US Biden’s false claim that the 2nd Amendment bans cannon ownership - “And I might add: 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. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

1643932160844.png

The president offered this aside as he made a litany of his regular points about the need for background checks and what he says was the effectiveness of bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines that expired.

Parenthetical asides from a prepared text often trip up presidents, especially Biden. In this case, he repeated a claim — that Americans were prohibited from owning cannons — that has already been fact-checked as false when he made it during the presidential campaign.

The Facts​

The cannon element is what mostly interests us here, but we should also address Biden’s framing about the Second Amendment, which was part of the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791.

The meaning of the Second Amendment — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — has long been debated. But experts said Biden especially mischaracterized it.

“Everything in that statement is wrong,” said David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the Independence Institute. After 1791, “there were no federal laws about the type of gun you could own, and no states limited the kind of gun you could own.” Not until the early 1800s were there any efforts to pass restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, he said.

“I think what he’s saying here is that the Second Amendment was never understood to guarantee everyone the right to own all types of weapons, which I believe is true,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “As phrased, it sounds like the Second Amendment itself limited ownership, which is not true.”

Kopel noted that some states placed gun-ownership restrictions on Native American tribes, including orders to disarm them, but the tribes under the Constitution at the time were treated as the equivalent of foreign nations.

Interestingly, during the campaign, Biden had asserted that the cannon restrictions happened during the Revolutionary War. “From the very beginning you weren’t allowed to have certain weapons,” Biden told Wired magazine in May 2020. “You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.”

Historians at the time told PolitiFact there was no evidence this was the case. The Biden campaign could not point to any laws but seemed to suggest Biden’s point was more metaphorical than grounded in reality.

Now Biden has moved the cannon metaphor to some 20 years after the Revolutionary War — and it’s still wrong.

In fact, you do not have to look far in the Constitution to see that private individuals could own cannons. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war. But there is another element of that clause that might seem strange to modern ears — Congress also had the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.”

What’s that? These were special waivers that allowed private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it. The “letter of marque” allowed a warship to cross into another country’s territory to take a ship, while a “letter of reprisal” gave authorization to bring the ship back to the home port of the capturer.

Individuals who were given these waivers and owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle.

The White House did not provide an explanation of Biden’s comment.

The Pinocchio Test​

Some readers might think this is a relatively inconsequential flub. But we disagree. Every U.S. president has a responsibility to get American history correct, especially when he’s using a supposed history lesson in service of a political objective. The president’s push for more gun restrictions is an important part of his political platform, so he undercuts his cause when he cites faux facts.

Moreover, Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.

Four Pinocchios

1643932250833.png


(About our rating scale)


 
It was never challenged, in part because of the "collective rights" view of the 2A that was prevelant for more than 90 years before being rejected in 2008.
Why are you wasting your time trying to explain the constitution to a cucked Australian? They have exactly zero rights and wouldn't know what one is if it cock slapped them across the face.
 
Why are you wasting your time trying to explain the constitution to a cucked Australian? They have exactly zero rights and wouldn't know what one is if it cock slapped them across the face.
Also it is Dyn, who would take any given contrarian position just to bait you into an argument.
I’m even beginning to doubt he actually respects women.
 
Why are you wasting your time trying to explain the constitution to a cucked Australian? They have exactly zero rights and wouldn't know what one is if it cock slapped them across the face.
Well that's not quite true, I know that if I get a cat-D firearms license I have the right to own guns that have been completely illegal in America since the 1930's because America thinks it's perfectly constitutional to ban certain people from owning certain guns.
 
Muzzle loading cannons aren't regulated as anything

In the US .50 caliber is the difference between firearms and artillery (The rest of the world uses 20mm) but a black powder muzzle loading cannon isn't classified as anything.

This is a pretty weird argument.
From my understanding they're regulated as shotguns if anything given the unrifled barrel and bore diameter.
Well that's not quite true, I know that if I get a cat-D firearms license I have the right to own guns that have been completely illegal in America since the 1930's because America thinks it's perfectly constitutional to ban certain people from owning certain guns.
On the contrary. You just needed to file paperwork and pay a completely un-indexed since 1934 $200 tax stamp to the ATF up until the Reagan amendment. I'm quite sure your average citizen in 1934 had the equivalent of 4k stuffed under his mattress, however. Doesn't change the fact its stupid and arbitrary as fuck and has been the primary target of gun rights advocates for decades. With the current court and the way rulings have gone in recent times there's very good chances the whole thing gets struck through, especially given the bullshit arguments the Feds made in Miller.

Also your Australian licenses are as faggy as you are, resting entirely upon "good reason", which makes them ultimately no different from "may issue" carry permits in the states. Hope you can grease some palms...
 
Última edición:
The Jeff Bezos globohomo propaganda rag debooked Joe. Perhaps a slight warning (if there is more in the future) that a globohomo Democrat can be replaced by a globohomo Republican, or just the articles written to give plausible deniability.
 
With the current court and the way rulings have gone in recent times there's very good chances the whole thing gets struck through, especially given the bullshit arguments the Feds made in Miller.
Not a chance, the American population is pretty clear about wanting less guns available to the public, so that's eventually what's going to happen. It's just taking you poor sweet dears a little longer than everyone else because normal people don't apply such a worshipful reverence to the words of a few old dead rich guys from the 1700s.
 
1643932250833-png.2950127

How me & the boys look when some pig runs down our alley chasing his purse.
 
Not a chance, the American population is pretty clear about wanting less guns available to the public, so that's eventually what's going to happen. It's just taking you poor sweet dears a little longer than everyone else because normal people don't apply such a worshipful reverence to the words of a few old dead rich guys from the 1700s.
Aren't you a fucking leaf?

I thought we made it clear to you Crown fetishists that we would be deciding the affairs in our country.
 
Aren't you a fucking leaf?

I thought we made it clear to you Crown fetishists that we would be deciding the affairs in our country.
Worse, he's an Aussie. He's literally under the thumb of a regime that only allowed people out of the house for fifteen minutes a day, and he's telling us about freedom.
 
Worse, he's an Aussie. He's literally under the thumb of a regime that only allowed people out of the house for fifteen minutes a day, and he's telling us about freedom.
Lol...it wasn't only fifteen minutes but they had kilometers restrictions. Apparently, residents couldn't go more than three miles (5 km). The Aussie Reddit pages were full of fucking cope.
 
Lol...it wasn't only fifteen minutes but they had kilometers restrictions. Apparently, residents couldn't go more than three miles (5 km). The Aussie Reddit pages were full of fucking cope.
I've never heard of either of those restrictions happening because I don't live in a big city full of faggots.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo