Biden, in a recent, delusional statement, described handguns as weapons of war. Whether he hadn’t finished his afternoon oatmeal or had just waken up from one of his much needed naps and was still a bit groggy, his statement was utterly absurd. Speaking on the handgun used to kill Officer Rivera, Biden said:
“A magazine with 40 rounds. It’s…a weapon of war.”
Biden says that a “glock with 40 rounds” is “a weapon of war”
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) February 3, 2022
Here’s the thing: 1) no it isn’t, and 2)it wouldn’t matter even if it were.
For starters, calling a Glock with a drum mag of the sort that thug used to murder Officer Rivera a “weapon of war” is something that could only be spoken by a guy with less than zero knowledge of our Armed Forces and what they carry.
For those that don’t know, they used the Beretta M9 before switching to the Sig M17 and M18. Such handguns are rarely used in combat, but if our soldiers are carrying a handgun, that’s what they’re carrying. Not a Glock.
Further, no commander would ever, and I mean ever, let one of his soldiers walk around with some piece of Mall Ninja trash like a drum mag for a Glock. It’s impractical, rattles so loudly that it’d alert the enemy, weighes a ton, and would offer little advantage, as handguns are rarely used.
But, let’s pretend that Biden was somehow right and a Glock with a drum mag is somehow a “weapon of war.” Would it matter?
No. The 2nd Amendment is meant to protect that sort of weapon so that we can own the tools necessary to defend our liberty from a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t created to protect your right to carry a gun to shoot a mugger (though it does), nor is it there so you can keep a deer rifle in the safe for a few fun days every fall. No, it’s there so that we can “keep and bear” the arms we need to defend our liberty.
Now, to be realistic, a Glock with an absurd drum mag dangling from it would be of little use when fighting a team of trained soldiers there to enforce some tyrannical decree. An AR or FAL or SCAR would almost certainly be of more use when fighting an actual war for liberty. But, even if it were the most useful “weapon of war” out there, even if it was the one thing that the military had no way to counter, it would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
It’s time to remember what “shall not be infringed” means. As a reminder for Sloe Joe and Co., “shall not be infringed” means just that, “shall not be infringed.” Not, “go ahead and infringe it if some thug uses a ridiculous handgun in an evil way” or “infringe this sacred right if a certain style of weapon looks scary to a cat lady with no gun knowledge.”
That’s important. We have a right to keep and bear arms, including “weapons of war.”