Connect

Guns & Ammo Network


Collapse bottom bar
Subscribe

Biden on Shotguns: ‘Tactical Joe’ Doubles Down

by Robert W. Hunnicutt   |  February 21st, 2013 11

Our current Vice President, “Tactical Joe” Biden, is still peddling the idea that the double-barreled shotgun is the queen of battle.

Appearing on a White House web program, he reiterated his assertion that the double gun is easier and more comfortable to shoot than an AR-15 and added a new twist, recommending firing warning shots out the back door.

Tactical Joe’s combat concepts are too silly even to rebut, but as with all politicians, we have to ask what double game is being played here.

In the 1970s, anti-gunners would have been calling for banning all guns, or certainly handguns along with “assault weapons,” but that’s not happening this time. Tactical Joe’s antics demonstrate that the antis realize that, at some level, almost everyone, leaving aside Gandhi wannabes, wants some sort of personal protection.

Biden’s recommendation, I think, is quite intentional. My southern forebears regarded the shotgun as a gentleman’s weapon; the pistol was the black man’s gun. This belief was always backed up with confident boasting about the awesome killing power of the mighty 12-gauge. If we are comparing the 12 with a .32 S&W top-break revolver, that estimate was probably justified. If the pistol is a Glock 17, not so much.

But I think Tactical Joe’s embrace of the shotgun is an appeal to those archaic, and frankly racist, modes of thinking. He’s saying, in effect, “I’m not some pantywaist who would want his wife to be utterly at the mercy of intruders, but I’m going to specify a gentleman’s gun for the job.”

Well, that sounds nice, but the real point is that shotguns, while certainly effective on the burglar across the room, don’t serve as a check on state power, as do AR-15s. And that’s why Tactical Joe wants to be rid of them and we insist on keeping them.

Biden also made an interesting analogy between 30-round magazines and leaded gasoline. Cars designed for leaded gas, he said, would just disappear by natural attrition once the fuel was banned. Well, leaded gas was phased out in the 1970s, and there are still plenty of cars and trucks designed for it on the road.

More to the point, magazines don’t deteriorate if stored properly and only wear out through very extensive use. Archaeologists will discover intact magazines a thousand years from now, and my guess is some of them will still work.

You have to give Tactical Joe his props. Most of us couldn’t assert concepts that are palpably false with anything close to the zest and fluidity he displays. It takes decades in politics to learn to lie that well.

  • Roland

    Let's take another look at this. Here in Illinois, for example, if I were to take Biden's advice, and fire off two shots blindly into the woods, and if I were to actually HIT someone in the woods outside my home with those blind shots, I would be legally in the wrong. Discharge of a firearm in the direction of another human being is considered deadly force in Illinois state law. In order to justify the use of deadly force, certain criteria have to be met. Specifically:

    A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
    [(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1) Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.]

    More to the point, and specific to firing blindly outside of one's house:

    (720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)
    Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
    (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
    (1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
    (2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

    Seeing as someone is apparently mucking around in the woods, I do have a suspicion that they're up to no good. But I do not have reasonable knowledge that leads me to believe that I can actually pull a trigger in order to deter these people.

    In effect, the vice president has just told me to potentially commit a criminal act, the circumstances of which, could lead me to be charged with any variety of felonies.

    Way to go, Joe.

    • Angry American

      Uncle Joe is a complete butthole!!!! Why does he not require the Secret Service only protect him with double barrel shotguns and muskets…..? Reason being? Ineffective and you will get smoked by a perp with a quick acquisition sight and ….. yes a high cap mag.

  • Darby

    complete idiot.

  • Heretic

    If the VP is correct, we should immediately collect all the M4's from our troops and issue double barrel shotguns. It would make them a more effective fighting force./sarc

  • John

    Next week on Tactical Joe; "just shoot the bad guy in the leg you don't have to kill him; just let him bleed some thats all."

  • Starky

    You can't fix stupid, but you can sure as hell elect it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.kimrey Joseph Kimrey

    Anyone that says an AR15 is too hard to aim has never seen an EOTech. If you’ve never seen an EOTech, then that means you are completely out of touch and ignorant of the very subject of firearms, and therefore unqualified to legislate on the issue. Every elitist out there has a $4,000 heirloom shotgun and thinks that makes them part of the gun community and entitles them to claim to support the 2nd amendment before trying to destroy it.
    Firing blindly out of your mansion is considered indiscriminate fire (and is illegal in every incorporated municipality out there) and is rightly considered a public safety issue. It conjures up the same argument that was used for the restrictions that were applied to automatic weapons. Automatics diminish your ability to to direct your fire specifically at your target, thereby increasing the likelihood of harming a bystander. Furthermore, if you bust off two shots from a double barrel blindly off your balcony…you have just depleted the ammunition capacity of your gun. Now, you’re empty and have given away your position to a would be intruder.

    What they just don’t understand though, is that the second amendment is not primarily about hunting or self defense, those are simply ancillary benefits. It is about keeping the government in check, and taking it back if necessary. Our collective trust in the government has eroded, and the right to have reasonable equivalents of what the government would use against us is a necessity in the unlikely (but plausible) event of tyrannical rule. They make us sit through history classes for a reason….so that history isn’t repeated. Historically, gun laws lead to over zealous rulers stripping ALL rights from their “subjects”. Those that believe that our current president would subject us to a tyrannical regime are cast off as lunatics, even though we’ve been given ample reasons to believe in that situation’s plausibility.

    What if the threat isn’t our current administration? What if it’s three administrations down the road? If the guns are gone, our children would be the freedom fighters forced to resort to rock throwing. I’m not prepared to rely on that contingency, and I am certainly not going to rely on a short range, low capacity bird gun to protect my liberties. I will use it to protect me from birds. If Joe Biden wants us all to buy shotguns, he should talk about banning them.

  • alex

    Joe Bidden says – after the secret service deploys several dozen armed men with machine guns and body armor just go on out the back and fire off a couple of rounds to celebrate

  • http://www.facebook.com/vann.morrison Vann Morrison

    Okay, so you fire both barrels into the air out the back window. Now your weapon is unloaded. So the intruder you tried to scare away takes it away from you and beats you to death with it. Sounds like a good plan to me Joe.

  • dep1868@yahoo.com

    That idiot doesn’t have his facts straight the mental idiot that killed those kids in Conn.used a Sig Sauer and a Glock handguns.The officers found the AR-15 locked in the trunk of his car.

  • MKG

    I thought my Enfield topbreak .38 S&W was just fine for home defense (being a nondescript, boring, antique firearm), But according to Tactical Joe and his gun to race comparison I would have a better chance at beating the rap if I use a Desert Eagle loaded with black talon man killers; less than 10 round capacity of course. According to him it would be more fitting to the color of my skin. It makes me sick and it is insulting to my friends from Africa.

back to top
Collapse bottom barsurvey