I’ve documented the inaccuracies and outright ignorance of the writers for Politifact before over these pages, until at last the catalog had begun to bore even me.  To my surprise, I stumbled across an instance where they got one right.  In fact, it’s a well written piece on the second amendment by Jon Greenberg.

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

We reached out to the White House and received no comment, but Biden’s statement is not accurate history.

During the campaign, Biden made a similar claim about cannons in the Revolutionary War and who could own them. We rated that False.

This time, on top of that, Biden misrepresents what the Second Amendment says.

The text of the Second Amendment is short: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds said the amendment’s few words speak for themselves.

“The Second Amendment places no limits on individual ownership of cannon, or any other arms,” Reynolds said.

[ … ]

Fordham University law professor Nicholas Johnson said, “The amendment limited government action, not people.”

“The first federal gun control law does not appear until the 20th century,” Johnson said.

Letters of Marque were relied upon for fighting naval vessels before the arrival of the French off the coast of Yorktown, and so the fact check on cannon is easy.

Just as easy is the notion of what the second amendment was meant to do.  Weapons were ubiquitous in Colonial times.  Rights were seen as granted by God, not the state.  Those rights were already recognized – not granted – locally and at the state level.  A war was fought with King George over the idea that he could disarm the men, among other reasons, but gun confiscations precipitated the war.

Taking a twentieth century hermeneutic to the interpretation of the bill of rights is a sure way to misunderstand the entirety of the document.  The states call militia up upon need.  The men in the militia bring their own weapons.  The states wanted to ensure that the newly formed federal government had no say-so over the militia, how it was to be used, how it was to be armed, or especially the ability to turn the militia against the very state who relied on the militia against tyranny.

The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights, and never did.  It limits the power of the federal government.  Thus could Tench Coxe say “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom.  Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal).

Politifact bears watching, but at least this time, they got one right.