You can call bs all you want. you are still wrong.

trying to 'both sides' where it doesn't apply is weak nonsense.

Yes we all know it was a slow automatic gun relative to modern automatic rifles.
No one is claiming modern machine guns existed back then, thats not what the meme said, yet some machine guns did already exist. Thats a fact whether you like it or not.


No, this is a low IQ leftist talking point that is directly refuted by the existence of faster firing weapons (and the explicit support of the private ownership of warships.)
Something you called "b.s" on, despite it being a valid refutation of the garbage you are peddling.

Whether you think arguing with history deniers is fruitless or not doesn't change the fact that we have the facts on our side and that facts and argumentation can persuade third parties, some of whom are interested in and persuaded by the truth.

Literally every article on the new Bond movie explains how Daniel Craig is still the films lead as James Bond but has ‘retired’ and Lashana Lynch is given the code name 007 in his absence so I’m not surprised that you are unable to find this info on your own.

This post was edited by remco6 on Sep 18 2019 08:36am

And my entire point is that SOME are also persuaded by tricky language that invokes b.s.

like i said, but will repeat, anyone who claims only muskets existed in the 1770s, and by extension claims semi automatic guns aren't protected by the 2A, is refuted by the Puckle gun. it's a semi automatic rifle. but to say "see machine guns existed back then" is both a very loose use of machine gun in the modern context and misleading (especially since in the discussion of 2A rights "machine gun" refers directly to the machine gun ban of 1986, NOT the puckle gun of the 1710s).

if you can only persuade people with misleading memes that people need to research on wikipedia for a few minutes to even understand you're not doing it right. better than the liberals "assault weapon" hackery? sure. something i think is honest? nah.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 18 2019 08:38am

I glad that I’m an ally, too. The people who benefit from hierarchy are the ones most responsible for dismantling it.

Some democrats argue that the 2A only applies to muskets and they didn't anticipate faster firing guns back then.
They don't merely want to ban machine guns. They want to ban AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons and make arguments pertaining to only muskets being legal according to the 2A because that is what they claim existed at the time.

The existence of faster firing guns several decades prior refutes this line of argument. The average American is capable of recognizing this line of logic. Its common sense and its not BS at all.

The Puckel gun was slow ( 9 rounds a minute), but the Kalthoff repeater could fire over 50 rounds a minute, and came out 9 years earlier.

Needless to say, the founding fathers knew about 'fast shooting guns'.

yes that is what i said in my post, that the puckle gun and the Belton correspondence clearly refutes muskets being the only protected guns. it just doesn't protect machine guns.

what that meme does is pretty simple, it reads like this in this context, imo:

"loony lefties think only muskets are protected by the 2a, but see machine guns existed back then, and we aren't even asking for machine guns, just semi automatic guns which are currently legal".

invoking machine guns at all is disingenuous, that's the entirety of my point. as someone scrolls through reddit or instagram they'll come across that meme and come away with the false idea that machine guns existed back then. if it's wrong when liberals play on the ignorance of people who dont know anything about guns it's wrong when right wingers do it too.

honestly it seems like we're fairly in agreement, if there's anything specific you still disagree with lmk playa.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 18 2019 09:00am

Its not disingenuous at all. claiming it is doesnt make it so. your point is garbage.

If some moron thinks modern quality machine guns were the first machine guns and existed 300 years ago, thats on them.
its not a reasonable interpretation or what the meme/talking point is conveying.

we are supposed to hide the truth and merely mentioning it is automatically disingenuous? no, you can piss off with that.

again, a weak false equivalence that isnt justified by the facts.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Sep 18 2019 09:05am

even a person with a cursory knowledge of guns could be fooled into thinking it had a much more automatic mechanism than it did. the shape of it in the picture is very similar at a glance to the gatling gun.

so i guess i have to ask, why do you think using the words "machine gun" instead of "semi automatic rifle" is a good idea? what is the benefit of one over the other?

you seem very much in support of the term "machine gun" (literally my only gripe with the meme), yet you've done literally nothing to back up the use of the term itself. you just blankly state "well technically it is a machine gun"..... yeah sure, and technically the early tractor-like vehicles that had a range of 1 mile and went 1 mph were cars, too. that doesn't mean claiming the "car" predated henry ford by 100 years is a very straightforward and honest way to present the information.

history is full of these kinds of bait-and-switch factoids. "actchualllllllly the first draft happened on this date when 2 people were pressed into service"..... as if that's at all what people think of when they hear the question...

to close, you can shove the fender-esque "false equivilence" stuff into your no-no place. i clearly said the liberals do it worse (twice), but that this is bad too. so just stop trying so damn hard, its not a good look.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 18 2019 09:23am