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.’”
Australia Has Launched $1.4B Lawsuit Against 3M Citing “Forever Chemicals”
Spencer Pratt’s runner-up edge over Democrat Raman down to 1%, few thousand ballots
‘Don’t let me be the guy that’s not funny anymore’: Jeff Foxworthy opens up on his possibly final special
The World Is Learning Faster Than Ever: The Bible Said It Would
Unease and hostility meets defiant support as Maine residents grapple with Graham Platner allegations
Experimental Hepatitis B Drug Might Carry A “Functional Cure” For Specific Patients
Government Fraud Is Not a Victimless Crime
Daycare operator arrested after 3-year-old was left unconscious in pool for 20 minutes, died
Italy Strikes Sicilian Mafia Wealth, Seizing Gold, Villas and Cash
Maine GOP hopeful vying for Trump endorsement previously ran birthing clinics catering to migrant women
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart
Florida woman mauled to death by dogs that had allegedly terrorized neighborhood, owner charged in killing
Florida and Texas are battling for new residents. DeSantis thinks he found an advantage
A critic takes the measure of ‘Bluey’
GOP firebrand lashes out at reporter over Massie allegation: ‘F— you, first of all!’
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.
Australia Has Launched $1.4B Lawsuit Against 3M Citing “Forever Chemicals”
Spencer Pratt’s runner-up edge over Democrat Raman down to 1%, few thousand ballots
‘Don’t let me be the guy that’s not funny anymore’: Jeff Foxworthy opens up on his possibly final special
The World Is Learning Faster Than Ever: The Bible Said It Would
Unease and hostility meets defiant support as Maine residents grapple with Graham Platner allegations
Experimental Hepatitis B Drug Might Carry A “Functional Cure” For Specific Patients
Government Fraud Is Not a Victimless Crime
Daycare operator arrested after 3-year-old was left unconscious in pool for 20 minutes, died
Italy Strikes Sicilian Mafia Wealth, Seizing Gold, Villas and Cash
Maine GOP hopeful vying for Trump endorsement previously ran birthing clinics catering to migrant women
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart
Florida woman mauled to death by dogs that had allegedly terrorized neighborhood, owner charged in killing
Florida and Texas are battling for new residents. DeSantis thinks he found an advantage
A critic takes the measure of ‘Bluey’
GOP firebrand lashes out at reporter over Massie allegation: ‘F— you, first of all!’
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.
