Those who have been paying attention know that president Joe Biden is no friend of the Second Amendment. His attack on your right to defend your family began well before he was elected and has dangerously escalated since he was sworn in. On top of attacking gun rights, Biden has made it his personal mission to lambast any American citizen who doesn't wholly prostrate themselves before the almighty state, labelling soccer moms and peaceful protesters as "domestic terrorists."
After the group of MAGA rioters got duped by Trump into storming the capitol to take selfies with cops, steal podiums, and hang from banisters, then-president-elect Joe Biden quickly took to his platform to characterize them as domestic terrorists.
“Don’t dare call them protesters,” Biden said in remarks from Wilmington, Delaware. “They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It’s that basic. It’s that simple.”
Unfortunately, during the turmoil, a police officer had a stroke and a protester was shot to death, and three other individuals, who were apparently part of the MAGA protest died from "medical emergencies." While it was certainly terrible, this riot does not come close to the description Biden gave it, calling it “one of the darkest days in the history of our nation.”
Despite the largely benign nature of the riot, for the next six months, Biden would classify this unarmed group of rioters as the largest threat against democracy, issuing DHS warnings, ramping up security, and turning the area around the White House into a police state.
But all that sentiment changed on Wednesday when the president delivered another heavily slurred and confusing speech. Instead of claiming the unarmed rioters were a threat, he mocked gun rights and said those who advocate for the true meaning of the Second Amendment are no match for F-15s and US nuclear weapons.
Recommended for You
During the slurred speech as he referred to the ATF as "the AFT," Biden took to mocking and provoking those who stand up to tyrannical government.
"Those who say the blood of patriots y'know and all the stuff about how we're going to have to move against the government. Well the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots,” Biden said on Wednesday, announcing new gun control actions from the White House. “What's happened is, that there never been, if you wanted, you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” he continued.
"The 2nd Amendment from the day it was passed limited the type of people who could own a gun, and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn't buy a cannon," he said. But this is not true at all, the Second Amendment contains no such provision and merely says that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Glen Greenwald took to Twitter after the speech to accurately point out Biden's hypocrisy.
Others pointed out the fact that in the wars America has lost, like Vietnam and Afghanistan, the "insurrectionists" were armed with little more than AK-47s and improvised explosive devices.
Adding to the ridiculous sentiment behind Biden's speech was the fact that it wasn't even original.
In an op-ed published in 2018 in USA Today, Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-California) proposed a mandatory $15 billion buyback program for “assault weapons,” as well as criminal prosecution of anyone who chooses to keep their guns.
“So basically Swalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get,” airborne veteran and gun pundit Joe Biggs commented on Twitter in response to the op-ed – to which Swalwell replied that the government would win such a war, because it has nuclear weapons.
“And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit,” the congressman wrote.
Would Biden and Swalwell deploy a nuke inside the United States to fend off a revolution? Apparently, they would.
Biden also falsely stated that the ban on certain rifles during the Clinton years, known as the assault weapons ban, reduced crime. However, a 2004 Department of Justice funded study from the University of Pennsylvania Center of Criminology concluded that this wasn't actually the case.
The report is titled "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003," and it lays waste to the theory that banning guns reduces violence.
"We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury," the report states. "The ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs [assault weapons] were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban."
And now for your moment of Zen.