Constitutional Law, Politics

Misfire: Williamson Adds New Disinformation on the History Behind the Second Amendment

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, a wide array of actual cannons were used during the Revolution. 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 was horrific to behold. They would not be confused or analogous to modern civilian weapons. Revolutionary War cannons 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,” not 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 asserting 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 others with opposing views on various subjects. As with 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.

126 thoughts on “Misfire: Williamson Adds New Disinformation on the History Behind the Second Amendment”

  1. The second amendment was enshrined first and foremost for the purpose of allowing the citizens to defend themselves against tyranny in government according to the founding fathers. Biden has already openly, publicly and verbally threatened the citizens of America with F-15’s and nuclear weapons. Clinton and Bush both demonstrated that they were willing to murder the citizens in cold blood and we have no reason to believe that current administrations would be any different. Biden correctly stated that a few AR-15’s don’t stand a chance against his weapons of war, should he choose to use them against the citizens.

    1. Don’t forget that Obama wanted a federal police force and the application for Joe’s new IRS agents asked if they were willing to carry and use their weapons against us. Unbelievable!

    1. Upstate, I think some of the data needs to be shown. The left distorts everything they touch. I can’t put the list here because of its format, but I can copy what it says.

      “Not surprisingly, of those 30 cities, 27 have Democratic mayors,”

      ” least 14 Soros-backed or Soros-inspired rogue prosecutors.”

      The names are listed.

      When calculating homicide rates and removing the counties with high homicide rates one finds that the Democrats are running those places.

      This report should be read by everyone. It shows Democrats solidly in control of our increase in homicide rates and the raw numbers of homicides. Over the years this has been repeatedly demonstrated, but the left makes up stories to lay their guilt on others.

      Thanks for the site.

      https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-blue-city-murder-problem

      1. “Over the years this has been repeatedly demonstrated, but the left makes up stories to lay their guilt on others.” S.Meyer, in another context, Leftists have no guilt to lay onto others. One needs to have integrity, a soul, good character of their own, before one can have ‘guilt’. They have none of the characteristics required to have even a ‘guilty conscience’.

  6. The only questions regarding keeping and bearing arms are those of the criminality, subversive intent, patriotism, treason, and culpability of, and the penalties to be imposed against, the individuals who advocate for and effect the unconstitutional infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

    Anyone who engages in the aforementioned activities must be penalized maximally for each and every episode of fundamental insurrection and anti-constitutional anti-American activity.

  7. Turley,
    While you are doing a better job than most of the MSM and a lot of the lawyers… you need to do a bit more ballistic research.
    Note: I’m not an expert on ballistics or firearms… I just happen to own several firearms and like to shoot.

    When discussing ammunition, you have the caliber of the round, and then the case dimensions. There’s also the shape and the weight and size of the bullet as well.
    So when discussing a .30 caliber bullet you have a lot of rounds that shoot the same bullet. You mentioned .30-06. But there’s also 300WM , .308/7.62×55 , 300BLK and 7.62×39 (AK-47 round) All can use the same bullets, but will have demonstrably different velocities and stopping power.

    All semi-autos fire at the same rate. (As fast as you can pull the trigger. )

    Joe Biden’s comment on a .22 caliber bullet is also weird. You have a .22lr, .22-250, .223Rem / 5.56×45 (NATO) all having a .22 caliber bullet, but again different effects on their targets. He was attempting to compare a .22lr against a 9mm but the velocity and shape of the round along w type of round will also have an effect on the wound being created.

    Now the 9mm is the most popular pistol round. Depending on the type of bullet, it can be extremely lethal in terms of stopping power, and its easier to control than a larger handgun round. (.45ACP, 10mm, .40 S&W, .357 Sig, etc …)

    As to banning handguns… Chicago tried that. McDonald v. City of Chicago stops that ban.

    So w the idea of a ban you have two issues… you ban a semi-auto rifle based on the caliber… you have a bolt action rifle which is just as lethal firing the same round.
    In terms of rate of fire… The Brits had this thing called the mad minute. Its done w a bolt action rifle. You ban all semi-auto handguns… that’s akin to a full ban on handguns (pistols and revolvers) leaving only a small number of specialty guns like bolt action pistols.

    Ban the round… you have a problem. US Military and Police use the same round.
    And one could just switch to a different caliber which wouldn’t change a thing.

    Also you are confused by the term ‘assault weapon’. Its a legal fiction which has to be in context to the specific law. Its a term that is defined by the law and has no external definition. An assault rifle does because its a select fire rifle that fires a reduced cartridge down from the main battle rifle. (5.56×45 vs 7.62×55)

    You are correct that the Dems are pushing these unconstitutional bans in the hopes that they stick or that they could get SCOTUS to reconsider Bruen.

    I agree we shouldn’t censor these gun grabbing maroons. The more they write, the easier it is to show them for their ignorance.

  8. What a joke. Hunter Biden wrote that his father has nine guns in his homes. Are many of these guns pump or semi automatic shotguns? These shotguns can hold up to twelve rounds. How many of the nine guns that Joe Biden owns are semi automatic pistols? Don’t you understand Joe thinks that his safety is more important than your safety? The Democrats always have a way of creating a demon but its okay if they have the same demon in their dresser drawer. After all the chosen ones must be protected. Let the riff raff fend for themselves.

    1. @Think it thru…

      Uhm not exactly…

      Your typical auto loader or pump gun can hold 3 rounds in the tube due to a restriction device. In older guns its a wooden dowel.
      Remove it, you can hold 5 rounds.
      Extend the tube you can hold more, but that’s a mod to the common guns.

      For game hunting you’re limited.

      Now there are magazine fed guns along w guns that have multiple tubes.

      -G

  9. 100 million plus gun owners and 700 million guns.

    No one is talking our guns

    The 2nd Amendment is the Remedy for Tyranny! F..k around and see!

  11. What continues to amaze me is the cavalier attitude in calling a fellow citizen a felon and depriving them of their liberty when they haven’t done anything to anybody. We harm them for the “greater good.” Because OTHER people, not the person at hand, have done violent things. We have to put you in jail not for what you have done (i.e. nothing) but for what other people have done.

    How did this ever become acceptable?

    Notwithstanding the fact that these kinds of laws always end up getting applied like this:

    D.C. Prosecutions Highlight the Connection Between Gun Control and Racial Disparities
    Why do progressives who worry about unequal justice support policies that are bound to make that problem worse?

    https://reason.com/2020/09/04/d-c-prosecutions-highlight-the-connection-between-gun-control-and-racial-disparities/

    1. Steve,

      It is only going to get worse if the dems have their way. Hidden in Dementia Joe’s “Infrastructure Bill” is requiring all cars by 2026 to have drunk driving detection in them. That’s right, you will have to prove your innocence just to drive your car regardless if you’ve ever had a drink in your life. All sides of govt. suck, but the dems seem to take exceptional pleasure in taking things away from you be it your rights, lightbulbs, toilets, natural gas (cheap energy) or guns. About the only thing the dems want to give you is the ability to kill the unborn.

  12. What would cause anyone who regards themselves as rational to think that given their knowledge of history with respect to advances in technologies the Founders would have thought there would be no further developments made to weaponry? Had they in fact thought so the key forward thinking phrase in the Second Amendment that states “the right of the people to keep and bear [Arms]” would have been written to state: “the right of the people to keep and bear [Muskets].”

    1. Ron A. Hoffman,
      There is a good point.
      Prior to the invention of the firearm, men of arms were men who fought with clubs, swords and the like.
      The call to “arms” is the call to the fight.
      BYOW: Bring Your Own Weapon.
      Or back when the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution, BYOG: Bring Your Own Gun. At the time, the states could not afford to “arm” every single able bodied man. All the individuals who made up the militia had their own “arms.” When the state called for the militias to muster, the militia was expected to bring their own “arms” as well as what powder and shot they had. Then after the militia used up their own supply, the state would supply the rest. It was a lot cheaper and more efficient to stock and maintain shot and powder then “arms.”

    2. Indeed, if they meant only Militia can bear arms they would have said so, “…the rights of The Militia to keep and bear arms”. They didn’t. On purpose.

      1. JAFO,
        And that good sir, makes sense.
        But sense let alone common sense is not a trait the woke leftist fascists possess.
        All they care about is power over everyone else.
        We call that tyranny.
        And what the 1stA and the 2ndA and the Constitution is about.

  13. How a processive reads the Second Amendment:

    A future state militia, subject to being federalized by the central government being necessary to the security of the state, the right of the people (collectively but not individually) to keep and bear Arms except for those that haven’t been invented yet, shall not be infringed except by Congress, the President or the Courts.

  14. Turley, like so many, seem to be unaware that there were repeating rifles before the Revolutionary War. I’ve forgotten how many ( 4-5) and the names of these rifles, but for the Puckle Gun. Easy enough to find this information. Hell, one handgun had multiple barrels, fanned out.

    1. Cupcake,
      Lewis and Clarke took a large bore air rifle with them out West.
      Just saying, some of this technology (base) is not really new.

  16. Democrats today are Leftists, and Leftists have been lying since the French Revolution. Chairman Mao wrote that a lie is not a lie when it’s used for a purpose. Democrats believe that; they just don’t know history other than their own version.

    1. Mao also said that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

  17. Did we see the Fact Checkers out in force?
    Bueller, Bueller? Anyone?
    Fake News media (and Democrats, of course) are the biggest spreaders of lies and disinfo.

Comments are closed.