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...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...