Skip to main content

Refuting another ridiculous anti-gun control Facebook meme

It seems that whenever a mass shooting occurs in this country, the NRA is ready to release a handful of memes which combat gun control advocates' arguments. In light of the horrific Orlando shooting a couple weeks ago, this cycle again repeated itself, and again, the meme was so asinine, I felt the need to comment on it. Here's what it said:

"Anyone using their 1st Amendment rights on the Internet to tell me the 2nd Amendment only covers muskets because the AR was not invented yet. Get off your computer and write me a letter with a quill pen, then have it delivered by some guy on a horse and then and only then can we start the discussion of why you are wrong."

I'm sorry, but did the Founding Fathers ever write the following words in the Constitution?

"A well regulated student body, being necessary to the academic progression of our citizens, the right of the people to keep and write with quill pens, shall not be infringed."

or

"A well regulated We All Wanna Be Cowboys club, being necessary to transporting between home and work, the right of the people to keep and ride horses, shall not be infringed."

Uh, no.

Also, have the make-believe groups QPA (Quill Pen Association) or HRA (Horse Riding Association) ever been up in arms due to Congress trying to pass laws which would potentially result in a decrease of sales? Have ardent QPA supporters been known to blurt out the words, "Don't take away our quill pens!" Again, no.

Not only that, but let's look at the main purpose of each of these entities: 1) Pens - to write (or perhaps draw); 2) Horses - to live, be a source of companionship, and to ride; and 3) Guns - to kill.

So yes, the comparison being made in this meme is so facepalm-worthy, 3 out of 5 cyclopses accidentally remove their eye in the process. Even so, though, let's dig a bit deeper. Gun control advocates aren't saying, "Well, if we only had muskets during the time of the Constitution, we should stick with those types of firearms and everything else that was around at the time, like quill pens!" No, gun control advocates are simply saying, "Many gun rights enthusiasts like to cling to the Founding Fathers and the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution to defend their beliefs, but the fact of the matter is, things have changed since 1787, so we can't say the Founders, when writing the Constitution, could have envisioned modern-day assault rifles, and due to that, we can't accurately speculate on how they would view such weaponry. If we go by the words of those who were around in 1787 with regard to guns, does this mean we should go by their words with regard to everything else as well?"

That's the thing. This meme can be turned right back around on gun rights enthusiasts with little to no effort at all.

Gun rights enthusiasts: "If you think because only muskets were around during the time of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment only applies to them, what about quill pens and horses? Go right ahead and write and transport with those things!"

Gun control advocates: "So you're saying we should go by all the thoughts and beliefs of those who were around over 200 years ago? If that's the case, why don't you still use muskets, quill pens, and get to work via horse?"

Lastly, for those who like to bring the "puckle gun" into this debate, let's look at the numbers, shall we?

Muskets: Fired 2-5 rounds per minute (1 round every 12-30 seconds)

Puckle guns: Fired 9 rounds per minute (1 round every 6.7 seconds)

M16: Fires 150-200 rounds per minute (2.5-3.3 rounds every second)

So, yeah, based on those numbers, comparing the Puckle gun to an M16 is worse than comparing Darko Milicic to Michael Jordan. Let that sink in...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/jun/14/alan-grayson/orlando-democrat-alan-grayson-700-rounds-minute/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun - 9 rounds per minute (compared to 2-5 rounds per minute for muskets)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/milicda01.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"