On Tuesday, Hunter Biden finally faced a small bit of justice for his alleged decades of criminal activity. Admittedly, it was a bit of a surprise, given the venue. Wilmington, DE, is the heart of Joe Biden's fiefdom, after all.
Still, the jury quickly returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.
SEE: Jury Finds Hunter Biden Guilty on All Counts
After Joe Biden adopted "convicted felon" as a favorite attack on Donald Trump, his own son now fits the label, and to be sure, for far more legitimate reasons. Simply put, the evidence was overwhelming and so undeniable that the jury couldn't ignore it. There is simply no question that Hunter Biden was routinely doing hard drugs when he walked in to buy a gun and falsely swore on a background check that he was not addicted to narcotics.
During the trial, his lawyers attempted various sleights of hand, including suggesting that Hunter Biden wasn't addicted on that specific day. Somewhat comically, though, text messages would go on to prove that he bought drugs from his dealer within hours of filling out the background check.
Still, there were some on the right who decried the conviction, not because they support Hunter Biden as a person, but because they see his predicament as an example of federal overreach.
Hunter might deserve to be in jail for something, but purchasing a gun is not it.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 11, 2024
There are millions of marijuana users who own guns in this country, and none of them should be in jail for purchasing or possessing a firearm against current laws.
Donald Trump has also suggested that Hunter Biden's prosecution was malicious in so far as it only happened to falsely show the justice system is fair. Perhaps both Massie and the former president have a point. Maybe there is a Second Amendment argument against drug use and owning firearms, and perhaps the special counsel investigating Hunter Biden only went after him to influence public opinion. I'm not dismissing the substance of their arguments.
I just don't care about them.
Perhaps I'm too much of a cynic, but I don't think anything is to be gained by defending the Bidens, directly or indirectly, based on principle. Specifically speaking to the Second Amendment objection, this is the justice system Democrats wanted. They have spent decades passing more and more restrictive gun control laws. They treat the National Firearms Act, which is what mandates the background checks in question, as a holy document.
If there's anybody that deserves to suffer the consequences of what they support, it's the members of the Biden family. If Republicans need a vehicle to oppose such laws, there are thousands of other people not named Hunter Biden who can be cited.
I get it. That's not a "principled" stand whereby I ignore the damage my political opponents have done to see them conveniently saved from their own standards. I'm not denying the calculation I'm making, but ask yourself: What lesson would be learned? That Democrats can pass whatever laws they want, but the moment those laws come back to bite them, they will be invalidated? I'd suggest that would only incentivize more bad governance in the future.
Perhaps the Supreme Court will one day decide it is unconstitutional to not sell guns to drug addicts. Maybe I'll even agree with that decision when presented with all the details of such a decision. For today, though, Hunter Biden deserves to be in prison, and Republicans shouldn't waste their breath defending him because there are far better ways to make the same point.
