'Yeah, that's STUPID.' Ben Shapiro SHUT Seth Abramson and his LAME 1791 gun-control argument DOWN

Sam J. | 12:16 PM on February 26, 2018

You know, we wouldn’t mind gun-grabbers talking about guns and what we can do about gun safety so much if they actually understood a damn thing about guns. With arguments like this one from Seth Abramson, it’s no wonder so many gun rights activists spend most of their days rolling their eyes and shaking their heads at the arguments they see.

Look at this nonsense:

How about we ABOLISH private gun ownership EXCEPT for muskets—which we'd then REQUIRE for Americans over 18?

That'd be a PRO-GUN reading of what the Second Amendment meant in 1791.

Then 98.7% of us could break our muskets in half, and the 1.3% in the NRA would have A MUSKET. pic.twitter.com/ElLf36BObG

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) February 25, 2018

How about NO and HELL NO?

Now, to be fair, we think he’s joking.

Ok, we hope he’s joking.

But on the off chance he’s being serious, we’ve already heard this lame-ass argument about 100000000+ times and it’s still just as dumb as the first time we heard it. Seems Ben Shapiro agrees with us:

What if we just abolished the internet, telephones, telegraphs and all other modes of communication that weren’t around in 1791 when the First Amendment was written? No? Oh, that’s right, your argument is stupid. https://t.co/j9EeTRlNsh

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 26, 2018

Yup.

It’s really stupid.

This editor has lost count of the number of times she herself has pointed out how they only used paper and quills in 1791 so that would mean any modern-day communications made would not be protected by the first.

Which is why we REALLY hope he was just kidding.

A more honest (I know, not your cup of tea) reading of what the Second Amendment meant is "all the types of guns the government has so as not to allow it to become tyrannical."

— Jim (@Ifitsthisname) February 26, 2018