moonbattery logo

Feb 25 2013

Biden: No Law-Abiding Citizen Objects to Attack on Constitution

Even coming from Joe “Heartbeat Away” Biden, this quote is shocking. Emphatically yelled in Danbury, CT last Thursday during a speech advancing the ongoing attack on the Second Amendment:

“No law-abiding citizen in the United States of America has any fear that their constitutional rights will be infringed in any way. None. Zero.”

Really? Then explain this.

It’s tempting to laugh, as we did when Baghdad Bob denied the advance of American troops even as Abrams tanks were about to come into view behind him. But not even Joke Biden could be oblivious to the millions of Americans who are extremely alarmed by the Obama Regime’s assault on our constitutional rights, or he wouldn’t have explicitly denied our existence.

The key term is “law-abiding.” A few tweaks to the law, and Biden’s statement will become true.

joe-biden-sunglasses
Wacky and dumb, yet terrifying.

On a tip from Just TheTip.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on Facebook


  • Fading Banana Republic

    This guy is a genius who makes Einstein look like a piker, but that Sarah Palin she is a dumbass hick.

  • Comrade J

    Oh ok, now I am not worried. This is from the administration that has attacked Constitution on every possible angle.

    Now I am not worried that I somehow misunderstood Marxist in chief and Marxist Vice President. This denial removes any doubts. The Constitution is under attack.

  • Uncle Joe

    Your constitutional rights are what we say they are.

  • forest

    If you’re innocent, you have nothing to worry about. That’s always worked out just fine for people throughout history – particularly under collectivist/progressive regimes.

  • Skyfall

    It’s the same as their take on unemployment:

    You have a population of 100. They’re all working. 100% employment.

    10 lose their jobs, but they no longer are in the workforce, hence they don’t count.

    90 is now full employment!

    Apply that to the Constitution:

    You have certain rights (whether you obey the law or not, by the way).

    Now, the government takes away some of them…so those no longer count. See? You still have “all” your rights. Nothing has been infringed on.

    Now, just obey the new laws and do as you’re told. Nothing to fear.

    Someone tell Uncle Joe that God gives people their rights. He looks very askance at those who will enslave a free people. Just ask Egyptians about a guy named Moses some time.

    Actions have consequences, Mr. Vice President!

  • Wizard45

    Jeez-0-pete, I gotta believe the admistration sends ol’ Slo-Joe out to say dumb s**t to renew Obama’s “life insurance”. NOBODY would want to “off” Obama and put that mentally challenged doofus in the presidency.

  • Jimbo

    Liberalism: Ideology of idiots.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    So does this mean the regime considers any opposition to it’s bankrupt ideology a criminal act ?
    This is where Communist regimes always begin.
    They announce that you are actually receiving MORE rights, while they systematically. take the ones you had (if any).
    Then the cattle cars are filled with those who noticed.

  • Skyfall

    They answer, Ghost, is yes.

  • Skyfall

    “The”, not “They”. Sorry.

  • Skyfall

    The fear these scumbags have created is unbelievable…esp. since they’re everywhere. Did anyone see M’chelle on the Oscars? They are EVERY WHERE, esp. if it’s cool, hip and gets them face-time with their slobbering worshipers.

    People on the right are terrified: The Onion put out some tasteless “tweet” about some kid actress. Within minutes, and still today, they are falling all over themselves saying how sorry they are.

    Now it WAS in bad taste, but the point is if a non-progressive says something OH MY GOD, RUN RUN, OBAMA WILL BE UPSET. Yet the left can not only SAY, but DO things that are an abomination, and it’s all par for the course. Hell, they DEFEND their actions.

    We are so screwed right now…

  • Clingtomyguns

    Malarky Joe. For those that missed the debate, that’s Irish for what’s coming out of Biden’s pie-hole and ears. In contrast to the concepts of old uncle Joe “Stalin” Biden, the always smirky and smug ripoff used-car salesman, true law-abiding citizens would be anyone whose actions stand to fight whatever this communist totalitarian, law-less, gun-grabber administration does to try to flout the Constitution and chisel away and water down the 2nd amendment through executive fiat or anything short of a constitutional convention.

    It’s pure embarassment for Biden and Chairman 0 that Dingy Harry already put the kabosh on Barry’s gun grab with a buried provision in Obamacare that Queen Nancy will have to read to see what’s in it.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/Backfire-Obamacare-Forbids-Gun-and-Ammo-Registration

    Now the gang that can’t shoot straight will have to rely on plan B, like enlisting an Obamacorps’ million man march to go door to door to try to illegally forcibly collect firearms. On the bright side, that may be a great way to quickly purge Obama’s bloating welfare-voter rolls full of parasites and fraudsters. The only question I have is whether to sell or keep their EBT cards and Obamaphones as our spoils of war?

  • GoinSane

    I would think the VP of the USA having dementia would be a lead story for the news, but I guess when most of the lamestream media suffers from the same condition, it’s just business as usual.

  • Sam Adams

    Joe is right, of course. If you don’t do drugs, you shouldn’t be worried about the police coming into your home at any time and conducting a search. If you don’t have any firearms that the government disapproves of, you don’t need to worry about the police searches either. Never download porn? Don’t have to worry about the police reviewing the files on your computer.

    Of course, that is how people in prisons live.

  • Flu-Bird

    When they were giving out brains biden was too busy collecting campaign cash to bother getting his brain

  • http://cutthemalarkey.com Vic Kelley

    Power hungry control freaks the lot of them. Reminds me of that “if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear” crap. Wrong. Any time you’re defenseless then you have good reason to fear.

  • Jodie

    “No law-abiding citizen in the United States of America has any fear…”

    Now all they have to do is turn us into law-breakers by making more things illegal, like: guns, ammo, smoking, soda, CO2, water bottles, Happy Meals, certain Internet activities, not having health insurance, inadequate food labeling, operating lemonade stands, disparaging Obama, etc., etc., etc.

  • TeaPartyPeopleAreInsane

    Again it falls to me to point out the incredibly obvious to the likes of you people…

    What rights have been taken away? (None.) What part of the words “well regulated” make you think that any and all ‘regulation’ is not Constitutional?

    We have all agreed, as a society, that there are some inherent limits to the 2nd amendment. If you are a convicted felon, no guns for you. Ditto the actually medically insane (I know you people try your best, but besides “Flu-Bird” I don’t think you qualify). Further, we have limited what ‘arms’ you are allowed to have. You can’y go buy a minigun, or a Davy Crockett. We (The People) decided that limits on what ‘arms’ people can and can’t have at home was a reasonable thing.

    So… this is the part where you all veer off the rails into the land of Genuine Paranoia… how does applying exactly what we have done before equate to an assault on your imagined “rights”? You do not have the right to any arm of any sort at any time. Just don’t. That is precedented, reasonable, and most Americans agree with it.

  • StanInTexas

    TPPAI, can you please answer some questions for me…
    1) ‘Shall not be infringed’ is very clear language, wouldn’t you agree?
    2) How does implementing laws and restrictions against law-abiding citizens going to have any effect on criminals?
    3) If we can restrict or ban some weapons and still be within the 2nd Amendment, then why can’t we restrict or ban some religions and still be within the 1st Amendment?

  • Spider

    We don’t mind the Constitution being attacked? Perhaps the 10th Circuit court agrees with Joe the nitwit.

    “We conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment . . .” Justice Carlos Lucero wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals…”

    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22648641/federal-court-no-second-amendment-guarantee-concealed-carry

  • Ahh, Stan

    Stan… ahh, Stan.

    If you want to parse it word by word, you can stand by your ‘Shall not be infringed’, I will stand by my ‘well-regulated’…and we will both be parsing the same clause, and we will get nowhere. So instead…

    We use precedent. We all agree (I bet even you agree) that criminals shouldn’t be able to walk into the Walmart and buy a gun. Or, for that matter, a gun show at the local VFW hall and buy a gun. Same thing for the actually mentally unbalanced. We all agree that these are the right thing to do. We The People parsed the 2nd Amendment and drew some obvious conclusions. My argument about the nature of ‘arms’ is also completely valid. I sleep better at night knowing people like you are not allowed to have Davy Crocketts and miniguns (you know, for duck hunting, right?)

    My clause is also in that same amendment, old man. You can stand by yours, but that does not invalidate mine. Meaning… we are both right(ish), and either of our ideas can be implemented and still be within the text of the 2nd Amendment. (Lemme guess… you don’t get it.)

    Implementing restrictions on teh sale of illegal guns will decrease the number of illegal guns for sale. If you are joe-awerage gun nut, you will think twice before selling some grey-market guns off teh back of a truck if you know getting caught means life in jail. Decrease the availability of illegal guns, and make the penalties insanely severe for breaking them, and then give it a decade or two. See if I’m right. (I will be. I always am.)

  • DavidD

    “A few tweaks to the law, and Biden’s statement will become true.”

    A few tweaks? Just one tweak, actually:
    When guns are outlawed anyone with a gun will be an outlaw.

  • DavidD

    TPPAI, “a well-regulated militia” does not mean “government gun control” any more than “a well-regulated mind” means “government though control” or “a well-regulated watch” means “government time control”

    “Well-regulated” means “well-functioning”.

    The people cannot function as the Constitution’s last defense without weapons.

  • DavidD

    (Sorry, *thought*, not *though*. Oops.)

  • GoinSane

    TPPAI, what makes you think you know what they meant by “well regulated”?

    When refering to “militia”, who’s to say they weren’t referring to:
    1. All citizens considered by law eligible for military service.
    or
    2. A body of citizens organized as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

    And who’s to say that by “well regulated” they weren’t referring to making sure that all citizens had the latest weapons, that they were in working order, and that they had a good supply of ammumintion?

    I can understand why people shouldn’t have nukes. But I don’t understand why I can’t have a minigun. If I had the land, so my neighbors were safe, and I had the money for ammo, I’d love to be able to shoot one of those. I wouln’t use it to commit a crime, but it might come in handy to defend myself. Personally, I’m still hoping I won’t need it.

  • GoinSane

    (and what DD said)

  • TPPAI

    Oh my goodness! Are you suggesting that the plain text of the Constitution is unclear, and subject to reinterpretation based on changing circumstances here in America?

    (I’ll pause here and make sure that the sarcasm has time to sink in. Maybe at least a few of you will see how silly you sound making that argument, then turning around and insisting that the Framers were thinking about miniguns and AR-15s when they wrote up the 2nd Amendment and we can’t parse any of that bit.)

  • Flu-Bird

    DUMB & DUMBER

  • StanInTexas

    TPPAI,

    You keep saying “we both agree” when it is clear we do not. I have a problem with a restriction on “mentally ill” people having guns because, while Liberals are in charge, ANYONE with Conservative leaning will be declared “mentally ill”.

    And you are not even making sense here… “Implementing restrictions on teh sale of illegal guns will decrease the number of illegal guns for sale.” Hey genius, if they are already illegal, then we do not need any new rules or regulation, we need THE EXISTING LAWS ENFORCED!!!!

    And now we are back to the ‘old man’ garbage. I wish you changed material as fast as you change names, you pathetic troll!

  • Sam Adams

    No law-abiding citizen in the United States of America has any fear that their constitutional rights will be infringed in any way. None. Zero.

    Too late, Joe. Our rights to keep and bear arms are grossly infringed right now. Can I carry a firearm into my local post office? How about carrying a firearm through an airport?

    How about that full auto M16 that our guys in the military carry around? Can I buy one of those (particularly if they were made after 1986)?

    How about buying a gun? Does the government have probable cause to suspect that I might use that device to do harm to others? Every year more people are killed by Ram Heavy Duty Pickup Trucks than are killed by AR-15s. Why no federal background checks to buy a new assault pickup?

  • KHarn

    TO THE INSANE OBAMA WORSHIPER:

    Why do people like yourself have problems with enforceing laws agaist the UNLAWFUL USE of weapons? That was how things were for THOUSANDS of years, it was only relativly recently (the twentieth century) that WEAPONS were restricted.

    And DON’T give me that “you don’t NEED a Minuteman missle topped with a 20kt warhead” crap. For one thing, if I could afford the LAUNCH FACILITY and the LAUNCH CONTROL FACILITY, I would start my own space program! For another, I’d rather have a 30-40 Gatling gun than a missle.

    I’ve notice that you idiot regressives love to deal in extremes: “if you don’t want to give welfare checks to millions, you want them to STARVE TO DEATH!”.

    Grow up and face reality.

  • JustAl

    Sorry, but the admonitions and hand wringing about “putting guns in the hands of the mentally unfit” can not be taken seriously when done by someone who voted to put Joe Biden a heartbeat away from nuclear launch codes.

    Which side in this argument does not want to limit the rights and liberty of the other? That’s the side I’m on.

  • Jodie

    JustAl says:

    February 25, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    ”can not be taken seriously when done by someone who voted to put Joe Biden a heartbeat away from nuclear launch codes.”

    Evidently, even Biden’s parents saw the handwriting on the wall:

    “My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, I could be, I could be Vice President!” –Joe Biden, campaigning in Youngstown, Ohio, May 16, 2012

  • TonyD95B

    Joe Biden…….Delaware’s “gift” to the nation.

    And, no, we DON’T want him back!

  • GoinSane

    I think we can all reasonably agree that a “well regulated militia” of the time had the same muskets that the American and British soldiers were using.

    I think it’s reasonable to believe that the Founding Fathers knew that weapons would continue to evolve, just like their current weapons had evolved form the old blunderbuss muskets the pilgrims used, and those improvements would be available for both civilians and soldiers alike. Actually, most improvements were probably invented by civilians for civilians, before the military adopted them. This, of course, was before the giant military-industrial complex sprang up in the 40’s & 50’s. These improvements included high capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons.

    What good would a “well regulated militia” be if it was limited to using the muskets of the 1780’s while only the government got use the latest technology?

    And, TPPAI, since you brought up the clarity of the plain text of the Constitution. Please explain what is unclear about “shall not be infringed”. Regardless of whether they are regulated or not, how is it not infringing on my right to bear arms to say I can’t freely own a semi-auto AR-15 rifle?

    And btw, if I wanted to spend all the time and effort to get a license, and pay the taxes and other fees, I could own a shoot a minigun.

  • GoinSane

    And somebody needs to shop that picture of Biden to look like Gaddafi.

  • Richard

    This man has been spreading lies for so long, it looks as though he is starting to believe some of them himself. It scares the hell out of me when I face the fact that he is one of the idiots in charge of the developing the future of our country.

  • grayjohn

    Mr. Vice Asshole, I object!

  • bobdog

    Law abiding?

    It’s helpful to remember that everything that Adolf Hitler did to Germany was within the law…

  • Rotohammer

    I just realized what real life person Steve Carell was modeling when playing the role of Michael Scott in The Office.

  • Adam

    “What rights have been taken away? (None.)”
    Our government believes in a “Slow and steady wins the race” approach. Rather than simply removing our rights straight away, they whittle down what sorts of protections those rights can offer until there’s nothing left. For instance, Obamacare’s birth control mandate is whittling down the American people’s religious rights set down in the 1st Amendment by forcing religious employers to act against their consciences and the dictates of their faith by knowingly paying for their employees’ abortions in their health care coverage.

  • Jeff

    I wish that TPPAI and those who agree with him would have the honesty to first study history to see why a right to keep and bear arms was included as a part of the Constitution. Also study the phrase; “a well regulated militia” meant (defined) per the authors. But I suspect that like most liberals/progressives, he will not do so.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial