But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive. [More]You have to wonder how many who claim the contrary are actually clueless vs. how many know they're liars out to gin up ignorant indignation.
But they keep bringing it up anyway.
[Via Mack H]
Most of them are mindess liberal parrots. This goes triple for the ones that parrot, “No one wants to take away your guns.” It’s like they define truth by whether they have said something three times yet.
ReplyDelete"You have to wonder how many who claim the contrary are actually clueless vs. how many know they're liars out to gin up ignorant indignation."
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the people who come up with the talking points are quite aware of how badly they mangle the facts. The very way they frame the memes indicates their knowledge of the facts. It's like the way the "freedom from religion" people abuse Jefferson's "wall of separation" phrase. Anyone who reads Jefferson's letter will know that the phrase was meant to reassure people who were worried about government interfering with the practice of religion. The way the anti-religionists use the phrase is exactly the opposite of how the framers of the bill of rights intended the 1st amendment to be used. I am convinced that the people who first lifted the phrase from Jefferson's letter were well aware that they were standing the phrase on its head.
While the people who framed the specious (and, according to SCOTUS, borderline frivolous) arguments knew exactly how counter-factual their arguments were, I am convinced that most people who repeat the arguments have no clue about the facts of their arguments. I also doubt that most would change their story EVEN IF they knew the facts! They are happy to parrot arguments they like and would have no problem continuing to use the arguments even if they were aware of the facts.
I once had a would-be gun grabber ADMIT to me that disarming me (and people like me) would not make him one whit safer. HE ADMITTED IT! His argument was that disarming (folks like) me made him FEEL safer. When I asked him if his "feeling safer" was reason enough to deprive me of an enumerated right, his answer was a simple "Yes." The smug expression on his face said it all.
I believe that people who promulgate and support so-called "gun control" do so out of one of two basic motives. When someone in government advocates gun control it originates in a desire to control the populace and make revolution more difficult. For people such as the one in the paragraph above - i.e. people not in government - I believe the motivation is purely to "feel" safer. They are not concerned about liberty or freedom or any such folderol. They just want to feel safer and my rights and the rights of those who think like me are of ABSOLUTELY NO CONSEQUENCE! So long as they have no skin in the game, they could not care less about people who do.