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.’”
Timeline: All the incidents where US troops have been killed during the Iran war
Lindsey Graham succession fight upended as Trump’s chosen successor jumps in
Christian Apologist Forced to Move After Muslims Prove His Point
Did JD Vance Tuck a Hidden Reference in His New Son’s Name?
The American dream now comes with a ZIP code: Here’s where starter homes are still within reach
War erupts on far left as DSA endorses challenger against sitting House progressive
Mamdani’s ‘deranged’ Israel take resurfaces as he targets Netanyahu
Houthis declare naval blockade of Saudi Arabia, escalating crisis
Trump shares first picture of JD Vance’s baby boy
Cops Find Dead Body at $1.1 Million Home Owned by Ayanna Pressley’s Husband
Trump Takes Over World Cup Finale, Helps Distribute Trophies After Fists Flew at End of Championship Game
Woke language overhaul would strip the word ‘inmate’ from New York City’s entire jail rulebook
FBI alleges suspect ‘deployed an incendiary device outside’ federal building
NORAD Fighter Jets Intercept Multiple Aircraft Infringing on Restricted U.S. Airspace
Minnesota’s Biggest Paper Cheers Tim Walz For Pardoning Child Rapist, Says He Was Justified Because of Jan 6
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.
Timeline: All the incidents where US troops have been killed during the Iran war
Lindsey Graham succession fight upended as Trump’s chosen successor jumps in
Christian Apologist Forced to Move After Muslims Prove His Point
Did JD Vance Tuck a Hidden Reference in His New Son’s Name?
The American dream now comes with a ZIP code: Here’s where starter homes are still within reach
War erupts on far left as DSA endorses challenger against sitting House progressive
Mamdani’s ‘deranged’ Israel take resurfaces as he targets Netanyahu
Houthis declare naval blockade of Saudi Arabia, escalating crisis
Trump shares first picture of JD Vance’s baby boy
Cops Find Dead Body at $1.1 Million Home Owned by Ayanna Pressley’s Husband
Trump Takes Over World Cup Finale, Helps Distribute Trophies After Fists Flew at End of Championship Game
Woke language overhaul would strip the word ‘inmate’ from New York City’s entire jail rulebook
FBI alleges suspect ‘deployed an incendiary device outside’ federal building
NORAD Fighter Jets Intercept Multiple Aircraft Infringing on Restricted U.S. Airspace
Minnesota’s Biggest Paper Cheers Tim Walz For Pardoning Child Rapist, Says He Was Justified Because of Jan 6
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.
