Liberal Best-Selling Author Gets Schooled After Posting Anti-2A Rant About Guns, Founding Fathers’ Intentions

Novelist James Patterson recently revealed to his X followers that, while he may be an expert writing fiction, he's not so hot when it comes to history, after his misfired, error-filled attack on the Second Amendment. Patterson , author of thrillers including "Along Came a Spider," part of his popular Alex Cross detective series, played the part of a good little liberal in a Friday post on X where he read the minds of our founding fathers -- and missed the mark by a mile -- used ill-defined words, proved uninformed about our American Revolution, and showed he clearly doesn't know gun laws in the U.S. The writer was seen lamenting that Americans can have "machine guns" and insisted that the founders wouldn't want "farm boys" to have them. "I write about assault weapons more than I’d like to. I believe their place is in the hands of law officers and our military," he wrote to kick off his uninformed, anti-Second Amendment screed. "I honestly don’t see why anyone else needs to have a machine gun," he wrote. And, gosh darn it, he was "99.999%" sure of his assault weapons facts, don't you know? "I’m 99.999% sure that Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Washington, and the Adams boys did not foresee assault rifles in the hands of farm boys back in the 18th century, when they were writing the Second Amendment. Muskets and flintlock pistols fired a single shot in about 20 seconds," he bloviated with a pedestrian argument that has been debunked time and again. I write about assault weapons more than I’d like to. I believe their place is in the hands of law officers and our military. I honestly don’t see why anyone else needs to have a machine gun. I’m 99.999% sure that Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Washington, and the Adams boys did not…

— James Patterson (@JP_Books) November 3, 2023 Each of his anti-Second Amendment assertions -- and they are merely assertions, not facts -- are typical, 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 did not trust a super-powerful government and wanted the "farm boys" of the nation to have similar power. So, allowing only cops and soldiers to have the most up-to-date weapons is an anti-American idea. Secondly, he clearly does not know what a "machine gun" even is because fully automatic rifles are already effectively outlawed since it takes expensive licenses and strict regulations for an American to own one. The average person has no access at all to a true "machine gun." Moving on to his proclamation that he is "99.999% sure" that the founders didn't "foresee assault rifles in the hands of farm boys back in the 18th century," well, he 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. Indeed, national talk show host Dana Loesch schooled the scribbler right away. "Well, you're 99.999% wrong," Loesch wrote. "The founders would've purchased repeating flintlocks for war except for price. Jefferson owned a Girandoni rifle later adopted by the Austrian military. The Puckle gun was considered the 1st machine gun & predates the Constitution. You clearly don't know the difference between a semi auto, select fire, or full auto capabilities. To quote the great Jeff Lebowski, 'that's just like, your opinion man.'" Well, you're 99.999% wrong. The founders would've purchased repeating flintlocks for war except for price. Jefferson owned a Girandoni rifle later adopted by the Austrian military. The Puckle gun was considered the 1st machine gun & predates the Constitution. You clearly don't… https://t.co/WNVFAMtyXW

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 3, 2023 Of course, Patterson's foolishness is amusing in light of the fact that he is using a computer to post information on the Internet to exercise his First Amendment right to free speech all despite that the Founders "didn't forsee mass communications in the hands of farm boys back in the 18th century," if I may paraphrase. Holding to Patterson's absurd reading of the Second Amendment would mean he has no free speech on modern devices of communication simply because they were modes of communication invented after the Constitution was ratified. Others also blasted Patterson for his dumbed-down, left-wing drivel. "You're wrong. Of course the Founders could perceive of a future in which guns get better. During their time, gun tech was rapidly improving," Jordan Schachtel replied. "Why do I need a rifle? See: Hamas paragliders/ infinite amount of circumstances in which a community may face multiple aggressors." 1) You're wrong.

Of course the Founders could perceive of a future in which guns get better. During their time, gun tech was rapidly improving. 2) Why do I need a rifle? See: Hamas paragliders/ infinite amount of circumstances in which a community may face multiple aggressors. https://t.co/2EgppOI8s5 — Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) November 3, 2023 More joined in to blast Patterson's conceit. James Patterson knows fiction well. He does not know history. @JP_Books https://t.co/kBgYOKZlmj

— Nick Searcy, INSURRECTIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR (@yesnicksearcy) November 3, 2023 Your belief is as 99.99999 % wrong as it is 99.99999 % irrelevant as the constitution says literally otherwise. What part of “…shall not be infringed “ don’t you get?

— Species_X (@species_x) November 3, 2023 But they definitely thought same-sex marriage and abortion are protected by the Constitution.

— John David Soriano (@sorianojohnd) November 3, 2023 Finally, it's easy to bat down the left's argument that "well-regulated militia" means a militia that is controlled by government regulation. At the time, "well-regulated" simply meant organized and in order. It did not mean controlled by government rules and regulations. In fact, the founders did not really intend the creation of the regulatory state that we have today where the federal government writes rules for how we should lead our daily lives. On top of that "the militia" was the same as "the people." In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision was the right call. The Second Amendment is not a semi-right meant only to be exercised if you are serving in a "militia." It is an individual right meant for each citizen, 17 and over, to be able to exercise at will. James Patterson needs to stick with his little world of make-believe stories because the fields of reality, truth, and history are not his forte.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .