Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The founders wouldn't have made the 2nd amendment, if they knew of today's weapons

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Many are under the impression that if the founders of the United States had known of what horrible automatic and semi-automatic weapons would be available today, they would have been more specific to include only muskets in the 2nd amendment, or wouldn't have made the 2nd amendment in the constitution at all!

Actually, not true!!

en.wikipedia.org...




In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high.


The continental congress themselves, of all people!

So you see, they had full knowledge of guns far more faster and powerful than one-shot muskets. While this gun wasn't eventually produced, it would be naive to say they had no knowledge of such weapons when penning the second amendment to the constitution. If they had knowledge of this gun, do you really think America's founders, who were some of the most intelligent men to have ever lived, would have been stupid enough to think that guns would never evolve and become more powerful than muskets?

There's a reason they kept it vague and said "right to bear arms" and not "a right to bear muskets." It's because they wanted the US Citizens to have whatever the most powerful weapon available was, no matter what it was. They wanted the citizens to be equals to the government, not servants.

Yeah, and they had horses and buggies, too. More people are killed by cars than by guns. You can have as many horses as you'd like, but dammit, our Founders didn't know you'd have killing machines for transportation!

I guess since the internet didn't exist when the constitution was written, than we can all close this website down and exercise our 1st Amendment rights through broadsheets printed on a Gutenberg press?

Let's take a modern example. Suppose some nation had just thrown off a totalitarian tyrant, like Libya getting rid of Gaddafi. What weapons did they use? Rockets, grenade launchers, missiles, bombs, tanks, automatic weapons, cannons, artillery, aircraft. Would they say, "hey, we need to keep our right to bear arms, let's make all weapons illegal except for one shot hunting weapons"? Not likely. Apply that to our Founders. They would say "hell yes, we need to keep all of these weapons. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed!"




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WP4YT
 


Oh, man, I was ready to jump into this one with both feet...until I read the body.


Excellently said and 100% true. S&F.

/TOA



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


I was as well till I read it very true.




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WP4YT
 

The founders would have further limited the federal government's ability to have weapons.

The whole point of the g-damn document was to LIMIT the power of and ensure that there would never be a giant central government.

Power was NEVER meant to be in the hands of the politicians but in the hands of the people ie the states.



edit on 10-1-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   


In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high.


That sounds like a really awesome rifle, reminds me of the Isaiah Jennings flintlock, www.thefirearmblog.com... but this sound way more intense. Its too bad there are no surviving originals of the prototype rifle you mentioned.


Let's take a modern example. Suppose some nation had just thrown off a totalitarian tyrant, like Libya getting rid of Gaddafi. What weapons did they use? Rockets, grenade launchers, missiles, bombs, tanks, automatic weapons, cannons, artillery, aircraft. Would they say, "hey, we need to keep our right to bear arms, let's make all weapons illegal except for one shot hunting weapons"? Not likely. Apply that to our Founders. They would say "hell yes, we need to keep all of these weapons. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed!"


If the men of the revolution would have given up all their weapons when commanded too, I highly doubt they would have stood a chance with farm tools and plows.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I've always had a thing for the Puckle gun 1718.
The revolving 9 shot magazine has a quick release for almost continuous fire.





posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I think if the founders could have foreseen the future, and how we would have let government grow so large and powerful, and how much freedom we have pissed away, and how deranged and immoral man has become, they would have just thrown up their arms in disgust and said, "why bother?!"

Do the people who make the technological argument for the 2nd Amendment every think into the future? What happens when arms reach the point of lasers or some other directed energy device? Will they say the 2nd amendment doesn't apply?






top topics



 
8

log in

join