Misfire: Williamson Adds New Disinformation on the History Behind the Second Amendment
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
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."
Williamson then added a historical point that suggested that the Framers would have recoiled by the almost magical power of a rifle: "Today's assault weapon would be like the power of a cannon to them." Williamson is impressive to the degree that she got both the history and capacity of revolutionary weapons wrong.
Rifles did exist in the Revolution. That included most famously the Pennsylvania long rifle that was the bane of the existence of the British. The weapons could hit targets at 300 yards and were used by snipers against the British. One of the most famous examples was the killing of General Simon Fraser at the Battle of Saratoga.
The muskets, by the way, had a sizable projectile. Model 1763 Charleville muskets fired a .69 caliber ball while the common Brown Bess musket fired a .75 ball. The problem with muskets was not their stopping power, but their short range and accuracy.
Of course, the Revolution also used a wide array of actual cannons. The majority were 3, 4 or 6-pound guns. The larger 12-pound guns were also seen on battlefields but more often used by ships.
The damage of these cannons were horrific to behold. They would not be confused or analogous to modern civilian weapons. Revolutionary War cannon could be loaded with solid cannon balls or shells (composed of hallow balls filled with black powder and lit before firing from the cannon). Shot could also include musket balls, buckshot, and grape shot. At close range, they could cut down an entire company in a flash.
There is no question that weapons have become more powerful with greater velocity and range. However, it is not true that there were no rifles or that the Framers were unfamiliar with weapons with high lethality.
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.
In the past, politicians in cities like New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., have proven to be the gun lobby's greatest asset. They have pushed ill-considered legislation and litigation that only served to create precedent against gun control. Courts likely would press the Biden administration on why it is seeking to ban this model when other higher-caliber weapons are sold.
AR-15s can handle a variety of calibers. However, they are no more powerful than other semi-automatic rifles of the same caliber and actually have a lower caliber than some commonly sold weapons which use .30-06, .308 and .300 ammunition; many of these guns fire at the same — or near the same rate — as the AR-15. None of these weapons are classified as actual military "assault weapons," and most civilians cannot own an automatic weapon. (AR in AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite rifle," but assault rifle or automatic rifle).
Likewise, President Biden showed the same disconnect in suggesting bans on "high-caliber weapons" like 9mm handguns and said "a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body."
While gun experts mocked the notion that 9mm rounds blow organs out of bodies, the president's singling out of these handguns led many to cry foul about using the Uvalde massacre to impose a Canadian-like ban or moratorium. The 9mm round is the most popular handgun caliber in the U.S., with more than half of all handguns produced in 2019 using that round, according to Shooting Industry magazine. If Biden pushed a ban, he would target more than 40 percent of all pistols produced in the U.S.
There is little support for saying that the earlier ban on assault weapons had any appreciable impact on mass murders; there is no support for saying it caused a reduction in gun violence overall. Thankfully, mass shootings are statistically rare. Even studies that noted a drop in mass shootings during this earlier period noted that such a cause-and-effect claim is "inconclusive."
Moreover, the earlier ban was imposed in 1994 — before the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Any such ban today would face a far greater court challenge and would require a far more compelling factual foundation to pass constitutional muster.
Even with the spreading of such disinformation, I would not want Williamson or Biden to be censored on social media or banned by platforms. The solution to bad speech is better speech. The problem is that figures like Biden have sought to silence of others with opposing views on various subjects. Like high lethality weapons, the Framers were quite familiar with censorship. They sought to ban it in the First Amendment, but that is one point of historical clarity that seems to escape many of our leaders.
Tags
Who is online
413 visitors
"Disinformation" is a subjective term.
Is it? Let's take the word "rifle" for instance.
In those paragraphs, Williamson can be faulted for not knowing (or at least not using the proper terminology) that a rifle indicates a gun with a rifled barrel which causes the bullets to spin making them more accurate than smooth bored weapons. The author notes that there were rifles at the time, notably the Pennsylvania or Kentucky long rifle . These guns were more accurate than the far more common short, smooth-barreled muzzle loaders of the time, but they were still muzzle-loading guns and you still had to load the guns by hand for each shot . This is the difference between the guns of the time and the guns of today and was this difference to which Williamson was referring, i.e. not the ability to shoot far but the ability to shoot fast. (The author never points this out.)
Later in the article, the author says:
Conveniently not noting that the pounds in this instance were referencing the weight of the projectiles the cannon were intended to propel and not the weight of the gun itself. While this is standard practice in the field of guns, it should have been noted. I don't really think that a school shooter is going to use a 3-pound cannon due to its cumbersome size and the fact that it, yet again, has to be manually primed and loaded for each shot. But the author noted, " Shot could also include musket balls, buckshot, and grape shot. At close range, they could cut down an entire company in a flash ." (A revolutionary war company was 90 men, so the cannon were either emplaced in batteries of several or the author is being loose with the information... We report, You decide!) You will note that this increased killing capability was referenced when Williamson said," Today's assault weapon would be like the power of a cannon to them ."
So, here we have an article that purports to tell the "Truth" about guns of the period and Second Amendment rights, but it leaves out almost half of the facts in order to not dilute the message (Williamson/Biden/democrats wrong). Then Vic gets on and says, "Disinformation " is a subjective term."
Nah, it isn't and I think this article is an example of disinformation.
Disinformation is the anti-gunner's prerogative and biggest weapon.
Turley translated "Dead kids dont bother me".
The fact is there is no overwhelming evidence that the right to carry AR-15's , or anything else, is guaranteed by the Constitution. Heller was decided on a completely ideological vote. Ipso fatso, arguments can be made for both sides, it was the 5th conservative vote that approved the Heller decision, not an overwhelming argument.
When the court has a liberal majority Heller can be reversed just the way Roe v Wade was. It would be prudent, and save a lot of lives if the political right, gun loving, faction set its course now on some compromises such as banning new production of AR-15's, before one day a different court takes it all away.
Dobbs and heller are based on the actual language of the constitution. You just want the court to legislate. Why even have a Supreme Court at all, since you despise the role of actual judges?
would be prudent, and save a lot of lives if the political right, gun loving, faction
why would making Guns illegal save any lives? The people you elect won’t enforce gun laws right now, why would more laws make any difference.
remember, equity means as many criminals as possible must be free to kill as many minorities as possible without fear of jail.
I offer these two article excerpts as evidence that the Heller decision was not "obvious", and remains debatable to this day.
Gun lovers take it for granted that the second amendment guarantees their right to possess any weapon they wish, and that is not the case.
The first of your articles actually undercuts your entire point, since it argues that Heller doesn't prevent many restrictions, rather that Heller is used as an excuse to justify not doing anything.
But just Read Scalia's responses to the dissents in Heller.
If you were to appear before the Court and simply say "guns are bad" every single liberal justice would vote for whatever restriction you were arguing for. . There's never a doubt, any doubt, on how they will vote on an issue. Whatever the Pelosis of the world want, the liberal justices will vote that way. It's a shame they wasted their money going to law school.
The only reason the Court has arguments at this point is to allow the Conservatives to be debate an issue, because their votes depend on the soundness of the arguments. No one wonders how Sotomayor will vote.
Actually no, you are wrong with this statement. Gun Owners ( I ignore the term gun lovers due to it's partisan connotations ) are well aware and accept that they may not own any type of weapon they wish. For example they accept that they may not legally own a modern assault rifle. Those who attempt to possess such weapons are breaking the law and they are aware that they are.
Your broad-brushing fails you here.
fantasy
Actually it's not that hard to get a FFL license.
Pass the background checks, pay the fees and that M4 is yours.
Another restriction is a result of the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) passed in 1986. It prohibits the possession of new machine guns (made after 1986) by civilians. If the machine gun was not registered at the time the act was passed, it cannot be legally owned by a private citizen for any reason.
You hit the nail on the head. The definition of assault rifle. Said weapon being fully auto capable. No matter how much the anti gun community wants it to be so, the AR-15 does not meet the legal definition of a military grade assault rifle ( which are still illegal to own by the average civilian without the proper permits that are difficult to obtain and expensive as well and usually only by those with a valid FFL can own one) as it still only semi auto capable. It is black, it looks similar, and fires 5.56 cal/.223 mm ammo but is still not a fully automatic assault rifle. But the liberal left anti gunners still insist on banning AR-15's anyway. Guess I better start stocking up on cross bow bolts and sling shot ball bearings because they will eventually try to ban and come after those as well.
i got wheel weights , a lead smelter , and a 50 cal round ball mold , those work good in wrist rockets .
Those are normally the size I use in mine as well.
But they look scary!/s
Exactly!
Gun Owners ( I ignore the term gun lovers due to it's partisan connotations )
So in your world there are no gun fanatics? Just gun owners? Does that apply to all other things as well? No dog lovers, just dog owners? No motorcycle lovers, just motorcycle owners?
Take the words I wrote in context to the post I responded to, that's all there is to it. Don't try to read something else into it that just isn't there.
If that's not good enough for you then just fuck off.
You ignore the term gun lovers because it’s just more convenient for your narrative - that’s all there is to it.
Do you have any idea what happens at an abortion clinic?
Do you?
There is no such thing as an abortion clinic.
There is Planned Parenthood of which abortion is a very small part of the services they provide.
There are no 'dead kids' as the result of an abortion.
There are other places that perform abortions other than Planned Parenthood .
There have been millions!
The gun people come from all sides of the spectrum. They do vote against democrats because they see the dems trying to restrict guns. They tend to vote only on that issue. How do you feel about that?
This AR-15 owner isn't overly worried about a ban on my ranch rifle.
Most everybody out here in the sticks owns at least one.
Am not a single issue voter. There are many facets of life that concern me.
As an independent centrist I tend to vote for moderates on either side.
You have little to worry about. Today Biden's nominee for ATF could explain to congress what an assault rifle was.
Am not a single issue voter. There are many facets of life that concern me.
[deleted]
Laugh all you want.
Have never been a member of any political party.
Agree with moderates on both sides of the aisle at times.
I call that independent centrism.
I imagine far right wingers consider everybody else a lib.
No sir, I set topic here!
[N][ot when you make another member the topic.]
[Your wish has been granted and the ticket has been upgraded to a CoC. SP]
[Deleted]
[deleted]
Where the fuck have you been? I have that done to me every day.
Who called you?
What are the hours you get away with it?
[deleted]
Nope, wrong again...
That sounds like something Custer said at the little bighorn. we all know how it ended for him .
tis funny though the losing side demanding the other side surrender ...
Of course Custer was vastly out numbered and the government forbade the cavalry to have repeated rifles like the Indians had. The soldiers were stuck with single shot trap door rifles with a significantly slower rate of fire.
Focusing all our attention on guns is also a type of disinformation. The oversimplified rebuttal that guns don't kill people, people kill people has become nothing more than a political do-nothing response to what is happening. Democrats have vested their political future in ignoring the underlying problem. And Republicans are doing little more than kicking the can.
Today's America has gone gun happy. There's no denying that fact. Banning guns does nothing to address the societal shift toward violence. The wild west of American myth was never like this. Even the mobsters and gangsters of the prohibition era weren't as violent as todays America. And they were armed with real machine guns; real weapons of war that were adopted by the military for use in WWII.
In today's America innocent bystanders have become the target. That's indicative of political violence such as the anarchist violence of the 1910s and 1920s. But even political violence doesn't fit what is happening today.
So, guns aren't really the problem. And anyone claiming that guns are the problem is deliberately lying. People are giving up on society and turning to violence. The United States is becoming a more violent society. That's the problem needing more attention. Focusing attention on guns, pro or con, only serves as misinformation to kick the can and do nothing.
I think you are partly right. It is about more than just the guns. America is corrupt. Public lying has become an art form on social media, and some political figures are big celebrities and even lead cults. This CANNOT be good.
But love of guns specifically is a big part of the problem as well. If there is no gun love, why all the videos of people shooting watermelons with assault rifles etc. ? Why do people take family pictures with 6 year olds brandishing rifles?
Societies are held together by faith. People need something larger than themselves to believe in. Yeah, it could be religion. It could be a shining city on a hill. But whatever it is, faith in something provides a reason to continue putting one foot ahead of the other. A reason to keep going. A reason to hold society together.
Everyone dies. There's not enough resources, wealth, or money in this universe to overcome that. Even if we live for 1,000 years, every one of us must face death. We can cram all the experiences, enjoyment, and luxury into our lives as possible. But for the overwhelming majority of us our lives will be condensed down to trinkets on a shelf. Or we'll be a statistic in musty academic archives. No one is going to know who we were and, more than likely, no one is going to care. So, what's the point? Why bother?
People are being robbed of their faith and they're angry. People aren't allowed to believe in anything larger than themselves. People are latching onto something to believe in, like Trump's Great America, and they're disparaged, ridiculed, and attacked. Robbing people of their faith in something is taking away their reason to live. Isn't a reason to live worth fighting for? If a reason to live is not worth fighting for then what's the point? Why bother?
How is shooting watermelons different than burning flags, breaking windows, or trashing police cruisers? How is holding guns to pose for pictures different than a mob disrupting the Tennessee legislature?
Shooting watermelons doesn't hurt anyone. Holding guns to pose for pictures doesn't hurt anyone. Neither of those examples threatens anyone's faith or beliefs. Shooting watermelons and posing with guns is not a threat to society.
Burning flags, breaking windows, trashing police cruisers, and mob disruptions are a direct attack on society and people's faith and beliefs. That type of violence takes away people's reason to live. If a reason to live is not worth fighting for then what's the point? Why bother?
No, they are not.
Who is doing the allowing?
Sometimes, but mostly it is the idea, the thing to cling to that is untruthful or incorrect in so many ways as to make it next to worthless for a touchstone. Trump mouths the words Make America Great Again, but inside the phrase there is a pandering to the least common denominator that emboldens those who would take away the rights of people to believe and behave in the manner that they see fit. I do not see this as a purely political issue, I see it as more of a sociological issue: Is it more right to live as you are or to live as others say you should be? I think that we all would like to believe the former is how we live and how we let others live, but instances of the latter abound all across the political spectrum. What is worse, politicians have noted this and have harped on whatever their pet don'ts are to the point that a great deal of American society is divided over the same issues, not because they are necessarily personally invested in them, but because they are what their tribe says to do.
And they can point to inequitable behavior. On whom depends on the day.
Now you are just being melodramatic.
That line of reasoning is what all protesters feel, no matter what the protest.
A stable society allows people to believe in something larger than themselves. And the stability of society depends upon faith in something. If there isn't anything to hold a society together then it falls apart.
Maybe that's because the idea is aspirational and not factual. Why is an aspirational idea of a Great America a bad idea? We may have differing opinions on what would make a Great America. But that's an argument over how to achieve an aspirational goal of a Great America.
The aspirational goal of a society is larger than individuals. That's the point. We are all born to die. What happens between birth and death isn't that important for the aspirational goal of a society. An individual may obtain sufficient power and influence to shape a society but that individual's legacy will be measured by contribution toward an aspirational goal for society.
American society had faith in the American Dream. Yeah, that may have been more myth than reality but society measured itself by the aspirational goal of the American Dream. If the American Dream didn't work for us then there was still hope for our children and grandchildren. People could have faith that future generations could have a better life than they had because of the American Dream. There was a reason to keep going, there was a reason to live, there was a reason to hold society together.
Now people are losing faith in the American Dream. We still try to measure society by the American Dream. We still listen to promises to aspire to the American Dream. But faith in the American Dream is fading, nevertheless. The American Dream is losing influence to hold society together. And nothing is being proffered as a replacement for the aspirational goal of the American Dream. When people lose faith in aspirational goals then society falls apart. There isn't a reason for people to compromise with each other to sustain a society. People begin forming tribes so they have a reason to live.
Do not discount the historical precedent of societal violence to quell unrest. If a society loses faith then that society will wreak retribution on any scapegoat to save itself. Societal upheavals are usually associated with genocide. And typically even genocide is not enough to hold a society together. Just keep in mind that societal loss of faith was the prophesied precursor for the second coming of Christ. Myth or fiction notwithstanding, even the ancients understood that societal upheavals are apocalyptic bloody affairs.
The aspirational idea is not bad. It sounds wonderful. A greater America! Who could be against something like that?
When phrased "Make America Great Again," you have a whole host of issues that come up. The most common is the "Again " and all of the presuppositions hanging on the word. It begs the questions, "When did America start to not be Great?" And, "How exactly do you plan to make it Great Again? " and "Are you going to address the things about America that can't be classified as "Great? "
Some people will fill in their own preconceptions and run from there, wherever that is. It is ambiguous, which makes a good slogan when slogans don't have to mean anything. "Poof," it's better.
You go on about the American Dream as if it is or was a fixed entity and not a quicksilver idea. People, generally older people, have been declaring the American Dream to be dead for quite some time now. There was much gnashing of teeth in the 50s and 60s with people against the Civil Rights movement. Some people, many people, viewed it as an existential crisis. And yet here we are, still going.
The heart of the American Dream for me is to see all citizens enjoying the same rights as everyone else. In my view we haven't gotten there yet.
You talk of societal violence. Just how does that occur? It takes instigators to foment societal violence. Those instigators can be from any side of the equation. Look at Donald Trump and the January 6th insurrection. Or George Floyd and the violent riots that ensued (there were people in both who wished to remain peaceful). The former was because of lies told by the then president, the latter over systemic mistreatment of colored people. Are both the same? I don't think so. I don't condone the use of violence in most cases. I consider it to be (to paraphrase Issac Asimov's character Hari Seldon) the "last refuge of the incompetent." But it happens and how we respond to that violence is what defines our character.
It's hard to look unflinchingly in the mirror held up to ourselves, but I would posit that unless we do, the violence that erupts will very much be because of us and the choices that we make personally and as a society.
Sudan.
There were instigators in Sudan
'Again' is a call to restore, renew, and rebuild. To 'Make Again' is recognition that something has changed or has been lost and needs to be restored. 'Make Again' type of appeals are quite common for environmental issues, so should be familiar to most people.
There's no denying that America has been hollowed out. The US is no longer energy independent. The US relies on imports for just about everything. American capital rushes to Asia or Mexico to build factories instead of building factories in the US. There's no denying the Rust Belt. There's no denying that rural areas are being depopulated.
There's no denying that America is experiencing one crisis after another and no longer has the ability to confront those crises let alone solve them. As an example, the crisis of student debt requires a bailout which means that education is now increasing poverty; education has lost the ability to provide opportunity.
Make America Great Again is a call to restore opportunity to the Land of Opportunity. It's a call to rebuild the American Dream.
The American Dream is not an entity or institution. The American Dream is an aspirational idea. The American Dream doesn't have anything to do with Civil Rights.
The American Dream comes from the settler past. It's possible to go into the wilderness and with sweat and work build a place for yourself, for your family, for a community. In the 1950s a high school kid could take a job at a factory and work their way up the ladder to a more responsible position with better pay; a high school kid had the hope of becoming the plant manager.
In today's America if someone builds something then they have worry about it being taken away. If someone sees an opportunity then obstacles are thrown in their path. And if someone works their way up the ladder then they're a target for a layoff. People still dream but there are far fewer opportunities to turn a dream into reality. In today's America success is exploited and not celebrated. The American Dream has been monetized as a commodity. In today's America a dream is used as a weapon against the dreamer. Wants, desires, and dreams have become a tool to control individuals.
Equal rights has little value if there isn't any opportunity. The poor will exploit rich Black people and rich white people, alike. Calls to tax the rich doesn't discriminate. And the poor will exploit the rich because there are fewer opportunities. It has become much more difficult to work up the ladder and even if someone does they become a larger target for layoffs. Why aspire to become rich when it will be taken from you?
In today's America bettering oneself carries a high cost. The better someone does, the more they lose. That's not the American Dream.
Nerm, you sure are pessimistic.
Well, I do not know about you, but most of the people I see who want to remake America are the ones who want to drive societal progress (defined by the freedom to do as you wish) backwards. The people who would rather not be "bothered" by seeing a homosexual kiss or someone in strange makeup. The people who are bothered by seeing a crossdresser in public.
Just who is doing the dreaming here? For a good chunk of society, you better believe it does. You can't even get started on the American Dream without civil rights.
There is a limited possibility of success without the risk of failure. You obviously have your version of the American dream. Did you achieve it? How do you think the American Dream has Changed for different people? A newly arrived immigrant surely has a different view of opportunities than do you because they are in a far different space than you. Everyone has always had to worry about what they have/are building.
Bullshit. Equal rights are at the foundation of opportunity. Or what? Do you think that people have to wait their turn for opportunity? I doubt that you do, but after that statement, I am going to need some convincing. And to say that there is no opportunity in America is to be blind. There is opportunity just waiting for the right person to seize it.
Just who is being exploited? The rest of that paragraph I will write off as kvetching about nothing unless you want to bring some statistics to the table.
Complete and utter nonsense. Hello, Nerm! It ain't that bad.
And tell me just how does any of that make a society better. There needs to be values and beliefs held by a community in order to be great. Men marrying men, women marrying women, men under going procedures in order to better pretend to be women and women doing similar thing to to appear to be men, and crossdressing and doing other things as you wish is not freedom but chaos and will eventually bring a country down.
None, absolutely none of that harms anyone in anyway whatsoever.
How does it make society worse?
Links? or just more opinion?
Trans people in America are believed to be 0.004075% of the roughly
340 million Americans to whom the Constitution guarantees the pursuit of life liberty and happiness, hardly enough people to bring a country "down".
Actually it is life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not surprised someone who would deny the youngest of mankind, the unborn, their right to life. The pursuit of happiness also does not guarantee you happiness either.
Then why are you so concern that they are not able to participate in sports or that they are required to pay for their own treatments. And I did not limit it to just tranies.
Are you saying chaos and everyone doing whatever they want is good for society?
Can't come up with anything to contradict me huh? That is usually why lefties ask for links
Thanks for the correction
How does this have anything to do with your original statement or my reply.
Try staying in one lane at a time.
Agreed.
Again there was nothing in your comment about sports participation for me to show any concern at all. Please stop assuming.
Who are you having these conversations with? No one mentioned who was paying for transitions. Are you now saying it's ok if you don't know about it and they pay for it themselves?
Apparently you sure are not limiting your response to your original comment or my response.
The Wright Brothers did what they wanted and taught us to fly. Chaos created this nation. You should not live in fear of what you do not understand or wish to participate in.
I'm not here to contradict baked in religious ideology; it's a waste of time,
much like your feeble insults.
Have a great evening.
Prosecutors say a Chicago man sentenced to life in prison in 1983, only to be resentenced and released in 2016, killed two people and tried to kill a third while he was on electronic monitoring for a felony gun case Sunday morning.
We just need more laws!
It is decision time:
