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.’”
Officials say possible crack in unstable chemical tank may relieve pressure at aerospace plant
Retiring senator warns if Trump continues to do ‘stupid things’ it will kill GOP in November
‘Wasteful distraction’: Experts slam Mamdani’s taxpayer-funded grocery stores
WWII vet gives direct message to young people today: ‘We gave up our yesterdays for your tomorrows’
Dem socialist running for Wisconsin governor pushed ‘abolishing the police’
From rally gunfire to White House shooting, threats against President Trump continue to mount
Ice Cream Recall Affects Residents of 17 States
This European Commentator Was Banned from Britain for Wrongthink
These Christian Girls from Pakistan Were Forced Into Marriage by Muslims
White House blasts Cruz, Pompeo for trashing Trump peace efforts as Iran appeasement
NYT Makes Whopping Admission on AR-15s, AK-47s, Deals Devastating Blow to Gun Grabbers
Crazed Man Kidnaps Chicago Bus Driver at Knifepoint, Leads Her to Jump Out Window
California mayors revolt over Newsom bullet train plan they warn could ‘raid’ local tax bases
Florida Grocery Chain Backtracks on Allowing Open Firearm Carry
White House gunman had criminal record, history of mental health issues
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.
Officials say possible crack in unstable chemical tank may relieve pressure at aerospace plant
Retiring senator warns if Trump continues to do ‘stupid things’ it will kill GOP in November
‘Wasteful distraction’: Experts slam Mamdani’s taxpayer-funded grocery stores
WWII vet gives direct message to young people today: ‘We gave up our yesterdays for your tomorrows’
Dem socialist running for Wisconsin governor pushed ‘abolishing the police’
From rally gunfire to White House shooting, threats against President Trump continue to mount
Ice Cream Recall Affects Residents of 17 States
This European Commentator Was Banned from Britain for Wrongthink
These Christian Girls from Pakistan Were Forced Into Marriage by Muslims
White House blasts Cruz, Pompeo for trashing Trump peace efforts as Iran appeasement
NYT Makes Whopping Admission on AR-15s, AK-47s, Deals Devastating Blow to Gun Grabbers
Crazed Man Kidnaps Chicago Bus Driver at Knifepoint, Leads Her to Jump Out Window
California mayors revolt over Newsom bullet train plan they warn could ‘raid’ local tax bases
Florida Grocery Chain Backtracks on Allowing Open Firearm Carry
White House gunman had criminal record, history of mental health issues
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.
