CLAIM: During the Wednesday night CNN town hall Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden claimed the Founding Fathers did not intend for “everyone” to own guns.
VERDICT: False. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to be sure the citizens at large were armed in order to defend their lives and liberty.
Biden began his comments by suggesting that “no amendment is absolute,” adding, “None of you can stand up on the First Amendment, free speech, and yell ‘fire’ in here [or] you’ll be arrested.”
He then transitioned to Second Amendment rights, saying, “From the very beginning the Founder[s] said, ‘Not everyone is able to have a gun and you can’t have any weapon you want.’”
Tim Tebow Announces the Death of His Father Like Only a Christian Could
Erika Kirk Quietly Arranged a White House Summit Between Trump and Disgruntled Influencers: Report
SPLC indictment builds momentum for Bessent’s Treasury to probe partisan nonprofits
Justice Department announces it’s readopting the firing squad as a means of execution
DOJ drops investigation into Jerome Powell, clearing way for Trump Fed pick Kevin Warsh
House Must Stop Senate’s ‘Unconscionable’ Overnight Approval of Taxpayer-Funded Trans Treatments for Minors
Benjamin Netanyahu Announces Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Newsom-backed law lets illegal immigrant child rapist seek early release again as DA urges ‘stop the madness’
Senate hopeful says US should be ‘far more cooperative’ with China to fight climate change
Trump Responds After U.S. Soldier Allegedly Won $400,000 Gambling on Maduro Operation
Forensic genealogy unmasks cold case suspect as strangler, sexual predator decades later: officials
Top 3 NFL Draft Pick Breaks the Record Books Before Taking a Single Pro Snap
US economic chokehold on Iran reaches peak leverage and more top headlines
Looking for human opportunity in an AI world
Lessons from the 40-day Iran war
Contrary to Biden’s claims, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to be sure the citizens at large were armed in order to defend their lives and liberty. Moreover, the Founding Fathers wanted broad gun ownership in order to give teeth to the militia, should it have to be called together. This is why the phrases “well-regulated militia” and “the right to keep and bear arms” compliment each other, rather than cancel out one another, in the text of the Second Amendment.
Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 84 is very informative here, inasmuch as Hamilton argued that natural rights are exoteric in nature, the possession of all mankind, and therefore so broadly possessed and understood that a bill of rights to protect them was unnecessary. He went so far as to warn that a bill of rights would be dangerous because it would give the government the impression that it could take action against all aspects of freedom that were not protected by explicit amendments and/or enumerations.
Tim Tebow Announces the Death of His Father Like Only a Christian Could
Erika Kirk Quietly Arranged a White House Summit Between Trump and Disgruntled Influencers: Report
SPLC indictment builds momentum for Bessent’s Treasury to probe partisan nonprofits
Justice Department announces it’s readopting the firing squad as a means of execution
DOJ drops investigation into Jerome Powell, clearing way for Trump Fed pick Kevin Warsh
House Must Stop Senate’s ‘Unconscionable’ Overnight Approval of Taxpayer-Funded Trans Treatments for Minors
Benjamin Netanyahu Announces Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Newsom-backed law lets illegal immigrant child rapist seek early release again as DA urges ‘stop the madness’
Senate hopeful says US should be ‘far more cooperative’ with China to fight climate change
Trump Responds After U.S. Soldier Allegedly Won $400,000 Gambling on Maduro Operation
Forensic genealogy unmasks cold case suspect as strangler, sexual predator decades later: officials
Top 3 NFL Draft Pick Breaks the Record Books Before Taking a Single Pro Snap
US economic chokehold on Iran reaches peak leverage and more top headlines
Looking for human opportunity in an AI world
Lessons from the 40-day Iran war
Hamilton wrote, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.”
Story cited here.
