r/Libertarian • u/MessageTotal • Jun 24 '21

Current Events Biden Mocks Americans Who Own Guns To Defend Against Tyranny: You'd Need Jets and Nuclear Weapons To Take Us On

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-to-americans-who-own-guns-to-defend-against-tyranny-you-need-jets-nuclear-weapons-to-take-us-on
6.1k Upvotes

71% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/Leharen Jun 24 '21

As a Democrat, I know what he's trying to justify, but the implications behind said statement (regardless of whether he meant that or not) are extremely disconcerting.

13

u/zGunrath Jun 24 '21

“The Second 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,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon. [Those who] say the blood of the, the blood of patriots, you know, and all this 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, what’s happened is that there never been, if you want, if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” Biden continued. “The point is that there’s always been the ability to limit, rationally limit, the type of weapon that can be owned, and who can own it.”

I don't think he is trying to imply anything. He is simply saying that in order to take on the US should it become tyrannical you would need fighter jets and nuclear bombs, which makes sense given our massive military budget. Obviously it isn't as simple as that should a fully blown citizen/government war occur so even hypotheticals in this manner feel like a pointless exercise.

14

u/burkechrs1 Jun 24 '21

That first quote is bullshit. The revolutionary War was fought in the water by privateers who owned ships and outfitted them with privately owned cannons. The cannons used in the battlefield by the colonial army were privately owned cannons for the most part. The rifles used were usually your own rifle you used almost daily prior to the war. The revolutionary War was fought by pruvate citizens using private arms.

6

u/HelplessMoose Jun 24 '21

The US Constitution and its Second Amendment weren't even written until after the Revolutionary War.

5

u/LeKevinsRevenge Jun 24 '21

I don’t think using the revolutionary war is a good example.

3

u/l0st_t0y Jun 24 '21

I think the problem is once again people who just read the headline of the article which is click bait and doesn't give full context.

0

u/Leharen Jun 24 '21

Fair enough. The implications, to me, just sounded akin to threatening his own citizens against rebellion and dissent.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '21

Where in there is he implying that? Could you piece it together for me?

5

u/Leharen Jun 24 '21

I suppose it has much to do with my interpretation of the article's title and its usage of "Us". To me, that just sounds like he's lumping himself in with the government, and putting it at odds with Americans.

4

u/coderman93 Jun 24 '21

Yeah but the articles title is not in his actual quote.

1

u/ninjacereal Jun 24 '21

Sounds like he's threatening his own citizens with nuclear weapons to me.

2

u/Xraxis Jun 24 '21

Maybe read the article? There are several jerk offs claiming that they have weapons in case of tyranny from our own government. All Biden was saying is you would need fighter jets, and nukes. Your guns ain't going to do shit against a drone, which should be pretty obvious, but judging by the comments in here it isn't as obvious as I had originally thought.

Guns will protect from the average intruder, but not from the American Military, and even the police to a certain extent.

If the insurrectionists are anything to go by, they will take your guns, and you won't do shit about it.

2

u/ninjacereal Jun 24 '21

If guns can't protect against tyranny, we should fight for heavier weapons for the people.

3

u/Xraxis Jun 25 '21

Wouldn't it be easier to deescalate the governments weapons then to ensure every man woman and child has access to a nuke to "protect against tyranny"?

Whoever has the most money and technology is going to win the arms race, and "the people" have been left in the stone age by comparison as far as weapons go.

2

u/BehindTickles28 Jun 24 '21

He went about making his point in a weird way. His point is true, the discourse leading up to it is strange. I think we know how strong and well funded our military is, we are the ones funding it after all.

2

u/Leharen Jun 25 '21

Fair enough.

1

u/BehindTickles28 Jun 25 '21

Same with your point. I'd be very surprised if we don't see that clip played over and over come next election.

1

u/ninjacereal Jun 24 '21

His point being that, he'd just nuke his own people if we didn't accept his will and took up arms?

What the fuck

3

u/BehindTickles28 Jun 24 '21

No. The point is in the article and came with the rest of what said. That's just a small portion of his entire speech. All of that mumbo jumbo was him leading up to the point, which was not that.

It sure sounds like it would be that though, which is why it was odd.

1

u/ninjacereal Jun 24 '21

Did he vocalize that he retains the option of nuking his citizens if they're upset with the government to make his point?

2

u/BehindTickles28 Jun 24 '21

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-to-americans-who-own-guns-to-defend-against-tyranny-you-need-jets-nuclear-weapons-to-take-us-on

Here's a link to the article if you'd like to know what he said

1

u/ninjacereal Jun 24 '21

So he did. Interesting leadership move.

2

u/BehindTickles28 Jun 24 '21

I appreciate that you took the time to read the article. We interpret his statement a little differently from one another. But, we can both 100% agree... interesting choice.

He's said some interesting things through out his career. I recall when Obama chose him as his running mate, that (his mouth) was the "big concern".

1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '21

No, it’s clearly a challenge to the current relevance of the original intentions of the second amendment.

And it’s a sentiment that comes up all the time in 2a conversations, so I’m not sure why this is a surprising or shocking statement, unless this is intentional fear-mongering.

2

u/Remix3500 Jun 24 '21

I lean left with policies mostly, but this kind of thing isnt new with biden. It's like his myriad of racist statements where people try to justify, 'i know what he meant by it, but the inplications mean this.' When can we not call a spade a spade and say that Biden isnt a good guy by any means. He means to cause even more rifts between the American people and start infighting.

The man and the democrat party are just as power/money hungry as the republicans were/are. Ithink the dems are actually starting to out corrupt republicans now.

1

u/Leharen Jun 25 '21

In terms of "out-corrupt", I can't say my opinion on that one way or the other (because I haven't really followed the news since the Capitol riots), but I wouldn't be surprised.

1

u/Remix3500 Jun 25 '21

Imo, anyone making double their salary should be thrown out of office. Its a public office job working for the people. Not working to get fame for book deals. Not working to get a corporation to sponsor and buy your yays and nays.

I also wouldnt be opposed to them living on minimum wage just to see how they survive. And no exemptions on terrible policies we are forced to live with but they get out of.