It’s one thing when President Joe Biden–or any other politician, really–speaks off-the-cuff about something. They’re not experts in everything (or anything), so them saying stuff that was wrong during a question and answer period is sort of forgivable.

Or, at least, it can be.

However, when a president spouts off absolute nonsense during a prepared speech, that’s less so. It’s even worse when it’s the same wrong information they spouted months ago and were called on it then.

And yet, that’s precisely what Biden did during his remarks in New York City.

Let’s start with a big one:

Biden on the Second Amendment: "When the amendment was passed … you couldn't buy a cannon … and so there's no reason why you should be able to buy certain assault weapons." pic.twitter.com/eCDmaZyE9L

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 3, 2022

Uh, yeah, you could. I mean, the fact that the Constitution provides for Congress to grant letters of marque tells us that you could do more than just own a cannon. You could own your own warship.

Now, keep in mind that a warship could pretty much destroy smaller coastal towns, and yet, you could still have all of that.

The only limiting factor with regard to owning artillery was whether or not you could afford a cannon. That was it. In fact, there wasn’t a single weapon available to the military at the time the Second Amendment was passed that wasn’t available to the general public of the United States.

This isn’t the first time Biden has made this claim, and it’s been addressed. Yet, clearly, his speechwriters didn’t bother to learn from last time.

As bad as that was, though, it was far from the totality of Biden’s mistakes. We’ve also got him referring to the most popular handgun in the country as a “weapon of war.”

President Joe Biden called one of America’s most popular handgun a “weapon of war” Thursday while speaking about gun control in New York City.

“You know, futures cut short by a man with a stolen Glock with 40 rounds,” Biden said in reference to the two New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers who were recently gunned down in Harlem. “A magazine with 40 rounds. It’s really a weapon of war.”

Now, one might think he’s talking about the magazine, but a magazine isn’t a weapon. It’s a device for feeding ammunition in a weapon, so he has to be talking about the Glock.

But Glocks are common firearms. I’ve got one and so do millions of other gun owners.

Unlike the AR-15, Glocks are actually used by militaries, so he’s got a bit firmer foundation on this. However, it’s also irrelevant. The only reason to bring this up is to fire up his base to try and push through some kind of handgun restrictions.

I mean, I suppose he could want a magazine restriction, but New York already has one of those, and it didn’t accomplish a whole hell of a lot to stop the alleged killer, now did it?

Yet once again, Biden was far from finished. He also trotted out one of his greatest hits. In particular, the claim that rights aren’t absolute.

President Joe Biden said Thursday that his gun violence prevention strategy is necessary to combat rising violent crime in cities across the country and that preventing the sale of certain firearms “doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights.”

“Making sure that people who are not allowed to have a gun, don’t get the gun in the first place,” the president said of his push to institute stricter background checks for firearm sales. “This doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment right. There’s no violation of the Second Amendment right to talk like there’s no amendment that’s absolute.”

It was at this point that he brought up the whole “you can’t own a cannon” thing we’ve already pointed out.

However, yet again, he’s wrong. I mean, mind-blowingly, hilariously wrong.

“But you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater!”

Oh, that’s been addressed time and time again. You actually can. People do it all the time, actually. For example, actors in a play can yell it and no one will haul them off to jail.

That’s because the case that came from involved someone yelling that there was a fire and people getting hurt because of it.

See, no one disagrees that if you misuse your rights and people are injured as a result, you’re deserving of some kind of repercussions. That’s not a limit on your right to say what you want, that’s being held responsible for irresponsible actions.

The gun equivalent to yelling “Fire!” in the theater would be shooting into a crowd of people. This is a crime and absolutely no one thinks their Second Amendment rights protect that sort of thing.

Look, if our rights aren’t absolute, then why are they written as absolutes? “Congress shall pass no law…” and “…shall not be infringed,” doesn’t exactly suggest there’s a whole lot of wiggle room, does it?

So if our Founding Fathers didn’t think our rights were absolute, then why phrase it that way?

I mean, they’d just been through a war where pretty much every one of the Bill of Rights addressed some sin committed by the British, but if they wanted to limit the rights, why not say so?

They didn’t.

That leads me to wonder just how President Biden came to believe there are limits when there’s absolutely nothing stating such.

At the end of the day, the president spoke on guns and the most noteworthy thing is just how wrong he was about pretty much everything.

Well done, Mr. President. Well done, indeed.