LIBERAL MEDIA LIES: THE WAR AGAINST AMERICAN GUN RIGHTS

0
Do not believe the liberal media lies about guns.

“One of the guns used in the deadly mass shooting in Orlando, a military-style AR-15 rifle, has lately become the weapon of choice for gunmen intent on harming the maximum number of people in a minimum amount of time.”

The following statement is 100% false. The Orlando terrorist used a SIG MPX. He did not use an AR-15.  The weapon he used was not an assault rifle. It was not a machine gun. It was not a fully automatic rifle.

Gun-rights advocates have fiercely resisted any calls for tighter regulation of these weapons in response to mass shootings. The NRA estimates there are around 5 million AR-15 rifles in circulation, with hundreds of thousands more manufactured each year. They point out that the vast majority of the weapons are never used to commit a crime.

Surprisingly, coming from WAPO this statement is true.

“The heated discussions over gun control and gun rights that inevitably follow mass shootings like the one in Orlando typically revolve around interpretations of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. In full, the amendment reads, rather murkily, “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.” The wording leaves plenty of room for legal and political wrangling over the meaning of words like “well regulated,” “militia,” “right,” “people,” “keep,” “bear” and “arms.”

 Yes there are heated discussions about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Usually however these interpretations come from anti-gun zealots who often debate what the meaning of what the word “IS” actually means.

The National Rifle Association has explicitly embraced a message of Second Amendment “absolutism” in recent years. “Absolutes do exist,” NRA President Wayne LaPierre said after the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “We are as ‘absolutist’ as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution. And we’re proud of it!”

For LaPierre, this absolutism means opposition to universal background checks and national gun registries. It also means a wide latitude in allowing gun owners the choice of weapons to defend themselves. “We believe in our right to defend ourselves and our families with semiautomatic firearms technology,” LaPierre said.

Imagine that an organization of law abiding Americans who are actually willing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The nerve of these right wing nut jobs…

“Orlando shooter Omar Mateen used an AR-15 style rifle to kill at least 49 people, officials say. Here’s what you need to know about the gun some are calling “the gold standard for mass murder.” (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)”

Of course, semiautomatic firearms technology didn’t exist in any meaningful sense in the era of the founding fathers. They had something much different in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment. The typical firearms of the day were muskets and flintlock pistols. They could hold a single round at a time, and a skilled shooter could hope to get off three or possibly four rounds in a minute of firing. By all accounts they were not particularly accurate either.

Oh the wild inaccuracies of the anti-gun state propaganda machine. The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a “machine gun”, being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest. If only Christopher Ingram did any sort of reasonable research on an article.

 a Puckle gun was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes (approx 9 rounds per minute)
A Puckle gun was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes (approx 9 rounds per minute)

Compare those specifications with the capabilities of a modern-day AR-15. According to the makers of one model of the gun, a good shooter can effectively fire 45 rounds per minute. The guns are stable and accurate at distances five to 10 times farther than a typical Second Amendment-era gun. Standard magazines can hold 30 rounds, and shooters can swap out magazines and continue firing in just a matter of seconds.

A Puckle gun was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes (approx 9 rounds per minute) in the midst of a driving rainstorm. A rate of 9 rounds per minute compared favourably to musketeers of the period, who could be expected to fire between 2 and 5 rounds per minute depending on the quality of the troops, with experienced troops expected to reliably manage 3 rounds a minute under fair conditions; it was however inferior in fire rate to earlier repeating weapons such as the Kalthoff repeater which fired up to six times faster.

The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer.
The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer.

 

The Kalthoff repeater was a type of repeating firearm that appeared in the seventeenth century and remained unmatched in its fire rate until the mid-nineteenth century. As its inventor is unknown, it is named after the Kalthoff gunsmiths that has come to be associated with the design. The Kalthoff had two magazines, one for powder and one for balls (some had a third for priming powder). A single forward-and-back motion on the trigger guard powered a mechanism that deposited a ball and load of powder in the breech and cocked the gun. Within one or two seconds, it was ready to fire again. A small carrier took the powder from the magazine to the breech, so there was no risk of an accidental ignition in the reserve. Early Kalthoff guns were wheellocks, later they became flintlocks. Some carried six shots, one claims in an inscription on its barrel to have thirty. The Royal Foot Guards of Denmark were issued with about a hundred of these guns, and they are thought to have been used in the Siege of Copenhagen (1658-59) and the Scanian War. SO YET AGAIN…Another liberal gun grabber myth is laid to rest…The framers not only knew about these weapons they had been in use for almost 100 years prior to the Bill of Rights.

In short, guns today are capable of inflicting far more carnage than anything the framers could have imagined. That’s a point that’s driven home with chilling effectiveness by this brief video by States United to Prevent Gun Violence.

Actually Mr. Ingram you are incorrect. The Royal Foot Guards of Denmark were issued with about a hundred of these guns, and they are thought to have been used in the Siege of Copenhagen (1658-59) and the Scanian War. Nice try though…Did anyone actually bother to fact check your article? Does WAPO editors actually review your propagandist anti-gun drivel?

“In itself, that isn’t an argument for banning everything other than muskets. Technology evolves. It makes no more sense to say an AR-15 isn’t protected by the Second Amendment than it does to say that computers or ballpoint pens aren’t protected by the First.”

NO SHIT…

“But evolving technology does call for evolving regulation. And, in practice, the implementation of the Second Amendment has never been strictly “absolute.” Most gun owners accept that civilians typically can’t own fully automatic rifles or tanks or nuclear weapons. Our understanding of the “arms” of the Second Amendment has evolved over the years, subject to shifts in political and legal norms.”

Let us speak in terms of what is absolute. “SHALL NOT INFRINGE” is pretty much as an absolute statement as one can possibly make. The founders were very intelligent men unlike hack writers from the WAPO and the terrible editors who allow them to publish outright lies and falsehoods under the protection of the 1st Amendment that is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Imagine that….

“In recent years, at least, public perception of what the Second Amendment permits has changed. In December of last year, for the first time, a majority of Americans opposed a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons according to ABC/Washington Post polling.”

Here is another false statement. The VAST majority of Americans today see the importance of the 2nd Amendment. This can be evidenced by the enormous purchases of firearms and ammunition over the past eight years. But hey why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a skewed poll with poor data and poor sampling.

“That poll was taken in the immediate aftermath of the San Bernardino shootings, in which two shooters used semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles to murder 14 people. Two months later, a man walked into a plant in Hesston, Kan., armed with an AK-47, killing three people and injuring 14 more. A few months later, another individual walked into an Orlando club armed with an AR-15, killed 49 people and injuring dozens more.”

As a result of these mass shootings MORE Americans have realized that the only way to stop evil doers with guns from killing good people is for good men with guns to respond quickly.

In every case of a mass shooting good men with guns are called to end the evil rampage. How is it that liberal anti-gun propagandists do not get this very simple fact? If more people were armed and trained the death tolls would be much lower. Why is it that all of these mass killings occur in gun-free zones? Why is it that the politicians calling for gun control are protected by men with machine guns? Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and their families are all protected by men with machine guns. Does your family not deserve the same level of protection? The founding fathers thought that they do…Who do you trust more the founding fathers or treasonous politicians and their propaganda apparatus?

The more appropriate question we should all be asking is does the 1st Amendment protect a traitor and Domestic Enemy of the Constitution’s ability to publish outright lies, falsehoods and propaganda in an effort to strip Americans of their natural right of self defense and protection against a tyrannical government?

Facebook Comments

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY