HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Flintlock muskets...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:17 AM

Flintlock muskets...

Fucking flintlock muskets. That's basically the only type of firearm a person could acquire when the 2nd amendment was written.

Ruminate on that for a moment.

A gun that fires a single round, that requires no less than a minute to reload another SINGLE round. With ammunition that consists of a heavy ball that most likely stops in the first body it hits.

I've fired a flintlock before...the recoil damn near knocks you on your ass and you can't even see the target you've just fired at through all the smoke. Reloading takes forever and a great amount of skill...I'm glad I never had to reload one of those things in a war.

The authors of the Constitution had no idea of the technology of the future, and I can bet they never envisioned the "right" for anyone to acquire guns that can fire several rounds in a few seconds, with a single bullet being able to cut through several bodies before stopping.

That's why the founding fathers made the Constitution a living document...they knew it would have to change with the times.

21 replies, 1830 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Flintlock muskets... (Original post)
tex-wyo-dem Dec 2012 OP
Hugabear Dec 2012 #1
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #2
tex-wyo-dem Dec 2012 #3
intaglio Dec 2012 #8
needledriver Dec 2012 #17
intaglio Dec 2012 #21
Brother Buzz Dec 2012 #4
tex-wyo-dem Dec 2012 #5
Brother Buzz Dec 2012 #9
tex-wyo-dem Dec 2012 #20
Brother Buzz Dec 2012 #7
intaglio Dec 2012 #10
jody Dec 2012 #6
world wide wally Dec 2012 #11
missionkam Dec 2012 #12
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #15
TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #13
Historic NY Dec 2012 #14
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #16
LibertyLover Dec 2012 #18
jmg257 Dec 2012 #19

Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:19 AM

1. The founding fathers wanted people to have weapons available to soldiers at the time

That's why we should be allowed to own fully-automatic machine guns, grenade launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, artillery, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:20 AM

2. And the same with information technology, the internet on lead type

- I would be a slave
- Only rich white males could vote

How far back do you want to take the originalism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:23 AM

3. Exactly! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:37 AM

8. Do you actually know the point you are trying to make?

The rights to life and liberty are in the Constitution; but there is still capital punishment, imprisonment and restrictions on travel.

Slavery is covered by the Constitution but the inequity that caused slavery was amended.

The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights as is the right to free speech; both are open to amendment and also to reasonable legislation regarding them. Free speech is abridged; you cannot issue slander without sanction and you cannot incite treason or racial hatred; the right to bear arms is also abridged - try walking into a courtroom with a concealed weapon if you are not part of the security of the Court.

In the cases of both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms the technology has changed and legislation has changed with them. It is now regarded as illegal to incite treason against the USA from without the USA - even if you are a US citizen. Equally it is seen as unreasonable to permit child pornography over the internet.

Only in the case of gun rights do advocates for the gun industry scream for both "original intent" and "unchanging interpretation" and ignore the right (not enshrined in the Constitution) to live without fear, either that imposed upon them by those who bear arms or the fears incited by the manufacturers to sell their weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:58 AM

17. "The rights to life and liberty are in the Constitution"

Where?

Could you please point this out to me? I haven't been able to find it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:48 AM

21. Sorry, Declaration my error n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:31 AM

4. The Girandoni Air Rifle predated the second amendment

and it was a twenty shot repeater.

I know, picky, picky, picky

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:53 AM

5. So what was the general availability of the...

Repeater to the general populace? How expensive was it, etc? Doesn't seem it was too available since I don't recall it being use to a great extent in those times.

I mean, I could go buy an F-1 racecar if i could afford it, but...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:38 AM

9. I guess my attempt at jocularity failed miserably

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:23 AM

20. oh jeez...

It was pretty late when I wrote this, so please excuse my not recognizing your joke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #4)


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:43 AM

10. ... and required 1,500 pumps to fill the reservoir

Lost pressure pretty rapidly (even without firing), was mechanically so complex that jamming was a given and was so expensive that only governments and wealthy sponsors could afford to have them.

Yes, very picky. C- try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:55 AM

6. Read DC v Heller and all the submitted briefs and you will begin to understand. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:40 AM

11. Once again, we only had a militia because we didn't have a standing army and as a new nation,

we did have enemies. Mainly the British.

Moral of the story... If you want an assault weapon, join the standing Army.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:14 AM

12. You have it backwards

 

A citizenry able to form a ready militia was to serve as a localized defense & as a counter to the power of a standing army. Read the writings of the period, and of the people involved and less media talking points.

-Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to missionkam (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:47 AM

15. In that case, here is what we got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:40 AM

13. One common battle tactic was to have...

one or more lines of guns each firing a fusillade and when everyone had their shot rush in with a bayonet charge. There was rarely enough time to reload, even if they had reloaders behind the lines working their asses off.

Cannon was more useful, and at close range it was bayonets and swords. Not much different from olden days with pikes and swords.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:42 AM

14. A Ferguson breech-loading musket was one of the more advanced assault weapons of the period

Ferguson's luck ran out at Kings Mountain or things might have been different, for us (US). Precussion conversioned muskets weren't even invented until 1833 for the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:30 AM

16. Cannons. You could own them then and you can own them now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:00 AM

18. Actually, British front line troops could load and fire a musket 3 to 4 times in a minute

- granted they couldn't keep that rate of fire up for very long, but they didn't need to because after several volleys, you went after the enemy with your bayonet. Poorer trained troops could still fire twice a minute. I've fired both a Brown Bess type musket and a rifled musket and while the recoil was there it wasn't that bad. It certainly didn't knock me on my ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:18 AM

19. Besides understanding the wisdom in reucing the need for a large standing army, the FF also knew

That 'the restrictions, no matter how strongly marked on paper, will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public'.
James Madison


Get We the people to agree that infringments are necessary, and, just like with the militia clause, the 2nd once again won't hold much weight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread