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.’”
Major Car Maker Issues Recall Over Engine Issue That Could Make Vehicle Stall
EXCLUSIVE: Collins pits record built in Maine potato fields against Platner’s ‘angry rhetoric’
Why This Tech Company Wants to Release 32 Million Mosquitos Into the US
Kennedy Center takes down Trump’s name: Photos
Kennedy Center workers start to remove Trump’s name after overnight deadline
Talarico touts Texas roots as out-of-state cash powers Senate campaign
‘Hell on wheels’ killer Mackenzie Shirilla lands prison job while serving life sentence for fatal 2022 crash
James Talarico Calls Biden’s Border ‘Utter Chaos’ In Attempted Immigration Rebrand
Menendez brothers eyed $20M insurance payout after parents’ murders, Jose’s ex-business partner claims
Rahm Emanuel road-tests emphasis on policy over Trump-hatred
Who is Bill Essayli, the hard-charging prosecutor at the center of California’s election fight?
Platner’s ‘deranged’ response to Musk becoming a trillionaire sparks online outrage: ‘Loserthink’
Op-Ed: What the Court Refused to Say About Your Money
Trump administration attempts to ramp up Alaska oil and gas drilling
WATCH: House Dems blame racism, ‘all-White’ jury for Karmelo Anthony’s guilty verdict
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.
Major Car Maker Issues Recall Over Engine Issue That Could Make Vehicle Stall
EXCLUSIVE: Collins pits record built in Maine potato fields against Platner’s ‘angry rhetoric’
Why This Tech Company Wants to Release 32 Million Mosquitos Into the US
Kennedy Center takes down Trump’s name: Photos
Kennedy Center workers start to remove Trump’s name after overnight deadline
Talarico touts Texas roots as out-of-state cash powers Senate campaign
‘Hell on wheels’ killer Mackenzie Shirilla lands prison job while serving life sentence for fatal 2022 crash
James Talarico Calls Biden’s Border ‘Utter Chaos’ In Attempted Immigration Rebrand
Menendez brothers eyed $20M insurance payout after parents’ murders, Jose’s ex-business partner claims
Rahm Emanuel road-tests emphasis on policy over Trump-hatred
Who is Bill Essayli, the hard-charging prosecutor at the center of California’s election fight?
Platner’s ‘deranged’ response to Musk becoming a trillionaire sparks online outrage: ‘Loserthink’
Op-Ed: What the Court Refused to Say About Your Money
Trump administration attempts to ramp up Alaska oil and gas drilling
WATCH: House Dems blame racism, ‘all-White’ jury for Karmelo Anthony’s guilty verdict
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.
