Sorry, Joe, but you could buy a cannon back then and have I got a surprise for you!

Loading

 

In mocking the 2nd Amendment and those who believe in the Constitution, Joe Biden said

“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.”

He has repeated this several times and he’s wrong every time.

For example, on February 3, 2022, Breitbart News did a Fact Check on Biden’s claim that early Americans could not buy a cannon and found the claim to be false.

Years earlier, in 2020, PolitiFact did a Fact Check on Biden making the same claim and also found it to be false.

The Washington Post gave Biden four Pinocchios for claiming the purchase of cannons was prohibited by the Second Amendment and labeled the claim “false.”

One might think that sooner or later a staff member would correct him off stage rather than allow him to continue to repeat the falsehood. Or perhaps his staff wants people to think he’s an idiot or a liar. But here’s the thing- not only was it legal to own a cannon back then, it’s entirely legal to own a functioning cannon today.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, which is, by far, the most restrictive piece of Federal legislation related to the ownership of arms, says nothing about cannons. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It wasn’t until 1968 that things we regard as modern artillery – like bazookas, for instance – were regulated further.

But what about muzzleloading cannons, like the ones used during the Revolutionary War? They’re conspicuously absent in any of the legislation. You could buy a cannon as an individual in the Revolution era, and you can still buy one today as an individual.

And one more

10. CANNON

The cannon conjures images of countless historical battles on sea and land. Interestingly, the lineage of these pieces of artillery can be traced back to Chinese flame-throwing gunpowder weapons called fire lances. Since their first use in conflict – possibly in the 13th century – cannons have played important parts in many battles, but gradually they took on a more indirect role as infantry weapons improved leading up to the 20th century.

Cannon shells are classed as destructive devices in the U.S. under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). They must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and, though legal under federal law, are prohibited from being owned by civilians in certain states. Muzzle-loading cannons themselves, however, are – remarkably – not deemed to be firearms in the U.S. and are therefore not regulated by the NFA.

I have loaded and fired cannons. We never loaded a round in it and just shot fodder but it’s great fun and noisy as all get out. With a sufficient black powder you can shake windows in the entire neighborhood. Were you to purchase one I would advise informing the local police you have one and on occasion will fire it off.

Sorry, President Dementia, it’s completely legal. So is the 25th Amendment.

 

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
47 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Nothing in 2A about ‘deer hunting’ either, but that gets brought up often advising people they don’t need ‘such and such’ to hunt deer. We know why we have 2A, they know why… and it scares the hell out of them.

Like just about all Liberal Democrats Biden dont know a thing about the 2nd Amendment and why it was written there is even another Dum-O-Crat who thinks it only mens Muskets but Musket is not written into the 2nd Amendment and there is some imbecile who called the 2nd Amendment Stupid and has demanded it be repealed(Got a serve Scolding for their stupid remark)I mean Biden the idiot would,nt know a copy of the U.S. Constitution from a Hole in the Wall

That comment is what functional illiteracy looks like.

What’s illiterate about it?

Was the point not accurate?

How much education do you have? If you are not a Ph.D, is it really your place to evaluate strangers on the internet in circular arguments without offering any substance?

How tall are you?

What’s illiterate about it?

The inabliity to spell, punctuate, or use words correctly in order to convey a thought.

Was the point not accurate?

“Like just about all Liberal Democrats Biden dont know a thing about the 2nd Amendment and why it was written”

I imagine Biden knows something about the Second Amendment. He was a lawyer who doubtless had to take and pass Con Law to get his J.D. “Liberal Democrats” can know just as much about the Second Amendment as conservative Republicans, yet have different interpretations of what it means. No, those points weren’t accurate.

“there is even another Dum-O-Crat who thinks it only mens Muskets”

Come on. do I even have to deal with this? Are you seriously defending that on any level?

“but Musket is not written into the 2nd Amendment”

Most things are not written into the Constitution. That’s why we have courts: to interpret the things that aren’t written there in light of the things that are. I’ll grant that this clause is Constitutional illiteracy, rather than the other kind.

“and there is some imbecile who called the 2nd Amendment Stupid and has demanded it be repealed(Got a serve Scolding for their stupid remark)”

That’s something that can happen. The Constitution can be amended. The process is written into the document, despite the “serve” scolding the commenter received. Believing that the Constitution can be changed does not make one an imbecile.

“I mean Biden the idiot would,nt know a copy of the U.S. Constitution from a Hole in the Wall”

Is that the part of Spurwing Plover’s comment that you’re trying to defend? Is that the true part you’re going on about?

No, the points weren’t valid, except as an expression of confusion and frustration.

How much education do you have? If you are not a Ph.D, is it really your place to evaluate strangers on the internet in circular arguments without offering any substance?

I have a master’s degree in teaching reading, and I’ve been teaching writing for thirty-two years. I get to decide whether or not a person has a handle on the language—it’s literally my job to do so. I’m a paid professional at that task, with decades of experience. If the stranger in question is trying to use the written word to form an argument, and an examination of those written words reveal that the argument is hollow, then yes, it’s my place.

Revealing that a person’s comment is without factual basis is not a “circular argument.” It’s engaging directly with the argument that the other side is making. Hyperbole and baseless accusations don’t take the place of intelligent discussion, however much you might want them to.

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael

Biden forgot he has told the cannon lie before
comment image

Can anyone still remember Franco-American? and Spagettii-O’s?

Its Kmart we are forgetting Blue light specials
How about lumber yards, When your kids love and marry build their home with cash and carry.
Drug store soda fountains.

But you negate your argument by not offering any facts to substantiate your own accusations, so isn’t that rather circular? Democrats never prove that Russia colluded with trump, and yet I suspect you still think that it’s true, yes? Aren’t all of the “facts” you cling to merely things they told you on CNN that you couldn’t possibly know?

And while I definitely respect the venerable profession of pedagogy, calling yourself a paid professional is a bit grandiose, don’t you think?

You’re a teacher. That is not an occupation that confers status whatsoever, I’m afraid.

You swallowed the myth of a straw man that the overarching propaganda Network has given you. Insisting on your own way via the proxy of a government and political party that you refuse to see the corruption of is a bit disturbing.

calling yourself a paid professional is a bit grandiose, don’t you think?

That’s neither here nor there. I have the training and experience to make the judgment you suggested I don’t have.

You’re a teacher. That is not an occupation that confers status whatsoever, I’m afraid.

I never said it did. It does, however, give me the training and experience to make the judgment you suggested I don’t have.

It does, however, give me the training and experience to make the judgment you suggested I don’t have.

Why do you think that? Do you teach school children? Do you teach adults?

Have you ever written any books? Published books under reputable Publishers? Are you a NYT Bestselling author?

What makes someone an adequate judge of writing? What kind of writing, exactly? Technical writing? Poetry? Prose? Ad-Copy?

I’m looking at the comment through the lens of seeing whether the sentences make sense as strings of words in the English language, not whether they conform to the guidelines of a particular genre—the most basic of tasks. Since my job involves diagnosing the problems people have making sense with their writing and then teaching them to make sense with it, I feel perfectly qualified to point out that Spurwing Plover’s comment made little to no sense. His writing often makes less sense than that of a lot of the little kids I deal with at the beginning of the year.

I’m sorry that this is so confusing for you.

But you negate your argument by not offering any facts to substantiate your own accusations

What accusations do you think I’m making here?

What accusations do you think I’m making?

I imagine Biden knows something about the Second Amendment.

That’s quite an imagination. Based on what, exactly?

Based on what, exactly?

As you know, I said why I think that in the very next sentence. Did you not read that far?

Hey get a load of this.
comment image

The entire left it almost totally ignorant of the 2nd Amendment. Like idiot Biden, no matter how many times they are told the facts, they prefer their version of reality that comports with and promotes their goal of disarming Americans.

Maybe idiot Biden was using his stupidity about the 2nd Amendment to divert attention from the stupidity of addressing “ghost guns”, which are involved in what percentage of crimes, exactly? Something like .000001% or so? No, what this initiative is aimed at is cutting off replacement parts. Then, he went off again on going after gun manufacturers for what criminals do with their products. This lying worm says he supports the 2nd Amendment as he (reacting to the string pulling of the puppet masters) plays every trick to undercut gun manufacturing, gun sales, gun ownership and the availability of ammunition.

Not one word about cracking down on criminals that use guns. Not one word about the supreme ignorance and danger to society of releasing, re-releasing and re-re-releasing violent criminals, reducing the ability of police to keep criminals and illegal guns off the streets and opening our southern borders to illegal, opportunistic and criminal immigrants.

DEMOCRATS are the danger to society, not guns.

This is not the first time American gun owners were under attack by their own government.

It was tried once before and the government paid a heavy price for it.

The date was April 19th, 1775.
The British found out that colonists had a cannon and a stash of weapons hidden Concord, Massachusetts. 
They came to Concord and two Brits were killed.
It was later called “The shot heard around the world.”
The war lasted for eight long years and in the end, American became a free nation.

It was this experience that led to the Second Amendment.

It was not to provide support for the government but rather protection from the government.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nan G

Remember the Leftist fools count on their sycophant’s being willfully uninformed and basically ignorant with zero sense of history. Much like the tools that post here.

If the Leftist can’t use scary sounding thing like ‘assault rifles’ or ‘ghost guns’ as well as ‘mass shootings’ they can’t keep the fools riled up and donating.

‘mass shootings’ 

Why the quotation marks around that phrase?

Why do you ask about quotation marks? Do you need some education on what they are and how to use them, or about linguistics and semantics, how languages both written and spoken morph and shift with use?

Would you edit and shame Black people to for using poor English or vernacular?

Do you understand those who serial edit are projecting insecurities into an area they think they can control by being a “paid professional” when they are really just there to teach children the rules so creative folks can break them and make more money then their backwards teacher?

Why do you ask about quotation marks? 

Quotation marks are often used to indicate sarcasm. I’m trying to figure out whether or not the commenter is using the term mass shooting sarcastically, or whether the marks indicate that the phrase us being referred to as a phrase. If it was the former, I planned to ask the commenter to tell me more about that.

See? Your screed was all for nothing.

See? Your screed was all for nothing.

Not really. You’re explanation was succinct and informative (sincerely).

Can you tell me more about why you want the commenter to tell you more?

I don’t understand the mindset of people who don’t find mass shootings to be a problem. If the commenter was one of those people, I just wanted to understand the thought process behind it.

You can’t properly address someone’s arguments unless you understand what he or she is trying to say.

I don’t understand the mindset of people who don’t find mass shootings to be a problem.

Yet you support those who use mass shootings as a political weapon, exploiting them to further anti-rights agendas.

Last edited 1 year ago by Just Plain Bill

I don’t understand the mindset of people who don’t find mass shootings to be a problem. 

Do you understand the mindset of people who support mass slaughter each and every day of the year?

You’ll have to be more specific.

You’ll have to be more specific.

Do you not understand the meanings of the two words; mass and slaughter?

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

Yes. I hate mass shootings, so I’m sympathetic to those who are also against mass shootings. You analyzed that brilliantly.

Why do you hate mass shootings?

If you actually have to ask the question, then I don’t think you’ll understand the answer.

Isn’t that too nebulous and irrational a statement to make? How can I understand an answer you refuse to give?

Under what circumstances might I not understand your answer?

Under what circumstances might I not understand your answer?

Under most circumstances, to be honest.

Kind of like they ignore the dozens of danger signs with Nikolas Cruz and let the Stoneman Douglas school shooting happen because they were fixated on trying to prove false accusations against Trump. I am a big fan of what the FBI is supposed to do, but if they can’t set their politics aside and do their job, it needs to be dissolved.

Quotation marks are to identify quotations!

Quotation marks are to identify quotations!

Sometimes, yes.

Why only sometimes? Aren’t they called quotation marks for a reason?

Their use has expanded since they were given the name. You and I discussed this yesterday.

He is gonna sue prostitutes? Thats just not who we are common man!
Large capacity magazines without a centerfold of Hunter. Ghosts dont need guns they just need to vote Democrat.
Someone lay a hint on the incredible ill informed gun haters. The AR isnt a hunting rifle, the caliber is too small for deer hunting.

Last edited 1 year ago by kitt

Actually, the high velocity of the 5.56 round makes a serviceable round for hunting the smaller white tail deer. The round is much better fired in a bolt action long barreled rifle.

The .223 is not I have never seen anyone carry one into the brush.
.30-06 or .308 seems to be the choice, we only have the white tails here.
Speaking as camp cook, I am a target shooter type.

Newsflash Biden was Bombed by a Bird

The bird speaks for us all.

Perhaps Pervy should read up a little on the Battle of New Orleans. Less than 25% of Gen Jackson’s men were members of the U.S. armed forces. The rest were militia and volunteers. Jean Lafitte’s pirates manned Jackson’s canons.