He lied about what Biden plans to do with guns, right to Biden’s face. Assuming your suggested Biden response is correct, he’s not planning on taking away the AR-15 from anyone who owns one, just have it be registered and not sell any more.
So, he straight up lied about Biden’s position and, when Biden called him on it, the guy doubled down.
It’s the mistake that Warren made with that DNA test, playing Trump and his troll army at their own game.
I’d be willing to bet the worker would be upset with this too.
Even if the worker was lying about Biden’s position (probably just misunderstood it but we can go with lying for this) Biden’s response was a bit over-the-top. The guy has been in politics almost his whole life. Nutjobs shouting at you from the peanut gallery is part of the job description and usually the politician brushes it off with a quip and moves on. There is no profit in fighting with such people for the politician as today showed. Why Biden, a savvy political actor, went there is what suggests to me his brain is not firing on all cylinders.
And as many know around here I am no fan of guns but even I know that an AR-15 ban is pure bullshit. The whackjobs who want to cause harm will just slide to a different weapon which, probably, is just as capable as the AR-15 at causing mayhem. It just might not look as cool when doing it.
If you watch the first 10 seconds of this video, Biden indeed says he is coming to take assault weapons.
Bingo. So it is hard to say that a citizen is "lying" when he says that Biden wants to come and take his guns.But as noted, even if the citizen was completely lying, why do you insult, threaten, and use profanity at a campaign rally. It says to me that Biden is losing it.
Did you notice his campaign worker trying to shuttle him elsewhere? He told her to “shush.” I worked in campaigns in little old WV, but was repeatedly told three rules: 1) the candidate never puts on a hat, 2) the candidate never drinks at a rally, and 3) the candidate never gets into an argument with a voter.
The fact that Biden has come unhinged is just the latest example that shows he has lost it.
I am starting to wonder if the DNC has had a long talk with Biden to get him to become president then he will step aside after a few months for “reasons” and the VP the DNC wants will take over.
Question is who is that VP?
He almost certainly won’t run for a second term. Does anyone think he might? Why would the Dems nominate a guy who could not complete eight years?
A non-gay Mayor Pete would have been a sure winner IMHO. Even Mayor Pete as he is would inspire more confidence and have a better chance against Trump than either of these old guys.
I’ve watched most of the major news feeds and none of them are reporting (even Fox) the “slap you in the face” line. It seems that the only source of that is one single reporter on the scene.
That may not be accurate. I withdraw all of my prior comments about that unless and until there is further evidence he said that.
Sheesh, let’s be honest and say I wish Joe hadn’t said that (at least not on camera).
But let’s not blow out of proportion a politician on the campaign trail going off script and saying a bad word or three every once in a while. That’s only human, and it’s not like he lost his shit or something.
Fair enough…if you can provide and pile of examples of other people running for president of the US threatening to slap a voter for asking a question that annoyed them.
Asking supporters to beat up protesters is more dangerous, IMO.
Biden’s just “plain speaking”. He’s the kind of guy who “tells it like it is”. He’s responding like a “regular guy”, someone you might “want to have a beer with”. I’ve been told repeatedly that these are desirable traits in a president.
I took that test once and my mind went blank on words beginning with F. I managed three. Well, four, counting, “Fuck, this is hard.”
The DNC doesn’t control the President. The President controls the DNC.
No kidding. The DNC is not some group of Stonecutters pulling all the strings for one side of the political spectrum. It’s a barely functional group of political operatives that is, at times, only slightly financially solvent.
You say that, but notice that there’s never been a president named “Homer”.
He didn’t threaten to slap a voter. He said they could take it outside (which is also a pretty crazy thing to say, but it’s not the first time he’s made a comment like that). The “slap you in the face” bit was a mis-hearing that has gone viral (of course) even though it’s not based in the facts.
As to whether the voter was “full of shit”: he was. Biden is in no way “actively working to end our second amendment rights”. He just has a different interpretation of how far those rights extend. That was the whole point of bringing up shouting fire in a theater and the part about whether the individual can own “any gun” (meaning things like fully automatic machine guns). Of course that last part is being misquoted as well to mean that Biden said that the voter “couldn’t own any gun” rather than “couldn’t own any gun”. The right to bear arms has limitations, just like all of the enumerated rights do. Whether those limitations include or exclude private ownership of AR-15s is a political question. Accusing someone who thinks that particular weapon (and weapons with similar capabilities) should not be legal for private ownership of wanting to end the second amendment is not arguing in good faith.
As to the Bingo video, again folks don’t seem to get (or don’t want to get) the difference between banning/confiscating a particular set of weapons vs. banning/confiscating all weapons. When this voter says “you want to take away my guns”, Biden hears “you want to take away all of my guns”. Which is clearly not true, as he pointed out with his digression on shotguns.
It’s yet another area where our discourse has gotten so impotent that we can’t even talk about pragmatic solutions to obvious problems without resorting to maximalist/minimalist positions and accusations of bad faith (see: abortion rights, climate change, immigration policy).
We’ve done these arguments before. And I side with the voter here. Suppose I have five kids. A madman wants to kidnap two of them. I claim that he is trying to “take my kids.”
Would anyone seriously argue that he is not trying to take my kids because he will leave me with three?
But anyways, that’s not the point. The voter/person/citizen made an argument that is not entirely absurd at least, right? Or even if he was completely wrong, as said above, that is par for the course in campaigns. There is no reason to piss someone off and make this viral video. He should have listened to his campaign handler who he was trying to shush.
This does not bode well for a guy who has been in politics for 50 years and is breaking very basic rules.
Not a very useful analogy, since of course kidnapping children is wrong no matter how many you take.
A (slightly) better one would be something like the police confiscating illicit drugs out of my medicine cabinet and me claiming they are “taking my medication”. We have agreed that there are some drugs that are unsafe to own and other that are safe to own. We can debate which ones should be on which side of the line without going into absolutist positions like “all drugs should be legal”.
Or actually an even better analogy (since it touches on a right protected by the BOR) is the one Biden actually started the discussion with (shouting “fire” in a theater).
Yeah, this is probably true. But I’m not too upset about him trying to push back against claims that he wants to ban all firearms. Especially in a setting like the one he was in.
Eh, we shall see. I stopped thinking I had any idea how much the basic rules actually matter when Donald Trump was elected president.
You’re begging the question with that analogy. You are assuming that AR-15s are like illegal drugs or that owning one is like falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
A more apt analogy would that you cannot fire an AR-15 in a crowded theater. By banning the ownership you are imposing a prior restraint which would be more analogous to saying that nobody can speak because that speech might turn out to be falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. The mere possession or ownership of an AR-15 produces no public danger unless it is employed in that situation.
But nobody said he wants to take all guns. The voter said that Biden wants to take “his” guns, which if some of them are AR-15s, then he is absolutely correct. I have yet to see any mainstream or non-mainstream source claim that Biden wants to ban “all” guns. The statement is that he wants to ban “guns.”
And again, even if you dispute the characterization, its not a good sign for the politician to go ape shit. Why can’t Biden say that he doesn’t want to ban all guns, just some.
Boy, those analogies really just distill the whole conversation down, don’t they? Makes it really easy to see the nuances.
Just kidding.