Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. — Isaac Asimov
Joe Biden, who cruised to multiple victories in yesterday’s primaries and likely to the Democratic nomination for President, had a “true colors” encounter with a construction worker in Michigan. The man, who challenged Biden on gun rights and asserted that he wanted to take citizens’ guns away, was told to “shush,” “don’t try me, pal,” and, most tellingly “do you want to go outside.”
Take that in for a moment. A 78 year old Presidential aspirant challenged a citizen to a fist fight when he couldn’t successfully rebut the citizen’s assertions.
First, some background.
Biden’s positions on gun rights are spelled out on his web site on a tendentiously titled “gun safety” page. His proposals include banning the sale and manufacture of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, categorizing existing “assault weapons” as NFA firearms, subjecting them to registration and heavy federal level regulation, a buy-back option for those who don’t want to go through the NFA rigamarole, universal background checks, close some purported “loopholes” (when you read the word ‘loophole‘ in a gun control discussion, you should start with the presumption that the utterer is either lying or ignorant), ban online sales of guns, ammo, kits, and parts, create a federal red flag law, use federal money to “incentivize” states to impose new licensing restrictions, and some other stuff.
He also recently told former candidate Beto O’Rourke, who’s on record as wanting to confiscate all 15+ million AR-15s in private hands, that, “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort. I’m counting on you.”
It’s pretty easy for an average person to conclude that Biden has plans to take our guns away.
His excuses and dodges began with the old “fire in a theater” trope. Many years ago, I offered up an analogy:
Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
My statement went viral, and if you google my name along with the full quote, you’ll get 359,000 hits.
The statement is actually a bit inaccurate, and in its inaccuracy, it makes the case even more strongly for gun rights. You can yell “fire” in a crowded theater, provided there is one. You might even be able to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater, provided no one gets hurt and no economic damage occurs, although that’s a bit grayer, incitement is a violation of others’ rights and therefore a prosecutable action.
Therein lies the matter. Owning a gun, even an AR-15, infringes upon no one else’s rights, and therefore is not restrictable under the “fire in a theater” principle. Using a gun for a legitimate purpose, including self-defense against an imminent physical threat to yourself or another, is akin to yelling “fire” if there actually is one. It’s only when you misuse a firearm, when you use it to infringe upon another’s rights (whether or not you actually shoot it) that you go wrong. THAT is when the State should get involved, and in that case, it’s the person, not the firearm, that is to be dealt with.
Biden clearly doesn’t understand this. Or, if he does, he doesn’t care, because he wants to infringe on our gun rights, either because he doesn’t give a shit about them or because he wants to win the Presidency and his voter base feels the same way.
That’s usually the case with anti-gun people – they don’t give a damn about your rights when their feelings tell them something. And, indeed, this obsession with banning AR-15s is about feelings. They are an enormously popular rifle format that is used in a very, very small percentage of homicides. They are also functionally identical to many other formats that have not been classified as “assault weapons.” Banning them won’t make a hill-of-beans difference in crime, just as the previous ban (1994) didn’t make a hill-of-beans difference in crime.
The difference that 1994 ban made? It was the last time Democrats passed significant gun-control legislation at the federal level, and it led to an electoral rout, the Republicans’ Contract With America, and Bill Clinton’s transformation from leftist to moderate.
Biden has been portraying himself as the “moderate” in this primary, but he is such only in comparison to the socialist leftism of Sanders, Warren, and others in the pack. His gun control plans are as “progressive” as one can imagine, short of an open declaration of seeking to circumvent or repeal the Second Amendment, and the rest of his agenda sits well to the left of both Clinton and Obama, the two most recent Democratic presidents.
But, I digress. Biden’s pugnacity, witnessed yesterday, is not a one-off. We’ve seen it before, offered against Trump and against citizens, and we’ve heard him “get his Irish” up on enough occasions to conclude that such anger is a real response to being cornered rather than political posturing.
Biden’s appeal is supposedly a ‘return to normalcy’ after several years of the Trump show, but if his reflexive reaction to those who disagree with him is bully-boy barking and “take it outside” barroom bravado, how can he be expected to be a ‘healing’ president who’ll consider the concerns of those who don’t support his agenda? Should moderates and conservatives turned off by Trump’s personality flock to Biden, when he’s got his own rage issues and when he’s proposing a very progressive platform?
He’s a life-long politician, who’s proven remarkably resilient and resistant to damage from gaffes, errors, missteps, and even accusations of senescence, and when his game is on, he’s obviously quite the charmer. But, being President is incredibly stressful, and if his reflex is to bark and offer to throw hands when vexed, what does that tell us?
Loading ...
His response reminds of the old legal aphorism “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
I think part of it is he still thinks of the old times when being tough was important in politics. That if you really believe something you should be willing to fight for it…
‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,'” said Biden
I’m sure he would because when Joe was a Senior, Trump would have been a Freshman.
and lets not forget his being tough on violence against women.
Biden said. “And so we have to just change the culture, period, and keep punching at it, and punching at it, and punching at it.” The comment got some incidental laughs in the audience, prompting Biden to say, “No, I really mean it.”
and as to gaffes, can he make a big enough one or too many to end his campaign…
Already, there’s speculation that Joe will give the DNC some excuse to “convince” him to bow out at the convention, even if he sews up the nomination, so that they can elevate someone who’s not Bernie to run against Trump.
There’s a certain “herself” waiting in the wings, of course.
That, and the critical matter of his VP pick.
Conspirasish? Sure. But, they screwed Bernie last time, and they feared a Bernie primary win this time.
The idea that Biden drops out before or during the Convention means that Sanders should ride out the rest of the primaries to give him a seat at the table.
How does Biden handle a woman that challenges him on some point (would we get an other lying dog faced pony soldier , or would he challenge to take her out side) the wrong word could turn some against him.
Probably would give Sanders the nomination, but could he make enough noise to get an approval on the VP or Biden replacement (but I repeat myself)
Is Clyburn’s advise to name Biden the victor the right move for the Democrats or do they want Biden to win the nomination but stumble enough so they can replace him…
how would the person waiting in the wings do in the general election this time, did she learn her lesson and fight in every state…