Author Topic: Biden keeps repeating false Second Amendment claim, despite repeated fact checks  (Read 478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,522
  • Gender: Female
This coming up mid term election will be about the 2A and abortion.  God help us if the DEMS prevail.  At the rate things are going and how manipulative and underhanded they are, yes, I am very concerned.

Biden keeps repeating false Second Amendment claim, despite repeated fact checks

Biden has repeated the claim at least five times during his presidency, despite it earning him "Four Pinocchios" from the Washington Post in 2021 and a "False" label from Politifact on three separate occasions dating back to May 2020.

Biden made the claim again just last week after the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School.

"The Second Amendment is not absolute," he said during a signing of his police reform executive order. "When it was passed, you couldn’t own a — you couldn’t own a cannon, you couldn’t own certain kinds of weapons.  It’s just — there’s always been limitations."

"The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own," he said in June 2021, White House transcripts show. "You couldn’t buy a cannon................

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-false-claim-second-amendment-fact-checks
Romans 12:16-21

Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all…do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
The colonists could not own a wide range of modern weapons, but only because they had not yet been invented. Anything they could afford that DID exist was fair game.

On it's face, a product of scare tactics over prohibition crime (Murder in the streets!), the NFA of 1934 is an unconstitutional infringement of the RKBA, as are subsequent infringements.

How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
There is an interesting bit from the Federalist Papers that touches on this point, and which definitely implies that the Founders intended for the Second Amendment to protect the ownership of military-grade weapons:

Quote
In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

In other words, the worry, amongst many of the people at the time of the founding, was that the new federal government would immediately move to create a standing federal army, which would then exercise military control over the states.  The Founder's response was the Second Amendment, and the argument that so long as the states could each individually muster a militia, the federal government would never be able to effectively overwhelm any state with a standing federal army.

Now, the only way that a state militia could have stood its ground against a federal army would be if the state militia owned military-grade weapons, and since the Second Amendment was ratified in order to ensure that any given state militia would always have the ability to obtain military-grade weapons, it necessarily stands to reason that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own military-grade weapons.

So no, the Second Amendment is not just limited to 18th Century muskets, or the original Kentucky sharpshooter rifle, or anything like that, because those tools would not allow a modern-day state militia to stand up to a modern-day federal army.