Joe Biden: buy a shotgun, not an assault rifle, to protect your home

Feb 19, 2013 Full story: Guardian Unlimited 584

Joe Biden , the US vice-president, has said Americans should buy a shotgun rather than an assault rifle if they want to protect their homes.

Full Story
blaster

Fork Union, VA

#422 Feb 25, 2013
Hey joe, buy a life thats not off our tax dollars

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#423 Feb 26, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have any problem with any thing Mr. Biden said, unlike you and your fellow gun-nuts and partisans.
His point was clear - people don't need assault rifles.
Clear on that now, or should I explain it to you again?:)
You don't "need" a car, especially that one with that gizmo thing, even though you may find it useful, fun and you can afford it-it is not protected by the Constitution that We shall ignore anyway. You don't "need" a large soda. You don't "need" your penis to survive. You don't "need" bacon. You don't "need" a shotgun either. You don't "need" more than 2,000 calories. You don't "need" to think for yourself. You don't "need" to have any personal responsibility anymore. You don't "need" so many rights and freedoms...
It is not up to Joe Biden to decide what I "need" and what I should have. Biden is an idiot.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#424 Feb 26, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
People don't need swimming pools either, yet swimming pools and swimming in general kills dozens of kids every year. People don't need cigarettes or alcohol either.
It's not about what people need--it's about what people want or feel they need.
You guys are really starting to strive for debatable facts.

Swiming pools are not usually chosen for murder by killers as gun nuts do in choosing assult type military weapons.
Patriot

Antioch, TN

#425 Feb 26, 2013
Overseer58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberals don't think the laws should apply to them because they think it's their job to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
They think somehow they are qualified to tell the rest of us how and what we need to do, thing is most of them do not have enough sense to pour "p" out of a boot with the directions on the heel. They want us to do as they say not as they do. Dianne Feistein has a carry permit, but does not think the rest of us have the right or "privilege"
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#426 Feb 26, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>You can go to faux news they may mention something about a mass school shooting every so often, but don't listen to hannity or oxy-rush they seem to >miss< {you} all the killings of children.
As I knew- you are nothing but liberal hot air, feelings over facts.

So what are the "both sides" you can see? Left and further left?
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#427 Feb 26, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>No miss, it's your husband again.
For the last time, C, I AM the husband.
Patriot

Antioch, TN

#428 Feb 26, 2013
just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
We live pretty rural. Our small town has no police. They contract with the sheriff for coverage. The reality is we have a most likely average response time of 30 minutes. A lot can happen in that amount of time. Better to have too much firepower than not enough.
I got a new AR in 300 blackout. I think it might be great for home defense , but needs a trial to make sure it is reliable. I have heard the BLK is finicky about ammo and mags. Thinking about saving for a suppressor and the tax.
Keep the AR clean and buy high quality mags, if you opt for the 30 Rd mag, only load it with about 22-23 rounds.The M16 family today is more reliable than the M16A1 issued back in my day. My favorite rifles are the M1A and M1 Garand. As I mentioned yesterday I like the M1 carbine and the Marlin for house defense.Main thing is to find ammo and mags that feed and function reliably in your weapon.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#429 Feb 26, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then, since these dogs have been involved in vicious attacks, shouldn't we control them as well? After all, if only 1% of these dog owners had anything to do with maiming or killing a child, we should make laws against the other 99% who are responsible owners. Don't you think? And if you don't think that's okay because you have those type of dogs, then maybe you should reconsider your stance on assault weapons and high capacity magazines since the other 99% of those owners had nothing to do with the 1% that used them inappropriately.
You may want to reread your post on controling dangerouis dogs. We do, dogs who have the propensity for dangerous actions are vaccinated, to be kept on leaches, or in a compound, or after attacks on children they are required to be put down. In most cases the owners are liable for their negliance, for damages {hospital, mental, physical, etc.}

I agree 100% for control on dangerous rotties as I do with military type weapons which are chosen by gun nuts to kill the most children as quickly as possible.

And I completely agree with these controls. Just as certain "dogs" need controls so does the general public does not need explosives, nuclear weapons, shoulder fired missles, etc.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#430 Feb 26, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>And who and where are the "dog nuts" who use the animals to kill children?
Just a few example will suffice.
Just look at them. They are black and menacing-looking, and the only people who want them will use them to kill and maim. They were designed to be that way. They have no other purpose.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#431 Feb 26, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>I'd wager you also paid three times what they are worth.
You lose. Pay up.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#432 Feb 26, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then, since these dogs have been involved in vicious attacks, shouldn't we control them as well? After all, if only 1% of these dog owners had anything to do with maiming or killing a child, we should make laws against the other 99% who are responsible owners. Don't you think? And if you don't think that's okay because you have those type of dogs, then maybe you should reconsider your stance on assault weapons and high capacity magazines since the other 99% of those owners had nothing to do with the 1% that used them inappropriately.
If it could save only ONE child from the trauma of being barked at, we should outlaw just not "dangerous" dogs, but ALL dogs since after all they can all be used in unlawful and violent ways.

No one NEEDS a dog. Anyone who wants one is obviously a powderkeg ready to go off. They should receive a psychiatric evaluation by a government "doctor" to make sure they are stable enough to own a dog, and then taxed and monitored constantly to make sure. Dog food must be taxed punatively so that the dogs remain weak and therefore less of a threat.

Hopefully this will 'discourage' dog ownership and Mr and Mrs America will just turn them all in.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#433 Feb 26, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>You guys are really starting to strive for debatable facts.
Swiming pools are not usually chosen for murder by killers as gun nuts do in choosing assult type military weapons.
Now it's "assault type"

An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, and it is NOT a military weapon.

You have yet to PROVE that semi-auto rifles are not just used, but "chosen" by homicidal nuts.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#434 Feb 26, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>They think somehow they are qualified to tell the rest of us how and what we need to do, thing is most of them do not have enough sense to pour "p" out of a boot with the directions on the heel. They want us to do as they say not as they do. Dianne Feistein has a carry permit, but does not think the rest of us have the right or "privilege"
Conservatives still want everyone to have the right to work in asbestus filled jobs sites, eat fish from some American streams where the poliution has made that dangerous, let acid rain fall, let six year old children become addicted to nicotene, drive on byways as fast as they wish, etc.

Reminds me of the early years of the internal combustion engine, some in the state of Oklahoma in which they actually tried to outlaw that mode of transporation, or with the invention of the light bulb, where some believe the light from that form of light gave humans headaches and wanted to stay with gas lights.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#435 Feb 26, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Now it's "assault type"
An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, and it is NOT a military weapon.
You have yet to PROVE that semi-auto rifles are not just used, but "chosen" by homicidal nuts.
Then google where the your modern weapons for killing as many as possible as quickly as possible were developed.

Since you are afraid of the answer I will tell you, they were developed after the military researched and developed weapons. Your weapons {Bushmaster .223, etc.} were not developed by civilians to shoot the bullseye out of a piece of paper, deer hunt where the average rounds fired is two, or bird hunt. They were developed for the battlefield!

If you do not believe gun nut choose your type of weapon, then show me where more mass shootings are committed with what other means.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#437 Feb 26, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
If it could save only ONE child from the trauma of being barked at, we should outlaw just not "dangerous" dogs, but ALL dogs since after all they can all be used in unlawful and violent ways.
No one NEEDS a dog. Anyone who wants one is obviously a powderkeg ready to go off. They should receive a psychiatric evaluation by a government "doctor" to make sure they are stable enough to own a dog, and then taxed and monitored constantly to make sure. Dog food must be taxed punatively so that the dogs remain weak and therefore less of a threat.
Hopefully this will 'discourage' dog ownership and Mr and Mrs America will just turn them all in.
Yes, if nuts choose those breeds of of dogs are chosen by nuts to premediate death and destruction of children.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#438 Feb 26, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmm, this sounds like what your buddy Obama and his government operatives want to do now? Outlaw the internal combustion engine? CHECK. Outlaw light bulbs? CHECK. Take away our individual right to keep and bear arms? CHECK.
Not exactly completely true, not outlaw >improve<. If you prefer to go back to more expensive gas lighting, or real horse power more power to you, but most intelligent people prefer advancement and improvement.

I live in close relation to the Missori University Of Science and Technology. You might want to see the advancements in solar powered vehicles. The long distance races are amazing.

But if you wish always to be a slave to middle east oil then so be it.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#439 Feb 26, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>Conservatives still want everyone to have the right to work in asbestus filled jobs sites, eat fish from some American streams where the poliution has made that dangerous, let acid rain fall, let six year old children become addicted to nicotene, drive on byways as fast as they wish, etc.
Reminds me of the early years of the internal combustion engine, some in the state of Oklahoma in which they actually tried to outlaw that mode of transporation, or with the invention of the light bulb, where some believe the light from that form of light gave humans headaches and wanted to stay with gas lights.
1) Off topic
2) Show us the political platform where any of your claims are designated
3) Some colors/flickering of artificial light DO give people headaches
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#440 Feb 26, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>...weapons for killing as many as possible as quickly as possible were developed.
Ever hear of a "crossbow"?

How about your beloved double-barrelled shotgun?
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#441 Feb 26, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>If you do not believe gun nut choose your type of weapon, then show me where more mass shootings are committed with what other means.
That's for YOU to prove, Master of Arts.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#442 Feb 26, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmm, this sounds like what your buddy Obama and his government operatives want to do now? Outlaw the internal combustion engine? CHECK. Outlaw light bulbs? CHECK. Take away our individual right to keep and bear arms? CHECK.
Brilliant! I'd LOL if it weren't true.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joe Biden Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Malkin: Hicken-weasel: Why Colorado's gutless g... Mon Richies Cool Man ... 1
Dinner, Yes---But No Food, Please Sep 27 Obama Bad 4
White House enlists stars to help fight campus ... Sep 22 skitazo 36
Obama rolls out "It's On Us" initiative to comb... Sep 22 Aprilvue 19
Clemson under fire for asking students about se... Sep 21 Does Not Compute 5
Stars join White House campaign against campus ... Sep 21 Obama Bad 9
Biden praises senator who was ousted Sep 20 thetazva 1

Joe Biden People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE