Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

On June 23^rd Joe Biden made some extremely disturbing comments about the Second Ammendment.  They are captured in this official Whitehouse transcript: Remarks by President Biden and Attorney General Garland on Gun Crime Prevention Strategy

This particular part of the statement is very troubling because it demonstrates that Joe Biden operates under the delusion that the purpose of the Second Amendment is all about hunting.  That is a delusion that is shared by a majority of those on the political left.

For folks at home, here’s what you need to know: I’ve been at this a long time and there are things we know that work that reduce gun violence and violent crime, and things that we don’t know about. But things we know about: Background checks for purchasing a firearm are important; a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — no one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something; community policing and programs that keep neighborhoods safe and keep folks out of trouble.

This next quote contains so many dangerous falsehoods about the Second Amendment that I will discuss each one separately.

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.
 
Those who say the blood of lib- — “the blood of patriots,” you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.
 
The point is that there has always been the ability to limit — rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it.

The statement about the Second Amendment limiting what kind of weapons we Americans can own is so egregious that even the liberal Washington Post Gives Biden Four Pinocchios for ‘False’ Cannon Claims

The Post also talked with University of Pennsylvania’s Kermit Roosevelt, who remarked, “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.”

However, Roosevelt noted that Biden’s statement “as phrased…sounds like the Second Amendment itself limited ownership, which is not true.”

The first half of the fact check demonstrates the bias of the Washington Post. Notice that the so called expert ends it with the phrase “which I believe is true” rather than any actual proof.  It was not until 1934 that the federal government began restricting what type of Americans can own, in direct violation of the Second Amendment.  This is chronicled in this Time Magazine article: Here’s a Timeline of the Major Gun Control Laws in America

1934 The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”

1938  The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 required gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers to obtain a federal firearms license. It also defined a group of people, including convicted felons, who could not purchase guns, and mandated that gun sellers keep customer records. The FFA was repealed in 1968 by the Gun Control Act (GCA), though many of its provisions were reenacted by the GCA.

As I discussed in a previous article, the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure we the people could deal with an abusive federal government, contrary the lunacy spouted by Joe Biden..  This quote from the House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution August 17, 1789 by Elbridge Gerry informs us that the Second Amendment was added specifically so the people could deal with the federal government if it became abusive to the rights of the people of the United States.  

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

It is abundantly clear from the transcripts of the drafting and ratification of the Second Amendment that the United States was never meant to have a standing army because standing armies proved to be a threat to the liberty of the people of any nation that had one.  Militias, which are meant to be made up of almost the entire population were meant to provide the defense of our local communities, States, and the United States.  Militias, made up of the people of the individual states were meant to be a barrier protecting the people of the United States from an abusive federal government.

When the Second Amendment was ratified all weapons held by the people of the United States were military weapons. The people of the United States, who make up the militia, were meant from the beginning to have the military type weapons.

The idea that the people of the United States would stand up against an abusive federal government is one of our most cherished and important founding principles.  Any president, including this illegitimate president, who would even contemplate using tanks, military aircraft, or nuclear weapons against Americans who are standing up for their rights should be impeached immediately.  Should any attempt be made by a president to use weapons of war on Americans simply standing up for their rights, that president’s legitimacy would immediately evaporate and the American people would rise up.  Most members of the American military would refuse such orders.