Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon
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
Well, obviously, anyone who starts with "libtards" is adept at making salient points without need to belittle the opponent, but let me take exception with his reasoning.
Nowhere does he mention, while quoting the 2nd Amendment the prefatory phrase "for a well regulated militia". Now, I know that the conservative leaning SC produced a couple of 5-4 decisions in the last decade to cement the NRA's position on this, but for a long time, this phrase was held by many to mean exactly what it says "a well regulated militia", a non standing state sponsored force to call to action when necessary.
For much of this period he describes, most militia members did not have rifles of any sort. For most, their "arms" was a club. Later, it was decreed that members of the militia had to maintain a particular firearm and other equipment.
That said, although interchangeable parts were common, mass production really didn't come about until the Civil War. Further, these weapons were a single shot, pack your own powder affair. While formidable in a line as you described, one man with a musket was not a serious threat to the population. One man with a thirty round automatic clip is.
What he has made is a false equivalency scenario. Its like saying the "wireless" and cell phones are virtually the same thing because they can transmit communications at a distance.
But, if he is for all guns being able to fire ammunition at a rate commensurate to the time period in which the 2nd Amendment was drafted, then I am all for it as well.