The puppet leader of the Democrat-Socialist Biden-Harris regime has made his intentions completely clear this week: The Destruction of the US Constitution and the abrogation of our rights as American Citizens is inevitable. Calling gun control a “public-health crisis” and torturing the English language beyond any reasonable interpretation, Biden made “bizarre” counter-factual and counter-historical claims to attempt to justify his rampant disregard for Constitutional rights. He flippantly told the press,
“Nothing I am about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment,” the Democratic president said.
“They’re phony arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake with what we’re talking about.”
“No amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.” “So, the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.”
This man either failed reading comprehension or he’s dealing with a different Constitution than the rest of us. He went on to halting detail a new onslaught of “gun control measures, including tightened restrictions on so-called homemade “ghost guns,” pistol-stabilizing braces, and a directive for the Justice Department to develop legislation for a “red flag” law that would temporarily block individuals identified as potential threats from possessing guns.” according to Fox.
.@JoeBiden introduces his gun plan:
"No amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the beginning, you couldn't own any weapon you wanted to own." pic.twitter.com/shOkaXmLqH
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) April 8, 2021
Destroying Biden’s Lies About The Constitution Systematically
Biden attempted to exercise a faulty argument here that was reversed by the Supreme Court in recent years when he made the classic “fire in a movie theater” reference, a legal precept that was tossed out by Brandenburg v. Ohio
“You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”
The Brandenburg decision creates what is called “The Brandenburg Test” according to Oyez “The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.” So in short: unless your speech is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action AND is actually LIKELY to, it cannot be prohibited. Running screaming from a theater is not illegal.
The second portion of Biden’s quip is also factually inaccurate as the Austin-American Statesman pointed out, there are no examples of caselaw where a citizen was prevented from owning a cannon. Privateers were commonplace up through the mid 17th Century.
The Statesman reported,
“Historians say they are doubtful that there were laws to bar individual ownership of cannons during the Revolutionary War period.
“It seems highly unlikely that there were restrictions on the private ownership” of cannons, said Julie Anne Sweet, a historian and director of military studies at Baylor University.
David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the free-market Independence Institute, agreed. “I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America,” he said. “There were controls on people or locations, but not bans on types of arms.”
Oh, and about those Privateers,
“There is at least one group of private citizens that owned cannons during the period: privateers.
Privateers were privately owned and operated ships that in wartime captured enemy ships for profit. While privateers received a license from the government that allowed them to avoid being prosecuted for piracy, they were not a part of the official navy. So any cannons they set sail with (or that they seized from the enemy) would be private property, not the property of the government or the regular military.”
An Incoherent Argument Devastated By History and Facts
The Second Amendment is absolute, and it ALWAYS HAS BEEN. The words “shall not be infringed” (not “impinged”) are clear as day and the actions the Biden-Harris regime are toying with are infringement by definition. The First Amendment has been attuned and honed through Supreme Court case law over the course of two centuries, The Second Amendment simply has not. The facts show that Supreme Court rulings like DC v. Heller ran quite to the contrary and reaffirmed the right to keep and bear arms.
To say that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was verbose did the legal scholar little Justice ( ::sigh:: I know.. I’ll let myself out…), But in his summation he laid bare every claim that Biden-Harris and the gun grabbing set have ever made and we should trust in his judgement.
“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”