Image 01 Image 03

Biden Says He Won’t Infringe the Second Amendment, But Claims No Constitution Amendment is ‘Absolute’

Biden Says He Won’t Infringe the Second Amendment, But Claims No Constitution Amendment is ‘Absolute’

“But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute … From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.”

President Joe Biden held a press conference about gun control, but one part sent chills down my spine:

“Nothing I’m about to recommend in any impinges on the Second Amendment,” Biden said. “These are phony arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake from what we’re talking about.”

Continuing, Biden said: “But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute … From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning, the Second Amendment existed certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons. So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.”

“Shall Not Be Infringed…”

I’ll get into the proposals in a minute, but EXCUSE ME?

“No amendment to the Constitution is absolute.” Read that again. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but that is not something I want to hear out of any federal government official. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect our natural rights from those in government.

Thankfully, it is hard for the government to amend the Constitution. But since when do rules matter to them?

“From the very beginning.” A quick Google search shows you that the first gun restriction took place in Georgia in 1837. The legislature banned handguns, but the state’s Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. They threw out the law.

Isn’t America over 100 years old? Weird (emphasis mine):

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

SCOTUS Decisions

I guess no one told Biden about District of Columbia v. Heller? The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person’s natural right to bear arms even if said person is not a militia member. SCOTUS also found requirements to keep guns “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated the Second Amendment:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

DC is an enclave, so Heller did not confirm the Due Process Clause protects a person’s Second Amendment rights in the Fourteenth Amendment. That happened two years later with McDonald v. City of Chicago:

Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: “Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.” “The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 1967. And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South. See Halbrook, Freedmen 120–131. Finally, legal commentators from the period emphasized the fundamental nature of the right. See, e.g., T. Farrar, Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America §118, p. 145 (1867) (reprint 1993); J. Pomeroy, An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States §239, pp. 152–153 (3d ed. 1875).

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

Biden’s Gun Control

Biden wants the Senate to “immediately pass three House-passed bills to close loopholes that allow gun purchases, purchasers, to bypass the background checks.” This includes ghost guns, which come from “kits that allow the recipient to assemble the firearm using provided parts.”

Biden wants to “ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines” because he cannot find a reason why anyone needs a weapon that holds “one hundred rounds.”

I have two questions: Where can I buy this gun that holds 100 hundred rounds?! Can someone define assault weapons?!

I guess Biden wants to resurrect his awful 1994 crime bill. But Vice President Kamala Harris will love the bill:

From 1994 to 2004, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was in force. The federal law defined a “large-capacity ammunition-feeding device” as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It made any handguns with large-capacity magazines not lawfully possessed before the law’s enactment illegal.

Quite a few states have implemented their laws banning high-capacity magazines.

Biden also wants to revoke gun manufacturers’ immunity for crimes committed by someone else with guns from that company. Yes, blame someone else.

So gross.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute …“

Abortion is not actually in the Constitution but is nevertheless absolute – or so our self-anointed intellectual and moral betters insist. Ditto for homosexual “marriage”.

Conclusion: if it is NOT in the Constitution then it is absolute.

    Instead of normalizing political congruence (“=”) (e.g. Rainbow of inclusive exclusion) to accommodate trans/homosexuals, they should have established civil unions for couplets and couples alike, and retained marriage as a sociopolitical sacrament to normalize the union of a man and woman.

    The Twilight Amendment follows from the Twilight faith from which proceeds the Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic (e.g. politically congruent), relativistic (e.g. “ethical”) religion (i.e. behavioral protocol). A progressive path and grade.

    “But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute …“

    So when the Framers used the words “All” or “No,” they were only kidding, right?

    “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”

    All means all and that’s all that all means. So when the courts give legitimacy to Executive Orders or rules of executive agencies, they obviously can’t read unambiguous English.

    Or, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    In my English, no means no.

      pfg in reply to fscarn. | April 8, 2021 at 3:59 pm

      “All” and “no” were employed throughout the Constitution, not simply in those cited provisions.

      Which makes sense since the overarching thesis of the document was one of limiting the created government.

      henrybowman in reply to fscarn. | April 8, 2021 at 5:49 pm

      “But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute“

      Jack Prosobiec tweets: “Biden just put slavery back on the table.”

    Nice to know when Hunter is prosecuted for his fraudulent 4473 form we can skip a jury trial, since no amendment is absolute.

    So… the 13th amendment is not absolute. Let’s hear dementia Joe try and justify that.

a phony “president” making phony arguments about things he doesn’t understand, and that he didn’t understand back before he became the drooling senile puppet he is today.

    rightway in reply to redc1c4. | April 8, 2021 at 5:17 pm

    I remember when Obama use to announce he learned of some scandal in his administration by reading about it in the newspaper.

    Biden goes a step further, everything he knows he gets from CNN.

If the Democrats have their way, there will be absolutely no Constitutional amendments.

    p in reply to rochf. | April 8, 2021 at 2:40 pm

    They’re still trying to get the ERA through.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to p. | April 8, 2021 at 3:09 pm

      And, I think we all know that the ERA would result in even more favoritism toward women. If it were a TRUE ERA, there’d be EQUAL treatment in divorce cases and child custody disputes, for one thing. That right there would have every feminist saying “yes but…!”

He’s right. Since creation of the Twilight Amendment (i.e. penumbras and emanations), there are no civil or human rights that are secure (e.g. “God entitled”, universal). A progressive path and grade.

Do not try to refute Biden’s lies. He’ll just come up with more lies in response.

Basically he’s telegraphed what the Dems will do: Restrict gun rights as much as they can through executive action. Even if the Senate filibuster gets nuked at some point, gun control bills make some Senate Democrats nervous. Therefore, do what you can now and see if Congress is able to pass something later on.

whew, now that we got that out of the way we can arrest all the BLM/antifa people and torture them since the 8th amendment isn’t ‘absolute’ and their right to assembly is likewise subject to the whims of whoever is in power.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Rights are wrong.
Amendments are suggestions.
Capitalism is racist.
Marx was right.

And so on and so forth…

— The Big Guy. AKA President* Covid-1984

nordic_prince | April 8, 2021 at 3:30 pm

The progressives don’t need to amend the Constitution. All they have to do is ignore it.

    Ghostrider in reply to nordic_prince. | April 9, 2021 at 4:20 am

    Sleepy Joe Biden also wants to revoke gun manufacturers’ immunity. He wants his stable of Democrat law firms to be to sue and the DOJ to be able to indict gun makers for the crimes committed by someone else with guns made by that company, and sold through licensed dealers. This will be the way the Democrats bankrupt gun manufacturers and shut the industry down.

    Democrats are so good at law-fare and always identify where and who the deep pockets are to capture their awards.

Well, Biden is right… under Dems no Constitutional right is absolute unless they want it to be.. for them. His actions and those of his party are proof of why some rights are immutable and essential. Back at the time of the BoR approval there was absolute parity between the people and the country’s limited army. The proof that old time Dems knew the @nd was a right was the workaround with the tax in the 1934 act. As for Miller… well… not a great moment for SCOTUS and even two of the justices admitted that all the evidence would have swayed them to go with Miller… but in the end ..only the FDR admin got the last word and it was a lie… as usual.

    henrybowman in reply to alaskabob. | April 9, 2021 at 1:46 pm

    Actually, as usual with Democrats, the lie was coordinated gaslighting about what the decision actually said.

    Nowhere in Miller does the court say that the NFA was justified or that Miller’s weapon was not suitable for a militia. Read the text yourself if you don’t believe this (because that’s not how the case has ever been popularly described for the past 80 years).

    All they ruled was that the original judge, Hartsell Ragon, was in error for twice dismissing Miller’s case (as repugnant on its face to the Second Amendment) without trying it, and it had to go back to his court to be tried so that open questions of fact could be decided… particularly, did the guns in question — the same guns used by actual US troops in WWI as “trench brooms” and in Vietnam as “tunnel clearers” — have any legitimate militia/military utility? And that was never done, because before SCOTUS’s decision was released, Miller was already dead.

    So in fact, Miller was a nothingburger case. Contrast to this with the lies told for the past eight decades about what the court did or didn’t decide about what guns are legal or illegal.

      alaskabob in reply to henrybowman. | April 9, 2021 at 3:00 pm

      Agree. As for the “fire” justification, shooting into a crowded theater isn’t covered by 2A… both are criminal intent. We don’t ban people with loud voices from theaters nor muzzle people .

Creepy Joe Biden, his socialist allies, and his progressive handlers won’t be happy until the First and Second Amendments are dismantled and buried deep below the ground, more than any Federal investigation into him and Hunter Biden.

You can still own cannon if you want. And many do. Without a license or federal or state registration. They’re not even especially hard to make. Same with Gatling guns AFAIK, except for the not especially hard to make, and the firing rate of a well constructed Gatling gun puts most machine guns to shame.

Used to be able to mail order a Tommy Gun. Up until the day you couldn’t.

    henrybowman in reply to gospace. | April 8, 2021 at 5:00 pm

    “From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.”

    Baseless Democrat bullshit.

    At the time of the Revolution, Americans could own not only cannon, but even privateers (which, if you’re not familiar with the term, are fully-armed warships).

      txvet2 in reply to henrybowman. | April 8, 2021 at 7:50 pm

      Additionally, in the 18th Century, many civilians were armed with so-called Kentucky (or Pennsylvania) rifles that were far superior to the average military rifle.

henrybowman | April 8, 2021 at 4:05 pm

Biden was so pleased to announce his nomination of gun-grabber Chipman to head “the AFT.” I’m eager to find out exactly what bureau the ‘AFT” is.

smalltownoklahoman | April 8, 2021 at 4:10 pm

Without gun control (and stripping the people of what we already have) they cannot risk putting their boots on our necks. We might just shoot them off!

As much as they might decry firearms as evil most of us see them for what they really are: useful tools to put food on the table (hunting) and the best means of self defense available to us. For example a recent story here in Oklahoma where a guy had to defend himself while riding in a vehicle:

All gun control is is another attempt for them to control us!

The biggest thing protecting Blacks from Jim Crow (or Eagle?) has always been the 2nd Amendment. Just read up about Dr. MLK, Jr’s views on the subject.

So does this make Biden a racist? Sure as heck, yes.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to DanJ1. | April 8, 2021 at 4:22 pm

    10 reasons why Joe Biden is a racist:
    (1) He’s white.
    (2) He’s white.
    (3) He’s white.
    (4) He’s white.
    (5) He’s white.
    (6) He’s white.
    (7) He’s white.
    (8) He’s white.
    (9) He’s white.
    (10) He’s white.

    I could give you 100 reasons, or even a 1,000 reasons, or more. You certainly get the point.

    But let’s all agree, Joe Biden is a racist. Let’ call him, from hear on out, President Racist.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | April 8, 2021 at 9:46 pm

      Maybe what makes Biden acceptable is that with diminished capacity he fits in with low end brown and black people in terms for functional IQ.

If someone who is capable of understand written English reads the 2nd amendment then yes, in fact, the right IS absolute as the language is absolute.

    henrybowman in reply to Ironclaw. | April 9, 2021 at 1:50 pm

    Andrew Jackson once said, ‘Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.” It’s a somewhat chaotic recommendation, but at this point, it might actually be the single best way to reverse 200+ years of legal sclerosis.

Who said that the US Constitution is a living document?

If you want to get rid of the second amendment it is better to get rid of the second amendment first. Classic chicken crossed the road first to get the egg and was hit by an 18 wheeler problem.

Meh. This is pretty weak sauce all in all, other than Biden’s absurd claims about constitutional rights not being absolute.

Lots tinkering around the edges. Very likely more to follow from ATF in defining and redefining some technical aspects which will have some practical consequences.

Otherwise, pretty weak. Reason? No overwhelming appetite from public. Practically zero in red areas, very little more than that in purple areas.

Blue areas are already under large impediments to firearms freedoms at the State, County and City level; Chicago as an example. It doesn’t work.

Finally the College educated suburban moms may have voted for Biden over Trump. They also saw a years worth of escalating riots, mob anarchy on TV or worse in/near their hometown. Many of them were among the millions who made 1st time firearms purchases.

As for the feds development of their preferred ‘model legislation for red flag laws’, ok. This is the same warmed over BS from gun grabbers printed on WH letterhead. Nothing new, just recycled bad ideas that still won’t gain traction.

texansamurai | April 8, 2021 at 7:50 pm

” But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute ”

wouldn’t bet your life on that one, joe

The major effect of all these anti-gun efforts is to increase the demand for firearms. First Clinton, and then Obama broke all firearms sales records. Now, Biden’s threats have created such demand that there are long waiting lists for many firearms. His threats to curtail ammunition availability have emptied store shelves of loaded ammunition and even reloading supplies.

After so many years of anti-gun threats increasing firearms sales, it seems disingenuous for Biden to act like he doesn’t know that he is responsible for selling far more guns and ammunition than would be sold otherwise.

    TX-rifraph in reply to OldProf2. | April 8, 2021 at 8:43 pm

    Biden does not care. He will use massive force with video on some targets to intimidate others to surrender their weapons. Divide and concur. But, they are not sure it will work. They will test it. If the resistance is words, they are safe. If the citizens refuse and the local cops side with the citizens (not the Police Chiefs), then they lose. They must get rid of the local cops.

      henrybowman in reply to TX-rifraph. | April 9, 2021 at 1:58 pm

      Yahbut there’s a third option. The resistance isn’t going to win by resisting at the gun-owner’s home at confiscation time (David Koresh pretty much proved that). Once the SHTF, they’re going to win by bringing the fight to the local homes and workplaces of their oppressors on entirely separate occasions. And there will be no “official” videographers present to perform the necessary gaslighting.

    henrybowman in reply to OldProf2. | April 9, 2021 at 1:55 pm

    Don’t know if it’s been reported here, but it’s apparently a “thing” that a noticeable quantity of COVID checks have gone directly into purchasing AR15s. I’m not surprised by this at all, other to wonder where people are finding them. My local dealer confided to me that if it weren’t for a dozen or so consignment guns they had in the shop from a single recent estate, they would only have two physical guns for sale.

The constitution says infringe.”

O’BidenBama said “impinge.”

Not the same word; not the same meaning.

    henrybowman in reply to Sally MJ. | April 9, 2021 at 2:00 pm

    Hey, it’s still pretty good for a guy who can’t even read “A T F” correctly off a Reader’s Digest Large Type™️ Teleprompter.

This is not idle chatter from the Dems. They are serious. Every totalitarian ruler has needed to disarm the slaves. They want us to surrender our arms like we surrendered the office of POTUS to Biden. This will get worse before it gets better.

Also, Biden is hinting that the Constitution is no longer in effect. He is issuing a dangerous warning to the deplorables but they lack confidence. They do not trust local cops (get rid of them) and they fear state troops. Ever wonder why the National Guard is in DC where it can be watched rather than back where they live? The Soviets never trusted local troops.

This is a warning. It is not an intellectual debate. How well did the lection court challenges work out? He is telling us that force is absolute. Watch Hong Kong where one side had good arguments.

3rd Amendment:
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

46 President:
“But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute …”

Better get that guest room in order.

“But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute …“
Can’t wait until slavery is resurrected. Always wanted a slave or two.
The guns of our forefathers were weapons of war. How the hell does he think this country threw off the British yoke?
People used to own cannons. Richer people owned ships that went to war.
Quote from president houseplant
President @JoeBiden*: “You go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want– and no background check.”

Now I love that lie.
So the next gun show that comes around I can tell the gun dealers biden* absolved you from having to do background checks.
And he says I can buy anything I want!! Woo Hoo!!
I want a tank, an F16, a battleship, a nuclear submarine and about a dozen machine guns. Wonder if they’ll deliver also.

    henrybowman in reply to 4fun. | April 9, 2021 at 2:04 pm

    I always reply to people who bring up the “nuclear bomb” strawman that if they think someone who wants a nuclear weapon, and has the money to buy a nuclear weapon. doesn’t already have a nuclear weapon, laws or no laws, they’re gullible idiots.

The stuff the left calls loopholes? They’re not loopholes, they’re deliberated actions by the congress.

The so-called Charleston loophole? It requires the Fed to resolve a delay on a background check within 3 (Fed) business days, not including holidays or the day the check was initiated. So if you get a delay on a Wednesday, you can pick up your firearm on the following Tuesday, provided there are no federal holidays. The limit was placed into law to prevent an administration like Biden’s from putting all buyers on Delay indefinitely.

The so-called gun show loophole? Again, it’s not a loophole. FFLs are still required to conduct a background check when a firearm is sold but private individuals are not. This also plays into the Fed Universal background check the left wants. Background checks from sales made through FFLs passed muster in the courts because of the interstate commerce clause. Firearms were shipped across state lines to dealers. Private sales in your own state had no Fed nexus so they weren’t made a legal requirement on the federal level.

These aren’t loopholes and we need to push back on that characterization.

    henrybowman in reply to Sanddog. | April 9, 2021 at 2:25 pm

    The point to make is that they are not “loopholes,” they were deliberate limitations written into these laws at the demand of gun owners, as compromises against foreseen abuse. We gave up a lot only because they agreed to those limitations. They can’t take all their gains away from the table, then come back later to demand we also surrender the compromises they gave us to get their way in the first place. (Of course, they always do.)

    If you want a vision of the future (in addition to the traditional neck boot), consider that last year the FBI was unilaterally(!) extending their legally-mandated three-day deadline to as much as a month for approving gun sales, because the law specifies language of the form “three working days,” and due to COVID shutdowns, businesses were closed, therefore working days had ceased to exist.

    You want a loophole? That’s a loophole nobody who wrote the law ever expected, but how happy the government was to abuse it. And who in the government was interested in holding the FBI to its legally-mandated deadline? Squat and lay a goose egg, there’s your answer.

    And. after all that, consider that although the law says that the dealer is legally allowed to hand you the gun if the FBI can’t do its job within its deadline, damn near no dealer ever will, because he is still under the thumb of the BATF for his business license, and they will make his life miserable. Not to mention the press.

      Sanddog in reply to henrybowman. | April 9, 2021 at 7:46 pm

      I conducted transfers all last year and I went by the Brady date, which is the law, not an arbitrary deadline set by the FBI. I understand some states closed their offices entirely and if you live in a point of contact state, they may have closed their offices and refused to conduct checks. I’m in a non-point of contact state and we are not required to have the state contact NICS, we do it directly. I conduct my checks online and it was pretty much business as usual except for the fact that the state closed down every firearms dealer and we were operating in violation of my governor’s public health order. The firearms keep coming, regardless of whether or not my idiot governor ordered a closure and I had to be there to receive them. I’m certainly not going to let them stack up waiting for her to get her head out of her ass.

Bear_SuperBear | April 9, 2021 at 4:57 am

They can only take our rights if we let them…we are not victims.

    and thus far we are letting them..last night Mark Levin was pontificating about “no one was gonna take my guns” but failed to say what he was willing to do to prevent that. Is he willing to kill the cop that comes to his door, or will he be capable of eliminating the federal judge that say he must relinquish his weapons? There is a lot of tough talk from the gun crowd, but will anyone be willing to take action?

      Bear_SuperBear in reply to MarkS. | April 10, 2021 at 6:38 am

      When the Brits wanted to take the Colonists guns, the Colonists shot them….do we still have that spirit???

Coming from a guy who said ” shoot them in the leg”. Yet when an attack on the politicians is made by coming at tg them with a car…the driver is shot center mass….with no complaints.

    henrybowman in reply to rscalzo. | April 9, 2021 at 2:28 pm

    No difference when the “attack” is coming from a medium sized unarmed female climbing through a window with a backpack, did you notice? The only constant is exactly whose ass is being “threatened” at the moment.

henrybowman | April 9, 2021 at 2:53 pm

Be afraid… be very afraid…

Biden wants the Senate to “immediately pass three House-passed bills to close loopholes that allow gun purchases, purchasers, to bypass the background checks.” This includes ghost guns, which come from “kits that allow the recipient to assemble the firearm using provided parts.”

Back in the ’80s, a case was litigated in which the BATF “finding” that a particular firearm was “too easily convertible” to full auto was upheld because the conversion process “took under eight hours in a fully-equipped machine shop.” To prove a point, a machinist put the lie to this decision by building, on video, a fully-functioning, fully-automatic weapon entirely from scratch from… a junked Volvo.

Consider the implications. What is a kit? Why should legitimate talent and experience make person A a felon for doing something, but not person B?