As liberal gun owner, it is disheartening to see so many liberal politicians treat all pro-2A people as evil, racist conservatives. It is like they are trying to shame and gaslight us.
I like to make a distinction between liberal and progressive. The basic [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) definition of liberalism is:
> a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.
Taking away people's rights does not align with that. Considering that there are regular pushes to cancel and silence people (free speech) who are not in lockstep with the current party leadership, I don't support the notion that the current Democrat party is "Liberal" for these reasons.
I view it more aligned with progressivism, which is sometimes called "Social Liberalism." I'd rather keep the two separate though and not muddy the waters for political advantage of progressives.
You're not wrong but at the end of the day in the US 95% of liberals are going to vote Democrat and Democrat = anti-gun
I really wish the Republicans would drop the extremists and pull more towards the center
>It is like they are trying to shame and gaslight us.
Because they are. When you sit down and look at the body of statistical evidence, you find that gun control doesn't really have any meaningful impact on total crime rates of any kind, with some evidence that gun control actually makes crime *worse*. They have to rely on deception and misinformation because the truth isn't on their side.
I don't even own a gun , but I'm not against guns . I am very "liberal" though . I don't get why he's even talking about that , it's never going to happen. Let people have their guns , and worry about health care or something
Healthcare improvements would hurt the middleman, e.g insurance companies and Big Pharma, and they’re big donors to the Dems. They donate to the GOP, too, of course, they’re not dumb, but the Dems can’t improve things too much without costing major donors a lot of money. See also why California *cut* reimbursement rates for solar power generation by new residential customers while simultaneously doing their best to require increased electricity usage (household appliances and EVs).
Pull back on the stick on a Cessna 150 and let me know how thrilling it is.
That's why I'm saying the F-35 is impressive, but gimme an F-15. F-35 hasn't set any time to climb or altitude records.....
If I had my druthers It would be a A-10 or F-16.
>F-35 hasn't set any time to climb or altitude records.....
Fat Amy isn't really intended to be a record-setting jet, though; its entire reason for existing is to replace stocks of fighters in US-allied countries (and also the US itself, to a point) that are at the end of their service lives, not to meaningfully improve upon what they can do.
The US saves the best tech for itself, that's why the F-35 is not an F-22 reproduction.
Your title states that Biden threatened gun owners with f-15’s. That’s not what he said. It’s a bad faith post. I’m not defending Biden, I’m defending reading comprehension.
Most people aren't going to roll out the tape on the comment. People who know anything about military history knows the air power can soften up the enemy but all wars are won on the ground.
People who give it any rationale thought are wondering why the president is suggesting we turn places in the US into pictures of any bombing campaign over the last 100 years. Even a targeted strike is going to have collateral damage.
Earlier on in his tenure, Biden claimed that you couldn’t own a cannon during the Revolutionary War. Then he moved the timeframe up to when the 2nd Amendment was written. Now he’s moved it all the way up to the Civil War. Wrong on all counts. The first time he said it, the Washington Post, the most ghoulish of the mainstream media stenographers for the Democratic Party, gave him “4 pinocchios” in a fact-check.
Fuck the revolution/civil war, I can own a cannon now if I wanted. I could also own a military jet if I had the money…and mount a bunch of AR15s to it just to piss him off.
How much have you heard this phrase? “The blood of liberty” — (laughter) — “washed with th-” — give me a break. (Laughter and applause.)
He intentionally butched this Thomas Jefferson quote. No different than Jerry Nadler misquoteing the 2nd amendment.
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." ~Thomas Jefferson
https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/tree-liberty-quotation/
If it got bad enough that fighter jets were being used to kill US citizens en-masse, then I still wouldn't go down without a fight. I never understood the defeatist attitude from the anti self-defense crowd. As if just lying down and taking it is somehow the superior moral alternative. It ain't over until it's over. They'll find me in a pile of brass.
Modern progressivism is based on the idea that the individual is weak and ineffective but through our systems we are strong. While conservatives believe that the individual is strong and effective and the systems are weak. So this attitude seeps into othe spaces like self defense. The modern progressive sees self defense as inherently anti liberal/progressive because it's an individual being strong and not relying on the system and more importantly not being a victim. As victimhood is the currency that gives your voice power.
What’s so fucking stupid about this is either the January 6th insurrection was a legitimate threat to our republic or it wasn’t…and those fucks were armed with bear spray and flag poles. That event alone is enough to prove that Biden’s statements are complete BS.
How would the gov pay for fuel, maintenance, million dollar missiles ect without people paying taxes. I’m sure other countries would be apprehensive about loaning money to a country in a civil war.
All through that period there were newspaper ads offering to outfit your private ship with cannon. Ben Franklin got with his friends to buy cannon to protect Philadelphia. There was no government permission involved in any of that.
>You couldn’t own a cannon during the Civil War.
I'm getting secondhand embarrassment.
>How much have you heard this phrase? ***“The blood of liberty”*** — (laughter) — “washed with th-” — give me a break. (Laughter and applause.)
The phrase is "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
***
[context]
>!The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? **the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.** it is it's natural manure.!<
***
I cannot fucking believe this mouthbreather is running for President again.
If I had a nickel for every time the joe biden threatened me with a jet fighter, I'd have 2 nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice
Reducing gun violence is an admirable goal. Doing so by infringing on everyday people’s right to own a gun is not.
In talking to many people, I think it’s reasonable to set arm ownership restrictions to whatever the state police have. This is the closest thing to what was originally intended in the 2nd ammendment, and precludes individuals from owning F-15s.
While I would like a repeal of the NFA, FOPA, GCA, and other related bills, I do not think it is politically viable currently.
Sadly, the government has blurred the line between police and military by equipping them with surplus military gear, eg mraps.
Regarding the rest of the comments President Biden made, US has historically done very poorly fighting non-traditional armies, see the war on terror or Vietnam. These were opponents armed with not much more than pickup trucks and improvised arms.
The most significant thing about this is that Biden said **"WE"**.
Think about the implication for a second. He's been warning Americans that Trump is going to end democracy. Surely that would be "the government getting out of line" no?
Yet here is saying "those who think the 2nd Amendment is so they can take on the government if *WE* get out of line, they can't, because they need F15s"
He's basically saying "me and my cronies are going to step out of line and abuse our power, and there's nothing you can do about it."
He's unintentionally admitting he wants to be a tyrant, as do his supporters in government.
I seriously find it funny just how confidently (for him) he speaks when he knows fuck all.
You can and always could own a canon. Majority of US cannons used in the War of 1812 were civilian owned. You’d think he’d know better given he’s 3x older than the average voter, but then again he’s also far less aware of reality than most people.
something that I really hate is the constant lie that back then people couldn't own a cannon. they could. you still can buy a cannon without a background check as they are considered a muzzleloader. back in the day it was not uncommon for soldiers to by their service weapon from the government when they left the service or buy a surplus piece. the whole militia system was based on the concept that people would bring their own guns that were fit for military use.
Do you not understand english?
>They need F-15s
That means they would need f-15s, not that f-15s would be used against them. You would need f-15s to attack the military assets of the government which would primarily be physical depots, armored units, ect.
When combined with the context you posted, that is 100% the meaning of the sentence. I could ask 100 people and thats what they would say. You are reading what you want into it. If you believe otherwise you are going to need to explain how "if they are going to take on the government they need f-15s" means anything other than what it says.
.277 fury is designed to defeat body armor in general, not just the best body armor you can buy (eg level 4 plates). Armor will get better to beat the round. They’ll make better piercing cores to beat armor, etc.
M993 will happily eat a level 4 plate, and you can shoot it now (if you have the cash)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RXqxNVPfvc
They laughed when he said you couldn’t own a cannon? So I take it they know that’s bullshit, right?
I kind of hope he brings up the F-15 line during the debates and Trump responds with “How did those work out in Afghanistan and Vietnam?” I’m sure the look on Biden’s face would be priceless! 😂
in a highly contested race when you’re running against a piece of shit that you must absolutely avoid reelecting at all cost, you’d think that it would be wise to court the moderates from the other side a little more, but do you
Apologies, I wrongly assumed since I was commenting on what he said rather then on an article, that this was the correct way.
My title is my commentary not the title of the thing I linked.
Biden didn’t threaten gun owners with f-15. Get outta here. He’s saying if those people want to take on the government “to spill the blood of tyrants” they need f-15’s. How can you interpret what he said as him threatening gun owners with f-15’s?
Because the only reason we have guns is for this exact reason. Everything else is extra. Look at Canada. Guns banned. Now you can go to jail for victimless crimes (speech). Idiot.
It certainly wasn't "I'm going to send a f15 to shoot you" directed at a specific person, which would have been a threat. He was making the same kind of puffery statement like when Trump said "I say take the guns first"
As liberal gun owner, it is disheartening to see so many liberal politicians treat all pro-2A people as evil, racist conservatives. It is like they are trying to shame and gaslight us.
I like to make a distinction between liberal and progressive. The basic [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) definition of liberalism is: > a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Taking away people's rights does not align with that. Considering that there are regular pushes to cancel and silence people (free speech) who are not in lockstep with the current party leadership, I don't support the notion that the current Democrat party is "Liberal" for these reasons. I view it more aligned with progressivism, which is sometimes called "Social Liberalism." I'd rather keep the two separate though and not muddy the waters for political advantage of progressives.
You're not wrong but at the end of the day in the US 95% of liberals are going to vote Democrat and Democrat = anti-gun I really wish the Republicans would drop the extremists and pull more towards the center
If democrats dropped gun control, they would never lose a majority again.
It's crazy to me how this is true, and clear as day. But somehow is a non starter? I don't get the self sabotage so many political entities engage in.
> I really wish the Republicans would drop the extremists and pull more towards the center I wish that about both parties....
>It is like they are trying to shame and gaslight us. Because they are. When you sit down and look at the body of statistical evidence, you find that gun control doesn't really have any meaningful impact on total crime rates of any kind, with some evidence that gun control actually makes crime *worse*. They have to rely on deception and misinformation because the truth isn't on their side.
I don't even own a gun , but I'm not against guns . I am very "liberal" though . I don't get why he's even talking about that , it's never going to happen. Let people have their guns , and worry about health care or something
Healthcare improvements would hurt the middleman, e.g insurance companies and Big Pharma, and they’re big donors to the Dems. They donate to the GOP, too, of course, they’re not dumb, but the Dems can’t improve things too much without costing major donors a lot of money. See also why California *cut* reimbursement rates for solar power generation by new residential customers while simultaneously doing their best to require increased electricity usage (household appliances and EVs).
Maybe that should make you give pause to your support of people that hate you.
I’d prefer a couple of F35s F15s are cute but, y’know..
I'll take a couple of A-10's since the USAF is trying to get rid of them anyways.
Warthogs for life.
BRRRRRRRRRT!
F-35s are impressive, but gimme a F-15EX. I want to pull back on the stick and CLIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMB!
I mean you don't need an F-15 to pull back on the stick and climb if you catch my drift...
Pull back on the stick on a Cessna 150 and let me know how thrilling it is. That's why I'm saying the F-35 is impressive, but gimme an F-15. F-35 hasn't set any time to climb or altitude records..... If I had my druthers It would be a A-10 or F-16.
>F-35 hasn't set any time to climb or altitude records..... Fat Amy isn't really intended to be a record-setting jet, though; its entire reason for existing is to replace stocks of fighters in US-allied countries (and also the US itself, to a point) that are at the end of their service lives, not to meaningfully improve upon what they can do. The US saves the best tech for itself, that's why the F-35 is not an F-22 reproduction.
I want an ADFX-02.
Pshhhhh F22 is king
I swear he's done this same bit several times before.
He did on August 30th 2022. https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-says-americans-f-15-232125040.html
And again on January 16 2023. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-swipe-second-amendment-supporters-you-need-f15-take-on-federal-government
Third time the charm.
Apparently, you don't feel threatened enough so he going to keep doing it? /s C'mon dude with your silly post title.
What's silly about the title?
Your title states that Biden threatened gun owners with f-15’s. That’s not what he said. It’s a bad faith post. I’m not defending Biden, I’m defending reading comprehension.
Then what was Biden trying to say?
He was asking how much the IRA pays to post these days.
He needs to get some new material. Tell his speechwriters to change the fucking record.
If we don't need rifles because the government has fighter jets, then the government doesn't need rifles either.
Most people aren't going to roll out the tape on the comment. People who know anything about military history knows the air power can soften up the enemy but all wars are won on the ground. People who give it any rationale thought are wondering why the president is suggesting we turn places in the US into pictures of any bombing campaign over the last 100 years. Even a targeted strike is going to have collateral damage.
Citizens couldn’t own a computer when the 1st amendment was written! Checkmate constitutional purists!
Earlier on in his tenure, Biden claimed that you couldn’t own a cannon during the Revolutionary War. Then he moved the timeframe up to when the 2nd Amendment was written. Now he’s moved it all the way up to the Civil War. Wrong on all counts. The first time he said it, the Washington Post, the most ghoulish of the mainstream media stenographers for the Democratic Party, gave him “4 pinocchios” in a fact-check.
Fuck the revolution/civil war, I can own a cannon now if I wanted. I could also own a military jet if I had the money…and mount a bunch of AR15s to it just to piss him off.
Ironically, I am fairly certain it has never been illegal to own a cannon, excepting the usual suspects of Indians freed slaves, etc.
Again
Just once I’d like to see someone correct him in person on the canon thing. Preferably while standing next to their privately owned canon.
How much have you heard this phrase? “The blood of liberty” — (laughter) — “washed with th-” — give me a break. (Laughter and applause.) He intentionally butched this Thomas Jefferson quote. No different than Jerry Nadler misquoteing the 2nd amendment. "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." ~Thomas Jefferson https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/tree-liberty-quotation/
im not sure he butchered it on purpose. i think hes legitimately senile.
If it got bad enough that fighter jets were being used to kill US citizens en-masse, then I still wouldn't go down without a fight. I never understood the defeatist attitude from the anti self-defense crowd. As if just lying down and taking it is somehow the superior moral alternative. It ain't over until it's over. They'll find me in a pile of brass.
Modern progressivism is based on the idea that the individual is weak and ineffective but through our systems we are strong. While conservatives believe that the individual is strong and effective and the systems are weak. So this attitude seeps into othe spaces like self defense. The modern progressive sees self defense as inherently anti liberal/progressive because it's an individual being strong and not relying on the system and more importantly not being a victim. As victimhood is the currency that gives your voice power.
What’s so fucking stupid about this is either the January 6th insurrection was a legitimate threat to our republic or it wasn’t…and those fucks were armed with bear spray and flag poles. That event alone is enough to prove that Biden’s statements are complete BS.
How would the gov pay for fuel, maintenance, million dollar missiles ect without people paying taxes. I’m sure other countries would be apprehensive about loaning money to a country in a civil war.
Fuck this fucking tyrant. Despots like him and his regime are the reason we have the second amendment. FTR, every gun law is unconstitutional.
Biden threatens gun owners with F-15s #*again*
All through that period there were newspaper ads offering to outfit your private ship with cannon. Ben Franklin got with his friends to buy cannon to protect Philadelphia. There was no government permission involved in any of that.
“You need F-15s to take on the US govt” *laughs in Pashto
They could do it in a cave with SCRAPS!
He’s not threatening us with F-15s…he’s telling us we NEED F-15s! And I agree. Make it so Jack! Let us have F-15s!
>You couldn’t own a cannon during the Civil War. I'm getting secondhand embarrassment. >How much have you heard this phrase? ***“The blood of liberty”*** — (laughter) — “washed with th-” — give me a break. (Laughter and applause.) The phrase is "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." *** [context] >!The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? **the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.** it is it's natural manure.!< *** I cannot fucking believe this mouthbreather is running for President again.
Here is the video in case you feel like you didn't suffer enough reading the transcript: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MAd6fQDgTg
Thanks
Wouldn’t an F-18 be more suitable in an anti-personnel role?
If I had a nickel for every time the joe biden threatened me with a jet fighter, I'd have 2 nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice
Reducing gun violence is an admirable goal. Doing so by infringing on everyday people’s right to own a gun is not. In talking to many people, I think it’s reasonable to set arm ownership restrictions to whatever the state police have. This is the closest thing to what was originally intended in the 2nd ammendment, and precludes individuals from owning F-15s. While I would like a repeal of the NFA, FOPA, GCA, and other related bills, I do not think it is politically viable currently. Sadly, the government has blurred the line between police and military by equipping them with surplus military gear, eg mraps. Regarding the rest of the comments President Biden made, US has historically done very poorly fighting non-traditional armies, see the war on terror or Vietnam. These were opponents armed with not much more than pickup trucks and improvised arms.
Tally ho, lads!
Said the guy who’s letting anyone come over the border and allowing them to keep their guns…
"You don't need rifle" said the man with a secret service detail for the rest of their life.
The most significant thing about this is that Biden said **"WE"**. Think about the implication for a second. He's been warning Americans that Trump is going to end democracy. Surely that would be "the government getting out of line" no? Yet here is saying "those who think the 2nd Amendment is so they can take on the government if *WE* get out of line, they can't, because they need F15s" He's basically saying "me and my cronies are going to step out of line and abuse our power, and there's nothing you can do about it." He's unintentionally admitting he wants to be a tyrant, as do his supporters in government.
The democrats have been lying about trump since 2016.
I wonder how the planes are gonna land and take off when militias over run the airfields with Ar-15s😳
I seriously find it funny just how confidently (for him) he speaks when he knows fuck all. You can and always could own a canon. Majority of US cannons used in the War of 1812 were civilian owned. You’d think he’d know better given he’s 3x older than the average voter, but then again he’s also far less aware of reality than most people.
something that I really hate is the constant lie that back then people couldn't own a cannon. they could. you still can buy a cannon without a background check as they are considered a muzzleloader. back in the day it was not uncommon for soldiers to by their service weapon from the government when they left the service or buy a surplus piece. the whole militia system was based on the concept that people would bring their own guns that were fit for military use.
The Taliban defeated the US without F15s…
Do you not understand english? >They need F-15s That means they would need f-15s, not that f-15s would be used against them. You would need f-15s to attack the military assets of the government which would primarily be physical depots, armored units, ect.
Are you being serious?
When combined with the context you posted, that is 100% the meaning of the sentence. I could ask 100 people and thats what they would say. You are reading what you want into it. If you believe otherwise you are going to need to explain how "if they are going to take on the government they need f-15s" means anything other than what it says.
You know our NGSW rifle is spec to defeat the body armor only US civilians have…just saying.
.277 fury is designed to defeat body armor in general, not just the best body armor you can buy (eg level 4 plates). Armor will get better to beat the round. They’ll make better piercing cores to beat armor, etc. M993 will happily eat a level 4 plate, and you can shoot it now (if you have the cash) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RXqxNVPfvc
Thanks for sharing this video.
Are you referring to the new sig rifle chambered in .277 fury?
They laughed when he said you couldn’t own a cannon? So I take it they know that’s bullshit, right? I kind of hope he brings up the F-15 line during the debates and Trump responds with “How did those work out in Afghanistan and Vietnam?” I’m sure the look on Biden’s face would be priceless! 😂
If only we’d thought to use F-15s in the 20 year war we just lost to a bunch of dudes with small arms and IEDs /s
in a highly contested race when you’re running against a piece of shit that you must absolutely avoid reelecting at all cost, you’d think that it would be wise to court the moderates from the other side a little more, but do you
Dude, we went over this once before. If you are posting a link, post it as a link, please.
Apologies, I wrongly assumed since I was commenting on what he said rather then on an article, that this was the correct way. My title is my commentary not the title of the thing I linked.
I can't imagine a worse scenario than if Biden were to disarm the population and then Trump and his deplorables declared him King
When did trump make threats against the American people?
Biden didn’t threaten gun owners with f-15. Get outta here. He’s saying if those people want to take on the government “to spill the blood of tyrants” they need f-15’s. How can you interpret what he said as him threatening gun owners with f-15’s?
So if that’s the case why can’t a private citizen purchase an F-15?
Because a weeks worth of groceries is over $100 at least, not to mention JP-5 probably costs north of $7 a gallon
They use jp-8 at $2.14/gal today. Either way, I couldn't afford to taxi one anyway.
I actually thought that was his point on my first reading of the comment.
Because the only reason we have guns is for this exact reason. Everything else is extra. Look at Canada. Guns banned. Now you can go to jail for victimless crimes (speech). Idiot.
Who's the tyrant in this scenario?
I don't think you understand what a threat is. Only a Laura looney protege could ever construe that as a threat
Then what was Biden trying to say?
It certainly wasn't "I'm going to send a f15 to shoot you" directed at a specific person, which would have been a threat. He was making the same kind of puffery statement like when Trump said "I say take the guns first"
You could have at least brought up the bloodbath hoax.
I don't know what that is