Question about high capacity Firearms owned by our Founding Fathers

[JohnKSa]

A privateer has the endorsement of a government and presumably targets only that government's enemies while a pirate is purely freelance and targets anyone who looks profitable.

 

[old lady new shooter]

A privateer has the endorsement of a government and presumably targets only that government's enemies while a pirate is purely freelance and targets anyone who looks profitable.

Wow.

 

[barnbwt]

Yup, essentially state sponsored terrorism of merchant vessels. Plausible deniability was the order of the day.

 

[Kaeto]

No that was normal military tactics then.

 

[mboylan]

Well, the Constitution is not written in specific legal language for the most part. This was intentional. There were lawyers at the convention and the people drafting the document had a rock solid foundation in Common Law. Like it or not, it was intentionally written in general language so that it could be a living document. Power to interpret was given to the courts.

Many of the later amendments were written with some specific legal language. The first 10 were not.

The courts have decided that there is a line on the second amendment that you do not cross. It could be nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, high explosive weapons, etc. Right now the line is at machine guns that have not been grandfathered to the 1986 cutoff.

 

[Nom de Forum]

A privateer has the endorsement of a government and presumably targets only that government's enemies while a pirate is purely freelance and targets anyone who looks profitable.

It should be added that the legal use of privateers is supposed to be only during declared wars. That was not a distinction the English observed 200 years before the American Revolution when they sent, with only the slightest plausible deniability, Sir Francis Drake and others to raid Spain's ships and colonies in the Americas prior to England and Spain going to war. English pirates/privateers (chose a name depending on your point of view) were apart of what caused the Spanish to send the Armada to invade England that with its destruction eventual resulted Royal Navy superiority over all other navies by the time of the American Revolution. Warships in the time of Sir Francis Drake and the Spanish Armada were in many ways similar to American Privateers 200 years later in that they were more lightly constructed and lightly armed cargo ships than the very heavily constructed and heavily armed purpose built 18th century warships that made up the first three rates of ships of the line. I came up with an interesting factoid: a single 1st rate ship of the line would have more and heavier guns than Napoleon's Grande Battery had at the Battle of Waterloo. The biggest guns at Waterloo would be 12 pounders, those were the smallest guns in the top row of a 1st rater's broadside. This is another indication of why a ship of this type is considered the 18th century's WMD. I am still checking for other references but I believe it was probably something I first heard from James Burke, the historian who first gained international attention with the book and television series "Connections" in the 1970's and has written several popular books and television series.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Well, the Constitution is not written in specific legal language for the most part. This was intentional. There were lawyers at the convention and the people drafting the document had a rock solid foundation in Common Law. Like it or not, it was intentionally written in general language so that it could be a living document. Power to interpret was given to the courts.

Many of the later amendments were written with some specific legal language. The first 10 were not.

The courts have decided that there is a line on the second amendment that you do not cross. It could be nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, high explosive weapons, etc. Right now the line is at machine guns that have not been grandfathered to the 1986 cutoff.

When you learn of some of the less than flattering opinions expressed by the Founding Fathers on the character and competency of Americans it is very understandable that they included many specific and non-specific legal mechanisms to restrict the behavior and power of the people.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Yup, essentially state sponsored terrorism of merchant vessels. Plausible deniability was the order of the day.

I have to disagree. Privateers did what any military force would, they denied the enemy supplies and manpower, they did not murder. Many times American privateers captured ships without a single casualty to either side. Ben Franklin was apparently a driving force in the establishment of American privateers. His initial motivation was to use privateers to capture as many British prisoners as possible to force Britain to release American prisoners in prison hulks through a swap. An American held in a prison hulk had a better chance of dying than living.

 

[Kaeto]

And a lot of British seamen jumped at the chance to come to the colonies as they weren't aboard that British ship willingly.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Sure it would but within parameters that are reasonable to believe. An 18th century government permitting the private ownership, let alone monopoly on operating a large ship of the line is just not something reasonable to believe. IMHO, YMMV.

Not quite true.

During the American War of Independence, there were several privateers ships that were of the size and armed in such a way that they would have been classed as Frigates. The Rattlesnake was one such, she mounted 22 cannon.

The second thing that shows that the Founding Fathers were in support of military grade ships in private hands was the fact that they decommissioned the entire Navy after the War of Independence, not one ship remained in commission. The idea of to create a a new "Navy of the United States", had been brought up twice (1786 and 1791) before being approved in 1794 by a vote of 50 to 39 in the House of Representatives. Almost half did not want a standing Navy as, they argued, "...a force of privately owned ships, commissioned in times of need, will suffice...."

In 1812, such a force of privately own commerce raiders was commissioned, and again, there were several were large enough to be classed as frigates. The Prince de Neufchatel - 18 guns, Warrior - 22 guns, Yorktown - 18 guns, Thorn - 18 guns, Saratoga- 16 guns; these I have listed were armed with good sized carronades, 12, 18 or 24 pounders. (The main reason carronades were employed as opposed to cannon was the lack of cannon, not so much ship size).

As a side note the US Navy never commissioned a true "Ship-of-the-Line" until 1814, after the War of 1812, then almost immediately in 1822 placed in "ordinary" (mothballs) then in 1836 cut her down to a single deck ship and de-rated her as a "Large Frigate" (USS Independence). The next Ship-of-the-Line (USS Washington) was launched in 1815, then placed in ordinary in 1820.

The US Navy never had much use for "ships-of-the-line", we only built nine, and averaged less than 7 years active service. And those that saw longer service, were laid down in the years immediately after the War of 1812 and commissioned into service during the 1861- 1865 period....

Until the War Between the States, about 90% of the US Navy's warship strength was under 28 guns. (and many of the Frigates were privately constructed and donated to the US Government. Study the USS Philadelphia (1799), Adams, (1798), Baltimore (1798), etc, sometimes called Subscription ships.

I would like to add that the whole idea of the US in the early 19 Century was that there was to be NO standing Army or Navy. These functions were to be handled through private enterprise in times of need. The problem was, and showed up in spades in 1812 was there was a lead time of nine to ten months for building such a "navy" and training such an "army". The only reason there were a good number of privateers in the early days of the War of 1812 was in 1807 there was a war scare after the Chesapeake-Leopard Incident that prompted building of warship class privateers on speculation....

 

[Nom de Forum]

More true than you realize.

Lysanderxiii you have posted some great facts intermixed with flawed conclusions on modivations and one very “large” error of attention to detail.

Nom de Forum posted - Sure it would but within parameters that are reasonable to believe. An 18th century government permitting the private ownership, let alone monopoly on operating a large ship of the line is just not something reasonable to believe. IMHO, YMMV.

Not quite true.

During the American War of Independence, there were several privateers ships that were of the size and armed in such a way that they would have been classed as Frigates. The Rattlesnake was one such, she mounted 22 cannon.

Did you notice the word “large” in my statement “An 18th century government permitting the private ownership, let alone monopoly on operating a large ship of the line is just not something reasonable to believe”? If you recall their were six classes of ship of the line. It is reasonable to conclude 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rates were considered the large half. Not a single ship you listed that was used at the time of the Revolution and the years until the end of the War of 1812 would be considered more than a 5th rate (small) ship of the line because of its small number of guns and tonnage. Even one of the largest of American privateers, the Caesar, which you did not mention could only be classed as small 5th rate or big 6th rate because of its tonnage (600 tons) would be considered 6th rate because it only had 26 guns. You can list the statistics of tonnage and number of guns of all the American privateers you want and not a one of them is going to be the equivalent of a large (1st rate 100+ guns, 2nd rate 90+ guns, or 3rd rate 80+ guns) ship of the line.

The second thing that shows that the Founding Fathers were in support of military grade ships in private hands was the fact that they decommissioned the entire Navy after the War of Independence, not one ship remained in commission. The idea of to create a a new "Navy of the United States", had been brought up twice (1786 and 1791) before being approved in 1794 by a vote of 50 to 39 in the House of Representatives. Almost half did not want a standing Navy as, they argued, "...a force of privately owned ships, commissioned in times of need, will suffice...."

money, Money, MONEY. You forgot about the money. More on that later. The only “military grade” a.k.a. purpose built warships the Founding Fathers and early leaders of the U.S.A. supported financially were the ones they end up building for the newly established U.S.N. in 1794 and the few “gifts” in use by the Continental Navy that preceded it. politics, Politics, POLITICs. You forgot about the politics. More on that later.

In 1812, such a force of privately own commerce raiders was commissioned, and again, there were several were large enough to be classed as frigates. The Prince de Neufchatel - 18 guns, Warrior - 22 guns, Yorktown - 18 guns, Thorn - 18 guns, Saratoga- 16 guns; these I have listed were armed with good sized carronades, 12, 18 or 24 pounders. (The main reason carronades were employed as opposed to cannon was the lack of cannon, not so much ship size).

All the ships listed above could not be classified as frigates. Too few of guns and to small in tonnage, Prince de Neufchatel for example was only 300 tons. While availability of guns may have had some influence on armament the use of carronades was due more to them being much lighter for these Sloops of War size ships to carry and short range fire power. Big guns weighing more than twice as much and having much greater recoil as much as a smaller but larger poundage carronade using 25% less powder cause stability and other ship management problems on warships due to weigh and recoil. A smaller number of large bore carronades could match the weight of fire of many more numerous smaller bore guns but not the range. The 40+ gun/carronade armed Frigate USS Essex was captured by the Royal Navy because of too much reliance on carronades. The Essex had to surrender or be pulverized by long range gun fire.

As a side note the US Navy never commissioned a true "Ship-of-the-Line" until 1814, after the War of 1812, then almost immediately in 1822 placed in "ordinary" (mothballs) then in 1836 cut her down to a single deck ship and de-rated her as a "Large Frigate" (USS Independence). (bold added for emphasis by NdF) The next Ship-of-the-Line (USS Washington) was launched in 1815, then placed in ordinary in 1820.

Cutting down a warship was not something particularly extraordinary, it had be done at least since the 16th century. The Royal Navy did it numerous times before and after the War of 1812. The practice was know as creating a "Razee". It was done for several reasons, none of which was because there was no reason to possess any large 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rate ships of the line. Ships were selected to razeed because they were considered unsuited for there previous use and deemed capable for a new use. Other ships that did not meet the criteria to become a Razee became barracks, schools, storage for supplies, prison hulks, or scrapped.

The US Navy never had much use for "ships-of-the-line", we only built nine, and averaged less than 7 years active service. And those that saw longer service, were laid down in the years immediately after the War of 1812 and commissioned into service during the 1861- 1865 period....

Until the War Between the States, about 90% of the US Navy's warship strength was under 28 guns. (and many of the Frigates were privately constructed and donated to the US Government. Study the USS Philadelphia (1799), Adams, (1798), Baltimore (1798), etc, sometimes called Subscription ships.

I would like to add that the whole idea of the US in the early 19 Century was that there was to be NO standing Army or Navy. These functions were to be handled through private enterprise in times of need. The problem was, and showed up in spades in 1812 was there was a lead time of nine to ten months for building such a "navy" and training such an "army". The only reason there were a good number of privateers in the early days of the War of 1812 was in 1807 there was a war scare after the Chesapeake-Leopard Incident that prompted building of warship class privateers on speculation....

Here is the part about money and politics. There was little of the former and little support in the latter to build large ships of the line. Neither the Revolutionary or post revolutionary governments had the money to spend on large ships of the line. Until the time of the War of 1812 the geopolitical situation did not inspire much political support to spend money, even if it was available, on large ships of the line. Most of the hostile actions at sea were from smaller ships from Britain, France, and Barbary Pirates. After the War of 1812 the need for the U.S. to have large ships of the line was still a difficult political argument to make. The threat that may require them in many ways was nearly completely eliminated. Neither Britain, France, or Spain was in any position monetarily or politically to support a naval war with the U.S. Despite the lack of real threat after the War of 1812 and even during the darkest days of the Revolutionary War and uneasy peace afterwards until 1812, I don't think any American Navy, Revolutionary or U.S.N., would have refused having a few large 1st and 2nd rate ships of the line if funding and manpower were not a problem.

So while all the above that you have written Lysanderxiii may be interesting fact and opinion, none of it refutes my earlier opinion that no government, due to the demands of realpolitik, is going to tolerate private ownership, let alone a monopoly private ownership, in the 18th century and early 19th century of the only existing WMD, the large ship of the line. Governments have never tolerated individuals owning and controlling weapons overwhelmingly more powerful than what they possess. Please point out to me where in history a government has.

 

[JohnKSa]

Not a single ship you listed that was used at the time of the Revolution and the years until the end of the War of 1812 would be considered more than a 5th rate (small) ship of the line because of its small number of guns and tonnage. Even one of the largest of American privateers, the Caesar, which you did not mention could only be classed as small 5th rate or big 6th rate because of its tonnage (600 tons) would be considered 6th rate because it only had 26 guns. You can list the statistics of tonnage and number of guns of all the American privateers you want and not a one of them is going to be the equivalent of a large (1st rate 100+ guns, 2nd rate 90+ guns, or 3rd rate 80+ guns) ship of the line.

Interesting. That would mean all of your comments about Ships of the Line, 1st & 2nd class, etc. didn't apply to any of the American ships during and after the Revolutionary War. That's not something that was at all obvious from your previous comments although it would seem that it is quite pertinent.

Governments have never tolerated individuals owning and controlling weapons overwhelmingly more powerful than what they possess.

That's a strawman. I don't see anyone who claimed that the Founding Fathers were in favor of individuals owning and controlling weapons overwhelmingly more powerful than what the "American military" possessed and operated. But they clearly did tolerate and were in favor of individuals owning and controlling weapons just as powerful as what the nation possessed and operated. For the very simple reason that in the beginning (as is evidenced by the very clear wording of the 2nd Amendment) the intention was that the arms of the people would be the arms of the nation if that became a necessity.

It wouldn't really make sense under that paradigm to talk about a citizen owning/operating something more powerful than the "American military" did because he was part of the military (militia, if you will) in a very real sense.

money, Money, MONEY. ... politics, Politics, POLITICs.

Obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation...

Look, all of that may be true, but it's not particularly relevant. Your own comments make it clear that, all of the minutia and trivia notwithstanding, private citizens owned and operated instances of the most powerful class of weapons that fought on the side of the colonies during the general timeframe that the 2nd Amendment was crafted. And that they did so with the full knowledge and approval of the Founding Fathers.

Sorta what I said in the beginning...

 

[Nom de Forum]

Interesting. That would mean all of your comments about Ships of the Line, 1st & 2nd class, etc. didn't apply to any of the American ships during and after the Revolutionary War. That's not something that was at all obvious from your previous comments although it would seem that it is quite pertinent.

Yaa I think you need to review my posts beginning a #39 and paying particular attention to #48.

That's a strawman. I don't see anyone who claimed that the Founding Fathers were in favor of individuals owning and controlling weapons overwhelmingly more powerful than what the "American military" possessed and operated. But they clearly did tolerate and were in favor of individuals owning and controlling weapons just as powerful as what the nation possessed and operated. For the very simple reason that in the beginning (as is evidenced by the very clear wording of the 2nd Amendment) the intention was that the arms of the people would be the arms of the nation if that became a necessity.

I don't see any strawman. I see people who appear to believe the Founding Fathers believed any single individual should be able own a single weapon that could pose an overwhelming threat to the government. Sorry but I am not gullible enough for anyone to convince me of that. What government leaders do to preserve government power has not changed that much in 200+ years. I also don't believe any of the privateer vessels were as powerful, a small few were nearly as powerful, as the best Continental Navy and U.S. Navy warships. The vast majority were greatly less powerful. Please tell me which specific privateer vessels were as powerful let alone more powerful.

It wouldn't really make sense under that paradigm to talk about a citizen owning/operating something more powerful than the "American military" did because he was part of the military (militia, if you will) in a very real sense.Obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation...

What you label Obfuscation I label the Bottom Line.

Look, all of that may be true, but it's not particularly relevant. Your own comments make it clear that, all of the minutia and trivia notwithstanding, private citizens owned and operated instances of the most powerful class of weapons that fought on the side of the colonies during the general timeframe that the 2nd Amendment was crafted. And that they did so with the full knowledge and approval of the Founding Fathers.

Sorta what I said in the beginning...

Nope, I disagree, you got it wrong from the beginning. The vast majority of privateers were much smaller and less powerful than the largest government operated warships, with only a few being close to being as powerful. Here is another bottom line, without the government authorization known as a letter of marque and reprisal, something the government used to control the use of privately owned armed ships for warfare, the privateers would never have existed. So even these civilian owned armed ships were under a form of government control and regulation that could be revoked unlike the individual use of muskets, rifles, pistols and field artillery, and not one of these ships posed a potential threat to the government because of superior fire power that would require the government to take complete control over it. Authorization of small privateers in no way sets a precedent for private ownership of weapons as powerful or far more powerful than what the government possessed.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, so the message here is that the early American government would have prohibited the possession by the citizens of any weapons MORE powerful than what the American government could itself afford?


So, I guess then the equivalent is that the current American government should definitely prohibit the private ownership of any weapons MORE powerful than thermonuclear weapons, if any such thing is ever invented.

Gotcha.

 

[Kaeto]

There were massive problems in using the first 3 classes of 'ships of the line'. First off they were slow. Second they didn't maneuver well. Third was the huge crews they required.

A frigate could cross across the bow or stern where the ships of the line were very weakly armed before it could bring the broadsides to bear. Plus people are overestimating the accuracy of the cannons on those ships. They had to have those large number of guns in order to have a hope of causing damage to an enemy ship.

 

[Nom de Forum]

There were massive problems in using the first 3 classes of 'ships of the line'. First off they were slow. Second they didn't maneuver well. Third was the huge crews they required.

A frigate could cross across the bow or stern where the ships of the line were very weakly armed before it could bring the broadsides to bear. Plus people are overestimating the accuracy of the cannons on those ships. They had to have those large number of guns in order to have a hope of causing damage to an enemy ship.

No doubt about it smaller warships were typically more maneuverable than large ships. The 3rd rates were much more maneuverable than 1st and 2nd and would not have been easily out maneuvered by smaller ships. The larger 1st and 2nd rates would never be without support of smaller more maneuverable ships. In addition all of these ships had bow and stern gun positions. On the large ships of the line these bow and stern gun positions had guns powerful enough to inflict severe damage on a smaller ship.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Ok, so the message here is that the early American government would have prohibited the possession by the citizens of any weapons MORE powerful than what the American government could itself afford?


So, I guess then the equivalent is that the current American government should definitely prohibit the private ownership of any weapons EQUALLY OR MORE powerful than thermonuclear weapons, if any such thing is ever invented.

Gotcha.

I did a sorta quick incomplete fix of that statement in bold, italic, underlined type for you. The issue is a little more complex and I don't have the time for more right now. Got it?

 

[Sam1911]

LOL, sure.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I think if you consider that most of the founders and those involved in the independence movement did not support the idea of a standing army the arguments about reciprocity between civilian and government arms is mostly moot, thus the phrase "a well armed militia" that the left attempts to use as a way of denying civilian ownership of arms is grossly misunderstood. I see no limitations on what a citizen could own in any writings I have found concerning the latter half of the 18th Century. I have found that it was not considered "proper" in some areas to conceal a weapon under your clothing, however that would have been a state or local regulation and not a Federal regulation.

As to the raving about armed ships, one must realize that in the civilian world there must be an incentive to own something that is as costly to build and operate as a gunship of any size is. Unless a private citizen or group can profit from owning a warship (such as those given the letters of marque in the 18th and 19th centuries) there is no incentive to bear the burden of such things, so, I guess my take is that there was no prohibition to owning cannons or other "weapons of mass destruction" but little incentive to bear the expense. I don't believe the government was as actively corrupt at that time as it is now.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

What's the difference between a privateer and a pirate?

The Privateer has a Letter of Marquis from a sovereign state making him a legal combatant under their authority. During 41&42, the Goodyears blimp Resolute and Volunteer flew coastal submarine patrols with a Letter of Marquis, although the ships themselves were not commissioned.

Letters of Reprisal can be issues against specific individuals or groups. A number of libertarian leaning folks in recent years have proposed them as alternatives to War.

Mike

 

[Nom de Forum]

I think if you consider that most of the founders and those involved in the independence movement did not support the idea of a standing army the arguments about reciprocity between civilian and government arms is mostly moot, thus the phrase "a well armed militia" that the left attempts to use as a way of denying civilian ownership of arms is grossly misunderstood. I see no limitations on what a citizen could own in any writings I have found concerning the latter half of the 18th Century. I have found that it was not considered "proper" in some areas to conceal a weapon under your clothing, however that would have been a state or local regulation and not a Federal regulation.

As to the raving about armed ships, one must realize that in the civilian world there must be an incentive to own something that is as costly to build and operate as a gunship of any size is. Unless a private citizen or group can profit from owning a warship (such as those given the letters of marque in the 18th and 19th centuries) there is no incentive to bear the burden of such things, so, I guess my take is that there was no prohibition to owning cannons or other "weapons of mass destruction" but little incentive to bear the expense. I don't believe the government was as actively corrupt at that time as it is now.

Funny how when people disagree in a lengthy conversation simplistic dismissive terms such as “raving” sometimes are used by a participant who has become either intellectually lazy, distracted by intellectual exhaustion, or simply irritated by something they wish was not a topic of discussion. As has been posted early and several times in this thread, and understood by those paying attention, it has been acknowledged by all that there in not a financial incentive for private ownership of a purpose built (meaning of too limited or unprofitable commercial use) large warship. Whatever argument has been made about civilian operation of ships in warfare it is abundantly clear these were not purpose built, large warships anything like the largest ships of the line vessels. While there may have been no written prohibition to civilian ownership of any number of “cannons”, it does not mean government leaders are going to permit private ownership of the 18th century’s only weapon of mass destruction, the large ship of the line. You only need to see past the bright lights of the political idealism at that time to see that American political leaders would understand the need to use the off switch of Realpolitik to prevent potential threats to government control the most powerful weapon system in existence.

I think if you consider that most of the Founding Fathers had some very negative opinions of the excesses of “liberty” they saw demonstrated daily by Americans and the corruption in both the business and political spheres that was even greater than today; it is very understandable why they strove to establish both specific and nonspecific legal controls in addition to to laws promoting liberty. Knowing that makes it is very easy to believe that the leaders of America’s government would not be inclined to permit private ownership and control of a major warship far more powerful that what it controlled. Thinking that the government, or the Media for that matter, is today more “actively corrupt” than in 18th century American tells me you need to do a little more reading. Start with googling “Political corruption in 18th century American” and “Journalism in 18th century America”. You will quickly discover that Federal and State political corruption, and muck raking by The Fourth Estate, was far more prevalent than today. Nepotism, conflicts of interest, bribery, selective enforcement of laws, unlawful use of power, discrimination, restrictive laws based on religious belief, and inaccurate, libelous and politically partisan articles in the media were much more common in 18th century American than today.

This argument in this thread will never end with anyone finding specific written proof that the Founding Father’s would or would not have permitted private ownership of a large ship of the line warship. This argument is purely a disagreement of opinion on how the Founding Fathers would have reacted based on our personal opinions of how governments operate in regard to and regardless of written law and political ideals.

 

[Sam1911]

OK, then. What further good it is? I do agree that it becomes a game of "Yes they would," vs. "No they wouldn't." So then, what?

 

[TwinReverb]

I'm not doing your research for you.

I doubt "high capacity" weapons were even invented by then. But that doesn't mean anything.

Compare that muskets were used on both sides and that a citizen could own one identical to that of the military person of that day. Their guns were identical.

That's as far as I go. Do your own research, please.

Back then, they didn't have cars or interstates either. Just sayin'.

 

[Nom de Forum]

OK, then. What further good it is? I do agree that it becomes a game of "Yes they would," vs. "No they wouldn't." So then, what?

Well unless someone can post something about specific (high capacity) firearms owned by specific Founding Father's I don't know what further good other than additional interesting details about 18th century naval artillery, and distinctions between privateers and naval warships can be posted. After so many posts to the thread it is a shame at least one question has not been answered: Did any of the Founding Fathers own any version of the only "high capacity" weapon in existence which is an artillery piece firing multiple projectiles with one shot. I don't recall ever learning the name of any citizen specifically owning a land based artillery piece in the Revolutionary War to War of 1812 period. I believe just like ship borne artillery some land based artillery must have been owned by individuals.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I'm not doing your research for you.

I doubt "high capacity" weapons were even invented by then. But that doesn't mean anything.

Compare that muskets were used on both sides and that a citizen could own one identical to that of the military person of that day. Their guns were identical.

That's as far as I go. Do your own research, please.

Back then, they didn't have cars or interstates either. Just sayin'.

A strong case can be made that an artillery piece firing various types of multiple projectile ammunition could be considered a "high capacity" weapon. Not much difference in effect on massed infantry between a blast of canister from a cannon and a long burst from a machine gun. The muskets used on both sides and by civilians only shared similar ignition technology, they otherwise varied greatly. The Americans used far more rifles than the British, but on the other hand the British used temporarily, to my knowledge, the only breach loading rifle in the Revolutionary War.