Biden wants to ban all gun magazines...that hold more than one bullet!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...magazines_that_can_hold_multiple_bullets.html

Seriously. This goes beyond the point of some who have claimed that technically the 2nd Amendment only protects Revolutionary War era firearms. Even in that era there were rifles that held more than one bullet.

Either this is another infamous Biden gaffe or he is mad.

Not to mention that it wouldn't do any good. You can fire single shot weapons at a fairly high and lethal rate. There are videos on youtube that show how to do it.

Joe is pandering to a "special interest group" that goes by the name of Democratic voters. That said as far as I know all revolutionary war weapons were single shot. Even the double barreled shotgun wasn't invented until the 1800's. As far as firing single shot weapons fast, forget it! Functioning under high stress conditions isn't the same as demonstrating it for a you tube video. But that's a moot point really - Joe doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about - he's out of his element here.

Anyway in the comments section somebody mentioned that only 20 percent of the guns in New Zealand were ever turned in. Does anyone think here in the US the percentage would be any better?
Let's see 20 percent of 300,000,000 or so is a lot of guns, but damn that 80 percent still floating around after the turn in/buyback might be an issue.

BTW even if all "assault" weapons are gone the inner city residents will be slaughtering each other with handguns. Pistol magazines can only hold one bullet? Plenty of revolvers still around you know!
Six shots beats one shot any day of the week. Some criminals prefer revolvers because they don't leave any cartridges laying around after the shooting for cops to find. Just sayin'

I can't wait to see all the Biden supporters here attempt to defend this.

It'll go something like this:
"at least he's trying to offer solutions!"

I assume gaff and that he meant some kind of 'extra-large' size and not "multiple" mags.

But unimportant now since the chances are almost zero that Biden can win the nomination, and even smaller (imo) that he could beat Trump - by then he'd be another loong year older. And I haven't been able to bust on Joe for a while now, since mocking Joe's errors became a form elder abuse, the guy's further past his prime than even Mueller after his recent display, during testimony.

HA! Sure enough here it is. Now THIS is a motherfucker who doesn't need to be within a country mile of a gun. Holy shit I'm glad I'm not his neighbor!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=joe biden just use a shotgun&view=detail&mid=2D086DDE5B3428C0D6002D086DDE5B3428C0D600&FORM=VIRE

And an AR is difficult to aim and shoot? almost zero recoil and with iron sights a child can shoot them with no problem. Joe is clueless.

I agree but then again for the last 25 years when people talk about "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" they can't even define what makes one. Basically it always comes down to "if it looks like a scary military type weapon" then it must be an "assault weapon".

that's it exactly! Even if it fires the same round at the same rate of fire (one round per trigger squeeze) if it looks "military" that somehow makes it more dangerous.
Pink AR's marketed toward females must really cause some kind of disconnect in their brains!

I suspect you may have misunderstood me. I'm not aware of anyone on Wordforge that currently supports Biden.

The thing is, lots of the things that "look military" on a rifle have almost nothing to do with the main purpose of the weapon that is to fire bullets. Lots of the "scary military things" are the items mounted on the rails that surround the barrel. These are things such as advanced sights, flashlights, custom forward grips, bayonets and other melee devices. One of the things that make the AR15 so popular is not that you can carry a lot of bullets and fire them quickly, it is that the rifle is relatively easy to "accessorize". More than a few people love to accessorize guns just as they used to love upgrading cars and trucks.

oh yes tricking out an AR is pretty popular these days. I know a few guys that are into that hobby. I don't see the appeal but then again I like keeping everything I do as simple and basic as possible.

who are the Democrats of WF supporting? Warren I suspect? I know Harris is not doing well in most polls.

It's Grandpa Joe. I assume he's just babbling.

1st choice: Harris
2nd choice: Warren
3rd choice: I dunno, probably Klobuchar or Buttegieg
4th choice: the other one of those two
5th choice: pretty much anybody else
Second-to-last choice: Blowhard Bernie or Bumbling Biden
Last choice: Gabbard, Williamson or Yang

Dunno who the WF Democrats (except for @tafkats above) are supporting, but I'll point out that the Iowa Caucuses are in February of next year. That's five months from now.

Agreed.

It has to be a gaffe with him thinking about 30 round magazines.

Also agree on that I think he's going to implode eventually and be out of the race.

Play spoiler for Trump?

Whose running against him?

So we go back to the muskets of our founder's day. No big deal.

Biden wants to ban gun magazines?

He can pry my September issue of Guns & Ammo from my cold, dead hand!

What happens then when someone takes a couple of muskets that have been modified for relatively rapid firing into a school or a theatre and kill a dozen or more people?

Like I said.....

Whose running against him?



Joe Walsh - a one term Congressman that was too stupid to realize that he'd get fired from his nationally syndicated radio show when he declared he was running for President? No seriously.... he didn't know. He found out just before an interview.

Bill Weld? A RINO from Massachusetts? Yeah...... nope......

1) that was sarcasm, dingus

2) that's not even possible. I doubt muskets are produced in any high quanity if at all and the fastest in their day took three minutes to load. More than enough time to tackle the summabitch.

It was in the news. People were laughing at Walsh that he didn't know he'd get fired.

I'm not worried about Trump being the nominee.

I do worry he could lose in the general though. I make no claim that Trump is an automatic win in 2020.

Zombie's right though.

They're both jokes. Ones that are less funny than a Dave Chappelle special on Netflix

They don't have enough support to make a dent in Trump's fan base.

There were no rifles that held more than one bullet in the Revolutionary War era.

None. Nada. Zero.

http://www.militaryheritage.com/muskets.htm

Lots more places like that out there, many with much lower prices. Pistols, too.

And because they're black powder and not cartridge-firing, they can be shipped straight to the buyer. No dealer transfer required.

In fact the first firearms of any type that could hold more than one one round at a time was a revolver.

Samuel Colt's revolver. 1835-1836

And if I'm not mistaken the first rifle that held more than one round was the Spencer Repeating Rifle that came out during the Civil War. It held 7 rounds. I do think there are earlier attempts at rifles with holding more than one round like a revolver length rifle but the Spencer was the first one that worked good enough to eventually be used by Union Forces during the Civil War thanks to Lincoln overriding the army who thought the rifle would waste ammo. So a true multi-round rifle occurred in the 1860's.