Joe Scarborough: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect ‘Weapons of War’

[jimnyc]

I detest this man and his little woman friend. Dunce. Ignorant. Stupid. These people are CLUELESS about guns and just close their eyes to complain and whine - about things they are too afraid to learn about. And it's annoying as fuck knowing that the IDIOTS are the ones wanting to make decisions for the entire nation. When a child can prove them and their scare tactics wrong.

https://i.imgur.com/GxbNMDM.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/1ta8SKF.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ILiG4x1.png

https://i.imgur.com/DWHEcsR.png

---

Joe Scarborough: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect ‘Weapons of War’

MSBNC host Joe Scarborough voiced support for the Second Amendment on Sunday, but stressed it does not protect “weapons of war,” by which he meant AR-15s.

In a series of tweets Scarborough suggested the AR-15, a civilian rifle, is deadlier than the M-16, a military rifle.

The AR-15 is semiautomatic, which means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. The M-16 has a fire selector switch which allows the rifle to be switched between semiautomatic and automatic fire. In automatic fire mode the M-16 will fire as many rounds as are in the magazine with a single pull of the trigger.

Yet Scarborough suggests the AR-15 is deadlier than the M-16 and described it as “weapon of war.”

Scarborough tweeted that the AR-15 “was far deadlier than the M-16 used in Vietnam.”

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2019/03/18/joe-scarborough-2nd-amendment-doesnt-protect-weapons-of-war/

[jimnyc]

More idiocy from Jo Jo, but this happens on a daily basis from him.

---

Scarborough Refuses to Accept Fact Checks of His False Gun Claims

MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough seems to believe the definition of a liar is anyone who does not agree with him. In a conversation about reaching voters on Twitter and Facebook, Scarborough recalled, "I saw it yesterday in a particular debate I was having on Twitter. Not really a debate, I was putting out historical facts, facts that couldn't be debated and you can tell, people just read what they want to read, they go on Facebook, they read the lies and they believe the lies and that becomes their reality."

The debate Scarborough was referring to was about the AR-15 in the aftermath of the New Zealand mosque shootings. In particular, Scarborough tweeted in part, "Those suggesting the AR-15 was NOT a developed as a weapon of war should read up on history." He then linked to an article in The Atlantic by James Fallows entitled "M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story." He finished off his initial thread by saying that the Supreme Court in the Heller decision did not extend "to guns designed as weapons of war."

This led to many tweets and multiple articles critical of Scarborough. David Harsanyi of The Federalist criticized Scarborough's source, "Writers like James Fallows have, for years, been misleading readers about the history of the AR-15, purposely conflating it with the military M-16." Harsanyi also gave a history lesson of his own, "ArmaLite and its parent company Colt, marketed the AR ('ArmaLite Rifle') directly to the civilian marketplace in the early 1960s—before its more powerful version was adopted by the US military."

Scarborough retweeted a tweet from a supporter that contained a screenshot of Wikipedia falsely describing the AR-15 as an "assault rifle," but unwittingly for both of them, also pointed out that the weapon was "adopted by the United States Armed Forces as the M16 rifle" as opposed to being designed for the military and then for civilian use, as was Scarborough's original argument.

Firearms expert Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon also gave a detailed thread about the history of the AR-15 and its lethality as compared to the M-16. When confronted by a Twitter user that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, not an automatic one for military use, Scarborough doubled down and told the user to "Read. Be better. Be best."

As for the "weapon of war" contention, National Review's Dan McLaughlin pointed out the obvious: that all weapons are designed to kill and thus could be used in war and that historically, "Muskets were designed as weapons of war." Scarborough, ever the voice of intellectual reason, replied, "Boy, you got me there, Dan."

Scarborough's arguments were bad and the evidence to back up those arguments was, to put it politely, flimsy.

Rest - https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/alex-christy/2019/03/19/scarborough-says-if-you-disagree-him-you-must-be-liar

[CSM]

Yeah cuz the Constitution's Second Amendment states the right to bear arms .... except for those designed as weapons of war ....

By the way, the Heller decision never mentions "weapons designed for war".