Giffords Proves “The Second Amendment Only Applies to Muskets” Is a Lie, Too

Following the DC v. Heller Supreme Court ruling confirming that civilian ownership of “commonly used firearms” is constitutionally protected, control activists have been flailing in their efforts to maneuver around that new reality. One of the more common claims made by gun control activists is that “the Second Amendment only really applies to muskets.” The logic here (if that’s what you call it) is that muskets were the only firearms technology in common use at the time the Second Amendment was written, so therefore those should be the only weapons permitted.

That’s a more logically consistent argument than the ones that most gun control activists come up with when they make that claim, but such is life. Publications from OZY to Truth Revolt to the Washington Post have made the claim again and again that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets, which are perfectly fine to own and should be “protected” by the Second Amendment.

Until the gun control groups themselves come out and demand that muskets need to be banned too.

A few days ago the gun control organization known as Giffords published a pamphlet outlining their wish list for new bans and regulations to be implemented in the near future. Number eight on the list: muzzle loaders. AKA muskets.

To their credit, they point out that the reason why they are worried about muskets is the recently announced muzzle loader silencer from SilencerCo. But the rest of the text wrings its hands just as much. They point out how muzzle loaders are exempt from the Brady background check law and federal firearms regulations, which means dangerous people can buy them.

They make the case that muskets need to be regulated. That our right to keep and bear those antique and ancient firearms needs to be infringed, too. So when they say that “the Second Amendment only applies to muskets” it looks like they don’t even really believe that either.

comments

  1. avatar Rabbi says:

    The Puckle machine gun, created in 1718, 73 years before the second amendment, renders the argument that the founding fathers could not foresee firearms other than muskets, invalid.

    http://www.wideopenspaces.com/the-puckle-gun-machine-gun-from-300-years-ago/

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Girandoni rifle was far more widespread and known to be known to the founders. 20 shots, semi-auto, silent compared to normal guns

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        It wasn’t semi-auto as we know it; the rifle had to be stood up vertically for the mechanism to work. I think it would be properly called a “repeating” rifle.

    2. avatar SDR says:

      To say that gun grabbers are POS liars is an understatement.

    3. avatar Madcapp says:

      If the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets, then freedom of the press only applies to manual priniting presses, and not to any sort of electronic media like computers, TV, radio, or modern computer controlled printing presses that can print much more volume at a much faster rate. Freedom of speech wouldn’t apply to modern words that hadn’t been invented yet either….like hangry or wigger.

      1. avatar AKM Sarah says:

        And cruel and unusual punishment wouldn’t apply to torture with electricity, since that hadn’t been invented yet.

      2. avatar Sam in Ohio says:

        It does lead to certain idiotic arguments if we say the Bill of Rights only applies to technology known to the founding fathers. Speech on television/radio would no longer be protected. You wouldn’t need a warrant to wiretap a phone or intercept e-mail (Also, not protected free speech) and they could search your car or you if wearing polyester clothes.

        The list of absurd possibilities is endless, but I suspect a lot of people who advance this line of argument aren’t exactly constitutional scholars or even deep thinkers…

      3. avatar A. C. says:

        Don’t give them ideas.

    4. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      The Puckle gun was a revolver and a single action one at that not a machine gun. WOS writes some pretty imbecilic things. Any gun person worth their salt would go straight to Forgotten weapons and leave WOS out of the loop.

    5. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Rabbi – Did you notice the visual deception in their little ‘pamphlet’ about .50 BMG ammunition?

      They showed two rounds in a *small child’s hand* to make it look like it was 20mm cannon ammo….

  2. avatar Koolhed says:

    QUOTE: “Cue the .50 caliber muzzleloader, which delivers a particularly lethal .50 caliber round.”

    The gun/freedom haters inability to differentiate between .50 cal black powder bullets and .50 cal BMG rounds has always been quite entertaining.

    1. avatar Robby says:

      You hit that one dead center.
      They can’t tell the difference between, an A** hole and an elbow, so imagine
      their difficulty in seeing any difference between, 50 BMG, and a 50 cal round lead ball .

    2. avatar MyName says:

      When gun grabbers whine about .50 cal weapons I like to tell them that I own a .54 cal plains rifle. One time, a screeching harpy type anti, after telling me she was pretty sure that anything over .50 caliber was illegal, practically screamed at me, “what in the world would you need a crazy weapon like that for anyway?” My reply, “shooting elk.” She screeched, “why not use a tank instead?” I answered, “I don’t have a tank, a tank round would probably ruin the elk anyway and, it is pretty clear that you have no concept of the relative power of various firearms. Caliber is not the only factor determining lethality.” After that exchange she informed me that she didn’t believe me anyway because she thought there was no such thing as a .54 caliber rifle. I offered to show it to her but she decided to run away instead.

      1. avatar M1Lou says:

        I have an evil Snider carbine in .577 Snider. It would scare her, but a .69 cal brown bess would blow her mind.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Lou, a hard sneeze would blow her mind… 🙂

      2. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        They would hate my .58 caliber hand gun. I can empty that thing into a target 5 yards away TWICE in a minute. Unless it’s raining.

    3. avatar Quasimofo says:

      Yeah, well, they also seem to think muzzleloaders were a popular choice almost a century ago. If one expects actual knowledge of the subject matter, they are barking up the wrong tree by relying on gun control groups. But, we all already know that.

      1. avatar Theodore Kennedy says:

        Not to mention her reaction to a Howdah pistol: double barrel, double trigger, 20 gauge muzzleloading lion slayer!

  3. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Giffords Proves “The Second Amendment Only Applies to Muskets” Is a Lie, Too”

    This woman is just a brain damaged mouthpiece for the left…Her husband is the real bad guy here, letting be used and abused…

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Weinstein, Franken, Affleck, Hoffman, etc etc etc etc – And Mark Kelly All progtard users of women.

      The 1st amendment REALLY only applies to the Franklin press.

  4. avatar Jean-Claude says:

    While I am wholeheartedly in favor of getting rid of the NFA, and having suppressors as easy to purchase as a stock, I have to wonder why some gun manufacturers seem intent on screwing things up for everyone else.

    Back in the 90s, there was a GLUT of cheap Chinese 7.62×39 ammo on the market. It happened to be steel-core. But since there were no 7.62×39 pistols on the market, it wasn’t an issue. But then Olympic Arms designed an AR pistol chambered in that round. Other makers knew this would end up with 7.62×39 being reclassified as a pistol round, and all that Chinese ammo would suddenly be illegal. Oly Arms was made aware of this—-did what they wanted—and poof—no more cheap Chinese ammo.

    Now SilencerCo seems intent on bringing attention to the muzzleloader market. People have been able to buy them with no background check forever, because of their unique status. I can buy a black powder rifle from Sportsman’s Guide and have it shipped to my home. That’s probably going to come to an end once politicians train their attention upon them.

    Nice going, SilencerCo.

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      Nah.
      What Silencerco did was American trolling at its finest. It forced the gun bigots into a corner and made them admit that they hate all gun owners – even the Fudds who only use guns for hunting and even with primitive arms.
      The only thing missing is the major media calling them out on their bigotry and lies for the general public to see and judge… but that’s for a different article. 🤠

    2. avatar ironicatbest says:

      I hear yah Jean Claude.

    3. avatar Ing says:

      Blame the anti-gun leftist politicians, not Silencerco. The real problem here is the central control matrix, not the freedom to innovate.

      If you think the progressive control freaks will let us be as long as we don’t step a foot out of bounds and remain happy with what they haven’t banned yet, think again. They’ll keep squeezing until you have no free space left at all.

      1. avatar ironicatbest says:

        I suppose my, don’t rock the boat, philosophy is futile in this scenario. Kinda like Obama’s leave it alone and it will go away policy. I suppose that if muzzle loaders had been used in recent criminal acts the gun grabbers would be banning them too. As far as major media calling them out on their bigotry and lies, ha, the major media are bigots and lier’s, you can’t back them types into a corner. Thinking, thinking( my head hurts) , back in the late 1800’s when them sheriff’s put signs up like ” No firearms allowed” . Did the people of the town applaud or condemn?

        1. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

          Some applauded, others condemned, most carried concealed.

  5. avatar Astigmatism says:

    So I guess Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness don’t include running water, electricity or any other modern convinces either.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Running water they had. Indoor plumbing they lacked.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Indoor plumbing had been known and in use since before 1600, though by the wealthy and not generally connected to public water or sewer systems.

  6. avatar Sua Sponte says:

    Dumb as a bag of doorknobs and twice as useless…I take that back, doorknobs and bags are both useful and needed…….Stick to being a wet blanket on your family and friends and quit trying to ruin everyone else’s life..

  7. avatar Rabbi says:

    And my fav comeback is that the First A does not include communication by ballpoint pen, radio, tv, satelite and internet for the same reason.

  8. avatar badcat says:

    Yeah, and voting only applies to white male property owners. Cause only those were commonly able to vote back then, so therefore only their voting rights should be protected by law nowadays. Hows that for a creative interpretation, Mrs Gifford? Now, get back to scullery, thou impudent wench!

    1. avatar clst1 says:

      Yeah, except the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th and 24th amendments to the Constitution kind of that the meat out of that argument.

  9. avatar Johnjohn says:

    Gabby is living proof that you can shoot a lib”tard” in the head and not hit any vital organs.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      To be fair, she only veered into anti-gun agitation after she was shot in the head. (Although she was a Democrat, so she probably would’ve gone there eventually.) Who knows what kind of mental capacity she has left now?

      I think her husband is the perfect example of a progressive “liberal”: exploiting compassion, weaponizing empathy, and manipulating the powerless — in this case his own brain-damaged wife — for personal and political gain.

      1. avatar Common Cents says:

        Well that’s what happens when you shoot out all the good sense a person once had.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        Word, Ing. I see her as a victim here. In fact the state needs to step in and remove her from the care and custody of her abusive husband who is using her for his own nefarious purposes.

      3. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        I still want to shake her head and see if it rattles.

  10. avatar Chris says:

    I can’t say anything bad about Gabrielle Giffords, I know why she does what she does and I don’t have a compelling argument against it. I just wish she would break away from the mold of what every other anti-2a group is saying and doing by leading people down a false path, lying and deceiving the public to pass some sort of agenda.

    1. avatar John says:

      Yeah. But that’s all they’ve got. If it werent for the misdirection, obfuscation and lies, they’d have no argument at all. Anyone who takes the time to look at facts and put together a cogent hypothesis, ends up on our side.

      1. avatar Chris says:

        They use personal feelings and emotions as THE source for their arguments. All of them. To them, guns are just evil, self-killing machines incapable of responsible use by anybody other than the government.

  11. avatar Robby says:

    These imbeciles flaunt their stupidity on non issues like this,
    and expect us to trust them, to solve the real problems the country faces.
    Are they as crazy as, they are stupid, and dishonest???
    Tar and feather them all!!!

  12. avatar TwoJohnsonsAreBetterThanOne says:

    Next step: the Bill of Rights is void because it only applies to people who were alive when it was written.

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      That’s fuckin funny, lol. Damn you( don’t eat or drink around this guy) spit piece of pork chop on the floor somewhere .

  13. avatar Manny A. says:

    If the second amendment applies only to muskets, then the first amendment applies only to books , pamphlets, printed newspapers and letters. Guess we can censor tv, cable, internet, phones etc. Take that Hollywood and the media.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Censor? Nobody’s talking about censoring your guns. TV, cable, internet and phones need to be banned!

  14. avatar MLee says:

    With that logic, I challenger her right to speech. I hold that her right to speech does not include the right in any way to attempt to curtail any other constitutionally protected activity.
    You can’t tell fire in a crowded venue and I maintain sock puppet has no right to conduct activities that could result in diminishment of ANY of my rights.

    With that said Gabby, I cordially invite you to choke on some turkey.

  15. avatar jwm says:

    You think they’re struggling now? SCOTUS has ruled that gun ownership is an individual right.

    Wait until a Trump loaded SCOTUS rules that 2a is indeed a civil right. Their heads will explode.

  16. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Gabby looks like she’s about to get a facial from a ghost.

  17. avatar Frank in VA says:

    Any time you hear that kind of ‘logic’ about muskets from an anti, ask them if the 1st Amendment only applies to manually-operated printing presses of the colonial era. Because if their ‘logic’ is sound, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to modern printing presses, television, radio, the Internet, cellphone tweets, etc.

  18. avatar Joe R. says:

    In the state of Oklahoma, there is a pre-emption statute that threatens individual jail time to any lower municipality personnel from enacting / enforcing their own regulations regarding weapons (of nearly every kind) and their components, and ammo and its components.

    We need some MF to write and carry a Bill that threatens individual jail time to all those who attempt to infringe on 2A rights.

    You can sock-puppet / common sense all of your dumb a_ _ es into Leavenworth. We’ll throw away the key.

  19. avatar Frank in VA says:

    Nick, you may want to amend the text about Truth Revolt. They did not agree with the claim about muskets, they ridiculed it.

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2nd-amendment-it-muskets-only

  20. avatar FB says:

    Remove all of Gifford’s guns, her security detail, move her to a bad neighborhood and then lets see how she responds.

  21. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Publications from OZY to Truth Revolt to the Washington Post have made the claim again and again that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets,…”

    Nick, you’re slipping.

    Bad.

    In that ‘Truth Revolt’ link, they are *mocking* that the 2A applies only to muskets :

    “We’ll get to all of the pre-constitution assault weapons that already existed in a second. But firstly, to believe this premise you’d have to believe that the founding fathers were SO stupid they have never witnessed nor anticipated any kind of technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever.”

    “Also, quick irony alert (IRONY ALERT GRAPHIC), many of the filthy hipsters wanting to take away your 2nd amendment rights claiming that it wasn’t written for advanced technology are doing so by exercising their first amendment rights… written long before their iphones. //”

    ” But finally the good stuff, the guns. Turns out that by the time the 2nd amendment was written, assault weapons already existed.

    -Yep just take the belton flintlock developed during the revolutionary war that could fire 20 or so rounds in 5 seconds with one pull of the finger.

    -Or the girandoni rifle, where a 22 high capacity round magazine accurately could be fired within 30 seconds created during the revolutionary war which was later used by Thomas Jefferson to famously outfit the lewis and clark expedition.

    – Or even the Puckle gun early gatling gun created 60 years before the revolutionry war.

    – Heck even the Pepper box revolvers some could hold over 20 rounds and were developed hundreds of years before the founding fathers.

    Not only were the founding fathers aware of these weapons, they were FANS for crying out loud. Here’s a letter of marque and reprisal signed by President Madison. http://www.1812privateers.org/United%20States/PRINCE/usmarq.html for a privately owned ship carrying cannons that was authorized to attack enemy shipping. These were not muskets. And the founding fathers didn’t give no craps.”

    “The most important takeaway here is that even though the second amendment is written in a way that LITERALLY applies to all weapons, contrary to what we’ve been told the more attention we give to its context and history, the more you see that the founding fathers EXPRESSLY wrote it this way in full knowledge to include very serious, effective weapons. // So anytime a silly leftist tells you that the second amendment is for muskets, send them this video because it’s done. The argument is over. End of story, no more, stop misninforming the American public, you filthy hippies.”

    That ‘Truth Revolt’ link is hard-core *PRO* 2A…

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2nd-amendment-it-muskets-only

    Back under the hood. That’s a missed approach… 😉

  22. avatar DaveL says:

    The exact same weapons technology existed when the 2nd Amendment was written as when Article I was written, giving Congress the authority to raise an army, or to keep a Navy. If the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to own muskets, then Article I only gives the US government the authority to raise an 18th century army, and wooden sailing ships armed with black powder cannon.

  23. avatar Kyle says:

    “liberals!”

    Never met a fun they didn’t want to crush.

  24. avatar anarchyst says:

    By her “logic”, the First Amendment only applies to town criers and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses. Television, radio, the internet and public-address systems would not be First Amendment “protected.

    1. avatar Zebra Dun says:

      Don’t forget quill pens.

  25. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    The rebuttal to this kind of idiocy is simple….. Laugh at them and walk away.

    Public derision and open mockery should take care of it in very short order.

    1. avatar Zhang says:

      That does not work. Has laughing at Young Earth Creationists made them go away? No, it makes them dig in their heels and convinces them even more that they’re right because their enemies have no argument. The only way to stop the anti-gunners is to dismantle their arguments piece by piece, and make them acknowledge how worthless their beliefs are. And even then, you can’t win with all of them.

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “…convinces them even more that they’re right because their enemies have no argument”

        Which emboldens them to make even more outlandish claims and then they self-destruct because the facts don’t care about their feelings.

        That’s the hope at least.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        Young Earth Creationism is easy to demolish since it’s the result of applying a materialistic worldview to ancient texts that had no inkling of such an understanding.

        Being anti-gun isn’t as easy to demolish since it doesn’t depend on imposing new ideas on ancient ones, it depends on the same tired idea that someone stronger than you can be counted on to protect you. Even though that’s the same idea that drives Putin’s Russia, the antis fail to see that they’re doing the same thing.

  26. avatar ddd says:

    IANAL, but the Giffords org use of a SilencerCo advertising photo in their brochure seems like a pretty clear case of copyright infringement to me. (I assume SilencerCo didn’t give them permission to use that pic!)

    They can certainly show a picture of SilencerCo’s suppressed muzzleloader — but they can’t lift a picture from the SilencerCo website, they need to use a picture taken by an AP photographer at a tradeshow or something like that.

    Again, IANAL, but I don’t think this would fall under “fair use” rules. The NYTimes could probably get away with using that pic in an editorial or a story about gun control, but the Giffords org is a political lobbying organization, not a media outlet.

    And even under “fair use” rules you’re supposed to provide attribution for the source of the material, which isn’t done in Giffords brochure. There is one picture that has an attribution to AP, but the rest — including the SilencerCo pic — do not.

  27. avatar #Merica says:

    Brain damage is bad mmmmmmk

    Since the founders wanted citizens better armed than anyone in the world good luck banning and confiscating all modern firearms made after 1791….duh…

    1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

      I always imagine her speaking like Timmy. “Gabby, gabby?, GABBY!, gabby”

  28. avatar Ralph says:

    If 2A only applies to 18th Century arms, then I want my fvcking cannon!

    1. avatar Robby says:

      Lawrence Campbell in FLA (Campbell Cannon and Carriage works)
      Castes, safe, full size, working, real bronze, artillery, of all types.
      You will not be disappointed.

  29. avatar David N says:

    And I am going to take advice from a person with a hole in their head???

  30. avatar Ed Covelli says:

    The second amendment is clear to me. Whatever a peace officer would have readily available to him is what the law abiding citizen should have too.

  31. When ray-guns come into common use, I will have an absolute right to a ray-gun.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Why not? It will be safe to assume that murder will still be illegal, regardless of weapon type involved. And 10 minutes after the .gov issues ray guns to its people stolen, lost and black market models will be available to the bad guys.

  32. avatar Smitty says:

    Why didn’t she just die?
    D
    If the good die young this Bitch will live forever.
    To hell with her & her space cadet husband Mark.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      The real loss that day was judge John Roll, who was practically a Jeffersonian as he strongly supported the entire Bill of Rights. He should be sitting on SCOTUS today.

  33. avatar Tim says:

    The Gun-Grabbers like Giffords, Shannon Watts, Bloomberg don’t give a rats ass about our history, our Constitution the reason for the 2nd Amendment. They have a different vision of America, one that expands the central government not confines it to it’s enumerated powers. They see States as Colonies of the Federal Government not sovereigns and to that end they have to seek disarming Americans. Unarmed populace are much more obedient slaves. They don’t care that our Constitution does not delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large to restrict our arms or that all gun control laws are Unconstitutional, in their world only Government has a monopoly on force.

  34. avatar Robert says:

    Isn’t silencerco a rifle, Not A Musket. Are Not Muskets Smoothbores.

  35. avatar Victoryman says:

    Chatty Kathy and her exploiting husband have only one basic interest……$$$$$$,

    Always follow the money. Am I the only one who sees an 800 number tattooed on her husband’s bald head?

  36. avatar MDH says:

    Even with half a brain, Giffords is now smart enough not to go anywhere without armed security. It’s a real shame that in whatever remains of her ability to reason, we mere citizens should not have the same rights to self defense.

  37. avatar Zebra Dun says:

    Folks a few years ago I bought a CVA Bobcat in .54 caliber.
    Now I don’t know what the laws are but the pawn shop I bought the rifle from had me fill out a paper as if it was a regular firearm.
    Maybe the clerk was a Noob or maybe they made a mistake who knows.
    I have found my reload speed is closer to five minutes a round but that’s with Buffalo bore bullets the round balls take three minutes.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      Where did it happen? In Illinois muzzle loaders are considered firearms.

  38. avatar samuraichatter says:

    “Muzzleloaders fell out of favor as a firearm of choice almost a century ago”

    Did anyone else notice that ahistorical nugget?

  39. avatar Arc says:

    Thanks to this article, I’m shopping for a black powder weapon this Christmas…

  40. avatar johnny108 says:

    IF that is true, Mrs.Giffords, then the ONLY medical care you get for your head wound is leeches and bloodletting!!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email