 Whenever the president talks, I'm not sure if he knows what he's saying. Couple days ago, the president made this statement here. The second amendment from the day it was passed limited the type of people it could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn't buy a cannon. Those who say the blood of the, the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we're gonna have to move against the government. While the tree of liberty is not water or the blood of patriots, what's happened is that there never been, if you wanted to think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons. The point is that there's always been the ability to limit, rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it. So there are a multitude of things wrong with this statement and we're gonna try to enumerate them one by one. The first thing he says is that the second amendment limits what people could own a gun. At that time, the limits on what kind of people could own a gun were primarily people like slaves who couldn't own guns. I think felons don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure felons have always not been allowed to own guns in this country. I could be wrong on that, to be honest. However, that might have been about it. Okay, so I'm not really quite sure what the argument he's making there is we shouldn't let minorities own guns. Like what kind of argument is he possibly making there? The second thing he says is it limits the kind of gun you could own. That is 1,000% historically verifiable false. That is a false statement. He goes on to say you couldn't own cannon. Yes, you could. Lots of people owned cannons. In fact, the battles of Lexington and Concord happened because the British were coming out to confiscate guns and cannon. That's right, people had cannon, a private possession of cannons. In fact, there was a thing called privateers, right? Where people owned ships with cannons on them that they would then get a letter of mark from either, in Europe it was a thing, you'd get a letter of mark from the king or even in America, the American Congress would give letters of mark to privateers who was basically a legalized pirating during times of war, right? So me and I own a ship with cannons on it and I would get a letter from the government that says I can go raid British shipping or whatever. That's a thing, people have owned cannons. You will find no law in the history of America specifying that people cannot own cannons. And he probably knows that, who knows? I mean, Joe Biden's brain isn't exactly all there these days. So either he's lying or he's just massively, massively ignorant, right? It's one of the two. So either way it's really not spelling good things. Okay, then he goes on to try to quote Thomas Jefferson, right? That's who he's quoting there or he's attempting and he's said something like this before. The quote that he is trying to say there is from Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, the author of the Declaration of Independence. There's multiple presidents after Jefferson call themselves Jeffersonians, okay? He is one of the most influential founding fathers of America. And he said, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, it is natural manure. That's the quote he's trying to say, okay? Instead he just butchers it because, again, his brain probably isn't all there. And then goes on to say that if you're gonna take on the government, you're gonna need F-15s and nuclear weapons. A lot of people have interpreted that as a threat to new Americans, which it probably should be interpreted that way. I remember Eric Swalwell, our favorite congressman from California when he was running for president, tweeted something like that and just got hammered for it appropriately. So, so this whole idea that you need high tech weaponry to take on the government, it seems to be one that the Democrats love to run with. This creates a couple problems for them. One, again, are you threatening to use those weapons on Americans? I don't understand what you're saying there. Two, are you saying, therefore, that we should be allowed to own those weapons? Because I mean, I could get behind that. Three, what they're saying is these AF-15s are so dangerous, no one should be able to own them. On the other hand, they're saying, they're so completely useless to fight the government, how could you ever wanna own them or why do you need them? Both of those cannot be true at the same time. Either it is an effective weapon or it's not. If it's an effective weapon, then okay, you can try to make the argument that they're so dangerous we shouldn't be able to own them, we can talk about that. If they're not an effective weapon, then again, you can make the argument, okay, but you can't have both. Can't have both at the same time and they always want to be able to speak out of both sides of their mouth and hold both to be true. Fourthly, thirdly, I don't remember what number I'm on now. The Second Amendment exists because it is to be able to equip the people to fight wars. The founding fathers of America did not envision a standing army in America and so when the Second Amendment was written, it was written with the intent that people, everyday people, you, me, and whoever, would have the equipment and knowledge and know-how and gear to fight wars, okay? That was the idea. So this whole idea that there's reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment or whatever, that's complete poppycock and made up in current time because they wanna enact more gun control because they don't want you to have power because they're afraid of you. So again, if we're gonna have equipment to fight wars, then of course we should have AR-15s. Additionally, they talk about you can't take on the government if you just have AR-15s. I would love them to explain that to the 10,000 or so Afghanis that have been in Afghanistan taking on the might of the US military for the past decade and a half. How is it that just a group of ragtag individuals with pretty much nothing but rifles, maybe some RPGs in there, whatever, are able to consistently engage the entire United States military and not allow the United States military to come to a decisive victory? How is that? How is that that we fought in Vietnam for 10, 13 years, something like that? I honestly don't know the number off the top of my head. Again, against a bunch of people that had little more than rifles and RPGs and were not able to come to a decisive victory. How is that the case? Now, you can say, oh, there were mistakes made by American, whatever, whatever. Okay, sure, we can talk about that. But at the end of the day, we're talking about a bunch of guys with little more than rifles being able to take on the entire weight of the US military, which is undeniably the most powerful military force in world history. So don't tell me that just some people with rifles can't defend their freedom or their liberty or can't do something effectively. That's complete and utter poppycock. And again, they're lying and they're saying that because they want to take your rights away. He goes on to say that there's always been this ability to limit weapons and who can own them. Again, after everything I've said, that is 1,000% verifiably false. The only reason that they would enact gun control, right, is so that you don't have power. Gun control just means that the government has guns and you don't have guns. And if you've read any history whatsoever, you know what happens when the government only has guns and the people don't. This comes back to this baseline assumption that Biden, and I would argue the rest of the Democratic Party believes that people don't have rights. They have rights that they're given or they're granted or that they're allowed to have from the government, but they don't have inherent rights as individuals. And because they don't believe that, they think they can make laws and trample over whatever inherent and alienable rights that you have. We're gonna see and expect a lot more ridiculous statements like this from our president and from politicians in the next four years. And we're just gonna continue to have to try to point out what is true and what is actually happening versus just what they're saying. Because they're gonna continue to lie and push a narrative that says you don't have rights, you don't have value, and we the government are allowed to decide what you do and don't have. That at the end of the day, that is the main narrative. That is the driving force behind what leads them to say these absolutely ridiculous, ridiculous statements. How far of a country have we fallen when we've come from the president and the founding fathers being explicit about the fact that the people need arms to guarantee their own liberty from the government to the current government saying, no, you don't need those arms. I will say this till I'm blue in the face. Our civil liberties keep us safe. Our civil liberties keep us safe. If you were going to go rock climbing and you were gonna go up or descend a climb or ascend a climb either way and you had your safety line, I don't rock climb so I might be a little off here. But you have a rope that holds you to make sure that if you fall it catches you. And I would say, hey, for your safety, I'm gonna go ahead and cut that line. You don't need that, it's safer this way. I'll just catch you. You'd say you're insane, that doesn't work. Like are you nuts? That's the reason I have the line is for safety. You wanna cut it off for my safety? That is essentially the same thing they're doing when we start to limit our civil rights. When you start to talk about freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of the press and the Second Amendment and you start to say, oh, you don't need that. What you're saying is you don't need the things that will keep you safe. Our civil liberties keep us safe and anybody who wants to remove them is only doing that and will only ever make you less safe, period. Two brave deeds and endure.