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.’”
An Answer to the Charge of the Supposed ‘Genocide’ in Gaza
Ohio Rep Marcy Kaptur hospitalized after car crash on way to church
Entire Squad endorses Abdul El-Sayed days before Michigan Democratic Senate primary
Trump Admin Putting Major Medical Association’s Billing Code ‘Monopoly’ Under The Microscope
OpenAI Employees Dropped More Than $296K on Democrats While Republicans Got Nothing, Filings Show
Trump DHS chief under fire from conservatives after immigration speech ignites backlash
Bryan Kohberger’s former defense expert calls for death penalty, says investigators missed key evidence
Would-Be Burglar Picked The Wrong North Carolina House To Break Into
GOP Rep Max Miller pushes back against abuse allegations: ‘I have nothing to hide’
Southern university requires business suits, bans du-rags and other headwear in new dress code
Trump demand puts vulnerable Republicans in impossible spot ahead of midterms
Anti-Violence Activist Allegedly Stabs Woman With Box Cutter
Obama Granted Bill Gates Top Secret Clearance At Energy Department
Fauci’s diary details how his relationship with Trump soured
It’s OK to be nostalgic about Woody Allen’s ‘Midnight in Paris’
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.
An Answer to the Charge of the Supposed ‘Genocide’ in Gaza
Ohio Rep Marcy Kaptur hospitalized after car crash on way to church
Entire Squad endorses Abdul El-Sayed days before Michigan Democratic Senate primary
Trump Admin Putting Major Medical Association’s Billing Code ‘Monopoly’ Under The Microscope
OpenAI Employees Dropped More Than $296K on Democrats While Republicans Got Nothing, Filings Show
Trump DHS chief under fire from conservatives after immigration speech ignites backlash
Bryan Kohberger’s former defense expert calls for death penalty, says investigators missed key evidence
Would-Be Burglar Picked The Wrong North Carolina House To Break Into
GOP Rep Max Miller pushes back against abuse allegations: ‘I have nothing to hide’
Southern university requires business suits, bans du-rags and other headwear in new dress code
Trump demand puts vulnerable Republicans in impossible spot ahead of midterms
Anti-Violence Activist Allegedly Stabs Woman With Box Cutter
Obama Granted Bill Gates Top Secret Clearance At Energy Department
Fauci’s diary details how his relationship with Trump soured
It’s OK to be nostalgic about Woody Allen’s ‘Midnight in Paris’
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.
