ALL getting the same punishment as you……

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.