Language advisory as to the above video. Oh, this campaign is going to be so much fun!
Say what you want about the inevitable Joe Biden presidential nomination, but at least it will be entertaining. At least, it will be as entertaining as arrogant ignorance ever gets, a combination that Biden has mastered over long decades in the public eye. Biden went stumping for votes in a Detroit auto plant today, a natural venue for campaigning thanks to the Obama administration’s rescue of GM and Chrysler.
Instead, Biden got caught up in a gun-control argument with a worker who accused him of “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right.” Biden offered a pungent reply — “You’re full of s–t!” — and then things got really testy:
Go here to read the rest. Way to get the hard hat vote Joe! So the Democrats will have a none too bright standard bearer, with clearly fraying faculties and a hair trigger temper with ordinary voters. Toss in his hands on interactions with all members of the fairer sex within reach, and his managers will soon be having him campaign from a hermetically sealed undisclosed location.
The factory worker couldn’t be more right—-Someone who wants to put shrill adult-child narcissist extremist Fredo O’Rourke as Commissar of Gun Seizures is ending the 2nd Amendment as we know it.
A real life Grandpa Simpson, a confused, and angry because of it, old man failing, and flailing because of it, if you think that’s your kind of fun, then Campaign 2020 is going to be lit.
Me? I think the Democrats have reached a new low, and in the process accomplished something I would never have thought possible.
They’ve made me feel pity for Joe Biden.
If Sanders were really in it to win, he would be hitting this now. However, Sanders always seems to be afraid he might actually get the nomination. He is smart enough, perhaps, to likely realize that if he did get the nomination he would go down in flames and set back the cause of his cherished Socialism.
Many times the Comments are also insightful. One Such post was from “Monkeytoe”;
I’ve never understood the “do you need X” argument when it comes to rights.
What difference does it make if I need to be able to say bad things about the gov’t? I may not need to say those things, but I have a right to say those things.
Same goes with firearms – I may not need an AR-15, but I have a right to own an AR-15. Whether I need it or not is irrelevant.
If we applied the “need” test to other rights, how would that work? Why do you need to keep the gov’t from seeing what’s in your house without probable cause? Obviously, if you need to keep the gov’t out, you are hiding something.
Why do you need to peacefully assemble? You don’t need that. You may want to do it, but you don’t need to do it.
And, who determines need? The very gov’t deciding whether or not to let you have something?
That’s why these things are considered rights, b/c the gov’t isn’t supposed to have a say in whether we need them or not. We get to use them regardless of what the gov’t thinks.
Gun control nuts simply don’t understand the concept of rights.
“The Flak Only Gets Heavy When You’re Over the Target”
http://www.eminentlyquotable.com/the-flak-only-gets-heavy-when-youre-over-the-target/
Similar example from last week:
‘Wow! Donna Brazile just told the wrong person to “Go to hell”’
https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2020/03/03/wow-donna-brazile-just-told-wrong-person-go-hell/
… and also:
“Kim Foxx: ‘This issue with Smollett…is bulls**t’”
https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/03/10/kim-foxx-issue-smollett-bullst/
Hey man, here’s the deal:
“The second amendment is not about hunting.”