Jump to content

"Machine guns" and the 2nd Amendment


Recommended Posts

Most of you have heard the oft-repeated lefty comment that the Founding Fathers, in writing the 2nd Amendment, did NOT intend for civilians have automatic weapons. Or, they claim (again falsely) that the FFs could not have anticipated the technological advancements in firearms.

Well, now you can tell those antis to "stuff it" as there was a "machine gun" developed and patented in 1718 by a British lawyer and inventor. Named after him, it was called the "Puckle" gun.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest, though its operation does not match the modern use of the term. However, the Puckle gun was never used during any combat operation or war. Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns.

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/the-pu...300-years-ago/

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryU...r-Defense-Gun/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also had a 20 shot repeating air rifle in the late 1700's

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

 

Caliber .46, 210 grains (13.6 g)

Muzzle velocity about 500 fps (152 m/s), 117 ft lbs (159 J)

Feed system 20/21 round vertical hopper

 

With a full air reservoir, the Girandoni air rifle had the capacity to shoot 30 shots at useful pressure. These balls were effective to approximately 125 yd (114 m) on a full air reservoir. The power declined as the air reservoir was emptied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also had a 30 shot repeating air rifle in the late 1700's

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

I could have used that in the mid 70s. If we only had the internet then. I think it was in existence and called ARPANET.

Almost as old as me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing to indicate "arms" refered on to hand held firearms. The British matched on Concord to confiscate canon, ball and powder.

Too long ago courts stole the power to interpret and enforce statutes based on their personal wishes not on the author's meaning and the words common meaning of the time.

There used to be a sharing of power between the three branches of government. Today the supreme court has supreme power. This word be ok if they did not steal legislative power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The private ownership of canons has always been my response to the musket argument. And just as a modern rifle has evolved with technology, so has modern artillery. If one can afford modern artillery one should be able to own modern artillery.

 

Can you imagine an open carry march with trucks towing privately owned howitzers?

The global internet, a smart phone, and social media remain more dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing to indicate "arms" refered on to hand held firearms. The British matched on Concord to confiscate canon, ball and powder.

Too long ago courts stole the power to interpret and enforce statutes based on their personal wishes not on the author's meaning and the words common meaning of the time.

There used to be a sharing of power between the three branches of government. Today the supreme court has supreme power. This word be ok if they did not steal legislative power.

 

 

The private ownership of canons has always been my response to the musket argument. And just as a modern rifle has evolved with technology, so has modern artillery. If one can afford modern artillery one should be able to own modern artillery.

 

Can you imagine an open carry march with trucks towing privately owned howitzers?

The global internet, a smart phone, and social media remain more dangerous.

The simplest argument, is it doesn't matter if they didn't envision them.

 

What they DID envision was the ultimate need for the 'people' to be the final 'check' on all 3 branches of government AND a standing, governmentally controlled military, under said governments control.

 

The ONLY way that that is feasible, is if the 'people' are able to be armed with all arms, of the times, thus the 'shall not be infringed' clause. One can not be that check, with muskets, or bolt action, or just x and Y, if the government has so much more. Point of fact, imho, there should be no limitations on ACTUAL 'Assault Weapons' with actual select fire.

 

Now, the above is the 'absolutist' standpoint. We also have a changed world, with additional threats (terrorism) and a much larger society. So, it is easy, to see restrictions against criminals, etc. After all in the FFers day, any convicted criminal of a crime sufficient to keep arms out of the convict's hands was punishable by hanging. So, problem solved. Not the case today.

 

All, 'arguments' they use, about not foreseeing lethality, blah, blah, stems from an erroneous starting point, that the 2nd Amendment is NOT the above, but for hunting, or personal protection from bad guys only, or a government supplied 'militia'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned above regarding cellphones, internet and liberals equals this;

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13350456&postID=7497784692851554073&page=1&token=1525708579065&bpli=1

Wilding Season Opens

And the media gives it exactly ZERO coverage. But Crime in Wrigleyville and Boystown does:

At least four people were injured and two arrests were made after a large group of teenagers went wild near Chicago’s historic Water Tower on Saturday evening, according to police and witnesses.

 

Security at the Water Tower Place shopping mall reported the first sign of trouble around 8:20 p.m. Fifty teenagers were said to be involved in a fight near the mall entrance at 845 North Michigan Avenue.

 

Police summoned an ambulance for an injured juvenile.

 

As the shopping mall incident mellowed, sparks flew again less than a block away near the landmark historic water tower and Jane Byrne Plaza.

 

Fifty "teens" in the initial fight. How many at the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
The private ownership of canons has always been my response to the musket argument. And just as a modern rifle has evolved with technology, so has modern artillery. If one can afford modern artillery one should be able to own modern artillery.

Can you imagine an open carry march with trucks towing privately owned howitzers?

The global internet, a smart phone, and social media remain more dangerous.

That.

 

I can't recall the reference, but I recall reading about a civilian ship captain asking permission to have cannons on his ship and was basically told that he had the same right to defense as did the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That magazine is the "LWW catholic weekly" not representative of real Catholics.

 

Not really targeting any one group, just saying the new dialog is "repeal the 2nd ammendment". It just so happened that showed up in Google image search.

 

At that point you aren't going to be able to debate any nuances of "shall not be infringed", the old timey meaning of "well regulated", and who the militia is.

 

We've basically won every argument on a national stage, anyone with half a brain and the internet can clearly see what the founding fathers meant by the 2nd due to the immense volumes of work written on it even going back to natural law pre constitution.

 

The left who prides themselves on being "educated" quickly learned it wasn't ancient scripture open to interpretation. Any deviation from that literal meaning outed hastily written editorials by supposedly educated journalists as not knowing what they were talking about.

 

So now the counter argument is repeal the 2nd ammendment. It's literally all they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It still kills me the average Swiss citizen can get a machine-gun and suppressor, but the in America too that is too 'free' to allow.

The average Swiss male citizen has to serve a mandatory term in the armed forces, unless physically or mentally disqualified, when they're 20 years old (although they can volunteer as young as 16), then has to serve a mandatory term in the reserves (to 35 years-old for enlisted, 50 for officers). Supposedly about 20% of 20 year-old males from urban areas are physically disqualified (i.e., can't run 100 meters without falling down).

 

The average Swiss female citizen can volunteer for the same deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they've actually recently put restrictions on this. I can't remember, but either the gun or the ammo has to stay at the armory.

The EU has highly restrictive (relative to the US) gun laws. Although Switzerland is not a member of the EU, it is signatory to the Schengen Treaty, which allows free travel around Europe without passports, border inspections, etc., so Switzerland has to adopt similar gun laws or leave the Schengen Treaty. They're probably not going to leave the Schengen Treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with the intent of the people having weapons of war.Part of a functional militia would be modern arms so you could fight a modern army.My belief is that civilian ownership of all crew-served weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Before 1968 you could legally (some required a stamp), and you know what? Not a single one killed anyone on American soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with the intent of the people having weapons of war.Part of a functional militia would be modern arms so you could fight a modern army.My belief is that civilian ownership of all crew-served weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Before 1968 you could legally (some required a stamp), and you know what? Not a single one killed anyone on American soil.

 

 

Before 1934, you could buy a machine gun BY MAIL. With no background check.

 

Number of school shootings before 1934: ZERO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If you see such comments online, ask the person offering them if they wrote it with a quill pen and sent it to the website owner's address via horse post.

 

Ask them if their phone - either landline or cell - or computers are exempt from the 4th Amendment. Surely radios and televisions aren't protected, right?

 

Are the printers owned and used by the Trib and NYT are exempt from the 1A? After all, the impression press of the day could run 4-6 ppm, not the 1-2,000,000 ppm "high capacity assault printers" in use today.

 

No, and not just because "OMG GUNZ!!!" makes it "different".

 

As the late Justice Scalia so eloquently offered in the Heller decision:

 

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think the whole noise about 'machine guns' actually hinders our cause , not helps it.

before I worry about this, I want "assault weapon" BS gone forever as uncontitutional, same with our sisters and brothers who live in may issue states where right to carry is effectively denied.

our opponents spend decades and wasted no tragedies to try to connect 'scary black rifle' to machine guns, etc ignoring that semi auto is semi auto and AR-16 clone is no more scary than any hunting rifle..

 

let us extend Heller protection to long rifles and remove those restrictions, remove all assault weapon BS, etc.

 

swinging for the fences may get you facebook likes but you lose. I want us to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...