Another triumphant weekend for Corn Pop's friend
/Joe kicked off the holiday by lying to U.S. Naval Academy graduates that he had been appointed to the Academy himself, in 1965 (when he would have been 22-years-old, a graduate of a second-rate state university and enrolled in law school) but declined because he didn’t want to compete for the QB position with Roger Staubach (who had also graduated by 1965 and was no longer on campus)
Yesterday, he invited, and then barred, 80 Border Patrol agents from his photo-op at Uvalde, probably because he’s never apologized for calling them Nazis and war criminals, and embarrassing questions might be asked.
Today he asserted that all a citizen needs for hunting or self-defense is a .22 caliber weapon (tell that to his Secret Service guards) and opined that 9mm pistol loads should be banned. In fact, it is illegal to hunt large game with .22 rimfire ammunition, because it’s not powerful enough to kill or put down a deer-sized animal with consistency. Self-defense against rats and chipmunks, sure; against bad guys, not so much.
While he was at it, the senile old liar repeated his claim that the founding fathers prohibited their fellow citizens from possessing cannons: “The Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute. You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed…” He’s been repeating that one since at least 2009, and has been corrected so often, by so many sources, including the Washington Post and Politifact (all the way back in 2009), that it’s impossible to believe he’s masking the assertion from ignorance: he’s just flat-out lying, because that’s what he does.
Private merchant ships carried cannons and weapons since Colonial times, and frontier trading posts, operated by private individuals and companies, had them too. Why? Because they couldn’t rely on the government to come to their aid when they were under attack. Ask the victims in Columbine, Parkland, the NY subway system, or the streets of any city about the ability and willingness of the police to rescue them from danger. Or Biden could have asked that question yesterday, at Uvalde.
More here on Biden’s call for banning semi-automatic pistols
The Washington Post attacked Biden for making false claims last year:’
“Some readers might think this is a relatively inconsequential flub. But we disagree,” The Washington Post wrote last year. “Every U.S. president has a responsibility to get American history correct, especially when he’s using a supposed history lesson in service of a political objective. The president’s push for more gun restrictions is an important part of his political platform, so he undercuts his cause when he cites faux facts.
"Moreover, Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false," fact checker Glenn Kessler continued. "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.