Question about high capacity Firearms owned by our Founding Fathers

[Nom de Forum]

If you think about what that really means, it's still worth thinking about. What it actually says is that if you want to have your own private military and equip them with heavy military equipment then you need to make a deal with the government in whose area you reside and operate. Pretty common sense because you're doing the kind of thing that would make a nation and its people pretty nervous if you haven't "made nice" with the government. After all, governments are there to protect their people from external threats and a guy that appears to be building an army/navy is a clear concern both to the people of a nation and the government over them.

So if you want your own fully equipped army/navy, you need permission from the government. For anything less, up to and including cannons, nothing at all was required.

I still don't think civilian owned vessels used for war is a good example to use. Even the building of one ship in peace time back then that was clearly intended to be a real Ship of the Line warship would probably have the government believing it was intended for piracy and seizing it. As far as ownership of cannons by civilians I agree the government was not claiming any right to prohibit it.

 

[Sam1911]

Blunderbusses can fire "shotgun" rounds - in other words multiple pellets. This is more than the common anti-gun position that only single round muskets existed back then.

All of the very most common weapons of the day -- smoothbore muskets -- were commonly used with multi-projectile loads. "Buck-and-ball" type charges and fowling loads as the need arose.

Rifles were very uncommon and expensive, and hence would have been the "exotic" "high-performance" weapons of the day.

 

[Sam1911]

I still don't think civilian owned vessels used for war is a good example to use. Even the building of one ship in peace time back then that was clearly intended to be a real Ship of the Line warship would probably have the government believing it was intended for piracy and seizing it.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you armed your ships, that was simply prudent. If you started attacking others, that would be treated as piracy, or privateering, depending on your Letters of Marque and Reprisal.


Then, as now, there is a distinct difference between being armed and being a pirate, criminal, or murderer. I don't believe the government limited the armament of ships or any other facilities at that time. I'd like to hear of any examples where they actually did so.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you armed your ships, that was simply prudent. If you started attacking others, that would be treated as piracy, or privateering, depending on your Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Then, as now, there is a distinct difference between being armed and being a pirate, criminal, or murderer. I don't believe the government limited the armament of ships or any other facilities at that time. I'd like to hear of any examples where they actually did so.

We agree and disagree depending if we are talking about the same thing. Arming merchant ships is completely different from a civilian constructing a warship. Just as today an 18th century warship would be completely different in construction from a merchant ship. Even without the mounting of guns it would be instantly recognizable. It is unlikely to have been done for no other reason than the construction cost and not being economically viable for carrying cargo. I think if the government became aware of a private warship being constructed they would take action against it using what ever authority, real or imagined, they believed they had.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

4-projectile Buck and Ball was a standard military load for musket. A blunderbuss is just a Musketoon (short musket) with a permanent loading funnel attached for easier loading (came in very handy on horseback).

Mike

 

[Sam1911]

I think if the government became aware of a private warship being constructed they would take action against it using what ever authority, real or imagined, they believed they had.

And did that happen? Absent of an actual instance where some citizen did that and they responded so, we (at least I) have to go by their attitudes toward the closest analogous realities of the time, which I would assert to be artillery. You're asserting that they would have done something that was unlike anything they actually did do, at least to my knowledge.

 

[Nom de Forum]

And did that happen? Absent of an actual instance where some citizen did that and they responded so, we (at least I) have to go by their attitudes toward the closest analogous realities of the time, which I would assert to be artillery. You're asserting that they would have done something that was unlike anything they actually did do, at least to my knowledge.

To my knowledge the government never seized a purpose built civilian owned warship the size of a frigate or larger. Primarily because no civilian with any sense would try to build one because of the enormous expense, lack of profit from operation, and potential government seizure. I don’t agree individuals owning artillery pieces is “analogous” to owning a purpose built warship. Do you really think the U.S. government would have permitted the civilian ownership of what at the time was a weapon of mass destruction? I agree with you the government did not have a problem with civilian ownership of artillery pieces. This entire debate on this distinction began with a disagreement over what is a good line of thought to use in defense of the RKBA based on 18th century government attitudes about ownership of weapons. I don’t think even if you are right anyone today is going to be favorably impressed to support the RKBA by using the argument that in the 18th and 19th century the government did not have a problem with civilians owning the only weapon of mass destruction in existence.

 

[Sam1911]

Do you really think the U.S. government would have permitted the civilian ownership of what at the time was a weapon of mass destruction?

Honestly, I really don't know whether I think they would have, nor am I sure whether I think so matters much. They didn't set any precedents that lean in that direction, at all, so I don't see how an argument can be made that they necessarily would have. Such an argument doesn't seem to have anything to recommend it beyond experience growing up with and living with the US government and the world as it has existed in the last half of this century.

Speculation about what the founders would have "permitted" can only be speculation and pretty baseless at that, seeing as the founders in their early days don't seem to have written into the Constitution any mechanisms by which they would have exercised such controls. Perhaps some of the individual States would have, or would have tried. Again, we can't really support an argument for that with anything besides guesses, though.

This entire debate on this distinction began with a disagreement over what is a good line of thought to use in defense of the RKBA based on 18th century government attitudes about ownership of weapons. I don’t think even if you are right anyone today is going to be favorably impressed to support the RKBA by using the argument that in the 18th and 19th century the government did not have a problem with civilians owning the only weapon of mass destruction in existence.

Meh. All arguments appeal to some folks. None appeal to all folks. Not sure why that would change the basic facts under discussion.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Honestly, I really don't know whether I think they would have, nor am I sure whether I think so matters much. They didn't set any precedents that lean in that direction, at all, so I don't see how an argument can be made that they necessarily would have. Such an argument doesn't seem to have anything to recommend it beyond experience growing up with and living with the US government and the world as it has existed in the last half of this century.

Speculation about what the founders would have "permitted" can only be speculation and pretty baseless at that, seeing as the founders in their early days don't seem to have written into the Constitution any mechanisms by which they would have exercised such controls. Perhaps some of the individual States would have, or would have tried. Again, we can't really support an argument for that with anything besides guesses, though.


Meh. All arguments appeal to some folks. None appeal to all folks. Not sure why that would change the basic facts under discussion.

Absent finding a precedent we will just have to agree to disagree.

As far as arguments that appeal go; use of an argument that appeals to a minority can alienate a majority and cause you to lose their support.

 

[wahsben]

Did any of them own a puckle gun?

 

[agtman]

Have it on pretty good authority that Jefferson carried the black-powder equivalent of one of these, ...



... along with a .36-caliber grease gun.

Yep, he kept the both of them right there in his horse-drawn carriage.

See, the Jeff-dude was always a huge 2A guy.

 

[45_auto]

It is unlikely to have been done for no other reason than the construction cost and not being economically viable for carrying cargo. I think if the government became aware of a private warship being constructed they would take action against it using what ever authority, real or imagined, they believed they had.

The early revolutionary government would most likely have been exhilarated if someone had built private warships to take on the English navy.

However, just as now, money ruled and people looked at the costs and benefits and concluded that building dedicated private ships specifically to engage in battle was not a financially sound decision. Going into battle meant that the best you could hope for was that your ship only got shot up so you had to pay to repair it instead of sunk! Losing proposition either way.

People wealthy enough to build a ship were in it for the profits. The Derby family made their fortune building and running privateers.

From all accounts, Elias Hasket Derby was heavily involved in equipping privateers or had shares in as many of half the privateers (one hundred and fifty-eight in all) which hailed from Salem. The Derbys' Grand Turk, launched in May 1781, became Salem's largest and most successful privateer, capturing seventeen prizes between 1781 and 1782.

The original purpose of the Grand Turk was privateering, which she did well, capturing 25 ships and yielding great wealth from the sales. She was of 300 tons burthen and was designed for speed, while still having a good cargo capacity. Thomas Barstow, at his Two Oaks yard in Hanover, Massachusetts, built Grand Turk for the firm controlled by Elias Hasket Derby, launched her in May 1781, and fitted her for 28 guns.

Privateers (legal warships) were primarily in the business of making money, which meant capturing enemy merchant ships and their valuable cargos - NOT getting their investment sunk by engaging an enemy warship with no cargo, which would have delivered very little if any financial return even if the privateer were by some miracle able to capture it. If the privateer managed by some miracle to sink an enemy warship it would have returned NOTHING except the additional cost to the privateer to repair damage to their own ship.

Investment logic dictated building the fast, relatively lightly armed vessels as privateers.

Good analysis with citations here:

http://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/law review/66-2young.pdf

While the commercial impact of the American privateers was substantial, there was only limited privateer involvement in traditional military operations—though this was likely a result of practical circumstances rather than legal design.

Sailing for profit necessitated the targeting of ships that carried valuable cargo, and one could expect to find more cargo and fewer guns aboard a merchant vessel than a warship. Because the privateers outfitted their ships with their own funds, they were usually outgunned by government financed warships. Additionally, while the crew of a typical privateer may have consisted of experienced seamen, it would not have been the battle ready crew of trained sailors fielded on most warships. Outmanned, outgunned, and with little reason to attack a warship in the first place, it is not surprising that privateers generally focused on limited engagements with merchant ships. A lack of battle enthusiasm in the privateer ranks was also due to the fact that the livelihood of the privateers depended on their ships staying in good repair.

When a U.S. naval vessel entered battle and was damaged, the captain and crew lost nothing personally and would probably be reassigned to another ship. A privateer would be forced to pay the entire cost of repair out of pocket or buy a new ship altogether—taking a total loss on the expedition.

Again, this is not to suggest that the U.S. government or navy would
have objected to a more war-like role for the privateers had it been practical— in fact, the government and regular armed forces encouraged privateers to involve themselves in actual naval battles on a few occasions.61 Predictably, however, the privateers met with, at best, very limited success. The question is whether the privateers’ role would have expanded beyond the merely commercial (as effective as it was) had they been more able and willing to compete militarily with the British. One suspects the answer is that it would have, as the young nation was desperate for military force at the time, but the question cannot be answered definitively due to the historical circumstances that forced the privateers into a more limited commercial role. Despite their confinement to commercial capture, it is clear that the privateers played a key role in winning the struggle for American independence.

 

[Lord Teapot]

I don’t think this it a good line of thought to use for defending the RKBA for the following reasons:

Privateers, civilian owned ships used for warfare, had to receive formal written authorization from the government or the crew would be considered pirates and subject to punishment as pirates if captured. So we don’t want to use the example of privateers because it implies government authorization is a requirement of owning weapons or you are a criminal. I do agree that even in peaceful times privately owned merchant ships were legally carrying the most powerful type of weapons, cannons and carronades, for self-defense without needing government authorization. These ships were not anything like a real warship.

The “veritable warships” mentioned were so insignificant compared to the various classes of Ship of the Line as to be really considered ships used for war not warships. Most privateers were rather small with one deck having guns. The guns were limited in number (between a half dozen to two dozen) and they would be rather small in bore size compared to Ships of the Line. Again they would require formal written government authorization to be used.

i don't think it is either, but the founders clearly intended for the people to be as well armed as their government. that's fact.

 

[Nom de Forum]

45_auto,


I agree with what you wrote. The Revolutionary War was a time of a desperate fight for survival of a group of tenuously united states without much of a Navy. Not even the fledgling U.S.N. had a ship that could match the large classes of British ships of the line. If for no other reason than the inability to construct such a ship anywhere in the 13 states. If money was available the Revolutionary Government might have paid prize money out to a crew to purchase a large warship that was captured. This was common with the British. No privateering operation would be able to rely on payment from a government as financially unstable as the Revolutionary Government. The other problem is the United States could never capture or make enough large warships to make a bit of difference in a fight with a Royal Navy fleet of ships of the line. It certainly made more sense to rely on French ships of the line to counter the Royal Navy and harass the British merchant fleet with small privateers. Regardless of what type of civilian ships were used as privateers they would never have left harbor without the government authorization known as letters of marque. If by some miracle a private entity built a first rate ship of the line the government would have most likely bought it or impressed it into the U.S.N. for the duration of whatever war to ensure its best use. In reality that is how governments operate regardless of anything specifically contained in written law in the past or the present.

 

[Sunray]

"...Don't soldiers sometimes retain their weapons after their services?..." No.
A blunderbuss was a single shot flinter that was usually loaded with whatever was laying around. Stones, bits of metal, etc. Think riot gun, but usually only seen on ships and stage coaches. Hunting shotguns were called fowlers. Your traitorous Founding Fathers would have had fowler, but not likely a blunderbuss.
No such thing as a hand cannon after roughly the 14th Century. None at all in the American Rebellion period. Single or sometimes double shot flintlock pistol only.
Privately owned merchant ships were legally carrying whatever the owner could afford or was willing to pay for. The only "law" at sea in the 18th and early 19th Century was the Royal Navy and your lot PO'd them. snicker.
The Cookson rifle dates from 1750. Wouldn't have been around in 1776.
The Girandoni Air Rifle was a novelty. Jefferson was like that.

 

[eddd7]

Not just "authorized," as I've been informed. Jefferson owned two Girandoni rifles and gave one to Lewis & Clark to take on their journey.

 

[Kaeto]

"...Don't soldiers sometimes retain their weapons after their services?..." No.
A blunderbuss was a single shot flinter that was usually loaded with whatever was laying around. Stones, bits of metal, etc. Think riot gun, but usually only seen on ships and stage coaches. Hunting shotguns were called fowlers. Your traitorous Founding Fathers would have had fowler, but not likely a blunderbuss.
No such thing as a hand cannon after roughly the 14th Century. None at all in the American Rebellion period. Single or sometimes double shot flintlock pistol only.
Privately owned merchant ships were legally carrying whatever the owner could afford or was willing to pay for. The only "law" at sea in the 18th and early 19th Century was the Royal Navy and your lot PO'd them. snicker.
The Cookson rifle dates from 1750. Wouldn't have been around in 1776.
The Girandoni Air Rifle was a novelty. Jefferson was like that.

No The Giradoni was the military rifle of Austria at the end of the War of Independence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dZLeEUE940

 

[Nom de Forum]

No The Giradoni was the military rifle of Austria at the end of the War of Independence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dZLeEUE940

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a Giradoni accompanied Lewis and Clark. They had an air rifle with them that they reported made quite an impression on the tribes they encountered.

 

[Kaeto]

Yes one did go along on the Lewis and Clark expedition. They took it along for meat hunting to conserve their gunpowder.

 

[jamesjames]

high capacity...it could be stipulated that the wealthy may have any latest technology available. Perhaps its more helpful to remember that settlers, frontiersmen, townsmen had arms to protect themselves and their families, hunt for meat, and to provide for the common defense. They were stakeholders on the front line of colonizing the new world. They were exploring and redefining what citizenship and democracy meant.

I've brought this up before, but maybe it will resonate here better... "well regulated" as in a "well regulated militia" may have had a multi-layered meaning. In the post-Great Depression 20th century, regulation means control by the government, as in government regulation---as in gun control (to many Democrats).

Its possible, however, that "well-regulated" referred to the early industrial revolution notion that mechanical things didn't always run well or accurately. Things like clocks, machines, and mills had to be constantly "regulated", or adjusted to keep them running efficiently or accurately, or just to not go off the rails. The advent of railroads in the 19th century led to the need for reliable clocks and timekeeping to keep the railroads on schedule. Time had not been regulated to such an extent over a large area before. Every town had "local time", but the railroads needed to have "regulated" time along the entire line to make schedules work. The "Regulator" clock in most train stations is a reminder of this.

"Regulation" also refers to what a gunsmith does to make a firearm with fixed or rudimentary sights shoot to point of aim.

A "well-regulated militia" (as a dependent clause and phrase) makes little sense in the Second Amendment with our 20th century understanding of the word "regulation". But when understood in its late 18th and 19th century meaning (that in order for a citizen militia to be effective, it needs to be able field a force of citizens with their own arms. To be able to hit what they're aiming at, individual citizen members of the militia need to own and practice with their own firearms), suddenly the whole tortured sentence of the 2nd Amendment makes perfect sense.

It even makes sense in the 21st century. The most effective members of our infantry grew up shooting firearms. No DI can teach newbies to shoot with any kind of effectiveness in a short period of time. Shooting skills take years to develop and perfect, and the volunteers from rural America who grew up shooting become the marksmen we depend on for a fighting force.

 

[Nom de Forum]

jamesjames,

I agree with your line of thinking. I have seen that interpretation for decades and I think many legal scholars support it. I think if the Founders were concerned about limiting personal arms they would have made mention of that concern. As I have mentioned elsewhere I do not believe any government, even one as enlightened as the one conceived by the Founders, would tolerate citizen ownership of a weapon of mass destruction. In the 18th century that would be large warships.

 

[Sam1911]

Sheesh, while I worry about dragging this further off into the weeds, a warship was no-more a "weapon of mass destruction" than would be a few platoon's worth of field artillery. One is a group of guys with cannons that floats around, the other is a group of guys with cannons that marches around. And no one's suggested that there was any restriction on a private citizen having all the artillery pieces he and his buddies could carry.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Sheesh, while I worry about dragging this further off into the weeds, a warship was no-more a "weapon of mass destruction" than would be a few platoon's worth of field artillery. One is a group of guys with cannons that floats around, the other is a group of guys with cannons that marches around. And no one's suggested that there was any restriction on a private citizen having all the artillery pieces he and his buddies could carry.

Sheesh Sam, I think you really do not understand just how expensive, technologically superior, and hugely more powerful an 18th century 1st or 2nd rate ship of the line warship was compared to all those small privateers in use during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. You could send out a hundred of those small privateers out to fight a 1st rate ship of the line and they would lose. Please, please do a little research on how these ships were constructed to withstand hits from guns hugely larger and more powerful than what privateers carried and how they often carried 5 to 10 times as many guns and guns in much heavier poundages of shot. Even the "Super Frigates" America constructed after the revolution were out matched. To claim the size and power of the largest warships is comparable to a few platoon's worth of field artillery is ridiculous. An 18th century 1st rate ship of the line was a weapon of mass destruction that could remain at sea for months, coming and going with impunity, able to strike anywhere along a nations coast and sail inland on large rivers. Try to imagine what would happen today if a few platoons of the U.S. Army's largest field artillery attempted to fight the U.S.S. Missouri. A slaughter of the some of the World's finest artillery men would ensue. All those 8" howitzers would be outranged and smashed to pieces in minutes. Even if the Missouri closed to within 8" howitzer range the damage to the Missouri would be withstood while the howitzers were destroyed. I think if you do a little reading you will find that I am not the first person to refer to 18th century ships of the line as a "weapon of mass destruction". Governments do not tolerate citizens possessing weapons that pose such an enormous potential threat to their existence.

 

[Sam1911]

Sheesh Nom. I sure do understand all of that (I've read pretty extensively of ships of the line and ship-building and ship-arming practices), and I simply disagree with your assertions.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Sheesh Nom. I sure do understand all of that (I've read pretty extensively of ships of the line and ship-building and ship-arming practices), and I simply disagree with your assertions.

Can we stop with the dismissive "sheesh"? I mean we can pointlessly "sheesh" each other with every reply. Seems unnecessary and counterproductive to explaining why we disagree. So here is something more productive in explaining why I disagree with you. I think your line of thought is heavily influenced by the ideals of the thinking of the Revolutionary Government and the fact that the situation we are debating is a hypothetical and without precedent during the period of time under discussion. I think mine is influenced by the understanding that even the Revolutionary Government understood the necessities of Realpolitik. Governments do not allow citizens in the 18th century to own and operate, let alone have a monopoly on owning and operating, the equivalent of a 21st century Aircraft Carrier.