Dumbest Thing on the Internet Today:

[HoneyBadger]

WATCH: AMAZING 30 SECOND AD CRUSHES EVERY SECOND AMENDMENT ARGUMENT REPUBLICANS CAN MAKE (VIDEO)


http://winningdemocrats.com/watch-amazing-30-second-ad-crushes-every-second-amendment-argument-republicans-can-make-video/ (http://winningdemocrats.com/*watch-amazing-30-second-ad-crushes-every-second-amendment-argument-republicans-can-make-video/)

(Link somehow ended up with an asterisk in the middle? Fixed.)




First, I [ROFL1]. Then I[facepalm]because this is a bunch of[pileoshit].

[Jamnanc]

I laughed. Should be in the funny video thread. We need to make one about a ccw friendly work place, disgruntled fack walks in shoots one into the ceiling, everybody draws, go for a beer after the cops congratulate them on their marksmanship.

[buffalobo]

404 file not found?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[BushMasterBoy]

Forget guns, I want a high powered laser that decimate entire cities.

62608

[Skip]

Thread title is appropriate.

Good thing the Paris shooters only had muskets. Otherwise a hundred+ people might have been killed.

[68Charger]

Since the 2nd doesn't say "muskets" but ARMS, it would also apply to bows, crossbows, bayonets, swords, axes, ballistas, catapults, cannons, mortars, as well as modern arms.

Since they used video delivered by the internet instead of print hand carried, free speech has changed since the 1st amendment- using it to violate others rights should be illegal, and news media has to be held accountable for lies and incompetence.

[BPTactical]

WATCH: AMAZING 30 SECOND AD CRUSHES EVERY SECOND AMENDMENT ARGUMENT REPUBLICANS CAN MAKE (VIDEO)


http://winningdemocrats.com/watch-amazing-30-second-ad-crushes-every-second-amendment-argument-republicans-can-make-video/ (http://winningdemocrats.com/*watch-amazing-30-second-ad-crushes-every-second-amendment-argument-republicans-can-make-video/)


62611

[Big E3]

I actually thought this was just a spoof on the gun control crowd. Are they serious about crushing every argument. These gun control zealots are actually dumber than I thought if they believe this does anything to further there movement toward totalitarianism.

[Irving]

Wait till you guys see the full length video. While the guy is reloading, some ISIS run in and behead 3 people and stab the rest, then run out the building right before the video ends in __(insert local police response time here)____ minutes.

[HoneyBadger]

Wait till you guys see the full length video. While the guy is reloading, some ISIS run in and behead 3 people and stab the rest, then run out the building right before the video ends in __(insert local police response time here)____ minutes.
Irving, I don't know if I've said this before, but I like the way you think.

We need to hijack this video, add the ISIS portion, and recirculate. [Coffee]

[Zundfolge]

The derp is strong with this one.

[theGinsue]

The article and accompanying video are highly disingenuous.

The article states "When our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment, a musket was the most advanced weapon that existed. It was slow, awkward, heavy, inaccurate and not intensely powerful".

"The most advanced weapon that existed" is an outright lie. Putting aside artillery, there were many much more advanced weapons that existed, yet they weren't as common or readily available to the common citizen or even the troops of any army yet.

Yes, by todays standards it was slow. But our soldiers averaged just 20 seconds between firing, reloading and firing the next round. Not as slow as the writer and video would have us believe.

Awkward? Hmmm, not so much. That's the ignorance of someone who's never fired a musket or musket-like firearms speaking. It, of course, simply enforces the writers agenda though.

Heavy? Well, yes they were - by todays standards. The Revolutionary War era muskets weighed an average of 10.5 lbs. A Ruger M77 30.06 weighs weighs between 6.75 and 8.25 lbs. A negligible difference, especially if it's something you're used to carrying.

Inaccurate? The video shows the shooter missing his target who is less than 20 ft away. Actually, a musket had an average accuracy range of 100 - 150 yards. Not bad for a smooth bore firearm.

Not intensely powerful? This has got to be the most bold and dishonest part of the entire statement. The musket fired a .75 caliber ball via a powerful black powder charge. By todays standards, these firearms were considerably more powerful than most commonly available firearms in use today.

The left has never felt restricted by honesty nor facts, relying instead on evoking powerful negative emotions to achieve their agenda. They rely on the ignorance of the masses. It's up to us to help remove that ignorance through education.

[Great-Kazoo]

FUCK YOU .......Strong Letter to Follow

[Zundfolge]

The best argument I've used against the libs "the 2A only applies to muskets" is the tried and true retort "well then the 1st Amendment only applies to movable type presses and standing on the corner shouting at the top of your lungs." ... if the argument goes beyond that you're arguing with an idiot and a zealot and you're wasting your time (be sure to let them know that's why you're giving up on them).

[sellersm]

I'll take "Arguing With Idiots" for $100 please, Alex...


Sent from my fat fingers using Tapatalk

[Mazin]

Lmao that's funny.

[asmo]

Tench Coxe - one of the delegates to the Continental Congress.. at one time HE was the person responsible for procuring ALL arms for the government.

In one of his reports to the President (Madison) concerning arms in America he stated the cannon, *the largest, most powerful military arm at the time*, were made "for sale to associations of citizens, and to individual purchasers, for use at home, or for exportation".

The whole belief that the Founding Fathers never meant the general public to have military weapons is utterly and completely false. Not only did they envision it, they openly encouraged it, and promoted it at every turn.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

The article and accompanying video are highly disingenuous.
The article states "When our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment, a musket was the most advanced weapon that existed. It was slow, awkward, heavy, inaccurate and not intensely powerful".
"The most advanced weapon that existed" is an outright lie. Putting aside artillery, there were many much more advanced weapons that existed, yet they weren't as common or readily available to the common citizen or even the troops of any army yet.


I snipped this, but another thing that really bothers me about the "revolutionary war" arguments is that "advanced weapon" argument. Oh, our founding fathers could never have envisioned an AR-15. OK.
But are muskets to artillery more of an apples to apples thing or are AR-15s to, oh…RC drones, cruise missiles, APCs, A10 Warthogs, etc? If the average "heavily armed" citizen had to take on the modern day King of England, we'd only win by attrition and guerilla warfare, for the arms civilians have now are SO much farther apart than what they had in the revolutionary war.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Interesting historical consistency on how heavy standard issue weapons have been:

musket - approx 10 lbs loaded
Springfield 1873 Trap Door - approx 9 lbs loaded
M 1892 Krag-Jorgensen - over 9 lbs loaded
1903 Springfield - approx 9 lbs loaded
M-1 Garand - approx 10 lbs loaded
M-14 - approx 10 lbs loaded
M-16 - just under 9 lbs loaded
M-4 Carbine - approx 7.5 lbs loaded

[ZERO THEORY]

If we use the videos argument on the second amendment, then the first amendment does not apply to email, Television, the internet, your phones (cell or landline) and a number of other new technologies involving the freedom of speech BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT INVENTED YET EITHER! Rights do not change because technology changes, the right is always still there!

Well, what do they think of that? Since the 3rd amendment was written when people only had houses, let's let soldiers be quartered in people's apartments!

[HoneyBadger]

Well, what do they think of that? Since the 3rd amendment was written when people only had houses, let's let soldiers be quartered in people's apartments!
ha! that's a good one. Which other amendments can we apply this faulty logic to?

[Aloha_Shooter]

I think the NYT and simliar liberal bastions should be limited to the communications bandwidth of a quill pen on parchment for individual expression and the amount of 10 point type a Franklin-style press cna put out for mass communication. It's all the Founding Fathers had for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, why should the NYT and NYDN and CNN and NBC get to use weapons of mass communication?

[Skip]

I think the NYT and simliar liberal bastions should be limited to the communications bandwidth of a quill pen on parchment for individual expression and the amount of 10 point type a Franklin-style press cna put out for mass communication. It's all the Founding Fathers had for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, why should the NYT and NYDN and CNN and NBC get to use weapons of mass communication?

I feel the same. And feelings is what matters!!!

Internet and TV didn't exist in the 18th century. And not to mention it would be impossible for just five/six corporations to control the press in those days. Given the sizes of the executive boards, 40+ incredibly wealthy people control all the electronic messaging in this country. How is that Democratic*?

Where do I sign the Change.org petition**?



* I know we're not a Democracy but most people think we are
** I'm kidding, relax