Conservative News Daily

Liberal author schooled for anti-2A rant on guns and Founding Fathers.

Novelist James Patterson⁤ Misfires with Anti-Second Amendment Rant

Renowned novelist James Patterson recently revealed to his followers that, while he may be⁤ an expert in writing fiction, he’s not so hot when it comes to history. ‌In a misguided ‌attack on ⁢the Second ‌Amendment, Patterson proved​ uninformed about our ‍American Revolution and gun laws in the U.S.

Patterson, author of thrillers including “Along Came a Spider,” played the part of a good little liberal in a ⁢Friday post where he read the minds of ​our founding fathers — and missed the ‌mark​ by a mile. ⁣His ill-defined words and ⁣lack of knowledge about assault weapons ​and ⁣firearms in⁤ the 18th century showed that he clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The writer lamented that Americans can have “machine guns” and insisted ⁤that the⁤ founders wouldn’t want “farm⁤ boys” to have​ them. However, his assertions ​are merely liberal drivel that have been debunked many times.

Firstly, ​the idea that ​only the police ⁢and military should have​ the best weaponry runs completely‍ contrary to the ideals of the very⁤ founders he invokes.​ The founders wanted ‍the “farm boys” of the ⁢nation to ⁢have similar ⁢power to a super-powerful government. So, allowing only cops and soldiers ⁢to ⁢have ‍the most up-to-date weapons is an anti-American idea.

Secondly, Patterson clearly does not know what a “machine gun”⁤ even is ⁤because fully automatic rifles are already effectively outlawed. The average person has no access at all to a true “machine gun.”

Furthermore,⁢ Patterson’s claim that the ​founders didn’t “foresee ‌assault rifles⁢ in the hands of farm boys back in the 18th⁤ century” is ‍entirely wrong. The⁢ founders wanted⁣ what​ was at the time the top-of-the-line‌ “assault rifle” in the ⁤hands of every adult who was 17 years of age ⁣and up.

The⁣ flintlock musket with attaching bayonet that Patterson⁣ references was the premier military weapon of war of the day. And the founders⁢ did not state⁤ that they wanted people to have “single-shot muskets.” They said they ⁣wanted Americans to have “firearms.” They used that more generic ⁤term because they knew full well that technology would advance and so⁣ would weapons design and manufacturing.

Others,‍ including⁤ talk show host​ Dana Loesch, quickly schooled Patterson on his misconceptions.

It’s clear that Patterson’s understanding of history and the Second Amendment is flawed. His arguments have been debunked ‍time and again,‍ and his lack of knowledge about⁤ firearms is evident. Patterson ​should stick to⁢ his world of make-believe stories,‌ as reality, truth, ‌and history are not his forte.


A ‌Note from Our Founder:

Silicon ⁤Valley and ⁤the Big Tech tyrants have done ‍everything they can to put The Western ​Journal out of business. Our faithful members have kept us going.

If you’ve ‍never chosen to⁤ become a member, let⁢ me be honest: We need your‍ help today.

I also want to send you⁣ an autographed copy of “Counterpunch,” which will give⁤ you a plan to fight ⁤back for ⁤our beloved country.

Join right ⁣now ‌ – The Western Journal stands for truth in this difficult ⁤time.

Please stand with‍ us by becoming a member today.

Floyd G. Brown
Founder of The Western Journal

How does the availability of advanced weapons ⁤in civilian hands relate​ to the balance of power between the‌ government and the people?

Ilitary. It was an early air rifle with detachable magazine, reloading with simple ‍pump action. Situation ⁤was more complicated than ❇reduced to flintlocks. It’s important to understand all weapons–primitive‍ to advanced–were ‍allowed​ in civilian hands, to match ⁤government firepower and⁤ for self-defense.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 3, ‍2023

Loesch pointed out that the founders were well aware ‍of advanced weapons technology⁢ and ​intended for the American people ‍to have access to the same‍ kind of firepower as their own government. ⁢The idea of the Second Amendment was to create a balance of power ⁤between ⁣the government and the people, ensuring that the⁤ people could protect⁣ themselves from‍ potential tyranny.

Patterson’s statement is not just ill-informed,⁤ but it is also dangerous. By‍ perpetuating false information about the intentions of the founders, he adds fuel to‍ the fire of the ‌ongoing debate on gun⁢ control. It is essential that ​we understand the historical context of the ‍Second Amendment and ⁢the reasoning behind it in order to have a meaningful discussion about firearms in the U.S.

It is disappointing to see a respected ‌novelist like James Patterson misfire ‍in​ this way. As‍ a writer, he has a⁢ responsibility ⁤to ensure the accuracy of his statements, especially when addressing such important ‍and contentious issues. By spreading misinformation, he only⁣ contributes ⁣to the division and⁤ polarization in our society.

As consumers of media and​ literature, it is important‌ for​ us to critically ⁤analyze the messages conveyed by authors and public figures. We should not ‍blindly ‍accept⁢ their opinions as fact, but rather, research and ​educate ourselves ⁤to form our own informed perspectives.

In conclusion, James Patterson’s anti-Second Amendment rant is ​a clear‌ example of a misinformed‍ opinion. His lack of historical knowledge and inaccurate claims only serve to undermine the truth and perpetuate misconceptions. It is crucial ⁤that we rely on accurate information⁤ and engage in productive discussions when addressing important ‌issues like gun control and ⁢the Second Amendment.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

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

Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker