Quotes Misattributed To Founding Fathers Included In Gun Rights Bill
68 replies, posted
The Flintlock was a huge jump from the Matchlock and Wheelock. It enabled a lighter, easier to make and use gun to be produced.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49685668]I have never seen the quotes in the article. There's plenty of other actual quotes from the founding fathers that support firearm proliferation amongst the common person.
For example, Franklin DID say
Jefferson DID say,
It's dumb that they crammed in a bunch of misattributed quotes in a damn bill, but it's pretty cut and dry that the founding fathers meant the entire populace when creating the 2nd amendment. That, on top of the amendment being analyzed and broken down by actual English experts (not Supreme Court justices) with the result saying the amendment claims all people are the militia and therefore have the right to bear arms, it amazes me how there's people out there who still think it is up to interpretation.
I like how people talk about Hitler, saying the Nazi party actually deregulated firearms, but they gotta throw in the (except for with the Jews) as if it doesn't radically turn their point upside down. Would the Jews still have been massecred if they had a bunch of guns? Probably, times were different back then. The advantage of the Nazis was they worked fast, the Jews didn't have time to communicate and form up some kind of resistance even if they wanted to. Also, the process was relatively slow and ramped up, a lot of Jews cooperated at first because the oppression wasn't too severe, by the time they were on a train to a camp it was too late to fight back. Russians massacred by Stalin couldn't fight back because they were untrained. They might have known how to shoot a rifle to hunt, but they didn't know much beyond that. Many didn't even know what a tank was. They were poor, uneducated, untrained, no lines of communication, they didn't know what was happening until it was too late.
But ask this question, if the people massacred in Russia had the internet and guns back then, would it have gone so smoothly? Same for the Jews, would they still have been herded like sheep into ovens? Considering a ragtag number of French with stolen, beaten up, and homemade weapons were a thorn in the side of the Axis forces in that theater, the common man with a rifle had more influence than one might think.
The point of arming a populace is not to win, it is to resist. Our government could easily oppress us in the grand scheme of things. But there would be resistance. Small pockets, nothing that couldn't be stomped out, but "AMERICAN ARMY MASSACRES OWN PEOPLE," would be on the headlines of newspapers around the world. Would the UN just let us rip our own people apart? What happens when a drone drops a missile on an American school, "DRONE STRIKE KILLS 300 CHILDREN," thinking it was a rebel operations area? How much do you honestly think it would take before the rest of the world rises up against the tyranny?
Guns will not tip the scales themselves. They don't have that kind of power. What they do have, however, is the ability to enhance a common man's bravery. There are people out there who would charge a fully armed and geared up soldier with a butter knife if they had to, but that kind of bravery is rare. The average man will not fight unless he has a means of doing so. Give him a rock to throw at a Humvee, he will drop it and comply with orders. Give him a semi-automatic rifle with armor piercing rounds, he is far more likely to bear his teeth and defend his liberty. Will he succeed? Probably not, the odds are against him. But that's the engame to all of this, that's the entire point of the right to bear arms. It is better to have the CHOICE to fight or not than to have it made for you. It puts your life in your hands, you can run, you can comply, or you can fight. Taking arms away and telling people, "Just let them rob/violate/oppress you, they *probably* won't kill you if you don't resist," takes away their choice to have control over their own life. The government will probably win if it wants to oppress us, but we have the right to fight back if we wish. Unarmed populaces are at the mercy of their oppressors.[/QUOTE]
This. One thousand times this.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49691529]...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.[/quote]
the point is that the actual practical benefits of this changed little
it still took a soldier up to roughly half a minute to reload and fire a gun, with a range of 50-100m, which were only effective in massed volleys
up until the mid 19th century, guns outside of this area were typically expensive, difficult to use, or unreliable pieces that ordinary people never used
even those existing doesn't excuse somebody starting automatic weapons existed in the 18th century, which is very obviously false
[quote]Which doesn't really apply in this context, as per[/QUOTE]
they also believed that society was going to remain a predominantly agricultural one, and that the united states was going to be a relatively sparsely populated continent for many centuries. when they did the Louisiana purchase it was thought to hold enough land for many more years of population growth. when the country was founded, it was a cluster of agrarian colonies living on the edge of the continent
they had literally no idea about the industrial revolution and other future changes, the impact it would have on american society, economics, politics, religion, law,etc
it's why at least a few of them suggest replacing the constitution every generation - you have little idea of what a future society will be like. assuming the second amendment in the 21st century should be interpreted according to what is thought an 18th century interpretation speaks to me more of an america that's starting to be restrained by old customs and laws, much like the old feudal leftovers they sought to escape in the first place
[editline]7th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=bdd458;49691564]The Flintlock was a huge jump from the Matchlock and Wheelock. It enabled a lighter, easier to make and use gun to be produced.[/QUOTE]
the bayonet had a bigger impact
The bayonet impacted tactics, and the flintlock impacted the actual construction and ease of use of firearms. It's not really comparable.
I personally hate it when people use quotes from famous people in a conversation. Just because somebody famous said it doesn't necessarily mean it's true, I don't care who it is.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49691529]...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.
Which doesn't really apply in this context, as per[/QUOTE]
The only difference in the matchlocks and wheellocks of the 16th century and flintlocks was the action, the way a spark reached the powder, everything else pretty much stayed the same with a little trimming to reduce weight and make more comfortable. A soldier using a matchlock would not have seen a flintlock as some sort of advanced technology, wheellocks/snaplocks coexisted with matchlocks throughout their history of use, matchlocks were simply the cruder more mass-produced of the two.
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;49692460]I personally hate it when people use quotes from famous people in a conversation. Just because somebody famous said it doesn't necessarily mean it's true, I don't care who it is.[/QUOTE]
America has deified its founding fathers. People seem to forget that they were basically slaveowners that aimed to create a system where the elites would always hold the power.
[QUOTE=nox;49692502]The only difference in the matchlocks and wheellocks of the 16th century and flintlocks was the action, the way a spark reached the powder, everything else pretty much stayed the same with a little trimming to reduce weight and make more comfortable. A soldier using a matchlock would not have seen a flintlock as some sort of advanced technology, wheellocks/snaplocks coexisted with matchlocks throughout their history of use, matchlocks were simply the cruder more mass-produced of the two.[/QUOTE]
According to DK/Smithsonian [I]Firearms: An Illustrated History[/I] (all information in this post is taken from this book), a matchlock held a piece of smoldering match-cord and was use into the 17th Century, although had mainly fallen by the wayside. Because of the match-cord, and their general unwieldiness they were soon surpassed by better designed guns with better mechanisms. The lit match-cord of a Matchlock also posed a serious safety concern for the user, and matchlock weapons could not be concealed. Their design also made them prone to misfire and the match-cord could be extinguished.
After that came the wheel-lock, but there were a few issues with it. First they were expensive due to the craftsmanship that was needed to be put into the manufacture. This was because the mechanism itself was far more complex. As well, it was easily put out of order (jammed easily) and was difficult to repair. A big problem especially since the Iron Pyrite used for the mechanism wore out quickly.
But then came the Flintlock. The Flintlock was a far more simple, robust design that allowed it to be easily and cheaply made, be able to handle wear and tear, and if broken could be repaired easily. It was the every man's gun, cheap and reliable.
"Just the action" means a whole lot of evolution. It may not seem like much to us, but just in terms of economics and usability the differences were huge. It made the guns easier to use, easier to maintain, and a whole lot more reliable. Sure, matchlocks, wheel-locks, and flintlocks all existed within the same general period, but the Flintlock Musket because the premier gun for a reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.