Biden Claims 2nd Amendment “Didn’t Say You Can Own Any Gun You Want”

Joe Biden claimed Monday that from its very inception the Second Amendment never allowed for Americans to own any firearms they desire, a blatant lie.

Biden made the comments during an announcement of a new regulation that will see background checks and serial numbers required for so called ‘ghost guns‘ that were up til now unregulated and untraceable.

“It’s going to sound bizarre, I support the Second Amendment. But from the very beginning, the Second Amendment didn’t say you can own any gun you want, as big as you want,” Biden said.

He continued, “You couldn’t buy a cannon when in fact the Second Amendment passed and certain people from the very beginning weren’t allowed to purchase guns.”

“There’s nothing new, it’s just rational,” Biden proclaimed.

Really? “Certain people from the very beginning weren’t allowed to purchase guns.”

That’s just plainly false.

It isn’t the first time Biden has made this claim. When he was running against Trump, Biden outlined his gun control manifesto, and further claimed “From the very beginning you weren’t allowed to have certain weapons,” adding “You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.” 

Biden’s claim has been fact checked and found to be completely false.

The Washington Post wrote that “Some readers might think this is a relatively inconsequential flub. But we disagree,” adding “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 added.

Keep reading

Think Tank President Who Fantasized About Beating Gun Owners’ ‘Brains In’ Steps Down Amid Domestic Violence Allegations

The president of a think tank who once fantasized about maiming a St. Louis couple resigned in September after being charged with assaulting his wife, Politico reported.

Jerry Taylor, president of the Washington-based Niskanen Center, was arrested in June and charged with assault and battery of a family member, according to court documents seen by Politico. Taylor allegedly pushed his wife to the ground during an argument over an iPad and began slapping her as well as placing his hands around her neck, Politico reported.

Taylor was ordered to complete an “abusers’ intervention program,” according to court documents, and denied his wife’s allegations.

“Those events for the most part did not occur and I’m confident that the charges will ultimately be dismissed,” Taylor said in a statement to Politico. “I sincerely wish my wife the best as she wrestles with the issues she’s dealing with.”

Keep reading

Taliban Seizing Personal Weapons Because Afghans ‘Can Now Feel Safe’

Afghans in Kabul on Sunday, claiming civilians “can now feel safe” and no longer need the firearms because the terrorists had taken over the country.

Taliban officials declared victory and the restoration of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan after occupying the presidential palace in Kabul on Sunday.

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar appeared in a Twitter video alongside other Taliban leaders, in which he pronounced victory in the battle for Afghanistan.

“We have achieved an unexpected victory. Now is the time to test, to show how we serve our people and ensure their future in the best possible way,” he reportedly said.

The Guardian reports that Baradar is the Taliban’s “political chief and it’s most public face.” He was released from “a Pakistani jail on the request of the U.S. less than three years ago.”

Within hours of Barader’s announcement, Reuters reported, citing a Taliban official, that the group had begun confiscating weapons in the capital. The outlet quoted him as saying, “We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe. We are not here to harm innocent civilians.”

They noted MOBY Group media company’s Saad Mohseni, a Kabul resident, tweeted that “Taliban soldiers had come to his company compound to enquire [sic] about the weapons kept by his security team.”The Moby Group is a news and entertainment provider operating in Africa, the Middle East, and South and Central Asia. Moby serves “over 300 million people through its activities in broadcasting, digital and online, production, strategic communications, publishing, music, sports, and research.”

Keep reading

Biden Reveals His True Goal: To Ban Most Guns

If there was any doubt that President Biden wants to ban the vast majority of guns in the United States, he again clarified his position last week. “The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon — whether it’s a — whether it’s a 9-millimeter pistol or whether it’s a rifle — is ridiculous,” Biden said at a televised CNN townhall meeting. “I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things, but I’m not likely to get that done in the near term.”

The president’s gun control proposals will make guns so expensive and difficult to obtain that only the extremely wealthy will be able to afford to own one legally. While the news media assures Americans that Biden just wants “reasonable” regulations, Biden made the scope of his true ambitions clear during the campaign. At a high-dollar private fundraiser in Seattle in 2019 he said: “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons, including pistols with 9-mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?

When Republicans pointed out that this goal was tantamount to banning most modern handguns, liberal PolitiFact quickly came to Biden’s defense. The fact-checking site did so again last week. “The most popular handguns would face no restrictions under Biden’s policies,” wrote PolitiFact senior correspondent Jon Greenberg. The basis of this conclusion, Greenberg wrote, is that the popular Sig Sauer P365 cannot accommodate more than 10 or 15 rounds. This is untrue. Although that is how the pistol comes from the manufacturer, this gun and virtually all semiautomatics can use bullet magazines that extend well below the pistol grip. The model Greenberg referenced can actually use magazines that hold 2030, or even 50 rounds.

Presumably, PolitiFact believes that Biden’s proposed ban would only apply to guns based on their “standard magazine” size. But Biden himself wasn’t ambiguous. He talked about banning pistols based on their “ability to fire” or that “can hold” so many rounds. When he mentions “military-style weapons including pistols,” the president is talking about the gun themselves. He also wants to ban so-called “assault rifles” regardless of how many rounds their standard magazines hold, and he lumps those guns together with pistols. Over 85% of handguns in the U.S. are semiautomatics and would be banned if Biden has his way.

Keep reading

‘Hands Up Don’t Nuke’: Biden Ripped Over Gun Remarks That Counter Democrat Narrative Of Jan 6 Riot

President Joe Biden faced continued backlash for controversial remarks that he made on Wednesday about Americans who purchase firearms as a safeguard against a tyrannical government, with critics noting that Biden’s remarks counter the narrative that Democrats and the media have pushed about the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6.

“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,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon. [Those who] say the blood of the, the blood of patriots, you know, and all this 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 never been, if you want, if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” Biden continued. “The point is that there’s always been the ability to limit, rationally limit, the type of weapon that can be owned, and who can own it.”

Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald responded to a tweet that showed Biden’s remarks from Wednesday next to remarks that he made earlier this year when responding to the riot. Biden said regarding the riot, “Our democracy is under unprecedented assault.”

“You cannot believe both of these things to be true simultaneously,” journalist Drew Holden wrote.

“Precisely,” Greenwald responded. “Biden’s mockery of the citizenry – you think you can threaten the US Govt with guns? You need F-15s and nukes for that – shows how moronic is the depiction of a few hundred MAGA protesters as a threat to the stability of history’s most militarized and armed government.”

Keep reading

Editor’s note: You could absolutely buy a cannon in that day and age. Biden is, again, a liar.

Biden Is Cracking Down On Guns Again With AR-15 Pistol Ban, And He’s Using Heller To Do It

On June 10, the Department of Justice (DOJ) posted, in the Federal Register, a notice of proposed rulemaking and request for public comment, concerning firearms such as AR-15 pistols equipped with “stabilizing braces.” To bolster its position, the DOJ cited the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Before explaining how Heller comes to bear in this instance, some background is in order. Stabilizing braces were developed in 2013 to help wounded former military servicemen and other disabled Americans use, one-handed, AR-15s and similar firearms equipped with a barrel under 16 inches in length to reduce weight. But there’s a rub.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) doesn’t define “pistol” or “handgun,” but it defines “rifle” as a firearm that, among other things, is “intended to be fired from the shoulder.” Furthermore, it requires federal registration and a $200 tax for any “rifle” less than 26 inches in overall length or having a barrel less than 16 inches in length, commonly referred to as a “short-barreled rifle” (SBR).

Because AR-15s and similar firearms are usually rifles, with shoulder stocks so they may be “fired from the shoulder,” the question has been whether such a firearm, having never been assembled as a rifle, but instead having been assembled from the outset as a pistol using a stabilizing brace instead of a stock, and a barrel shorter than 16 inches, would be considered a handgun or an SBR.

In 2014, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) issued a letter to a manufacturer of stabilizing braces, stating, “[W]e have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR … Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon.”

In 2015, the agency issued a seemingly contradictory letter, stating that “the pistol stabilizing brace was neither ‘designed’ nor ‘intended’ to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device,” implying that a firearm so configured might be subject to the NFA. In 2017, the BATFE issued a private letter to a brace manufacturer saying the 2015 letter had been incorrect.

Keep reading