Debunking A Viral Tweet That Tried To Prove The Second Amendment Only Applies To Muskets

The founding fathers wanted us to have muskets. They were the assault weapons of their time. A flowling piece ( the shotgun of their times ) takes well over a minute to load one shot. A rifle takes at least a minute and probably most of two minutes. A musket will fire three shots a minute. A musket will also take a bayonet for use when the weather is really bad. There are so many things that were not even science fiction in 1792 that became common in the next century and are covered by the bill of rights

The argument that the second amendment is technology capped to the date of is passage is absurd because to do so , as you pointed out with the 1a argument would be to accept that any amendment to the constitution is capped to the technology of the moment of its passage.
The Car and the motorhome were not invented back in 1788 but we know damn well BOTH have protections against illegal searches and seizures

Gun control is hitting the target where you aim!
What is needed is criminal control, with so many Soros backed 'prosecutors' that apply "Catch & Release" to every criminal, is it any surprise that those criminals turn around & continue to be a plague on society? The only way to establish law & order is to help the criminals realize that there is NO benefit in being a criminal, by stopping any & all plea bargains!
Criminals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (BTW if a gun is used in the commission of the crime another five years should be tacked on to the judgment! If anyone is shot during the commission of the crime there should be another ten years added to the judgement! If anyone is murdered during the commission of the crime the criminal should forfeit their life {God had it right all along! Read; Exodus21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21; & Matthew 5:38. The execution should be televised so anyone traveling down that forsaken road will reconsider where that road leads! Just incase you didn't know, prison is NOT suppose to be a country club. Chain gangs should be re-established to provide work for the prisoners & a minimum wage for their needs. (They should be held accountable for all of their actions in & out of prison!)

Amen I agree with you 100 n ten

Colin l dare you to post clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution to your followers.

eah, and that is why we have the rest of the amendment, too. However, when the politician, judges, police officers, military, etc., all take on the ideology of the oppressor and take their oaths to the Constitution and the people as pablum and meaningless tripe, they all become mercenaries supporting the tyranny of government, saying that their duty is enforcing the law and not upholding the Constitution - the enforcer, like the bureaucrat is only interested in money and position, the fixation for overlording the lowly citizen. The Founding Fathers warned us: James Madison, “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." ~ Samuel Adams. "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson. "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." ~ Alexander Hamilton -- Is this an originalist's case for modern "military style" firearms in the hands of civilians. There are many more, but finally, "Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no liberty; the first allows us to find out what's happening, the second allows us to do something about it! The second will be taken away first, followed by the first and then the rest of our freedoms." ~ Unknown. Freedom is not free and safety will never be attained in a free society. In a society with controls sufficient to guarantee safety, which is impossible, the people are neither safe nor free. Kamala and the administration is feeding lies to their followers and they are licking it up like a cat licks cream. DON"T FALL FOR IT! All the violence and chaos was created by the Democrats to convince the sheep that the Democrats need control of government to fix it, and with that control comes gun confiscation. You want safety, look to NYC during the Giuliani and Bloomberg years, both Republicans - "stop and frisk," arrests, convictions, jail time. It worked then and it will work again. As for "mass shootings" of the most egregious kind, school shooting, there are simple solutions but the Democrats will not implement these because they NEED the school shootings and the emotional responses of the parents and sheep to, again, justify their taking control. Connect the dots. There is so much more and lots of dots.

I just invented a self defense device that fires 2000 lead balls a second, I call it a Musket. I'm working on a supersonic missile system as well, it's name? Musket. And then there is the laser array that I fondly refer to as Musket.

I don't use guns, but I can't stand when gun control idiots say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets. It's nothing but a strawman argument.

Letter of marque

No wonder American history isnt a top priority subject to be taught in our schools today,the government doesn't want kids to learn the truth.

They know all this they are just doing any thing possible to take our guns.

Birdbrain Babel, that’s some funny shit

I don't know about you but I'd much rather get shot with a modern gun than a musket. Have you seen what old firearms do to ballistic dummies? It is brutal

2A dosen't explicitly say muskets only! In fact there is no type, caliber, amount you can only own ever mention! Only the gun hating left ever tries to make up any Infringements on the 2nd Amendment!

Without the RIGHT of the Second, how can you ensure that the RIGHTS of the FIRST are defended!! CASE CLOSED!!

If the second amendment was written during the medieval period, it wouldn't just apply to swords, Polearms and bows, because it never would have said either of those weapons, it would have said arms

I love the argument anti 2A people like to repeat. "What will the 2A help because the government has tanks and planes" Sure is scary to know some people are this clueless!

IT SAYS ARMS!!!! NOT GUN OR "MUSKETS"
it also says to BEAR arms, not just keep them in your home

The leftist agenda only applies when they are not being threatened by a gun . Then pray someone with a gun shows up to save their life .
They don't even believe their own lies under pressure.

I love my Pennsylvania Lancaster long rifle with 42inch barrel green mountain 40cal. She's shoots so sweet I rub her down every day nice and sweet with curves and engraving. And got gold inlay all around on it. What a beautiful finish. And I love my modern day boom boom AR-15 also I've got the old grandfathers all the way to the new generation and love them all.

If the second amendment only applies to muskets then the first amendment only applies to newspapers. Radio , television ,and the internet aren’t covered

Ooo. Does it apply to cannons too? Can I put grape shot in it?

The 2nd does say WELL REGULATED

We tend to forget it’s a lot harder to remove power if you don’t got weapons

Thank you Colion for saying the quiet part out loud! The Bill of Rights is even more relevant and more powerful than the Constitution, yet we rarely ever hear that name!

A fucking musket was the AR15 then lol

By the way, paper made from pulp was introduced into the colonies in 1780 which is 76 years before the Constitution was authored. Only important documents were printed on parchment because paper as we know it yellows and deteriorates fairly fast. Freedom of speech or the press is not about what material is used to convey it or what means including media you convey those ideas; it rests on being able to speak your mind providing it dies not slander anyone. Therefore interpretation by courts can determine if this is being g met.
Possession of a weapon is not an idea,it has a physical existence that can easily be defined and when the Constitution was authored regardless of what the Founders knew might happen in the future they wrote the second amendment in the context if weapons they knew existed.
They provided the amendment process to update,revise or conform to society's needs or wants at some future time.
@As I said our foundersxmay have envisioned Indians, ALL eligible white men,not just land owners and blacks getting the right to vote but when the Constitutio was authored only eligible white landowners coukd vote The others had to get the vote not by cc our interpretation of what was clearly the context of the original Constitution but rather by amendment t or some other legislation.
Therefore to interpret anything else other than what was reality for our Founders as farcas gun rights are concerned is simy ludicrous and inconsistent with how any other part of the Constitution was changed to meet society's need which includes Prohibition by amendment and ending prohibition with amendment not the interpretation of judges making assumptions of what Our Founders may have thought woukd happen in the future.

Going by your logic since the Founders knew there woukd be weapon tech improvements in the future; therefore , there intent didn't need the process they provided if in the future changes need to be made to the Constitution called amendments,would you even be more than 3/4 of a person, much less have a vote in most all cases or possess a weapon without amending voting rights reserved for Male White Citizens who owned land? It's not necessary to even discuss whether you woukd be taking us out to the shooting range, not to say some blacks were able to posses weapons in northern colonies,but do you think that means by inferring what the Founders may have known about what MAY HAPPEN somewhere in their future, it coukd have been accomplished without amendment?
It couldn't , blacks ,women, Indians and even none land owning white male citizens were not included having a right to vote when the Founders authored the Constitution.
Had you read some of the letters those Founders wrote ,you woukd have discovered that a limit on powder,and ball was mentioned.
Do you think as hard as it was for George Waahington to gather A Contonental Army considering there were less than 3 million I the colonies then and at least 750,000 of those Loyalists a nd or Tories, which included men women and children, that Washington woukd have tolerated a weapon that could wipe out say a hundred or more of his men in matter of a couple minutes?
Think again, our Founders were all educated and most of them brilliant. George was no fool.
How many consists do you think had canons , hundreds maybe even thousands of ball and kegs if powder even after the Revolutionary War?
The bottom line is this, SCOTUS has legislated from the bench from early on first for the sake of convenience because weaponry was necessary in advancing US borders through Indian's Land ,plus robbers and the threat of British incursion(war of 1812), and throughout our history those interpretations happened to fit our needs.
When the Would West was finally settled, traveling gun owners had to leave their weapons at the sheriff's. In 1932 a machine gun ban was put forth, after an attempted Reagan Assassinations, The Brady Bill came into being.
And now SCOTUS LIKE you feels like the second amendment is the only one that cod be amended not through legislation by courts whose function it is to interpret the law as it is,not as they project it should be for any reason dictate what second amendment rights are by passing the amendment process included in the Constitution for this very reason.
Your logic is nit based on any fact and what it actually is is NRA talking points.Did the NRA pay you to do this nonsense video?

I do agree it’s not the guns, it’s all about who’s hands they are in. But we do license car drivers and cars. We have laws surrounding child seats and seat belts. So why do you think there can’t be any restrictions on guns. I do think you should be able to pass a psychological test and training to own some types of guns. Bigger the gun the more sane and capable you should be able to show to own them. To many weak coward bullies have guns and they use them as no one is ever going to push me around again. This is what’s wrong with this county. That we can’t have a intelligent discussion with out it devolving into these stupid talking points cause people can’t defend there stands and suddenly fear loosing so they just shut down. Gun control can and needs to be better obviously. Gun control is not anti second amendment. Gun control is actually what the vast majority of people want. 70% plus want better and more gun control. This isn’t a slippery slope or some zero sum game like your trying to make it into. We need to get guns out of the wrong peoples hands and there are some that have not been convicted of a crime that absolutely should not have guns or access to them. All so that can change thru out a life. How many more children’s blood do you need on your hands to get you past this blockage in your head. What’s the number another 50? One hundred more? How many? Or Does it have to be your kid taken away? It’s insane to keep not acting and saying the answer is there isn’t enough guns. Clearly more guns more gun violence.

This country has weighed in. All polls say the people want guns to be tightly regulated. The gun lobby and donors do not want it, guess what our 'leaders' went with???

And what's a few dead kids?? I want my AR and I don't care if every kid in the nation has to die.

List of "assault weapons" that existed before the 2nd.

Puckel gun
Duck foot pistols
Ferguson rifle
Girandoni air rifle
Lorenzoni Type lever action repeating flintlock rifle
Matchlock revolvers
Flintlock revolvers
Tri shot flintlock pistol
Chelembrom Repeating Flintlock
Chelembrom magazine repeating flintlock
Girandoni Repeating Air Rifle
Cookson Volitional Repeaters
Lorenzoni Repeating Flintlock
Ellis-Jennings repeating rifle
Belton repeater
Belton Fusil
Noch volley gun
E.H. Collier Second Model revolving flintlock pistol

what do you call someone with a gun," armed" thus "the right to bear arms" end of discussion take it to congress. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I like this man he can articulate himself in a respectful manner. I’m glad he standing up for our second amendment rights

2nd Amendment states “arms” which is a broad reference to weapons I would think all weapons that could be carried as an extension of my arms…

In 1776 in what would become 'Merica, there were fully automatic machine guns. In an odd twist, the folks that had them and used them were privateers fighting for the rebels against the British. And let's not talk about cannons either, both the Revolutionary Colonists and the Redcoats had those things too.

Colion. Does it stand to reason that Andreas ability to speak came thousands of years after speech was created therfore she should stfu? My thoughts. You rock!!

Guess I’ll buy a musket

" In the 15th century, several single shot barrels were attached to a stock, being fired individually by means of a match.
Around 1790, pepperboxes were built on the basis of flintlock systems, notably by Nock in England and "Segallas" in Belgium. These weapons building on the success of the earlier two barrel turnover pistols, were fitted with three, four or seven barrels. These early pepperboxes were hand rotated.[2]

From a simple Google search and Wikipedia article...

There were already repeating arms at the time the 2nd was ratified.

Lets understand Colion Noir's little financial scam. He attacks gun control that would reduce gun violence and save the lives of our children. 2 things happen, Mass shootings and gun violence goes up which he exploits by saying you now need to purchase a gun for you safety. Gun sales go up profiting gun manufacturers who support him. Sales go up at Noir Training, pocketing millions more. Then more 2A boneheads watch his vidoes and buy his stuff, ching ching the money flow continues. I must reluctantly admit. The scam is brilliant and he is benefiting handsomely. In the mean time, 17 children were murdered art Uvalde by an 18 year old teen who simply walked in and purchased an AR and all the ammunition he desired. Ching ching the killing fields continue.

Weak people trust the government. They are good sheeple 🐑

The most craziest is ish yet. Get a musket are you trying make a point it only applies to a militia when don’t know how to read plain English.

Rocking argument. Well done.

🫡🫡🫡

Well said

You better read Article 1 as well as Article 3. The founders conveniently arranged to keep themselves from being overthrown, and this was because they didn't want slave revolts and Indians taking their land back.

"That the militias should keep and use the type and kind in use at the time " ! Jefferson ? !

Bull Sh*t. The 2A has nothing to do with a tyrannical government. It is best defined in the Militia act of 1792. The ONLY reason for the militia, and hence the 2nd amendment, was for an "imminent danger of invasion" of nation and "in case of an insurrection in any state", period. NOTHING is mentioned of a tyrannical state. Wake up America. The gun lobby nut jobs are lying to you.

I find this lawyer's ignorance of the 2A extraordinary. The 2A, (1791) guarantees the right to "bear" (carry for military purposes) firearms in regards to a "well regulated militia". What is a well regulated militia and what firearms do they carry? Those are defined 1 year later in the Militia Act of 1792, which goes into exhaustive detail the composition and management of the militia. It provides "federal standards for the organization of the Militia" and "establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States." i. e. A federally defined, state organized and run militia. The ONLY reasons for the militia was "imminent danger of invasion" nation and "in case of an insurrection in any state", period. NOTHING is mentioned of a tyrannical state. What firearms does it mention for the militia.? Only Muskets and long barrel rifles. Not sure how Mr Noir passed the bar, but he needs to re read his history on the 2A.