Despite fact checks, Biden lies again about guns. And imagine all the hate for not loving 'Imagine'
By Gary Abernathy
Biden repeatedly lies about the Second Amendment
Despite being fact-checked multiple times, and numerous constitutional experts declaring him factually wrong, President Biden again this week talked about guns — he was touting new rules for the sale of so-called “ghost guns” — with the false claim, “By the way — it’s going to sound bizarre — I support the Second Amendment. But from the very beginning the Second Amendment didn’t say you could own any gun you want, as big as you want. You couldn’t buy a cannon, when in fact the Second Amendment passed.”
Last year, after Biden said the same thing, the Washington Post fact-checked Biden on that sentiment and declared him wrong, concluding, “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.”
Politifact looked into Biden’s claim around the same time, and noted that “University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds said the amendment’s few words speak for themselves. ‘The Second Amendment places no limits on individual ownership of cannon, or any other arms,’ Reynolds said.” Politifact concluded, “Broadly, gun regulation came decades after passage of the Second Amendment when gun technology changed. The first national gun regulation law did not rely on the Second Amendment. We rate Biden’s claim False.”
It’s a shame the Washington Post discontinued its database of presidential lies and misleading statements after Donald Trump left office. Just a couple of days into Biden’s presidency, the Post recounted that “in response to reader requests, the Trump database was maintained for four years, despite the increasing burden of keeping it up. The database became an untruth tracker for the ages, widely cited around the world as a measuring stick of Trump’s presidency — and as of noon Wednesday it was officially retired.”
Too bad. Following the guidelines used for Trump, every time the same “lie” was repeated, it was counted separately — so on the subject of the Second Amendment alone, Biden would be piling up the lies.
Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley wrote about it this week after Biden repeated the debunked claim. Turley wrote:
There were no federal laws barring cannon ownership when the Second Amendment was enacted. Gun laws remained local matters and I do not know of any bans on cannons or other gun types until much later in our history. Early local laws did control concealed weapons, though concealed cannons were not part of those ordinances. Indeed, the Constitution itself supports private cannon ownership in the case of privateers. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 allows Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” That allowed private parties to privateer on the high seas with . . . cannons. (Recently some members of Congress wanted to issues such letters of Marque again to enlist privateers in the fight against Russia). What is most striking about this implanted memory is that it actually works against the President’s arguments. … the falsity of the story highlights the constitutional challenge to his calls to outlaw assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.
President Biden falsely claims that under the Second Amendment, early Americans could not own cannons. As the president himself might say, “C’mon, man!”
‘Tolerance’ was once encouraged. Now it’s not enough.
I wrote a few days ago in a Washington Post column about how “tolerance” was once what we asked of people who disagreed with each other politically. Specifically on LGBTQ+ issues (the groups represented by those letters should not actually be grouped together; their issues and concerns are vastly different) Americans were once told that tolerance was the key to coexisting harmoniously. But that’s no longer the case. Advocacy is now demanded.
I point out that “many of the progressive demands being made today are seen by conservatives not so much as a challenge to the old order as an assault on basic logic and common sense.” I add this about conservatives:
But based on their long-held traditional or religious principles — coupled with what they consider mere common sense — many believe the following:
Athletes who formerly competed as men and then do so as women have unfair advantages.
The refusal to use an innocuous phrase such as “boys and girls” in an effort not to offend is, in fact, offensive to millions of Americans.
Gender-neutral language such as “pregnant people” and “birth-giver” devalues the experiences of mothers and women in general — and it’s not necessary for experts to affirm it, although there are plenty who will.
There is a lively debate to be had on these subjects. But we should all agree on this: Public school children in grades K-3 (if not well beyond) should be spared from a curriculum, or even a teacher’s opinion, on subjects of gender identity and associated political issues.
This afternoon I enjoyed discussing the column and other issues revolving around tolerance with Laura Coates on her show on the POTUS channel on SiriusXM. Laura is a CNN anchor and senior legal analyst. She doesn’t share my viewpoints on most issues, but she agrees that respectful communication is important to any chance of bridging our divide. I enjoyed our conversation.
Imagine all the hate just for not loving ‘Imagine’
Then, on Monday, after reading a news item about Julian Lennon, son of John, singing his father’s iconic “Imagine” for the first time in order to show his support for Ukraine, I tweeted the following:
A couple of editors at the Post saw the tweet, and encouraged me to expound on it in a full-blown column. Happy to oblige.
In the column — written in a less-than-totally-serious tone — I explained:
For several years, “Imagine” appeared to be the unofficial anthem of New Year’s Eve in New York just before or after the big ball dropped, and watching tens of thousands of people gathered in Times Square swaying trance-like as the song wafted through the air was always cringeworthy to me. I remember thinking that if the world was going to end — I always feel a sense of foreboding on New Year’s Eve, like “this might be it” — “Imagine” was the perfect song to signify a final surrender to a Godless, humanistic world.
I figured it would generate a lot of hateful feedback, and I haven’t been disappointed. There are a lot of people who don’t like religion (and Christianity in particular) and they love John Lennon and “Imagine.” They think Lennon’s take on it was just fine. Some people are telling me the song is over my head, too deep for me to understand. Uh huh. It’s actually pretty simple, not nearly as deep or insightful as some want to pretend.
What fun. If you want to pile on, you can read it here.
Sign up or share this newsletter
Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you.