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.’”
Todd Blanche moves closer to confirmation after rescinding $1.8B fund
Deadliest animal in every US state revealed, from moose and bears to dogs
Trailblazing former Republican Rep Kay Granger dies at 83: ‘Broke barriers’
Spencer Pratt reacts to Spokane devastation with blunt wildfire warning and message of faith
Off-duty trooper and armed citizen hailed as heroes after returning fire on In-N-Out gunman
Trump targets Biden-era billion-dollar Smithsonian budgets amid anti-‘woke’ push
Hero sheepdog becomes unlikely rescue partner after unexpected move aids first responders
Marco Rubio’s dream week off: ‘Watching every college football game’
An Answer to the Charge of the Supposed ‘Genocide’ in Gaza
Ohio Rep Marcy Kaptur hospitalized after car crash on way to church
Entire Squad endorses Abdul El-Sayed days before Michigan Democratic Senate primary
Trump Admin Putting Major Medical Association’s Billing Code ‘Monopoly’ Under The Microscope
Ohio GOP family feud explodes as Sen Bernie Moreno calls on Rep Max Miller to resign
EXCLUSIVE: Ohio man’s Puerto Rico murder leaves close friend reliving the call she never expected
Dem AG Travels to the Woke Temple in Search of Anti-Gun Law Firms
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.
Todd Blanche moves closer to confirmation after rescinding $1.8B fund
Deadliest animal in every US state revealed, from moose and bears to dogs
Trailblazing former Republican Rep Kay Granger dies at 83: ‘Broke barriers’
Spencer Pratt reacts to Spokane devastation with blunt wildfire warning and message of faith
Off-duty trooper and armed citizen hailed as heroes after returning fire on In-N-Out gunman
Trump targets Biden-era billion-dollar Smithsonian budgets amid anti-‘woke’ push
Hero sheepdog becomes unlikely rescue partner after unexpected move aids first responders
Marco Rubio’s dream week off: ‘Watching every college football game’
An Answer to the Charge of the Supposed ‘Genocide’ in Gaza
Ohio Rep Marcy Kaptur hospitalized after car crash on way to church
Entire Squad endorses Abdul El-Sayed days before Michigan Democratic Senate primary
Trump Admin Putting Major Medical Association’s Billing Code ‘Monopoly’ Under The Microscope
Ohio GOP family feud explodes as Sen Bernie Moreno calls on Rep Max Miller to resign
EXCLUSIVE: Ohio man’s Puerto Rico murder leaves close friend reliving the call she never expected
Dem AG Travels to the Woke Temple in Search of Anti-Gun Law Firms
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.
