Biden Says “Nothing we’re going to do is going to … eliminate … another mass shooting”

Biden admits that gun control won't save lives

Joe Biden told reporters recently that “Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down 1,000 a year from what it is now,”

Biden admits that gun control won't save livesBut wait! Isn’t that the whole point of the proposed regulations to ban certain types of firearms? And he has expressed more than one opposing viewpoint, so what does he really think?

Just two weeks earlier, surrounded by children that had written letters to the white house asking for gun control (because they have been terrified into thinking that it is a likely possibility that they get killed in school due to mass shootings by random gunmen) he said:

We have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to diminish the prospect that something like this might happen again.” referring to the recent mass shootings.

But do we have an obligation as a nation to take action even if it is absent of logic?

The hysteria created by the recent shootings and the media blitz surrounding them has lead to a logic-free zone surrounding most politicians and many citizens. It is always the plea from these, the reactive and/ or opportunistic, crying, “We must do SOMETHING!”

But for the sake of the country we live in and the citizens who have always lived in a peaceful and harmonious manner, should we not obligate our government to be certain that the action we take is effective and not detrimental to the cause we claim for it?

Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out that according to the Department of Justice under Janet Reno [which was liberal and pro-gun control] during the Bill Clinton [which was also liberal and pro gun control] administration the assault weapons ban (the same one that our government is considering reenacting now), “Failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” And that it also, “Under [the gun ban] there was no effect on the injuriousness or lethality of gun violence.”

Sen. Cruz also pointed out that the features of guns that are targeted by the ban are entirely cosmetic. They have nothing to do with the firing mechanism or how quickly they can shoot. The ban doesn’t pertain to any aspect of how the gun works. The ban merely says that certain cosmetic features are not acceptable, such as a plastic pistol grip.

Sen Cruz Shows Ineffectiveness of Gun Ban because bans are merely cosmetic

Senator Cruz suggested that often the type of emotion in Washington surrounding tragedies creates a “Fact-free zone”, where no one is basing the action they want to take on factual statistics, historical facts, etc.

Says Sen. Cruz, “What it bans, I would suggest to you, are scary looking guns.” Demonstrating how an ordinary hunting rifle that would be legal under the gun ban could be turned into a banned assault rifle simply by adding a cosmetic plastic pistol grip that doesn’t alter the functionality of the weapon at all.

This is the kind of logic that we see behind gun control. Action is paramount but thought is not.

If the US Government Was Logical the Public Might Trust Them More

But you have to remember that congress often doesn’t function optimally, as we can see by the lessons that basically anyone could think through and learn from (with the exception of any government entity where, apparently, logic isn’t encouraged or allowed).

For instance, decades ago when we (the United States) funded and armed Osama Bin Laden and helped bring Saddam Hussein to power, who could have foreseen that it would turn around and bite us in the hind quarters? Oh well, you live and learn, right? Except that we never learn, so early in 2013 we (the United States) sent 4 free f-16 fighter jets and 200 tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even though the current president is unfriendly toward us. Hmmm…

We can also look at “Operation Fast and Furious” where the United States was caught  smuggling guns out of the United States and into Mexico. The guns, predictably, were used to attack U.S. agents, and used in at least one massacre in Mexico. Why would the United States be responsible for spreading weapons all over the world – and frequently to our enemies – if our government thinks weapons are dangerous and that they can’t even trust American citizens to have them in their possession? It’s food for thought.

Recently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned before Congress about the attack on the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, in September 2012. “The Pandora’s Box of weapons coming out of these countries in the Middle East and North Africa is the source of one of our biggest threats,” said Clinton, “There is no doubt that the Algerian terrorists had weapons from Libya. There is no doubt that the Malian remnants of AQIM have weapons from Libya,” and According to ABC News, the man who masterminded the attack in Algeria, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, had said in November 2011 that his people “benefited” from the black market weapons caches stolen from Gaddafi’s warehouses in Libya.

But, mysteriously, what no one ever mentioned or questioned anyone about, is that the United States has been giving aid such as money and weapons to Libya and Syria for many years, which, obviously, contributed to these attacks and many other detrimental events in the area.

Another inconsistency I have noticed with the logic of the government of the United States is this:  as it has often been pointed out, if the gun legislation is really supposed to be enacted due to our concern for and love of children, to protect them from the injury or death that weapons can cause, then why do U.S. drones constantly fly overhead in countries that we aren’t at war with causing the death of, so far, over 185 children.

And, furthermore, how can the U.S. government afford to send free fighter jets and tanks to other governments if our own government is insolvent and can’t pay it’s bills? If they can’t even afford to give Social Security recipients the benefits that they paid into all of their working years?

These inconsistencies and more need to be addressed before considering letting the U.S. government rip apart the U.S. Constitution that they swore to uphold and defend. Before we allow anyone to touch the fundamental rights in the Constitution, they should show that they have good and sound judgment and are fair and just people. Simply being president of the United States isn’t enough.



Leave a Reply

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


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!