Question about high capacity Firearms owned by our Founding Fathers

[TheAzn]

This question will deal with the agreed upon 55 Founding Fathers/Delegates and 7 Key Founding Fathers. Specifically, I am looking at expensive firearms that were in their historical collections.
In my debate with multiple overgrown anti-gun children, I have demonstrated how they were factually incorrect and committed fallacies of omission. However, the debate has lead me to become interested in the topic below. I hope I can gain deeper historical knowledge.

Did any of them carry and use high capacity/multishot guns like the Cookson Volitional Repeater, Blunderbusses, hand cannons from their war services, and the Girandoni Air Rifles?

I know that blunderbusses were used by common civilians, so it might not be fancy enough for the wealthy Founding Fathers. But still, blunderbusses were used in the military, and if any of them had ever served they would likely keep them as a recognition of their services and ranks.

I also know that Thomas Jefferson authorized the Lewis and Clarke Expedition. These men used the Girandoni Air Rifle. Surely, a wealthy man like Thomas Jefferson would have collected these famous rifles, right? The Cookson Repeaters were also rare. But given that this model clearly had many potentials, this should have also attracted the founding fathers.

Please be specific on the Founding Fathers, and provide official historical sources when possible.
Thank you very much.

Extra question: Did any of them ever used matchlock revolver pistols?

 

[natman]

I can't address your question directly, but it's worth mentioning that Second Amendment rights are NOT technology dependent:

"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".

Page 8. District of Columbia v. Heller US Supreme Court 2008 [emphasis added]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

So whether or not the Founding Fathers had high capacity guns or not is irrelevant.

 

[hso]

Yes, Jefferson did.

 

[TheAzn]

I can't address your question directly, but it's worth mentioning that Second Amendment rights are NOT technology dependent:

Page 8. District of Columbia v. Heller US Supreme Court 2008 [emphasis added]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/07-2901.pdf
So whether or not the Founding Fathers had high capacity guns or not is irrelevant.

That is certainly true. I am just curious if the founding fathers had anything besides pistols. And for Thomas Jefferson, if he had the Girandoni Rifle used by Lewis and Clarke.

So whether or not the Founding Fathers had high capacity guns or not is irrelevant.

Furthermore, normal civilians used blunderbusses/hand cannons. So even from the technological standpoints, the anti-gunners are very much making stupid arguments. I have acknowledged this already.

 

[TheAzn]

What is your basis for those assertions?

Hey Kleanbore. Don't soldiers sometimes retain their weapons after their services? Blunderbusses were common, being used by civilians during that time. I was just saying that blunderbusses should have been common among the founding fathers.

 

[TheAzn]

It would be difficult to determine exactly what the Founding Fathers owned, as there was no gun registration, there was no NFA registry, there are no home movies of their shooting activities, and unless firearms were explicitly willed to someone in particular, or specifically written about in their letters, diaries, or journals, there may be never have been a written record of ownership.

Even if they personally owned a cannon or an armed merchantman.

Aren't there some personal belongings archived in public places? I think the NFM should make a series on guns owned by the Fathers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs4vjq6sW40
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/general-firearm-discussion/2702-historic-pistols.html

 

[Nom de Forum]

Hey Kleanbore. Don't soldiers sometimes retain their weapons after their services? Blunderbusses were common, being used by civilians during that time. I was just saying that blunderbusses should have been common among the founding fathers.

I am going to have to check, but I believe the popularity and greatest use of blunderbusses peaked before the American Revolutionary.

Edit: I think I am correct in that statement, however usage apparently continued into the early 19th century with the cavalry of some nations. Civilian use probably continued even longer. Considering that the Founding Fathers were men of means, I suspect they typically purchased better quality firearms than blunderbusses.

 

[TheAzn]

I am going to have to check, but I believe the popularity and greatest use of blunderbusses peaked before the American Revolutionary.

Thank you Nom. If I am not mistaken, civilians used blunderbusses as inherited shotguns up to the mid 1800s.

 

[Kaeto]

The Blunderbuss was originally used as a Coach gun. The flared muzzle was to make it easier to reload on a swaying coach. It was also used as a shipboard weapon for the same reasons.

The Giradoni air rifle had been adopted by Austria for their military just as our war for independence was ending.

 

[lysanderxiii]

I would guess that every man who owned a farm owned at least one "fowling piece". More likely two, if he could afford it. If you lived in a place where eating birds were not as common, you probably had a small caliber (.36 or .40 were popular) rifle.

A fowling piece:

The fowler is a multi-purpose firearm as it is normally set up to be a shotgun, but is also good for deer and other larger game. The most popular size fowler was a 12 bore. This was convenient as the standard military issue ammunition at the time (French, British and after 1783, US) was compatible with this size weapon, which was .69 cal.

So, you can say that every able-bodied man owned a "military caliber" weapon.

If you were prone to travel, you probably owned several pistols, in pairs. A smaller traveler like the one below, and a pair of pocket pistols. As there was no highway patrol, you were on your own in the case of a highwayman...



A of course, any true gentleman would have a pair of target pistols.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Somehow I get the feeling this thread was designed to provide arguments against owning high capacity weapons.

 

[Kleanbore]

I am just curious if the founding fathers had anything besides pistols.

Who, by your definition, were the "founding fathers"?

But still, blunderbusses were used in the military, and if any of them had ever served they would likely keep them as a recognition of their services and ranks.

A few were used on ships by Naval forces and privateers.

Blunderbusses were common, being used by civilians during that time....

Not on this side of the Pond.

Among the 2,450 firearms surrendered to General Gage in Boston, only 38 were blunderbusses.

Some very few blunderbusses were made at Harper's Ferry.

There are a handful in the Magazine at Colonial Williamsburg--far fewer than muskets and cannon.

There were at least a couple on the Lewis and Clark expedition.

If I am not mistaken, civilians used blunderbusses as inherited shotguns up to the mid 1800s.

Undoubtedly a few civilians had blunderbusses. Some may have employed them for very short range defensive use.

As hunting shotguns, they would have been far down the list of choices.

 

[Tirod]

The reality is that the technology wasn't advanced enough to provide good examples.

BUT - edged weapons were common, and carried by all. Daggers, clasp knives, push daggers, gimlets, short swords, cane swords, etc. Edged weapons carry was part and parcel of life, used as tokens of status, and definitely another Constitutional issue that has been ignored by shooters.

In MO we can enjoy the right to carry openly an AR pistol, much less concealed, but a two inch push dagger concealed is cause for arrest. And yet gentlemen of high rank had their favorites until it seems the masses adopt them and they are then outlawed.

Same thing happening with guns now as edged weapons then - people who think they are privileged don't like seeing the in the hands of commoners, and worse, used to poor ends. So the public allows our representatives to outlaw them for "our own safety."

The right to keep and bear arms makes no assertion it's about firearms - that interpretation is false. It's correct translation is the right to keep and bear WEAPONS. Until we start seeing the bigger picture then 2A defenders will remain fragmented, and the anti gunners will pick off those who won't take in the big picture and continue to use them against us.

Arms means weapons, which many carried on them every day. Ignoring that fuller explanation is throwing away a lot of turf to those who don't want it to come into play.

Don't let privilege work as a substitute for rights - if it's illegal to carry a 7" knife, then Aunt Velma is as much a criminal as Uncle Joe toting his field knife in town. Why then chase down and arrest a young man for a 3" folding knife and persecute him interpreting it as a gravity knife? It's privilege over rights - the same cow flower arguments used against Saturday Night specials, and now, high capacity guns.

What the anti gunners want is for you to jump thru hoops to be "certified," ie pay for and gain privilege. Confront that - it's a pernicious form of evil, and totally against the Constitution. All men were created equal, Right?

Unless you live on that side of town, or dress in that kind of clothing, or talk with that accent, or . . .

 

[Sam1911]

I'm a little confused as to the inclusion of blunderbusses in this line of discussion, as they are not particularly high capacity or high volume or especially lethal in comparison to many other common arms of the day.

Of more interest to me would be the inclusion of rifled arms, which certainly were more lethal at greater range, and of artillery, which WERE privately owned, and were supplied to the colonists' forces by private citizens in many cases.

 

[jonnyc]

I'm not sure if the OP understands the question he is asking. Neither a blunderbuss nor a "hand-cannon" is a "high capacity Firearm", the operative question of the OP.
And seriously, a matchlock revolver? Fragile, obsolete 16th century technology was not real popular on 18th century battle fields.

 

[TheAzn]

Somehow I get the feeling this thread was designed to provide arguments against owning high capacity weapons.

I don't see how so. I've been pretty clear. My arguments with the antis lead me to become interested in this subject.

I just want to know what kind of guns the founding fathers owned for fighting/fun.

 

[TheAzn]

I'm not sure if the OP understands the question he is asking. Neither a blunderbuss nor a "hand-cannon" is a "high capacity Firearm", the operative question of the OP.

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.

And seriously, a matchlock revolver? Fragile, obsolete 16th century technology was not real popular on 18th century battle fields.

The founding fathers can certainly own firearms for fun and hunting. To clarify again, I am only interested in the gun ownership of our founding fathers, especially in terms of exotic firearms.

I thought that it was rather clear that my debate against the anti-gun children have nothing to do with this topic. It was only mentioned because it is a slightly related topic.

 

[Kleanbore]

Blunderbusses can fire "shotgun" rounds - in other words multiple pellets.

Any firearm, and especially, any smoothbore firearm, can fire multiple pellets. That fact does not somehow make a blunderbuss a "high capacity firearm".

To clarify again, I am only interested in the gun ownership of our founding fathers, especially in terms of exotic firearms.

One more time, who, by your definition, were the "founding fathers"?

And what do you define as "exotic firearms"?

 

[HammsBeer]

If the anti's think that the 2A only applies to single shot weapons of the colonial era, does that mean only shoulder fired or hand held weapons used by only one person?
What about crew served weapons like old muzzle loading cannons vs modern breach loading artillery?
Should we be able to own shoulder fired rockets?


How did the line get drawn where it is today in terms of calibers and capacities and what constitutes arms?

I'll say this, when the people and the government both had single shot weapons, it was a pretty good bulwark against tyranny and oppressive government. Not so much today, even with modern firearms. Better than nothing though.

 

[TheAzn]

Any firearm, and especially, any smoothbore firearm, can fire multiple pellets. That fact does not somehow make a blunderbuss a "high capacity firearm".

And that is a good point. A blunderbuss, however, is easier to reload while on a moving platform.

One more time, who, by your definition, were the "founding fathers"?

And what do you define as "exotic firearms"?

I think this one is rather standard. The 7 Key Founding Fathers are John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. The 55 delegates, I think, are the ones of the Continental Congress.

"Exotic" is subjective, and it is your choice to include anything you want. To me, a Cookson Repeater is exotic back then.

 

[TheAzn]

If the anti's think that the 2A only applies to single shot weapons of the colonial era, does that mean only shoulder fired or hand held weapons used by only one person?
What about crew served weapons like old muzzle loading cannons vs modern breach loading artillery?
Should we be able to own shoulder fired rockets?


How did the line get drawn where it is today in terms of calibers and capacities and what constitutes arms?

I'll say this, when the people and the government both had single shot weapons, it was a pretty good bulwark against tyranny and oppressive government. Not so much today, even with modern firearms. Better than nothing though.

I think private civilians can definitely continue to own hand cannons and grenade launchers, BTW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6N2IJccZy4

 

[JohnKSa]

One thing worth making mention of was that the most powerful weapons of the day were ships of war. Private ownership of such weapons was fairly common and it was common knowledge that such was the case.

In other words, when the founding fathers put the Constitution and Bill of Rights together, they were certainly aware that the 2nd, as written, would protect private ownership and use of the most powerful weapons of the day.

 

[Lord Teapot]

civilians in that era could own veritable warships with rows of cannon.

 

[Nom de Forum]

JohnKSa - One thing worth making mention of was that the most powerful weapons of the day were ships of war. Private ownership of such weapons was fairly common and it was common knowledge that such was the case.

In other words, when the founding fathers put the Constitution and Bill of Rights together, they were certainly aware that the 2nd, as written, would protect private ownership and use of the most powerful weapons of the day.

Lord Teapot - civilians in that era could own veritable warships with rows of cannon.

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.

 

[JohnKSa]

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.

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.