Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Another counter to 2ndAmendment = Muskets?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by OLDNEWBIE, Aug 7, 2014.

  1. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    I'm getting sick of the anti-gun snobs pointing out how the writers of the 2nd Amendment could have had no idea how far weapons could advance in the future. What contempt they must have for this Country and these great men.

    Some of the Founding Fathers were amateur scientists, inventors and dabbled in cutting edge mechanics, astronomy, optics, clock making, agricultural fields and the like! They actually had successful careers and pursuits outside of politics, unlike todays sorry politicians they had to earn a living of their own!

    These men were true forward thinkers in a time when things were rapidly advancing and The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.

    You can't tell me that people of that time weren't talking about repeating rifles as the next evolution in firearms.
    Things like this don't happen overnight, they start out as an idea or a need and the trial and error begins!


    The Girardoni Air Rifle was an airgun designed by Tyrolian inventor Bartholomäus Girardoni circa 1779. The weapon was also known as the Windbüchse ("wind rifle" in German). Maybe the first, maybe not? I'm sure other drawings of other repeating rifles existed well before but never were made.

    Yeah I know, an awkward repeating air rifle is a far cry from full or even semi auto but we're talking about what these people envisioned that was a possibility on the horizon of firearms advances.

    Anyway I'm gonna try and use this argument instead of the also good, "right to bear technology of the 1700s means right to bear arms of today's tech too!" just to shake things up a bit!
     
    SIG383, Qjay and Dornai like this.
  2. timac

    timac Loading Magazines! Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    An 18th Century Machine Gun

    On this day in 1718, James Puckle was awarded a patent from His Majesty's government for this strange device:

    PuckleGun.gif
    Designed for shipboard use in repelling boarders, his gun could fire 63 shots in 7 minutes. Remember, the late Queen Anne's newfangled Brown Bess musket could only manage 20 in the same time. And the Brown Bess wasn't 125 caliber (37mm).

    All right, it's not a machine gun in the modern sense, as Hiram Maxim would have described. But this was in 1718. The King was King George. The First. You know, the one who didn't speak english much and who was buried in his native Germany.

    You just know that Vulcan was smiling down from that great Arms Room in the sky when that patent was granted, even if they only made a couple of prototypes.
     
    OLDNEWBIE and Qjay like this.
  3. Qjay

    Qjay Vancouver, not BC, Washington, not DC Active Member

    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    51
    I want one of those Girandoni Repeaters!
    I've had a crush on it for a year now, lol

    In all fairness, there are actual gunpowder repeaters as well, these both were well-known at the time

    The Kalthoff Repeater:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater

    And the Cookson Repeater:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater

    Both of those were from the 1700's.

    There are others. Repeating rifles were popular, and common to read about in the papers. Everyone already knew they would revolutionize warfare.
     
    OLDNEWBIE and Qaolin like this.
  4. Riot

    Riot Benton County, Washington Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,047
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    In the days of artillery, cannons, fire barrels, bombs...

     
    Qjay likes this.
  5. ZA_Survivalist

    ZA_Survivalist Oregon AK's all day.

    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    5,766
    Alright, if thats their defense they should have no trouble with me OCing a musket EVERYWHERE I go.

    Somehow.. Im quite sure those bigots would still have an issue with it.

    They wont be happy until every firearm is banned.

    In our defense, they in turn cannot use any digital media outlets. Period. Its a fair trade. Again, Im quite sure they wont play by that rule either.
     
    Qjay and Jamie6.5 like this.
  6. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,204
    Likes Received:
    4,419
    Before you allow anyone to jump on "the musket theory of the 2nd Amendment" bandwagon, remind them that the 1st Amendment involved parchment, a quill pen and an inkwell. Or standing on a stump near the town square, raising one's voice so that all attending might hear the message.
    So if they want to posit the "musket" theory, tell them they must do so with hand-written posters tacked up on trees and lampposts, or find a nearby tree stump, rock or podium, and clear their throat.

    That line of thinking dictates that using a computer and the internet will not be tolerated, much less allowed, when putting forth such a message.
     
    jbett98, USMC-03, Stomper and 4 others like this.
  7. Qaolin

    Qaolin 1 A.U. from a G2 near Beaverton Old Army Cook Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    bnsaibum and OLDNEWBIE like this.
  8. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    6,968
    The Second Amendment talked about "arms" and to be armed.

    This wasn't just about muskets, it was about every other "arm" that an army/militia could arm themselves with.

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide a balance of power that the people be as well armed as the government. This is apparent when you read the history and philosophy behind the Second Amendment - not to mention the text.

    This right, the right of the people to defend themselves against oppression, to revolt against an oppressive or tyrannical government, is what the Second Amendment is about - not duck hunting, not personal defense - but the populace being able to fight a "standing army" (which the Founding Fathers very much opposed).

    Hence the inclusion of the word "militia".

    The militia is also meant to help in the defence of the country should we face exterior invaders.

    So it is clear the intention of the Second Amendment is to have the private citizenry as well armed as any armed government force. That includes full auto, grenades, cannon, tanks, etc. - all of which are legal and should remain legal - indeed, they should have less restrictions on them than they do.
     
  9. lucifermonkey

    lucifermonkey Portland, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    254
    Amen.
    Even by the restricted interpretation found in United States v. Miller, militia weapons are defined to be those "in common use at the time".

    Anything issued to our military troops as "standard" equipment should be considered as "in common use".
    I believe that was the intention of the Second Amendment and our Founding Fathers.

    These idiots can go shove a musket up their . . .
     
  10. 1337BaldEagle

    1337BaldEagle Earth Active Member

    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    225
    Did you all know that Lewis and Clark carried a Girardoni Air Rifle with them as they made their trek? Did you know they stopped and showed every Native American tribe they came across? Did you know that Lewis attributed in his journal that the reason they didn't have a single issue with Native Americans was because of the "awesome" power of the rifle, how fast it could shoot, and how quiet.

    And here is a link to the NRA's history speal about the rifle:


    Eagle
     
    Qjay and Qaolin like this.
  11. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    Wow, there's even better evidence than I thought that people were developing repeaters back then and the writers/signers of the 2nd Amendment would have been well aware.

    Thanks for the info on the Puckle, Kalthoff and the Ferguson. Now I'll know what I'm talking about when I encounter the "musket argument" all the anti's harp on.

    If only back then they had developed pistol grips, flash hiders and other "evil assault style" accessories on those crude repeaters, then maybe we could get the anti-gun crowd to understand.
     
    Qaolin likes this.
  12. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,078
    Likes Received:
    377
    owned

    constitutionargument.png
     
  13. timac

    timac Loading Magazines! Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    redo.png
     
    BoonDocks36, Stomper, Riot and 2 others like this.
  14. M. D. Van Norman

    M. D. Van Norman Thurston Co. Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    22
    Who cares? These “snobs” are wrong, and the U.S. Supreme Court proved them so in D.C. v. Heller. QED.
     
  15. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    Unfortunately It's not "case closed" for a lot of the anti-gun voting public, and they like Hillary. What type of Supreme Court Justices will she be picking?
     
  16. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    At least she's up front about it!
     
  17. AMProducts

    AMProducts Maple Valley, WA Jerk, Ammo Manufacturer Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    2,805
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    So you want to defeat the android with logic? It might work, however the progressive statist arm flapper will quickly start doing the impression of a seagull as a torrent of tears shoot sideways from their eyes, and your ears will begin to bleed at the shrill refrain "but what about the children".

    As far as Hilarity goes, the politics of this country would be so out of whack were she to even be nominated much less carry the election. However, given that the republicans don't even seem to realize that we're currently in an election year doesn't inspire much confidence that they will find their land legs and actually win elections in the next few years. They seem as unwilling to present themselves as an alternative as the democrats are willing to run the same empty suits with nebulous agendas and questionable leadership skills.

    It boggles my mind...
     
    RW-Ore likes this.
  18. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    6,968
    As for what the republicans are doing...

    68908_824664987552051_480911425749898015_n.jpg?oh=cc7355bb7dd653869feca3d358e9571c&oe=544A743A
     
  19. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,204
    Likes Received:
    4,419
    Saying don't vote republican OR democrat doesn't do it for me.
    There needs to be a viable alternative.

    "Doing nothing" accomplishes nothing, just like it always has.
    When enough people on one side of the political spectrum follow that line of thinking, the other side wins.
     
    Stomper likes this.
  20. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    6,968
    I have this strange philosophy when it comes to voting for who I want in office - I vote for the person that I want in office, not for the person most likely to win.

    Generally that results in my voting Libertarian, or maybe independent. Rarely does it result in my voting for a Republican or a Democrat.

    In short, I don't vote for the lesser of two evils.

    I am just weird that way. o_O

    As for voting for somebody just to vote for somebody - that gives them credibility that they don't deserve. If I don't support what they *actually* want to do (which is usually NOT what they say they want to do), then I don't vote for them.

    Again - just me being weird.