Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Biden: less concerned with "assault weapons", used in only a fraction of crimes

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Heard on NPR this morning:

"I'm much less concerned, quite frankly, about what you call an assault weapon than I am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine," Biden said.
link

The bit about Biden not being concerned due to them being used in only a small fraction of crimes was added by the reporter as I listened.

At this moment I dont know if the reporter just threw it in there or if in the complete transcript of Biden's webcast he mentioned it himself.

Still looking for a full transcript of what Biden said.

ETA: Here we go:


Assault weapons "account for a small percentage of the gun crimes in American," said Biden, who led the White House task force on gun safety after Newtown.
link

Is this the game they are playing? Feinstein on one hand pushing for everything and a bag of chips, Biden on the other hand pretending to be "reasonable" while still wanting the ban to be reinstated?

Or are they just trying to save face with a lost cause they know they cant win?
edit on 25-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Biden is such a dumbass, lol, he goes from demonizing assault weapons to pushing for smaller magazines because assault weapons are used in only a fraction of killings? This political agenda wreaks of desperation...



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
The VP is gearing up for a run in 2016, so he needs to play the middle. He can say that he does not oppose the 2nd Amendment but only wants a limit on magazines...now he's a Moderate.

Smart play on his part. The staunch right will see through this act, but he doesn't need or want their vote. He needs the middle since he already has the left.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Biden is such a dumbass, lol, he goes from demonizing assault weapons to pushing for smaller magazines because assault weapons are used in only a fraction of killings? This political agenda wreaks of desperation...


I think it's coming from them realizing they are not well versed enough to know what they are banning or what the words about weapons mean.. Like Tupac said "It's just some nightmare people be having."

So he had to simplify it so he wouldn't be asks questions over and over showing he has no idea what the weapons ban is. He just knows it's smaller magazines, keep it simple..

Alternatively they are just using scary "long weapons" as the face and then the trojan horse is the beginning of clamping down on all magazine fed weapons.

When you have actors in play you have to have different Characters to move th story along. Biden is the crazy guy who can sound articulate enough if you keep it VERY simple, and then you have the liar popular obama guy..

then you can pick and choose and blame any character, but you miss the plot, that they are all working at and playing off each other, like some terrible soap opera.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


No.

I watched the entire thing on the White House website.

Biden made that comment and then went on to say that just because they account for a small portion of the overall crimes does not mean that we should not do anything at all. He expressed that he was more concerned with the number of rounds in a magazine than he was with the assault rifles. All of this was in response to one of the panelists questions. So, context is key. Dianes' bill calls for a ban of the sell and manufacturing of the high powered assault weapons and also calls for reducing the number of rounds in a magazine.

No one is playing games. The proponents of better gun violence control are very serious about this issue.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Firstly, I do not believe in prohibition of any kind.

HOWEVER, given the choice of being confronted by an assault rifle or a six-shot pistol, or a knife (as it seems to be one of the favored talking points!) well, my choice would be clear.

So, whether you are for or against this issue, I can't get my head around the fact that people will debate that an assault rifle does not have the potential of causing more casualties during a shooting than would a traditional weapon.

Not to get all "Buddha" on you, but I choose to not live life in fear, and therefore do not feel the need to carry a weapon.

The discussion I would find interesting, is how a government that consistently bombards it's citizens with messages of fear, and consistently reacts to situations through massive military force can be surprised that its citizenry should want to arm themselves.

The problem with peace, is that there is no profit margin in it!

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


I don't live in fear either, but I think I am more worthwhile keeping this body alive than I am having been a debt on society, so far.. I have love to spread.

So what's the fear cops have that makes them carry these same weapons you don't want existing? What's the fear soldiers have that they carry tanks around??

I get the whole buddha thing and the closet religion there is to me is buddhism, but the only reason we have the security to be like this is other people watch our backs..

So being a stickler for self responsibility, I have to assume it's better if I can defend myself, rather than wasting someone elses life potentially.

Idealism is cool, but I outgrew it, into an optimistic realist aproach.. Until things change enough I have to deal with the world at hand. Meanwhile I will work on changing it, but dude give up your house and your clothes.. You are living in fear of being.

You think it's safe to have a door, but I'd rather no one had doors.. No one hide their body from the cold.. What? you have a huge coat? Are you scared of dieing? Boy scouts and girl scouts are taught to use knives..

Tools are tools, until you become the tool yourself.

And do you not know the right Americans? People can make mags.. People can make lower and upper recievers.. People can make bullets.. People can make barrels.. People can make 100 round mags... When these things become illegal I bet the criminals will offer you a higher price than the Feds... Do you really want to put that more in the hands of people with more slippery morals?
edit on 1/25/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


No one is playing games. The proponents of better gun violence control are very serious about this issue.



Well, based on this sentence alone, I'd say YOU'RE playing games... "proponents of better gun violence control"???


You DO realize that you cannot legislate evil out of the minds of men, right?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


I can't stand how they capitalize on tragedy, you'd think that politicians would have some shame; 20 dead children and all they can think about is how to shove another oppressive law down our throats.

Granted that we do need to take another look at guns in America, the government's current approach is a crude and poorly thought out one. Overlooking the root cause of things seems to be a trend with our government; instead of examining why mass shootings take place and how to avoid them, we seek to disarm mass shooters all meanwhile infringing on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens; instead of addressing poverty and its link to violent crime, we build more prisons.

None of this legislation they are itching to pass against popular concensus is going to actually prevent another mass killing.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

What he means is that he is less concerned with the military style cosmetics that scares Diane Feinstein and more concerned with the capability of firing off 30 or more rounds in rapid fire (semi-auto) succession.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


Oops, I guess you missed my first sentence.

"I don't believe in prohibition."

If you want to carry an assault rifle, that's your prerogative.



So what's the fear cops have that makes them carry these same weapons you don't want existing? What's the fear soldiers have that they carry tanks around??


Side-stepping the straw-man argument where you state an implication I didn't make (i.e that I don't want these guns existing) I would say that the fear these people have is enhanced by their higher ups as tool for controlling them... the thing about fear, is that it works in an escalating cycle.



You think it's safe to have a door, but I'd rather no one had doors.. No one hide their body from the cold.. What? you have a huge coat? Are you scared of dieing? Boy scouts and girl scouts are taught to use knives.


Seriously?

Once again, I NEVER stated that I do not believe in defending myself... I stated that I choose not to live life in fear.
I feel very competent that I have the skills necessary to defend myself, against the cold, against doors, against knife wielding girl-scouts and against death. (Well, maybe I can't defend myself against death, I was just getting carried away there.)

I stand by my point that fear is a tool for control, and is much more likely to drive profit margin than love is.

Once again, for me, anyone should have the right to buy whatever type of tool they think will take away their fear (it won't, because no tool can do this, only the human mind can)... BUT, if ever I get caught in a hold-up, I would much rather the nut-case have a knife, or pistol than an automatic weapon.

Don't worry, I am not naive enough to be an air-head, new-age hippy... only, I have learned that there is no external cure for fear.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


If we didn't think we could at least try, there would be no need for mental heath services now would there ?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister

Once again, for me, anyone should have the right to buy whatever type of tool they think will take away their fear (it won't, because no tool can do this, only the human mind can)... BUT, if ever I get caught in a hold-up, I would much rather the nut-case have a knife, or pistol than an automatic weapon.

Don't worry, I am not naive enough to be an air-head, new-age hippy... only, I have learned that there is no external cure for fear.


O I may have misread your emotion or attitude on the issue, but what I linked above...

What do you mean by you'd rather face someone with limited arms?
Does this mean you think you should limit civilians to the arms they can have?
Or does it mean you only wish that, and you are hopeful?

I don't view guns as a cure for fear.. I AM a hippy, but not the new age kind.. I'm the kind that says leave everyone alone, including ALL laws, except those involving punishment directly as hurting someone, but not before this fact.

I have no fear of death..

Look take away the Armies Arms first and I can go along with it.

Now going back to weapons.. Illegal weapons have NO limits, so you would rather what?? How do you limit outlaws? surely not by laws, given the definition of out laws...
Give me a better solution than taking weapons out of the good guys hands... I posit that the more weapons the better because about 99% of people are good.. So more weapons available makes it a non issue.. No need to fear a weapon that everyone owns, just as there is no need to fear a car, when everyone drives..
edit on 1/25/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Again... my first sentence was "I don't believe in prohibition."

So we are in agreement.

I don't believe in laws that limit personal freedoms, in any way shape or form. I may have diverged from the OP in some sense in my "the solution comes from within" mumbo-jumbo. (Even though I believe it.)



Look take away the Armies Arms first and I can go along with it.


Again, we agree... as stated in my original post:



The discussion I would find interesting, is how a government that consistently bombards it's citizens with messages of fear, and consistently reacts to situations through massive military force can be surprised that its citizenry should want to arm themselves.


The only point that I made which really had anything to do directly with the OP. (Sorry... my bad.)

Is that, even thought I do not see it as a valid argument for (or against) prohibition in any way, as a matter of FACT, one assault weapon has the potential to kill many more people than a six-shot pistol or a knife, so it baffles me as to how this keeps coming up as if it were a valid argument.

Cheers,

the Billmeister

p.s.
I could have added that I have practiced martial arts for decades now, and I'm sure that it has had a positive effect on my attitude toward fear. However, as I have noticed that there are an unusually high number of black-belts, MMA experts and military special-forces personnel on anonymous internet forums, I realize that it doesn't hold any weight whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister


p.s.
I could have added that I have practiced martial arts for decades now, and I'm sure that it has had a positive effect on my attitude toward fear. However, as I have noticed that there are an unusually high number of black-belts, MMA experts and military special-forces personnel on anonymous internet forums, I realize that it doesn't hold any weight whatsoever.



Haha ok man..


by the way I am also one of the ones who has that "special stuffs" that makes me better than other humans and my info matters MORE!!!

I'm kidding about this, but I did have clearances in the Army and I know also that that sounds stupid and reaching on an open forum.

I don't have fear.. And in this case I want more people to have more weapons.. I don't want to limit them to 6 shots.. I'd rather be killed by a thousand.. It's up to social change not legal change.. This is growing up, and I know we will get there, but it's not here yet..

I guess we are mostly agreeing, but there is something there, our energy isn't completely in synch..

Thank you for making me think in different terms about this debate though.. You went above and beyond the emotional response one way or the other way.. So yea good stuff.






top topics



 
6

log in

join