Did the Founding Fathers intend…

[Ben86]

Back then the civilians were the military, so yeah I think it's safe to say they expected your average citizen to have a "military rifle."

 

[Harley Quinn]

I believe the 2nd along with the 3rd and 4th A's...Are to be looked at with protection of the civilian population against, the Army taking over homes, etc...

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

As far as the Arms needed for civilian vs military, those who represent a threat, are treated pretty rough and will continue imho...

Individuals as a rule needed rifles, shotguns and handguns...
Cannons were not a normal item, in a house hold

Small hand held bazooka type weapons would be good...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka

Semi-auto is my preference, and good long distance shooting (Bolt) rifle, is a must...Handgun is a given...

Regards

 

[femoralis]

Copied from a similar thread:

Trench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."


That should answer your question.

 

[millertyme]

To say that the Founders would not have envisioned a more efficient way of fighting is absurd. They were knowledgeable enough to have seen the evolution from the rock to the sling to the gun(remember David and Goliath), the spear to the bow and arrow, the catapult and trebuchet to the cannon and howitzer, etc. To think that they didn't envision their contemporary means of combat evolving to a standard of higher efficiency and greater magnitude is a fallacy of the left. The French used a repeating air rifle in the 18th century that could fire more than 30 rounds per minute. Go Wiki "Air Gun" and look at the history. To say that they also would not have imagined a high capacity magazine is also dispelled.

I think a lot of the legislation is aimed at not just disarming citizens, but coercing them to follow the leader and convince them that the leaders know what's best for them. I would be willing to bet most politicians think they know what's best for the people and think the people look to them for protection. If people would take a higher level of accountability for themselves and the world around them we might all live in a better world, kind of like the one the Founders envisioned would come about by men being free and acting like it. They probably imagined a world where people were able to obtain lands to become self sufficient. Do you think that the founders envisioned supermarkets? Walmart? So does that make them unconstitutional? Welfare? Social Services? Public Education? A $13 trillion deficit? Borrowing money every year instead of finding a way to pay off our debt while working hard to support ourselves? I know I'm getting off topic, but the anti's use the same type of argument to say why we don't need high capacity handguns, fully-automatic weapons, and WMD's. Farmer's used to be able to buy dynamite at local hardware stores to blast stumps when clearing land. I don't know if they still can but it wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Back in the late 1700's I doubt very much if our forefathers envisioned fully automatic weapons with multiple high capacity magazines

Back in the day, the word "arms" included things like cannons and mortars. Privately owned cannons were used by the American revolutionaries.

Oh, and then there were these things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_Gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_gun

It's important to remember that the powers held by the government are delegated to it by the people. One cannot delegate what one does not have the right to do. Nor does one give up the right by delegating it. If the people do not have the right to possess machine guns and artillery, than neither does the government.

I've become interested in the concept of a constitution being a "living document" in that it's exact specifics to the letter are not meant to be written in stone but allowed to be adjusted as the world changes.

If the meaning of the document is open to interpretation, it has no meaning at all. The Constitution is a legal document, and like all legal documents, there supposed to be only one correct interpretation.

 

[One-Time]

The FF intended the civilian populace to be as well armed as the Military, and to aid the military as needed

 

[chaplain tom]

The FF's were pretty smart characters. They were visionarys. At least one of them was a pretty famous inventor. Ben Franklin was bringing new technology to the people on a regular basis. There were even some who were gun smiths. At the time our founding documents were being written, there were things like a crude flame thrower, exploding cannon balls were improving by leaps and bounds, there was a crude submarine in use during the revolution, and firearms with rifled barrels were replacing the smooth bore musket. Since there is NO mention of the type of arms we had the God given right to "Keep and Bear" in any of those founding documents and most importantly, in the Bill of Rights, we must assume that they knew and intended for the people to have modern military weapons. They were involved in one of the biggest industrial booms in history. Technology was growing as fast then as it is now. They knew that weapons were improving and would continue to improve, so if they had any reservations about the types of weapons the people were suppose to have a right to, and probably more important to this discussion, those we shouldn't have a right to, why then, didn't they specify such reservations in the founding documents?

 

[danprkr]

The point of the second amendment is not the gun but the principle of defense. The quality of the gun is a variable, but the principle is a constant. Any deviation from this is but an excuse to circumvent the Constitution.

Amen brother!

 

[SpaceFrank]

Someone earlier in this thread asked why you would even want to own a military-grade assault rifle. If you really must know, I'd love to own one because it would be fun as hell to shoot!

But that's not really the point, is it? I could just as well ask why you would want to own a fast sports car or an expensive yacht. You shouldn't have to justify your hobbies as long as you are practicing them safely. In the right hands, a full-auto M16 is no more dangerous that a bolt-action rimfire rifle.

This is supposed to be a free country, where we don't infringe upon the rights of the many because of the irresponsibility of the few. You have your rights UNTIL you prove you don't deserve them, which is why violent criminals can't buy guns at all.

 

[Webbj0219]

Would our nation’s service rifle, the M16, not be considered the standard of our time just like the .69 caliber Charlivel musket was back then?

They had much less to choose from back then. They were also against standing armies. I think the reasoning behind these was to insure the people would maintain the abillity to revolt when the time comes.

But then again I think we are beyond the age of revolution. I doubt the people in this country or any other undustrialized nation would revolt even if they had the means.

 

[Gouranga]

Spacefrank, you also reach a point though where you have to consider public safety. Imagine what a full auto M16 would do in a heavily populated area in the hands of an untrained fellow with enough money to buy one. In the stix is one thing cause you only endanger yourself and that IMO, is you right to do. The founding father did absolutely expect weaponry to advance, I wonder though if they would have even considered how far it would go. You would have a hard time accidentally loading a musket and an AD would result in a single shot not the potential of a full magazine of ammo being fired through a building.

We know from experience that in a heavily populated area you are going to encounter more folks who will not take the personal responsibility to train and they will injure or kill many people in these types of areas. Yeah they will do the same with a semi or bolt action but the scope of damage will be significantly reduced.

My dilemma is I believe we SHOULD absolutely be allowed to own an M16. Absolutely. It is standard issue arm for our troops the 2A was designed to allow the populace to defend themselves from foreign invasion and from their government run amok. If your standard semi-AR was effective enough, our troops would be issued them instead of M16s. So I think we should be allowed them but something needs to be done to address public safety and training. The question is, who makes up the training, and how do we track that someone has had it? How do you do any of that and not get a federal registry? That is something I cannot answer. I can't think of a way to do it. So I am left with 2 competing issues both of which, IMO, need to be addressed.

 

[12131]

By awgrizzly:
The point of the second amendment is not the gun but the principle of defense. The quality of the gun is a variable, but the principle is a constant. Any deviation from this is but an excuse to circumvent the Constitution.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[SaxonPig]

Since the 2A was intended to keep militiamen armed, it most likely meant that citizens could be prepared to report for duty bearing shoulder arms appropriate for military service. To me this would include ANY shoulder fired arm that an individual would carry.

Banning FA firearms has zero affect on crime.

 

[devildave31]

Couldn't agree more.

Arms is an incredibly vague term to be used by Lawyers and Politicians. If the FF's intended to limit the types of Arms, I think they would have made the distinction.

 

[buck460XVR]

To say that the Founders would not have envisioned a more efficient way of fighting is absurd.

I don't think anyone here is saying that FF thought that technology and firearms would not progress, but that they couldn't envision what that technology would be in 235 years. Night vision scopes and shoulder held surface to air missiles. Nuclear bullets that "burn" their way thru 1/2'' steel. Smart bombs guided by satellites in space. Heck, simple repeating rifles were still 80 years away. Yes, the Founding Fathers had vision, but they could not see into the future. Just because one says this does not mean they are anti 2nd amendment.

This thread has been an interesting read and an enlightenment to how others interpret our RKBA. Similar to many of the threads here on THR, many posters think their opinion is the only correct one and feel the need to dish any other opinion that does not mirror theirs. But hey, that's cool, cause that's what the 1st amendment is all about.

In reading this thread and doing other research to properly define my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I came across this statement, which gives a good perspective....and I quote.

Having been oppressed by a professional army, the founding fathers of the United States had no use for establishing one of their own. Instead, they decided that an armed citizenry makes the best army of all. General George Washington created regulation for the aforementioned "well-regulated militia," which would consist of every able-bodied man in the country.

 

[awgrizzly]

Perhaps the most amazing thing about this country is individualism. That's what liberty is all about and what sets us apart from others (individual liberty vs collective freedom). Liberty is the ability for an individual to do what he/she wishes, apart from the masses, to pursue happiness, provided we don't interfere with the welfare of others. But with liberty comes danger, and danger requires defense.

It's the difference between a creature in a zoo, safe and secure with the necessities of life, and a creature roaming free with only the security and necessities it can provide itself. So which would we choose... which would make us happy? There is a reason the movie "Born Free" brings a tear to the eye. The answer is obvious.

People elsewhere live a different life than we do. Many are sustained by their keepers (the nanny state). We on the other hand strive to sustain ourselves, exposed to the hazards of life. It's what we choose, and liberty requires choices. Whether or not arms should include machine guns, air craft carriers, and A-bombs is our choice. Should we choose to draw the line at semi-autos, we are at liberty to do so. I think that's what our founding fathers intended. They did a fine job.

 

[12131]

Quote, by devildave31:

Originally Posted by 12131:
Couldn't agree more.

Arms is an incredibly vague term to be used by Lawyers and Politicians. If the FF's intended to limit the types of Arms, I think they would have made the distinction.

So, we are in agreement. Not sure if you are trying to make another point.

 

[devildave31]

I tried to copy the post you replied to as well, but it didn't copy. I was agreeing with the original comment you agreed on, by extension agreeing with you. just one of those awkward "Fail" moments I guess.

 

[goon]

I think we get confused by the original intent of the Constitution. It was meant to create a strong central government that had certain express powers delegated to it.

At the time of its creation there was a debate between the Federalists, who wanted strong central government, and the anti-Federalists, who really feared it.
In one of the Federalist letters the Federalists argued against creating a bill of rights. They feared that if they created one the people would eventually come to believe that they only had those rights specifically listed in the bill of rights when instead, the people were supposed to enjoy all rights that neither the Federal or state governments had been given power to interfere with.

Now we look at the Constitution and say "the individual has the right to keep and bear arms; it says so right here in the Second Amendment." And that's correct.
But more importantly, the power to prevent us from owning arms isn't specifically granted to either state or Federal government anywhere.

So yes, I believe they intended for us to own the same type of small arms that were in use by the military. Evidence of this - there were fusils and commercial muskets with bayonet lugs available at the time for anyone to buy, so you could obviously have a nearly identical weapon to what the individual line soldier was carrying. Furthermore, privateering wasn't unheard of - meaning that owning your own heavily armed ocean going ship wasn't unheard of either.
So I'd say that they at least expected civilians to have access to the same small arms, artillery pieces, and explosive devices commonly available to the military. One could even make an argument that attack aircraft, armored vehicles, and possibly even naval vessels should be covered.

you also reach a point though where you have to consider public safety. Imagine what a full auto M16 would do in a heavily populated area in the hands of an untrained fellow with enough money to buy one. In the stix is one thing cause you only endanger yourself and that IMO, is you right to do. The founding father did absolutely expect weaponry to advance, I wonder though if they would have even considered how far it would go. You would have a hard time accidentally loading a musket and an AD would result in a single shot not the potential of a full magazine of ammo being fired through a building.

A mistake loading a musket could result in a burst gun, which would be rather like a hand grenade and could injure or kill a lot of people. Additionally, imagine the consequences of getting too close to a fire with your powder horn. Black powder can be very unforgiving stuff - at least as much as a loaded M-16. To the best of my knowledge, there was not any training requirement involved in purchasing a musket or black powder. I actually think that people just accepted that there was a certain amount of inherent danger involved with living at that time. You could get gored by a bull and die of infection. You could get scalped by the Indians if something angered them sufficiently (and sometimes even if it didn't). Or the guy next to you could fail to seat the ball deep enough and his gun could burst, killing you. Or, as you charged your musket directly from the horn a spark could set off the pound of black powder in your hand, killing you and everyone around you. It was just how life was. I think the emphasis on "safety" is largely a modern thing that would have been foreign in many ways to the Founders.
With freedom comes risk. You can't have it both ways. IMO, based on my admittedly limited study of the American Revolution and its aftermath, I believe the Founders wanted the individual citizen to be able to arm himself as well as a regular soldier was armed - if he could afford it.

 

[wrs840]

George Washington owned several cannon personally, and he had friends who personally owned private frigates that were armed to the teeth. I believe the clear intent was that a citizen could and should be free to own anything they could acquire in order to be properly prepared to defend their person, their loved ones, and their nation.

Les

 

[goon]

Probably not. But their rate of fire was three shots a minute if they were hurrying.

Yeah, but with a round ball and a handful of buck shot in the bore, what would the real rate of fire be? Meaning how many projectiles does that actually put in the air?
My Bess will alreadly launch one-eleventh of a pound of lead at something with one shot. I'm not sure how much buck shot or "swan shot" that would be - maybe ten or twelve 000 buck sized pellets - but I'd suspect that the effect at thrity or so yards would be utterly devastating on an individual opponent or on that segment on of the enemy infantry's formation. I don't think it would be much different than firing a burst at them.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yeah, but with a round ball and a handful of buck shot in the bore, what would the real rate of fire be? Meaning how many projectiles does that actually put in the air?

In 1777, Washington ordered that all cartridges made up for the Army should contain buckshot. Some had as many as 8 buckshot, plus the original ball. The French, by the way, were very impressed by this and wrote approvingly of it.

The British claimed highly-trained infantry could fire up to 5 shots a minute -- at first, until fouling and misfires began to take a toll. But 3 rounds per minute, especially for "colonials" was about tops.

Eventually, the US Army standardized on three buckshot and one ball to a load -- this is the famous buck-and-ball load that was used right through the Civil War. There is a monument at Gettysburg with a huge granite sphere and three smaller spheres on top -- the unit that erected that monument used buck-and-ball firing into the flank of Pickett's Charge.

So it breaks down like this -- highly trained British troops fire 5 rounds a minute. And less highly-drilled Americans reply at 3 rounds a minute, but with 4 projectiles in each round. It's Americans ahead by 12 to 5.

 

[Owen Sparks]

So it breaks down like this -- highly trained British troops fire 5 rounds a minute. And less highly-drilled Americans reply at 3 rounds a minute, but with 4 projectiles in each round. It's Americans ahead by 12 to 5.

The thing that made buck and ball so effective was that before antiboits were invented ANY deep puncture wound no matter how minor, often became infected and resulted in a slow agonizing death. Immagine trying to take aim at a line of enemy soldiers with that in the back of your mind.

 

[swagner89]

I have to believe the founding fathers absolutely foresaw modern full auto weapons. They weren't stupid. Ask yourself this- can you imagine laser guns? Of course you can, but the technology doesn't exist yet, does it? So the idea that our forefathers couldn't imagine future technology is laughable.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The thing that made buck and ball so effective was that before antiboits were invented ANY deep puncture wound no matter how minor, often became infected and resulted in a slow agonizing death.

Buckshot is not to be sneezed at, even today. I used to belong to a club that hunted the swamps of Tidewater Virginia with dogs. I've seen a buckshot take the antler off a buck, and seem many instances of through-and-through penetration.

Immagine trying to take aim at a line of enemy soldiers with that in the back of your mind.

They didn't aim -- troops were drilled to hold their muskets parallel to the ground. NCOs with halberds or espontoons sighted down the line of muskets from the flank and raised or depressed the barrels.