Posted on 06/28/2021 8:30:54 AM PDT by RandFan
President Biden was hit with a fact-check from The Washington Post on Monday after repeating a false claim last week that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars citizens from owning cannons.
“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," Biden said during a speech on gun violence in America last week.
The Post, citing experts on the Second Amendment and historical documents, reported Biden's assertion about cannons relative to the right to bear and keep arms in the United States is demonstrably false.
“Everything in that statement is wrong,” David Kopel, research director and Second Amendment project director at the Independence Institute, told the Post, adding that after the Second Amendment was ratified in 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.”
The Second Amendment states that “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.”
Biden has made the claim about cannons and the Second Amendment at least once before, the Post noted, telling Wired magazine last year “you weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.”
"Some readers might think this is a relatively inconsequential flub. But we disagree," fact-checker Glenn Kessler wrote. "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."
The Post awarded Biden four "Pinocchios" for the remarks about cannons and the Second Amendment, the most possible.
"Moreover, Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false," Kessler wrote. "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."
The WaPo, knock me down with a feather.
Biden is now and always has been a moron.......................
BS.. you can own anything you can aford.
Huh, took about 5 seconds to find a nice place to buy. No FFL required. No Background Check.
https://hernironworks.com/cannons-and-mortars/
“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.”
Nope. It’s the opposite. The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to people and doesn’t apply to AR-15s or even cannons. The Second Amendment limits government, and, indeed, specifically prohibits government from limiting either people or types of arms.
Once again Biden puts on display his ignorance and foolishness.
In his statement he displays his ignorance of the US Constitution’s content. Something in which a US President should be well versed considering his oath to uphold and defend the same.
Given his depth of ignorance, he is foolish to make statements on what the US Constitution restricts.
If he had any knowledge of the Constitution at all he would know that most of its restrictions apply to the Federal Government and not the people.
So not only was there clearly private ownership of cannons...there was private ownership of naval warships!
Biden has always been an idiot, now he is a senile idiot.
cousin has a cannon. fires it off every Independence Day.
sometimes the cops stop by. no charge because no crime was committed.
That's right.
Just because the vast majority of people could not afford a cannon, doesn't mean they were prohibited.
Privateer's owned cannons. They also owned naval warships.
“BS.. you can own anything you can aford.”
Told a friend that one time — who’s a history professor (and a military history professor, at that) — and he disagreed. I told him you could own a tank, if you want, and he thinks you can only have weapons you can carry — his interpretation of “bear.” I said no, in this case “bear” means something you can wield, or use, not simply carry.
There’s no point to the Second if you can’t protect yourself from an oppressive government.
Yep. We can own it all. Legally. They can make it expensive with the stamps and all that crap but if you can afford it then you can have it.
Sure did. And I am guessing if it came down to it there is a lot of very rich people that would pony up money to protect that right.
“...there was private ownership of naval warships!”
Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!
https://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-army-get-cannons.htm
Same old Joe...making up stuff as he goes along.
Geez. When even the Bezos paper knocks you down, you know you’re in big trouble.
(The Washington Post has supported civilian handgun disarmament since at least the 1980s, as far as I know).
Combined PING! and, oh, go, you know, the thing!*
*DANG!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.