Politifact calls out Biden for the 3rd time for lying about the 2A (1 Viewer)

[pinqy]

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...den-recycles-false-claim-second-amendment-li/
You couldn’t buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed.

This is the third time Politifact has called Biden out on this false claim. I think they should up the rating to “pants on fire” because he had to know it’s not true by now.

And the Constitution implicitly allows private ownership of cannon in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”.

Since letters of marque and reprisal were issued to captains of private, armed, ships to capture enemy commercial cargo ships, that power makes no sense if cannons could not be privately owned.

 

[Rucker61]

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...den-recycles-false-claim-second-amendment-li/
You couldn’t buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed.

This is the third time Politifact has called Biden out on this false claim. I think they should up the rating to “pants on fire” because he had to know it’s not true by now.

And the Constitution implicitly allows private ownership of cannon in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”.

Since letters of marque and reprisal were issued to captains of private, armed, ships to capture enemy commercial cargo ships, that power makes no sense if cannons could not be privately owned.

He has a stutter, you know.

 

[Glitch]

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...den-recycles-false-claim-second-amendment-li/
You couldn’t buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed.

This is the third time Politifact has called Biden out on this false claim. I think they should up the rating to “pants on fire” because he had to know it’s not true by now.

And the Constitution implicitly allows private ownership of cannon in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”.

Since letters of marque and reprisal were issued to captains of private, armed, ships to capture enemy commercial cargo ships, that power makes no sense if cannons could not be privately owned.

Unfortunately, it would appear that Politifact has censured their own site and removed the URL you have linked to them. The good news is that they haven't censured an older link when Biden tried spewing this bullshit once before on June 29, 2020:

Biden’s dubious claim about Revolutionary War cannons

Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, recently sat for a video with Wired, part of the magazine’s

www.politifact.com

 

[Indlib]

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...den-recycles-false-claim-second-amendment-li/
You couldn’t buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed.

This is the third time Politifact has called Biden out on this false claim. I think they should up the rating to “pants on fire” because he had to know it’s not true by now.

And the Constitution implicitly allows private ownership of cannon in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”.

Since letters of marque and reprisal were issued to captains of private, armed, ships to capture enemy commercial cargo ships, that power makes no sense if cannons could not be privately owned.

I wouldn't sweat it.

Many posters on DP have assured me that fact checking websites are all propaganda factories.

Most likely their fact check isn't true.

 

[pinqy]

Unfortunately, it would appear that Politifact has censured their own site and removed the URL you have linked to them. The good news is that they haven't censured an older link when Biden tried spewing this bullshit once before on June 29, 2020:

Biden’s dubious claim about Revolutionary War cannons

Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, recently sat for a video with Wired, part of the magazine’s

www.politifact.com

I’m having no problem with my link. So no, they have not censored or removed it.

 

[Glitch]

I wouldn't sweat it.

Many posters on DP have assured me that fact checking websites are all propaganda factories.

Most likely their fact check isn't true.

Of course it is true. As pinqy correctly noted, you cannot issue privateers Letters of Marque if they don't have the means to seize foreign vessels. That requires cannon. Which means that they had to have been privately owned.

 

[Glitch]

I’m having no problem with my link. So no, they have not censored or removed it.

I keep getting:

Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!​

You’ve followed a link to a page that doesn’t exist. Truth-O-Meter rating? True! Please use the navigation or search box above or try starting over from our main page.
Don’t worry, we’ve notified someone that this page is missing.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...den-recycles-false-claim-second-amendment-li/
You couldn’t buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed.

This is the third time Politifact has called Biden out on this false claim. I think they should up the rating to “pants on fire” because he had to know it’s not true by now.

And the Constitution implicitly allows private ownership of cannon in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”.

Since letters of marque and reprisal were issued to captains of private, armed, ships to capture enemy commercial cargo ships, that power makes no sense if cannons could not be privately owned.

This technique is known as "reduction to ridiculous" and is a time honored method among used car dealers and other snake oil salesmen. Focusing on a trivial part of the argument to discredit the whole. It usually only works on the terminally gullible or the very inexperienced.

 

[Indlib]

Of course it is true. As pinqy correctly noted, you cannot issue privateers Letters of Marque if they don't have the means to seize foreign vessels. That requires cannon. Which means that they had to have been privately owned.

Nope, it's propaganda.

All these Trump supporters could not be wrong about the validity of fact checking sites.

Besides, it's all moot. Republican SCOTUS judges have already stated that cannon ownership would not be valid under the 2nd amendment anyhow.

 

[Glitch]

Nope, it's propaganda.

All these Trump supporters could not be wrong about the validity of fact checking sites.

Besides, it's all moot. Republican SCOTUS judges have already stated that cannon ownership would not be valid under the 2nd amendment anyhow.

Don't be silly. How could Congress issue Letters of Marque if privately owned ships could not carry cannon? They couldn't.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that all firearms fall under the category of "arms," and that they are protected under the Second Amendment. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Rucker61]

Nope, it's propaganda.

All these Trump supporters could not be wrong about the validity of fact checking sites.

Besides, it's all moot. Republican SCOTUS judges have already stated that cannon ownership would not be valid under the 2nd amendment anyhow.

It's legal to own cannon now.

Breech Loading Swivel Gun (Black Powder)

A breech loading swivel gun be a type of swivel gun invented in the 14th century. This be a 17th century Dutch breech loading swivel gun. It was equipped with a swivel for easy rotation n' was loaded by inserting a mug shaped device, called a chamber, pre-filled with gunpowder and projectiles...

piratefashions.com

U.S. Model 1841 6-Pounder | steencannons

The Model 1841 6-pounder gun was one of a “family of weapons” designed by the U.S. Army Ordnance Department in 1841 (companion pieces were the Model 1841 12-Pdr., 24-Pdr. and 32-Pdr field Howitzers; the Model 1841 12-Pdr Gun and the 12-Pdr Mountain Howitzer). The effectiveness of the 1841...

www.steencannons.com

They aren't firearms, so there's no Second Amendment issue.

 

[pinqy]

This technique is known as "reduction to ridiculous"

Umm no. reductio ad absurdum

and is a time honored method among used car dealers and other snake oil salesmen. Focusing on a trivial part of the argument to discredit the whole. It usually only works on the terminally gullible or the very inexperienced.

Nope, it's propaganda.

All these Trump supporters could not be wrong about the validity of fact checking sites.

Besides, it's all moot. Republican SCOTUS judges have already stated that cannon ownership would not be valid under the 2nd amendment anyhow.

You’re changing the argument. Biden’s claim was “From the very beginning you weren't allowed to have certain weapons. You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual."…"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,"…"From the very beginning, the Second Amendment didn’t say you can own any gun you want, big as you want. …You couldn’t buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed."

Those statements are false. The 2A does not explicitly limit anything and cannons were legal at the time.

This does NOT mean cannons are protected under the 2A. I would argue they are not. But just because a weapon is not protected under the 2A does not mean it is automatically illegal. It only means laws restricting them do not require as strict judicial scrutiny.

 

[Indlib]

Don't be silly. How could Congress issue Letters of Marque if privately owned ships could not carry cannon? They couldn't.

Being silly is believing propaganda fact checking websites.

If Mycroft or vysky we're around they would put you in your place I am sure.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that all firearms fall under the category of "arms," and that they are protected under the Second Amendment. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

You caught me. I admit that unlike most posters on DP I am not a constitutional scholar nor an experienced lawyer.

That said, of course firearms fall under the category of arms. So do missile launchers, nuclear warheads and mustard gas.

Again, I am simply stating that repub SCOTUS judges have stated their opinions in owning cannons.

The following from the late justice Scalia.

"Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s to keep and bear. So, it doesn’t apply to cannons," Scalia said.

"But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes," he said, adding that whether or not Americans could carry such weapons was open to interpretation. "That will have to be — it will have to be decided," he said.

A Look at Justice Scalia's Most Controversial Remarks and Opinions

Justice Antonin Scalia was well-known for his piercing and often controversial words, both in curated written decisions and off-the-cuff remarks.

www.google.com

 

[Rucker61]

You caught me. I admit that unlike most posters on DP I am not a constitutional scholar nor an experienced lawyer.

That said, of course firearms fall under the category of arms. So do missile launchers, nuclear warheads and mustard gas.

Again, I am simply stating that repub SCOTUS judges have stated their opinions in owning cannons.

The following from the late justice Scalia.

"Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s to keep and bear. So, it doesn’t apply to cannons," Scalia said.

"But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes," he said, adding that whether or not Americans could carry such weapons was open to interpretation. "That will have to be — it will have to be decided," he said.

A Look at Justice Scalia's Most Controversial Remarks and Opinions

Justice Antonin Scalia was well-known for his piercing and often controversial words, both in curated written decisions and off-the-cuff remarks.

www.google.com

"Muzzleloading cannons manufactured in or before 1898 (and replicas thereof) that are not capable of firing fixed ammunition are considered antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the Gun Control Act (GCA) or National Firearms Act (NFA).

Are muzzleloading cannons considered destructive devices? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Generally, no. Muzzleloading cannons manufactured in or before 1898 (and replicas thereof) that are not capable of firing fixed ammunition are considered antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the Gun Control Act (GCA) or National Firearms Act (NFA). [26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11]

www.atf.gov

 

[Glitch]

Umm no. reductio ad absurdum



You’re changing the argument. Biden’s claim was “From the very beginning you weren't allowed to have certain weapons. You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual."…"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,"…"From the very beginning, the Second Amendment didn’t say you can own any gun you want, big as you want. …You couldn’t buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed."

Those statements are false. The 2A does not explicitly limit anything and cannons were legal at the time.

This does NOT mean cannons are protected under the 2A. I would argue they are not. But just because a weapon is not protected under the 2A does not mean it is automatically illegal. It only means laws restricting them do not require as strict judicial scrutiny.

I would also argue that cannon are not protected under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states the people have the right "to keep and bear arms..." That implies the "arms" in question must be portable, as in carried by an individual (since it is an individual right). Any decent sized cannon cannot be carried by an individual. However, people can also legally own fully functioning tanks and fighter aircraft today, and they are certainly not man-portable either. However, the Second Amendment does make it clear that it refers specifically to bearable arms and not all arms.

 

[Antiwar]

Have cannons been used for gun violence lately? Does the US military still use cannons to kill and maim people? Why is this supposedly important?

 

[Rucker61]

Have cannons been used for gun violence lately? Does the US military still use cannons to kill and maim people? Why is this supposedly important?

I think the point that the OP is trying to make is that the President is either mentally incapable of understanding reality, even when corrected, or he's simply lying for political gain.

 

[Antiwar]

I would also argue that cannon are not protected under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states the people have the right "to keep and bear arms..." That implies the "arms" in question must be portable, as in carried by an individual (since it is an individual right). Any decent sized cannon cannot be carried by an individual. However, people can also legally own fully functioning tanks and fighter aircraft today, and they are certainly not man-portable either. However, the Second Amendment does make it clear that it refers specifically to bearable arms and not all arms.

Why not? Isn't the gun proponent understanding of the 2A to be that government can't limit the supposedly given right to self-defense? What gives the government the right to determine what's suitable for self-defense?

 

[Antiwar]

I think the point that the OP is trying to make is that the President is either mentally incapable of understanding reality, even when corrected, or he's simply lying for political gain.

Yeah, probably, because that's pretty much all conservatives have.

 

[Rucker61]

Yeah, probably, because that's pretty much all conservatives have.

Why do you suppose that Biden keeps repeating this claim? Is there some reason other than he's too cloudy to understand that he's wrong or that he's lying about it?

 

[Indlib]

Umm no. reductio ad absurdum



You’re changing the argument. Biden’s claim was “From the very beginning you weren't allowed to have certain weapons. You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual."…"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,"…"From the very beginning, the Second Amendment didn’t say you can own any gun you want, big as you want. …You couldn’t buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed."

Those statements are false. The 2A does not explicitly limit anything and cannons were legal at the time.

This does NOT mean cannons are protected under the 2A. I would argue they are not. But just because a weapon is not protected under the 2A does not mean it is automatically illegal. It only means laws restricting them do not require as strict judicial scrutiny.

I agree that my final paragraph is not directly on point to the topic of if Biden lied or not. I was simply saying that cannon ownership is probably a moot point in this day and age.

Ultimately 2nd amendment rights are similar to abortion rights (no derail intended). If a certain court can overturn Roe v Wade then a certain court can overturn Hellar.

 

[Rucker61]

Why not? Isn't the gun proponent understanding of the 2A to be that government can't limit the supposedly given right to self-defense? What gives the government the right to determine what's suitable for self-defense?

Governments don't have rights. They have authority and they have power. It's nice when those two overlap, but unfortunately that's not always the case. Regardless of the lack of Constitutional authority the government has created the power to tell citizens what is suitable for self defense.

 

[Indlib]

Why not? Isn't the gun proponent understanding of the 2A to be that government can't limit the supposedly given right to self-defense? What gives the government the right to determine what's suitable for self-defense?

So you support the ownership of missile launchers and mustard gas?

 

[Antiwar]

Why do you suppose that Biden keeps repeating this claim? Is there some reason other than he's too cloudy to understand that he's wrong or that he's lying about it?

I couldn't care less about cannons.

 

[Rucker61]

I agree that my final paragraph is not directly on point to the topic of if Biden lied or not. I was simply saying that cannon ownership is probably a moot point in this day and age.

Ultimately 2nd amendment rights are similar to abortion rights (no derail intended). If a certain court can overturn Roe v Wade then a certain court can overturn Hellar.

Sure, the Courts can do anything that a majority of the members want. That's why Korematsu v. United States, Hirabayashi v. United States and Yasui v. United States stood for almost 50 years.