Biden Wants To Ban Vague Class Of Assault Weapons

( )- Two weeks after President Biden signed the gun control bill passed by Congress in June, the White House staged a Rose Garden event so the president could renew his demands for more gun control. And during his speech, President Biden reaffirmed his pledge to ban so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.”

The president claimed his proposed ban on semi-automatic rifles wasn’t a ban on hunting rifles, but “weapons of war” that are designed to “take out an enemy.” He said an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle will tear apart flesh and bone and is twice the speed of a handgun.

He told the crowd that “assault weapons” have to be banned and demanded that the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” be reinstated while offering debunked “facts” about its success.

The president also claimed over 40,000 Americans died from gunshot wounds last year. What he didn’t mention, however, is over half of those were suicides.

But pointing out that more Americans die from self-inflicted gunshot wounds than die of homicide would completely ruin the narrative.

Then again, calling a semi-automatic rifle an “assault weapon” is just as disingenuous.

The most outlandish lie was when he declared that what he’s demanding wouldn’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Like a racist who says “some of my best friends are black,” old Joe said he supports the Second Amendment.

But (of course there is a “but”) “with rights come responsibilities.”

Says who?

Where in the Constitution does it say our inalienable rights are contingent on our responsibilities?

Do we lose our right to due process if we’re irresponsible enough to break the law?

That is such a specious claim.

The president said that, yes, you do have a right to bear arms, “but” you also have a “right to live freely.”

And guns ensure that we can live freely, you nitwit.

Then he repeated his false claim that the Second Amendment is not “an absolute right.”

Does this man not know what “inalienable” means?