search
top

Half True is the Best We Ever Get

Yes, our friendly neighborhood fact checkers are at it again. The people who want to be the final arbiters of fake news struggle to even give us a half-true for something that was entirely 100% factual. Here they are “fact checking” Ted Cruz:

“Anyone know the first gun control laws in the United States?” Cruz went on. “The first Congress passed a law mandating that every able-bodied man must own a musket. That’s gun control Founding Fathers’ style.”

Apparently our steadfast journalists had never heard of the Militia Act of 1792 and had to turn to an expert. Not that I’d expect them to have heard of it, but let me Google that for you.

Seriously, if you can’t use Google, I’d strongly suggest giving up the profession of journalist and find some dank corner of a bar to hang out in to work on your drinking problem. You might find you’re more successful with that career choice.

It’s my impression that many of these people honestly aren’t very smart, and thus have no real expertise on much of anything to be pontificating on what’s true and false. What Ted Cruz said obviously wasn’t the full text of that bill, but if anyone expected he’d say:

“Anyone know the first gun control laws in the United States?” Cruz went on. “The first Congress passed a law mandating that every able-bodied man must own a musket. Well, except for black men, Indians, ferrymen employed on ferries along post roads, the Vice President, Congressmen and Senators, some federal employees, Quakers, or any other contentious objector where allowed by state law. That’s gun control Founding Fathers’ style.”

you need to get your head out of your ass. What Cruz said was an accurate summary of the Militia Act of 1792. For the most part, males of military age were required to be armed. The statement is not half true, it’s true.

8 Responses to “Half True is the Best We Ever Get”

  1. The Jack says:

    And the comments…. That’s some… heady levels of anger there.

    When not going on that Cruz is completely wrong they’re talking about banning all guns except muskets and other standard gun control canards.

  2. RAH says:

    Yep that piece of garbage fit their market per the comments

  3. Bill Twistw says:

    I’m proud to say that I have enough powder, ball, flints, and the necessary arms and accoutrements to be in full compliance of the Militia Acts of 1792 (there are two of them) at least twice over.

  4. Whetherman says:

    It also is not much discussed that the first draft(s) of what would become the Second Amendment included language that arguably would have prohibited the Militia Act of 1792, by prohibiting conscription. But, even our freedom-loving Founders knew when to hedge their bets.

    • Whetherman says:

      The following from Wikiquote provides a sample of early drafts:

      Earlier proposals and drafts of the Amendment

      And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

      Samuel Adams, (6 February 1788), reported in Charles Hale, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1856), p. 86. This language was proposed in the Massachusetts convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution to be added to Article I of that document.

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

      Original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives. original text

      A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

      Reworded version of the Second Amendment by the select committee on the Bill of Rights, July 28th 1789. AoC pp. 669).

      A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

      Draft version of the Second Amendment sent by the House of Representatives to the United States Senate, on August 24th, 1789. (Note: When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe).

      A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

      Revision voted on in the U.S. Senate, September 4th, 1789.

      A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      Final version passed by the U.S. Senate; the phrase “necessary to” was added when the proposed Amendment was entered into the U.S. House journal.

      It is perhaps arguable whether exempting “religious scruples” from militia service amounted to a blanket ban of conscription; but even at that early date I believe it could have been successfully argued that deciding what form of religious scruples were acceptable to government for exemption, was a violation of the First Amendment’s proscription of “establishment” of acceptable religion, or, “freedom of religion.”

  5. Ravenwood says:

    It’s not that they won’t use google, it’s that they want to appeal to an academic authority to make themselves sound more credible. It’s their way of saying, “Hey, our guy studies this shit, and he knows way more than Ted Cruz. He says Ted is full of bull, so trust us!”

    And you must trust that the media is correct, because they have appealed to academic authority, and really, what does Ted Cruz really know. Google can’t buy you that kind of respect.

  6. Whetherman says:

    ““Hey, our guy studies this shit, and he knows way more than [XYZ}. He says [XYZ] is full of bull, so trust us!”

    Thank God no one in our camp ever does such a thing, huh?

  7. Ravenwood says:

    “Thank God no one in our camp ever does such a thing, huh?”

    Hey, anyone can be guilty of the authority fallacy. Trust me, I’ve got a PhD in logical fallacies.

    Appeal to Authority Fallacy:
    Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
    Person A makes claim C about subject S.
    Therefore, C is true.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » How to fail at fact checking? - […] Do you even Google, bro? […]

Leave a Reply

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

top