I don't really understand this, the second amendment was talking about muskets, a far cry from assault weapons, what is all the outcry abut?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't really understand this, the second amendment was talking about muskets, a far cry from assault weapons, what is all the outcry abut?
The puckle gun was invented in 1718 and was the first "machine gun". The second amendment was written by people who knew of the existence of the puckle gun, and who were not so stupid as to think that weapons technologies would not advance in the future. The second amendment is meant to protect the right of American citizens to arm themselves on an individual basis with such weapons as are conventionally available.
The Puckle gun was fired in a similar fashion to a conventional flintlock musket; however, after each shot, a crank on the threaded shaft at the rear would be unscrewed to release the cylinder to turn freely. The cylinder would then be advanced by hand to the next chamber, and the crank turned back again to lock the cylinder into the breech of the fixed barrel. The flintlock mechanism could then be primed for another shot: it was triggered using a lever which was separate from the crank assembly.
To reload the weapon, the crank handle could be unscrewed completely to remove the cylinder, which could then be replaced with a fresh one. In this way it was similar to earlier breech-loading swivel guns with a detachable chamber which could be loaded prior to use. The cylinder appears to have been referred to as a "charger" in contemporary documentation.[2]
This is obviously a lower rate of rounds per minute than modern semi-automatic rifles are capable of, yet if the founding fathers knew of the existence of this technology, don't you think they could have foreseen the advancement to what we have now? They were, after all, a bunch of inventors.
Maybe they did know or maybe not, I for my part had never heard of this weapon, which I doubt was much used, it was British and they had a tough time winning any wars in that century.
Because it was speaking of the rifles at the time and I’m sure they had enough foresight to undstand things will evolve to a degree else they would have only specified muskets. That’s like saying the first amendment only protects old English vs the changing and evolution from proper Queens English if you will to what we have today. That’s what they spoke then, so we are splitting hairs on that if you ask me.
The second amendment was talking about military weapons including cannons. To them, it wasn't the style of firearms, it was the ability to resist tyranny, and you do that with effective and modern weapons.
What would you consider to be tyranny? As far as I can see, and through all the history books I have read tyranny is one of the constants in any country in the world including the US, and nothing much has been done about it, even with all the weapons owned by individuals.
So you're saying Use them or lose them? You'd make a great tyrant.
No, you're saying that weapons are to resist tyranny, just what do you think the IRS is?
The only reason that the government does not behave like that of say, the Venezuelan or Cuban government,you know jailing and executing political dissenters, is that the US people are armed. Let's keep that deterrence in place, lest we fall to genocide by our government. When a government Does become tyrannical, you won't have to sit around wondering if it happened yet. You'll know. What sparked the revolutionary war was government soldiers attempting to confiscate civilian firearms.
Well here’s the thing, once you lose them and if, not will, if shit goes south you are certainly never, never getting them back. So I hope everyone is damn good with baseball bats if things were to ever go bad.