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.’”
Ethics panel clears Gallego as Luna declares, ‘Once a creep, always a creep’
Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts Side with Liberal Justices on Key Election Integrity Case
Conservatives revolt after Trump-appointed Barrett joins liberals in ‘shockingly wrong’ mail ballot ruling
Netanyahu’s lawyers compare his treatment by court to Adolf Eichmann as yearslong trial could go to 2028
Judge delays trial for White House Correspondents’ Association dinner shooting suspect
Wife of Louis Farrakhan dead at 90
Who is Lisa Cook? The central bank governor at the heart of the Supreme Court’s Trump-Fed showdown
American Airlines flight aborts Miami takeoff after business jet enters runway
Luigi Mangione returns to court for jury selection hearing after reported plea deal falls apart
Deadly Palisades Fire Defendant’s Case Ends in Mistrial as Jury Remains Deadlocked
Banned Film About Anti-Islam Vigilante Is No. 1 on Amazon
Watch: Dems Trot Out Biden at Gala, But Now He Can’t Even Leave Podium Without Directions
Europeans Discover Simple Luxury As They Descend On US For World Cup
Fetterman Blasts His Own Party’s ‘Orgy of Socialism’ Primary Results
In Apple TV’s ‘Star City,’ Russians beat us to the moon
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.
Ethics panel clears Gallego as Luna declares, ‘Once a creep, always a creep’
Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts Side with Liberal Justices on Key Election Integrity Case
Conservatives revolt after Trump-appointed Barrett joins liberals in ‘shockingly wrong’ mail ballot ruling
Netanyahu’s lawyers compare his treatment by court to Adolf Eichmann as yearslong trial could go to 2028
Judge delays trial for White House Correspondents’ Association dinner shooting suspect
Wife of Louis Farrakhan dead at 90
Who is Lisa Cook? The central bank governor at the heart of the Supreme Court’s Trump-Fed showdown
American Airlines flight aborts Miami takeoff after business jet enters runway
Luigi Mangione returns to court for jury selection hearing after reported plea deal falls apart
Deadly Palisades Fire Defendant’s Case Ends in Mistrial as Jury Remains Deadlocked
Banned Film About Anti-Islam Vigilante Is No. 1 on Amazon
Watch: Dems Trot Out Biden at Gala, But Now He Can’t Even Leave Podium Without Directions
Europeans Discover Simple Luxury As They Descend On US For World Cup
Fetterman Blasts His Own Party’s ‘Orgy of Socialism’ Primary Results
In Apple TV’s ‘Star City,’ Russians beat us to the moon
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.
