Biden’s Assault On Right To Keep And Bear Arms Is Indefensible and Absurd

P. Gardner Goldsmith | June 7, 2022
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

On Thursday, June 2, Amtrak Joe Biden appeared during a speech at the tax-funded White House and parroted what his tax-funded speechwriters prepared for him to say about “reducing gun violence.”

Said The Big Guy:

The Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute. It was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote, ‘Like most rights, the right – Second Amendment – the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.’

Which indicates that Biden not only has no grasp of, or respect for, the philosophical and etymological origin of the word “right,” he doesn’t care for logical consistency, and, as I and others predicted, he is using Scalia’s error in a 2008 Supreme Court decision to back him up.

Rights, Mr. Biden, are supposed to be unassailable by the state. The term “right” stands for “hands-off,” and is universal for all people, meaning that each of us has an equal right to be left alone. Rights are negative in nature, not positive. The idea of a “positive right” to something provided by another person is not a right, it’s an immoral claim, “posited” by agents of the state.

In other words, it is an attempt to enslave.

The term “right” has its origins in Old English (Saxon), Middle Dutch, and Medieval German. It pertains to “proper,” which, in those days, was associated with “right-handedness” and stemmed from both the belief at the time that people who were “left-handed” were not functioning properly, and from the Biblical observation of the Messiah being the “right hand of God.”

So, Joe, it’s not up to you to define “rights.” They preexist you - and so does the inherent, God-given liberty of each man.

Likewise, rights are not “granted” by the Second Amendment. They preexist it. The Amendment is supposed to protect us from people like YOU.

But one of the things Biden mentions, that being the comment about Scalia, is not incorrect in the mention, even as it buys into Scalia’s error. (Or should I say, the sellout of rights in which Scalia engaged.)

It’s in his majority decision for the 2007-2008 DC v. Heller case. The case dealt with Washington, DC resident Richard Heller, who worked in the policing field and wanted to keep a firearm in his DC home. But that peaceful act was prohibited by federal statute applied to DC. So, in 2003 alongside five co-plaintiffs, Dick Heller sued.

The feds took the tack that the right to keep and bear arms (supposedly) protected by the Second Amendment is a “group right” – which, of course, is fantasy, because the word “group” is a term to describe more than two individuals, and, as I previously have noted at MRCTV, individuals never lose their inherent individuality, regardless of how the government wants to label or “group” them.

Additionally, the Second Amendment is emphatic: “the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” Even IF one were to pretend that rights could be “group rights,” the Second Amendment prohibits any infringement.

In his majority opinion, Scalia agreed about the right to keep and bear arms being an individual right, devoting over 60 pages in his decision to contemporaneous citations from the Founding Era definitively showing that the Founders believed it was an individual right.

But he didn’t need to spend that much time and space on it, because Scalia could have used the logic I mentioned above, and could’ve finished his opinion in a page.

But he committed a larger offense.

Because at the end of his opinion, Scalia DID write what Biden claims. Scalia said that “rights are not unlimited.”

Scalia undercut the very definition of rights.

Months later, I spoke with Dick Heller, and he alleged to me that Scalia added that poison after he made a deal with another Justice to get that judge to change positions on the case, giving a victory to the plaintiffs and Scalia -- and a defeat for the concept of rights, itself.

Your rights: dealt away by tax-funded men in black robes.

And Biden’s further attack?

We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And if we can’t ban assault weapons, then we should raise the age to purchase them from 18 to 21.

What does he mean by assault weapons? Does he mean the kinds of weapons the Obama administration sent to Mexico in Fast and Furious? Or the kinds of weapons they allegedly gave to radical rebels in Syria? Or the kinds of weapons the U.S. sells to governments like Israel and Egypt? Or does he mean the kinds of weapons his own administration is handing to Ukraine?

As Chris Freind writes for Daily Times:

The clarion call is to ‘ban assault weapons.' Pay no attention to the fact that it is literally a made-up term, with some pols seeking to ban guns based on how they look.

And do Biden and his ilk really believe that banning “high-capacity magazines” will stop people with criminal intent from acquiring them?

Related: Biden & McConnell Focus On 'Doing Something About Guns' After Uvalde | MRCTV

He might want to ask someone from Chicago about "bans." That's where, supposedly, it’s very difficult to buy a gun without being 21 and highly vetted by the government. Homicides and violent crime there are rampant, some of the highest in the western world, and, as CBS recently noted, Chicago has “the highest number of mass shootings” in the U.S.

That sure is odd. Because everyone knows that people with criminal intent make sure they abide by the statutes forbidding them from engaging in crimes…

And then there’s his age of 21 thing.

The right to self-defense does not have an upper or lower age limit. Likewise, actually policing such prohibitions, ipso facto, requires force to pay the policing cops – force threatened by armed agents of the state against taxpayers to hand over their cash. That, unto itself, is coercive and immoral gun-backed violence.

And, killers aged 18 and younger break statutes against killing, so breaking statutes against lesser offenses, like owning guns, likely isn’t a big worry on their murderous list.

Adds Freind:

(F)orgotten in the conversation is that the Sandy Hook killer didn’t even own an AR-15, but murdered his mother and stole her gun to commit his massacre. On top of that, there are nearly 500 million firearms in America, almost all of which are used legally. Do we ban them, too, so that only the criminals have guns?

Indeed, as I noted last week for MRCTV, gun bans in Australia and UK did not – as their advocates claim – reduce violent crime. In Australia, so many of the people who relinquished their guns in a “mandatory buy-back” two decades ago saw the violent crime rate (including the gun-related crime rate) subsequently increase, they eventually entered the black market to buy new guns, and so the Aussie government recently has tried another gun buy-back.

Because the first was so successful, and “got rid of all the guns.”

Then there’s Biden’s brilliant:

Repeal the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability…

This completely undermines due-process, switching liability from the nutter who kills, to the maker of the object that the nutter uses to kill. It opens the liability to people who have committed no wrong, and logically can be applied to any physical object a whack-job could use to kill.

And, the fact is, people use firearms far more often to prevent crimes than criminally-minded people use them to commit crimes (and more often than police can prevent crimes). As the saying goes, when seconds count, police are just minutes away (and sometimes they stand outside the “gun-free school zone” while a gun-wielding killer kills more unarmed people.)

We should also have national Red Flag laws, so that a parent, a teacher, a councilor, can flag for a court that a child, a student, a patient is exhibiting violent tendencies, threatening classmates, or experiencing suicidal thoughts.

Secret complaints filed with a judge, secret warrants. No due process, breaching 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. And “national?”

Since when was the worry that a child, a student, a patient might be exhibiting “violent tendencies” or threatening classmates, or experiencing suicidal thoughts (who defines that?) – since when were any of those supposed to be federal matters according to their U.S. Constitution?

None of this is Joe Biden's place and it’s not the place of any politician to prohibit the possession of an inanimate object. The possession of an object is not an aggressive act. The reason for possessing it is subjective, and, even if one were to assume why someone owned a firearm, it’s more likely that the firearm will be used to stop violent crime than to engage in it.

The people backing violent gun threats are people like Biden and those who push statutes against firearm possession or trade. They favor gun violence, as long as it is threatened and conducted by agents of the state, paid through the violence of taxation.

Related: Conservative Icon Jon Voight Calls For Tighter Gun Laws - and Gets Its Wrong | MRCTV

(Cover Photo: Gage Skidmore)