Disheartening "public service announcement"

[230RN]

Didn't catch it all or the producers of it, but it looks like "they're" starting on a massive campaign to get rid of 2A.

The commercial or whatever you call it, sets the stage where the founding fathers are discussing adopting the Second Amendment and all but one agree it's necessary and a good thing.  But then that one person comes up with the idea that someday in the future a gun might be able to fire ten (twenty? whatever) rapid shots and kill dozens of people in a short time. 

The others decry that as impossible with the upshot that "How can you  think of that kind of gun in the future?"

The answer is "I'm from the future."

The whole thing misses the point that the Second Amendment was adopted so that civilians could answer a call to (modern) arms to protect, not only their own skins, but the country as a whole.

It's very effective, and I think it foreshadows  a new, powerful, and well-funded attempt to "gut," the Second Amendment which should be countered. But I don't see how since it appeals to emotion rather than reason.

And I've been saying for years that "they" are far, far above us in public relations skills.

Just an alert on this thing.

Terry, 230RN

[K Frame]

It's an absolute fantasy that the Founding Fathers ONLY meant muskets firing a single shot at a time but meant high speed rotary presses, radio, television, and computers/the internet when they crafted the Second Amendment.

And anyone who says that the Founders wouldn't have been cool with today's firearms is a fool. George Washington would have loved to have been able to call on the general populace for a regiment armed with black rifles.

[HeroHog]

That and they HAD multi shot weapons well BEFORE the 2A was added! The Puckle Gun, the Girandoni Air Rifle just to name the 2 most famous.

[MechAg94]

And they had rifled muskets that were accurate at a pretty decent range. 

[230RN]

All true and agreed, but let's remember that this seems to represent a new, well-financed and produced pack of lies which we have to contend with. 

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Counter-strategies?  I can't think of any which don't require large amounts of money and advertising talent.  It's like the ongoing barrage of new facially unConstitutional laws, which are meant to wear us down.

You can keep throwing  Bruen and Rahimi at them all day long until your arm gets tired and your wallet gets thin, but it doesn't really cost them much to keep making patently crappy laws, one after the other, badabing, badaboom.

It's like their "compromise" strategy, where year after year we keep "across the aisle, bipartisan" compromising until all we can legally own will be a .22 CB-chambered rifle. Or nothing, which is their long term goal.

Terry, 230RN

[dogmush]

Make it a mainstream talking point that we'll shoot anyone that tries to collect firearms, and once we start, we might as well shoot the politicians that voted for the laws.

Don't DO it yet but quit hiding behind the polite fiction that all these ARs are for hunting deer and home defense.

Similar to how the left shits on Christians but no longer draws cartoons of Mohommed, when there are clear consequences for their behavior, they can manage to stop.

Make it clear there are lines they can't cross, and they should stop trying to tap dance up to them.


Seriously though: politicians only violate the Constitution (or ethics laws for that matter) because they know there are no consequences for them.  Most of the time they won't even get voted out.  Their insider traded fortunes will not be raided to pay for court costs.  We haven't run anyone out of society on a rail for 200 years.  Why should they give a *expletive deleted*ck about the supposed limits on their power when those limits are clearly fictional.

Make limited government great again.

[JTHunter]

It's an absolute fantasy that the Founding Fathers ONLY meant muskets firing a single shot at a time but meant high speed rotary presses, radio, television, and computers/the internet when they crafted the Second Amendment.

And anyone who says that the Founders wouldn't have been cool with today's firearms is a fool. George Washington would have loved to have been able to call on the general populace for a regiment armed with black rifles.

It wouldn't even have to be those.  Any Revolutionary War soldier would have been delighted to have a more modern "lever action" rifle than their single shots.

[Northwoods]

It wouldn't even have to be those.  Any Revolutionary War soldier would have been delighted to have a more modern "lever action" rifle than their single shots.

Load on Monday,  shoot 'til Sunday.

[Pb]

The Founding fathers did know about machine guns.

Congress actually ordered 100 Belton Flintlocks, which were, I believe automatic weapons that worked on the Roman candle principle, which each round ignited the one behind it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

I think they fired eight shots.

In the war of 1812, the USS Constitution was equipped with an even more deadly machine gun, the Chamber's flintlock.  It fired a volley of 224 rounds with one trigger pull.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCuVMx5h1x0

Ownership of these machine guns was not restricted any way for US citizens, any more than cannons firing grapeshot, or hand grenades were.

Reality is irrelevant to leftist propaganda, and leftists feel not the slightest hesitation to be hypocrites.  They will lie, steal, cheat or kill to advance leftism, because the ends justify means to them.

[230RN]

I agree with so many of the sentiments expressed above, and thanks.

I would really like to hear from anyone else who's actually seen that thing.  It was on in early morning on one of the over the air TV channels.  I know I didn't dream it, but I wonder if it wasn't just a trial balloon, i.e., a "market test."  I doubt that it was a comedy sketch just stuck in with a bunch of genuine commercials.

ETA: Found it:

https://youtu.be/BDZ6ujYN610

Apparently it was a Key and Peele's sketch.  Not so G-damned funny, if you ask me.



 

[Angel Eyes]

ETA: Found it:

https://youtu.be/BDZ6ujYN610

Apparently it was a Key and Peele's sketch.  Not so G-damned funny, if you ask me.

If one watches the entire sketch, the point appears to be that going back in time to stop the Second Amendment accomplished nothing.

[WLJ]

How about a 30 shot firearm from 1659? And it was actually put into service.

Kalthoff 30-Shot Flintlock: The First Repeating Firearm Used in War (1659)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghKrbNpqQoY&t=239s

[Pb]

If one watches the entire sketch, the point appears to be that going back in time to stop the Second Amendment accomplished nothing.

Yeah, I actually thought it was pretty funny.