General Category > Second Amendment

Misfire: Williamson Adds New Disinformation on the History Behind the Second Amendment

(1/2) > >>

mountaineer:

--- Quote ---   April 18, 2023   
Misfire: Williamson Adds New Disinformation on the History Behind the Second Amendment

We have previously discussed the repeated false statements made by President Joe Biden about the history of the Second Amendment and capabilities of different weapons. Now, Democratic Presidential candidate and writer Marianne Williamson has added her own false “facts” in what appears a race to the bottom. For a party that has made fighting disinformation a rallying cry (and rationale for censorship), the continued misrepresentation of the facts related to the Second Amendment is jarring.

Williamson told her followers that “when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, the largest guns they had were muskets.” She added “The Second Amendment is NOT a legitimate reason not to ban assault weapons. Ban them now.” ...

The biggest problem with the claims of both Biden and Williamson is the continued failure to acknowledge the constitutional limitations on any gun control legislation.

There is now a strong majority for gun control reforms. However, politicians are once again ignoring what is constitutionally possible by focusing on what is politically popular with their voting base. ...
--- End quote ---
More by Jonathan Turley

Kamaji:
The actual history of the Second Amendment actually demonstrates that it was intended precisely to preserve the right of the individuals to possess personal weapons that were equivalent to the personal weapons possessed by a standing army.  What else was a militia, but an irregular complement to, or antagonist to, a regular standing army?

It certainly wasn't just about preserving the right to recreational arms or arms minimally necessary for subsistence hunting.

So, while possession of a howitzer might be debatable, possession of so-called "assault weapons" or anything else that the current U.S. regular army soldiers carry as personal weapons is not.  The Second Amendment was intended to permit the residents of a state - qua residents, not qua state - to field a force that could at least present resistance to a federal regular army.

Smokin Joe:
While the Brown Bess Musket fired a three quarters inch diameter lead ball (.75 caliber!), the colonists had much larger weapons, usually mounted on a carriage of some sort, be it at sea or on land.

The Amendment, however, was not ever intended to be in any way a limitation on arms by the people, and did not of itself grant any rights. Instead, it was a limitation of the power of Government, that Government SHALL to leave the Right to Keep and Bear Arms uninfringed.

Sighlass:
Just another lie told over and over because their demographic swallows it like candy.

GtHawk:
I guess she never heard of the Puckle gun, I don't know that the colonists acquired any but it was considered the first machine gun.

https://thethermidor.com/the-puckle-gun/

Have you ever heard that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to modern guns? That the Founders couldn’t possibly have anticipated the evolution of weaponry? Not only is that argument logically flawed, but it is also historically inaccurate. Behold, the Puckle Gun.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page