I stole this from another board I visit:
Did the framers of the U.S. Constitution intend for the 2nd to protect a citizens' right to keep & bear an "assault weapon"? I've heard so many libtards say "'they couldn't have meant military weapons that are rapid fire, designed to kill people, should be in private hands". Not true. That's exactly what they meant. I'll prove it.
In the time period that the BOR was written, there were 3 types of long guns. A shotgun (smoothbore, firing multiple small pellets for "gaming" - shooting birds & small game for food), a rifle (ala Kentucky long rifle... rifled barrel, firing single projectile with a good degree of accuracy, used for big game hunting), and musket (smoothbore, firing single projectile, poor accuracy, shorter barrel than rifle, but faster loading... used almost exclusively by military).
The gun of choice for military use was the musket. It was 3-4 times as fast to reload than the rifle. The barrel being a smoothbore, projectile fit wasn't as important as that of a rifle, where fit must be tight to engage rifling for accuracy. It was much easier (thus much faster) to ram a lead ball down the loose fitting, shorter, musket barrel. Accuracy wasn't important neither, because military doctrine in those days was volley fire by a line of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder... shooting at another line, also standing shoulder to shoulder... shooting back. Shots taken were bound to hit someone in the line, so the outcome of the battle was determined by who could fire the most shots in the least amount of time.. without flinching. Today that'd be called "spray & pray". Muskets were also the only firearms to have a bayonet fixture and a specific bayonet, meaning they were meant for hand to hand combat. Those bayonets weren't for sticking pigs.
The "assault weapon" of the colonial days was most definately the musket. The 2nd doesn't read "The Right to Bear Arms (except military muskets) Shall Not Be Infringed". Not being excluded, they were included. The musket had only one use in those days... rapid volley fire at other human beings, and hand to hand combat with other human beings. IOW, they were their "battle rifles". They weren't good for hunting. Shorter barrels (desired for rapid reloading) didn't burn all the powder resulting in lower velocity, and no rifling meant poor accuracy beyond 40-50yds. Hunting had nothing to do with the 2nd anyway, so rifles and shotguns used for hunting were NOT what they had in mind to protect, but were not excluded neither. They weren't afraid of "tyrannical deer" or "invading turkeys", so the 2nd was written to protect the private ownership of muskets... the battle rifles of the day.
Posted via Mobile Device