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.’”
NYC mayor cites $180K racial wealth gap to justify taxes, police cuts
DOJ fires warning shot as Spanberger signs gun legislation
Iran, Uranium, and Epic Fury: All You Need To Know About The Iranian-U.S. Conflict
Blackmon: Drill, Baby, Drill Makes Modest Comeback
Op-Ed: The Economy Isn’t Perfect, But Crisis Talk Is Overstated and Politically Motivated
Atlanta teen arrested for murder after fatal shooting of 12-year-old inside home
Trump Judge Refuses to Block Sending Abortion Pills by Mail, But There’s Still Hope
Iran talks done in by Tehran’s delusions over leverage they don’t have, US official says
NBA Player Jaden Ivey Seen Street Preaching After Stand for Biblical Marriage
Victor Davis Hanson Breaks Down Why US Must Rethink NATO Strategy
Conservative group launches $5M ad blitz pressuring Senate on voter ID as GOP eyes SAVE America Act push
Trump orders a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz as tensions with Iran soar
Tax Day is this week: Avoid these 5 common mistakes that can cost you money
Dave Ramsey Said No – As Usual – But One of The Backstreet Boys Made Her Dream Come True Anyway
Athena Strand’s killer FedEx driver’s split personas, defense scream ‘manipulation,’ not madness: expert
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.
NYC mayor cites $180K racial wealth gap to justify taxes, police cuts
DOJ fires warning shot as Spanberger signs gun legislation
Iran, Uranium, and Epic Fury: All You Need To Know About The Iranian-U.S. Conflict
Blackmon: Drill, Baby, Drill Makes Modest Comeback
Op-Ed: The Economy Isn’t Perfect, But Crisis Talk Is Overstated and Politically Motivated
Atlanta teen arrested for murder after fatal shooting of 12-year-old inside home
Trump Judge Refuses to Block Sending Abortion Pills by Mail, But There’s Still Hope
Iran talks done in by Tehran’s delusions over leverage they don’t have, US official says
NBA Player Jaden Ivey Seen Street Preaching After Stand for Biblical Marriage
Victor Davis Hanson Breaks Down Why US Must Rethink NATO Strategy
Conservative group launches $5M ad blitz pressuring Senate on voter ID as GOP eyes SAVE America Act push
Trump orders a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz as tensions with Iran soar
Tax Day is this week: Avoid these 5 common mistakes that can cost you money
Dave Ramsey Said No – As Usual – But One of The Backstreet Boys Made Her Dream Come True Anyway
Athena Strand’s killer FedEx driver’s split personas, defense scream ‘manipulation,’ not madness: expert
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.
