I grow weary of people saying the Founders

[gopguy]

Could not have possibly envisioned the guns we have today as they only had single shot firearms... That is RUBBISH!

Repeating arms existed but were not common. The gun that really puts the lid on these anti gun arguments that the Founders could not have envisioned the repeating guns we have today is this masterpiece, The Puckle Gun of 1718. Made and used by the English the also sold some to Russia. They predate our revolution by decades and technology wonks like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were keenly aware of them. When our Constitution was ratified in 1791 I guarantee they were well aware of this already well aged arm. Examples still sit in museums in the Tower of London and as I recall they had one on display at the Hermitage in Russia. They were misdeployed as short range artillery, where they were viewed as underpowered and short of range. The designer clearly viewed it as an anti personnel weapon, suggesting they use round shot for Christians and square shot for Turks. It was clearly the inspiration if not the evolutionary great grand daddy of the machinegun. So next time some fool tells you the Founders could not have possibly foreseen what we have, tell the ignoramus to google a Puckle gun.

Here is a modern miniture model being fired with a match...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nTqV7o2jE8

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/MG/I/img/MG-1-001-11.jpg

 

[USAF_Vet]

I was thinking about this myself. They saw technological advances in firearms. They were using flintlocks, not match lit hand cannons.
They understood and were aware of the evolution of firearms technology, from the hand cannon to the matchlock to the wheel lock to the flintlock. Experimental flintlocks with multiple barrels were around in the 1600s. Experimental breach loadin weapons were already in existence, as well.

People who use this argument fail to realize that the founders did not live in a vacuum, and theirs was not the birth of firearms technology.

Pointing out technological advances related to the rest if the Bill of Rights is only icing on the cake.

 

[Grassman]

I'm pretty sure the gun grabbers would like it if we only were allowed flintlocks.

 

[CmpsdNoMore]

I was recently reading the District of Columbia v. Heller opinion written by Justice Scalia. He made the comment, as some others have mentioned, that other parts of the constitution have been applied to modern things such as telephones and cars.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

For that matter - they most likely intended to protect ordnance - just didn't spell it out.

 

[Black Knight]

They could not invision the internet, radio, and TV as well but the 1st allows them to do nearly anything they want and say whatever they want (true or not, as long as they correct it a week later).

 

[holdencm9]

There's also the volley guns. Multiple barrel "semi-automatic" in a way. Surely the founders, being the best and brightest minds of their time, could envision repeating rifles, the next logical development of what they had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_gun

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Just be careful to not assume that if you point out a logical fallacy to an anti that they'll see the error of their ways and become pro-gun. The very nature of an anti-stance is using emotion over logic. They feel guns=bad. So no amount of logical arguments that demonstrate them to be wrong are going to sway them. Of course we can prove that guns are just tools, guns don't increase crime, the Founders meant for us to have all manner of gun including military guns, etc. We can logically and factually prove ALL of these things quite easily.

Except that doesn't matter. Logical proof has no meaning to most antis. They're acting out of feeling not thought. So no amount of logical thoughts are going to change their stance.

 

[gopguy]

True, frequently they won't even hear what you say they are so blinded with emotion. All we can do is try to counter the hysteria with truth.

I was reminded by a friend of this 12 shot repeater from before our Revolution.
I wonder if 0bama and Feinstein will try to confiscate this "assault weapon" from the NRA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs4vjq6sW40

 

[MedWheeler]

I tend to follow the idea that they intended for the people to be capable of defending their own homeland with their governmental forces along with to be capable of defending their homeland from their governmental forces should those governmental forces be corrupted.
To achieve either, it would certainly have been prudent to have the people (aka "the People's Army") be able to be as well-equipped as those governmental forces. I believe the "Founding Fathers" would have had this in mind.

 

[smalls]

Some of the founding fathers were inventors. They knew things would change.