Quotes Misattributed To Founding Fathers Included In Gun Rights Bill
68 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49687894]Automatic and semi-automatic weapons did exist back then. The entire point of arming a populace is to give them a means of fighting against a professional military (domestic or foreign). It is not for hunting, it is not for home defense. It isn't about an armed uprising, it is about an armed resistance. If someone imposes on your unalienable rights, the 2nd amendment is the one that allows you to defend said rights yourself. Not the police. Not the government. You have the right to make that choice for yourself.
I honestly really can't stand the "Well all they had were muskets so that's what it applies to," or whatever argument. Automatic weapons systems existed already. The musket was the modern day equivalent of the M16 or AK variant rifle, an infantryman's weapon. It was the most prolific and efficient weapon of the era, and they wanted the common man to have them too. You can infer, if they intended for the people to bear arms equal to what professional infantry troops were using, that the people should be able to match an infantryman's firepower as weapons evolve.[/QUOTE]
Without at at least a small group of men the smoothbore musket, which relied mainly on mass volleys of fire, was only really useful as a hunting tool, the same can't be said about modern "equivalents".
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49687970]the firearms which broke this rule were typically expensive or difficult to use pieces utilized by trained specialists, and rarely by common people. the american war wasn't won by farmers and militias using muskets to take potshots at redcoats - it was with well-armed professional soldiery who were disciplined and made good use of arms and tactics[/QUOTE]
It took time for those professional soldiers to be recruited, equipped and trained. Until that point, Gen. Washington made do with an army comprised mostly of militia. It might not have performed well. Hell, they spent most of their time digging fortifications, only to retreat.
Regardless, without that force, the revolution would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. The continental congress would have all been arrested or put to flight, Franklin would likely have never made it to France to negotiate for support, and the last two centuries of history would be radically different.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49684980]lmao[/QUOTE]
That reminded me of this picture:
[IMG]http://cdn.thewire.com/img/upload/2013/01/09/trust.jpg[/IMG]
Which if you take a look from another perspective, it means that if even some of the world most evilest people opposed this, it means that it's too horrible for them to even allow.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49688045]It took time for those professional soldiers to be recruited, equipped and trained. Until that point, Gen. Washington made do with an army comprised mostly of militia. It might not have performed well. Hell, they spent most of their time digging fortifications, only to retreat.
Regardless, without that force, the revolution would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. The continental congress would have all been arrested or put to flight, Franklin would likely have never made it to France to negotiate for support, and the last two centuries of history would be radically different.[/QUOTE]
the point is that the rebellion would have failed without the use of professional soldiers
as romantic as the notion is, generally a disorganized rabble of people (even if well-armed) doesn't make profitable ground for the opposition of tyranny
if the USA really became despotic and the only hope for salvation were the gun-nut militias, they'd seize control of the country and then squabble amongst themselves and tear it apart in a bloody civil war. i don't trust the argument that guns are needed to defend oneself from tyranny because ordinary people armed with guns need not be subjugated through force - the tyrant could even convince them to go and shoot the "real" enemies who threaten the nation (like those mexicans who keep coming over the border)
[QUOTE=Jintei;49688071]That reminded me of this picture:
[IMG]http://cdn.thewire.com/img/upload/2013/01/09/trust.jpg[/IMG]
Which if you take a look from another perspective, it means that if even some of the world most evilest people opposed this, it means that it's too horrible for them to even allow.[/QUOTE]
That's funny because if I remember correctly Hitler actually improved gun rights for German citizens during/near the end of his reign
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49688092]That's funny because if I remember correctly Hitler actually improved gun rights for German citizens during/near the end of his reign[/QUOTE]
Its also just factually wrong. Castro, Stalin (armed partisans), and Hitler deregulated firearms. The Cuban constitution even gives cubans the right to bear arms.
All the above dudes also owned slaves and didn't give their slaves the right to bear arms.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49688083]the point is that the rebellion would have failed without the use of professional soldiers[/QUOTE]
You're missing my point. I never disagreed with this statement, militia do suck. What I'm trying to say is that without them, the revolution would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. They bought time for the continental government to work out the logistics of raising a professional army. They might not have done much more than exchange a few shots with the British and break contact, but those militia kept them occupied and prevented them from exerting unchallenged control over the colonies.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49688129]Its also just factually wrong. Castro, Stalin (armed partisans), and Hitler deregulated firearms. The Cuban constitution even gives cubans the right to bear arms.
All the above dudes also owned slaves and didn't give their slaves the right to bear arms.[/QUOTE]
Gotta love sourceless infographics
I'd assume Maverik was referring to the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun"]Puckle Gun[/URL] (an ultimately failed project, but imo one that left a legacy and impact), and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle"]Girandoni air rifle[/URL], both precursors to automatic and semi-automatic weaponry.
The Founding Fathers weren't ignorant, I'd say they had an inkling of an idea where firearms and gun technology would be going in the future.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49688143]You're missing my point. I never disagreed with this statement, militia do suck. What I'm trying to say is that without them, the revolution would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. They bought time for the continental government to work out the logistics of raising a professional army. They might not have done much more than exchange a few shots with the British and break contact, but those militia kept them occupied and prevented them from exerting unchallenged control over the colonies.[/QUOTE]
The problem with that though, is that the militias that are around today are certainly not the type of people i'd see as helpful to a rebellion against tyranny at all. If anything they would aid it because a lot of them are already insane groups of inbred hicks who want to go back to the days of lynching black people and putting women in the kitchen. The general population would probably even support the state squashing these militias. When it would come to organizing a resistance against the government, these militias would probably also end up causing a lot of headaches after the revolution too - for they would certainly contest the new system in some capacity.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49688183]The problem with that though, is that the militias that are around today are certainly not the type of people i'd see as helpful to a rebellion against tyranny at all. If anything they would aid it because a lot of them are already insane groups of inbred hicks who want to go back to the days of lynching black people and putting women in the kitchen. The general population would probably even support the state squashing these militias. When it would come to organizing a resistance against the government, these militias would probably also end up causing a lot of headaches after the revolution too - for they would certainly contest the new system in some capacity.[/QUOTE]
You're implying the "militias" today (if you could even call them that) would be the only ones formed if the U.S. was in some sort of resisting tyranny situation. I'm sure some actual organized militias would form that weren't detrimental to the situation at hand, and they would probably squash the hicks.
Point is, the people today that call themselves militias are just a bunch of tards, and probably wouldn't survive a day in any sort of actual resistance scenario
And just for the record, I honestly doubt any such situation or scenario will happen in the near future
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49688092]That's funny because if I remember correctly Hitler actually improved gun rights for German citizens during/near the end of his reign[/QUOTE]
He did, early on actually. The Weimar Republic previously had more restrictions than the Third Reich did. And then when it was evident that the war was lost, the government armed and drafted people into the Volkssturm (also activated children in the Hitler Youth) in late-1944 as part of a last ditch effort to inflict as many casualties on Allied and Soviet forces as possible. Endsieg ("final victory" in spite of such horrifically unfavorable odds) was never a realistic idea however; all this move led to was a bunch of people dying unnecessarily, and Germany was defeated in the end anyway (although the main reason Hitler did it was because, in his view, the German people had proved themselves weak and did not deserve to live, so why not make them fight to the death and kill as many of them off and as many enemy troops off at the same time as possible?). Little boys and old men never had a chance of winning, even when they did have decent weapons, as if that wasn't obvious.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1971-033-15,_Vorbeimarsch_des_Volkssturms_an_Goebbels,_Berlin.jpg[/t][t]http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/highres_30002711%20copy.jpg[/t][t]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oIAhQMTG-dU/S9KQnTT9A6I/AAAAAAAAEKE/ejli9vo0oxI/s1600/volkssturm-ww2-second-world-war-history-pictures-incredible-amazing-images-photos-003.jpg[/t][t]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/55/b1/98/55b198f316daa0915950da33249de0c8.jpg[/t]
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory]Nazi gun control theory[/url] is bullshit, as plenty of historians and sensible people will tell you. As far as the Jews are concerned, they never had a chance of fighting back successfully for their lives and winning. Hell, when they did have access to firearms and modern weaponry of that time and did try to fight back, they were slaughtered anyway (i.e. the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising]Warsaw Ghetto Uprising[/url]), and the Germans took negligible casualties.
But all this doesn't fit the pro-gun narrative that open access to weapons will somehow make you into a superwarrior that can fight off anything. You might have had a chance in the old days, but modern warfare is scientific, strategic, and technological. You can't win this way anymore.
If we are making up quotes from American history
"We have nothing to fear but the heavily armed stranger that walked in the front door"
-not Roosevelt
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49688239]You're implying the "militias" today (if you could even call them that) would be the only ones formed if the U.S. was in some sort of resisting tyranny situation. [/QUOTE]
America doesn't need people like the Oregon occupiers to preserve democracy. Americans elect people and have an army populated by people that value democracy.
[QUOTE=MR-X;49687997]No different then the anti-gun folks sadly, they usually ride on the backs of dead kids though...both extremes of each side make everyone look bad.[/QUOTE]
I'm pro-gun but I can't really support this emotional sucker punch of an argument. When people are dying because of an issue people generally look for solutions to that issue. I don't agree with people who call for things like a magazine capacity limit or an assault weapons ban but I'm not going to accuse them of "standing on the grave" of people who suffered from a tragedy because they are trying to figure out ways to fix it. It just seems like a really underhanded ad hominem to me.
[QUOTE=Jintei;49688071]That reminded me of this picture:
[/QUOTE]
Obama expanded gun rights. Why is he in there? Were they looking for US presidents that passed gun control legislation and got him mixed up with say, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act"]Ronald[/URL] [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html"]Reagan[/URL]?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49688732]Obama expanded gun rights. Why is he in there?[/QUOTE]
Because the Republican misinformation campaign was stronger in the last decade than pretty much ever.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;49687301]Honestly, the situation of 250 years ago isn't really equivalent to the situation now.
We don't need another armed uprising, the second amendment is a little outdated. They didn't have fully automatic killing machines in the 1770s. There needs to be some restrictions.[/QUOTE]
But, there actually were one or two types of automatic weapons, just very primitive, one was called the puckle gun
[QUOTE=Billy-Bobfred;49690065]But, there actually were one or two types of automatic weapons, just very primitive, one was called the puckle gun[/QUOTE]
[quote=Wikipedia]The Puckle gun was fired in a similar fashion to a conventional flintlock musket; however, after each shot, a crank on the threaded shaft at the rear would be unscrewed to release the cylinder to turn freely. The cylinder would then be advanced by hand to the next chamber, and the crank turned back again to lock the cylinder into the breech of the fixed barrel. The flintlock mechanism could then be primed for another shot: it was triggered using a lever which was separate from the crank assembly.
To reload the weapon, the crank handle could be unscrewed completely to remove the cylinder, which could then be replaced with a fresh one. In this way it was similar to earlier breech-loading swivel guns with a detachable chamber which could be loaded prior to use. The cylinder appears to have been referred to as a "charger" in contemporary documentation.[/quote]
[quote=Historic UK]A single-barrelled flintlock weapon fitted with a multi-shot revolving cylinder, this portable revolver-type gun was mounted on a tripod. At the time the gun was patented in 1718, a musket could be loaded and fired 3 times a minute. The vastly superior Puckle Gun fired nine shots per minute and was the world’s first machine gun.[/quote]
Nine shots per minute. Manually operated. The most common definition of an automatic weapon is one able to extract a spent cartridge and load a new one with little, if any, involvement from the operator.
And even if you could call the Puckle Gun an automatic weapon, you can't really compare it to, let's say, a M1919 or a Gatling Gun.
As I said on the previous page, both that and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle"]Girandoni Air Rifle[/URL] were the grandfathers to modern firearms and gun. To say that the Founding Fathers had no idea where guns could possibly go doesn't make muh sense because of that. They weren't ignorant, sure, they weren't perfect. But they were not ignorant.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49690495]As I said on the previous page, both that and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle"]Girandoni Air Rifle[/URL] were the grandfathers to modern firearms and gun. To say that the Founding Fathers had no idea where guns could possibly go doesn't make muh sense because of that. They weren't ignorant, sure, they weren't perfect. But they were not ignorant.[/QUOTE]
So everybody, all of the hundred or so delegates at the constitutional convention were aware of one type of rare and expensive gun and based all of the 2nd amendment on that.....
BTW the founding Fathers had jackshit to do with the 2nd amendment, it was the later constitutional convention, of which only a handful of them attended that they wrote the 2nd amendment
[QUOTE=bdd458;49690495]As I said on the previous page, both that and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle"]Girandoni Air Rifle[/URL] were the grandfathers to modern firearms and gun. To say that the Founding Fathers had no idea where guns could possibly go doesn't make muh sense because of that. They weren't ignorant, sure, they weren't perfect. But they were not ignorant.[/QUOTE]
It's honestly a bit of a stretch, even grabbing at straws to claim that the guys who wrote the constitution had a few types of expensive and rare guns that were difficult to use and unreliable in their mind when they wrote it.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49688143]You're missing my point. I never disagreed with this statement, militia do suck. What I'm trying to say is that without them, the revolution would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. They bought time for the continental government to work out the logistics of raising a professional army. They might not have done much more than exchange a few shots with the British and break contact, but those militia kept them occupied and prevented them from exerting unchallenged control over the colonies.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I've been saying. I never said a ragtag militia could oppose an organized military effectively. However, they are pivotal in the sense that they are required to get the professional help. A resistance force in the US would get STOMPED, but their presence alone would likely spur UN involvement in the conflict. Without formidable firearms, they would never get off the ground in the first place, and professional help would never arrive. Would the French still have helped us if we were armed with pitchforks?
[QUOTE=bdd458;49688175]I'd assume Maverik was referring to the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun"]Puckle Gun[/URL] (an ultimately failed project, but imo one that left a legacy and impact), and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle"]Girandoni air rifle[/URL], both precursors to automatic and semi-automatic weaponry.
The Founding Fathers weren't ignorant, I'd say they had an inkling of an idea where firearms and gun technology would be going in the future.[/QUOTE]
Yep. I also never said the musket was some crazy awesome killing machine. It sucked, but it was the best thing around at the time. People keep ripping shit out of context and it's ridiculous. Back then, a musket, to the people of the time, was a weapon of high lethality. Hunters didn't even use traditional muskets, they used rifles which were smaller bore but much more accurate, more suited for killing game. A comparable argument to the time would be, "The people don't need muskets, they should just be allowed to keep rifles which are better for game but not as good for warfighting." But you don't see that anywhere. The founding fathers distinctly wanted the people to have military-grade weapons for defense of their liberty.
[editline]7th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49690765]It's honestly a bit of a stretch, even grabbing at straws to claim that the guys who wrote the constitution had a few types of expensive and rare guns that were difficult to use and unreliable in their mind when they wrote it.[/QUOTE]
The point is that they knew experimental firearms that were automatic and semi-automatic were present, being logical men it isn't a far stretch to say they knew weapons would eventually head in that direction. We aren't the ones grasping at straws here.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49690765]It's honestly a bit of a stretch, even grabbing at straws to claim that the guys who wrote the constitution had a few types of expensive and rare guns that were difficult to use and unreliable in their mind when they wrote it.[/QUOTE]
It's a bigger stretch, [I]definitely[/I] grasping at straws, to claim that the guys who wrote the constitution never once thought "Look at the matchlocks that existed a couple centuries ago and the muskets of today, ours are definitely faster and more effective. Imagine what they're going to be in another century or two. I know not what the future entails, but I bet their guns are gonna be some crazy shit."
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49691016]The point is that they knew experimental firearms that were automatic and semi-automatic were present, being logical men it isn't a far stretch to say they knew weapons would eventually head in that direction. We aren't the ones grasping at straws here.[/QUOTE]
except as pointed out before, automatic firearms and semi-automatic firearms didn't exist then
i don't know how you can say this, because the first guns capable of doing that didn't exist until america had already been independent for over a century
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49691075]It's a bigger stretch, [I]definitely[/I] grasping at straws, to claim that the guys who wrote the constitution never once thought "Look at the matchlocks that existed a couple centuries ago and the muskets of today, ours are definitely faster and more effective. Imagine what they're going to be in another century or two. I know not what the future entails, but I bet their guns are gonna be some crazy shit."[/QUOTE]
there was almost no improvement to firearms between 1500 and 1800. yeah they got a little bit more accurate, you could reload them slightly more easily, and the flintlock was an improvement, but ultimately a soldier in the napoleonic wars couldn't fire much faster or much more accurately than an arquebusier of the 16th century
The Girandoni was in serice in the Austrian army starting in 1780, all the way to the end of the Napoleonic Wars. It's primary drawbacks were the construction of the air resevoir and the amount of pumping it required (about 1500 pumps for a full reservoir). It had a hopper that could fit about 30 rounds.
However, it being in service in one of the premiere western armies of the era, it really isn't a stretch at all. It was an indication of what was to come and to say that no one that helped draft either the constitution or bill of rights didn't know what it was or where gun technology could possibly go is stupid and actually grasping at straws.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49691016]The point is that they knew experimental firearms that were automatic and semi-automatic were present, being logical men it isn't a far stretch to say they knew weapons would eventually head in that direction. We aren't the ones grasping at straws here.[/QUOTE]
You can only say this with confidence because of the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy]historian's fallacy[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49691110]there was almost no improvement to firearms between 1500 and 1800[/QUOTE]
This is a joke, right?
[QUOTE]yeah they got a little bit more accurate, you could reload them slightly more easily[/QUOTE]
Not only that's a colossal understatement, those are pretty big improvements. Especially considering accuracy and rate of fire were among the biggest issues of early firearms.
[QUOTE]but ultimately a soldier in the napoleonic wars couldn't fire much faster or much more accurately than an arquebusier of the 16th century[/QUOTE]
The Napoleonic-era soldier was carrying around a weapon that was far, FAR more reliable, light, and easy to operate. Plus faster and more accurate enough to make a noticeable difference. An arquebusier would see the other soldier and think "that cunt from the future has a damn fine gun".
Also you haven't addressed the main claim, where Madison and his pals maybe had enough braincells to realize guns would change and evolve over time.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49690577]So everybody, all of the hundred or so delegates at the constitutional convention were aware of one type of rare and expensive gun and based all of the 2nd amendment on that.....[/QUOTE]
Jefferson gave the Lewis and Clark expedition a Girandoni air rifle. They absolutely were aware of weapons beyond the Brown Bess musket. And they certainly weren't idiots unable to countenance the idea of gun technology improving.
Nobody argues that the Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen the Internet or television and therefore the First Amendment is outdated and needs to be restricted (for your safety).
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49691400]Not only that's a colossal understatement, those are pretty big improvements. Especially considering accuracy and rate of fire were among the biggest issues of early firearms.[/quote]
it took roughly half a minute for an arquebusier to reload and fire in the 16th century, with an effective range of about 50-100 metres
the napleonic infantryman took maybe a few seconds less to reload (mainly because of drill, the advent of paper cartridges, etc), and had an effective range of about 50-100 metres
in terms of firearm technology there was very little change throughout much of the early modern period. the napoleonic soldier had less in common with the soldier of ww1 than he did with an arquebusier from the italian wars of the 16th century
[quote]The Napoleonic-era soldier was carrying around a weapon that was far, FAR more reliable, light, and easy to operate. Plus faster and more accurate enough to make a noticeable difference. An arquebusier would see the other soldier and think "that cunt from the future has a damn fine gun".[/quote]
the arquebusier (especially if he had a wheellock) would be interested in the bayonet but that's really about it
[quote]Also you haven't addressed the main claim, where Madison and his pals maybe had enough braincells to realize guns would change and evolve over time.[/QUOTE]
except as pointed out earlier this is the historians fallacy
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49691453]the arquebusier (especially if he had a wheellock) would be interested in the bayonet but that's really about it[/QUOTE]
...and the weight. And the far more convenient reload. Maybe even the rifling depending on the musket. Something that was invented way before the Constitution, and was revolutionary by itself. I could go on.
[quote]except as pointed out earlier this is the historians fallacy[/QUOTE]
Which doesn't really apply in this context, as per
[QUOTE=catbarf;49691436]Jefferson gave the Lewis and Clark expedition a Girandoni air rifle. They absolutely were aware of weapons beyond the Brown Bess musket. And they certainly weren't idiots unable to countenance the idea of gun technology improving.
Nobody argues that the Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen the Internet or television and therefore the First Amendment is outdated and needs to be restricted (for your safety).[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.