4 ms·

Not even close. What we would call modern rifles were not invented until 1890's, with semi-auto and fully auto rifles not invented until about 1910 and not wid

by mullen 7y ago

Not even close. What we would call modern rifles were not invented until 1890's, with semi-auto and fully auto rifles not invented until about 1910 and not widely available until the 1930's. The minie ball was not invented until 1830's and did not see wide use until the American Civil war and after in the 1860's. The Founding Fathers were working with muskets and only muskets, they never imagined that the average person could own a AR15 (M4).

calibas 7y ago
Wikipedia says rifles were used during the Revolutionary War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview They were more accurate than muskets, but slower loading, so muskets were preferred.
sigzero 7y ago
Yeah, because they were totally oblivious to "invention". They knew exactly what "arms" meant and it wasn't a static term.
bacondude3 7y ago
> semi-auto and fully auto rifles not invented until about 1910 Not true; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing... > In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds [...] Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner 1777 was 14 years before our Bill of Rights was ratified, and 4 shots/second is faster than an average person can fire any semi-auto weapon, including an AR-15. Also, do you really think the Founding Fathers didn't envision technological advancement? Of course they couldn't have predicted exactly what our current technology looks like, but I'm sure they saw the progression from clubs to swords to guns and expected weapons to continue getting more effective. How could anybody not expect technology to advance over time? It's literally been doing that since the beginning of the world.
- mullen 7y ago
  > Not true; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing.... I should have been more clear. I meant Machine Guns that a regular person could carry and fire without setting up a stand. Maxim and Browning had demonstrated Machine Guns around 1880 to 1900, but they were big and heavy and not something a single individual would carry and they clearly were not for the civilian market. > 1777 was 14 years before our Bill of Rights was ratified, and 4 shots/second is faster than an average person can fire any semi-auto weapon, including an AR-15. The evidence that these guns existed is scant; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock The 4 bullets pistols are the only example they have and that idea is an old and well known one. > Also, do you really think the Founding Fathers didn't envision technological advancement? Of course they couldn't have predicted exactly what our current technology looks like, but I'm sure they saw the progression from clubs to swords to guns and expected weapons to continue getting more effective. How could anybody not expect technology to advance over time? It's literally been doing that since the beginning of the world. You are looking at this with 21st century eyes where every 10 years the world changes so much. The world of the Founding Fathers in 1788 was a world very similar to the world of 1688 and 1588. The food and clothes were different and not much else. To say that the Founding Fathers could have imagined a AR15 or AK47 is real stretch of the imagination. I am pretty sure that if you walked into the Constitution Convention of 1787 and laid out an AR15 and said, "One day a young man with this weapon will walk into a school and kill 20 children and 6 staff members with one of these and mass shootings happen with regularity." I am pretty sure the 2nd Amendment would be a lot different and a lot more clear.
  - bacondude3 7y ago
    I'm sorry this got so long, but I don't want to rewrite the entire thing now... > The evidence that these guns existed is scant Yes, but the idea of them existing was enough to interest Congress, who tried to order 100 of them. They backed out of their order due to the cost. If they had existed at a reasonable price, one can assume Congress would have gone through with their order. > The world of the Founding Fathers in 1788 was a world very similar to the world of 1688 and 1588 You're discounting the technological advancement of that era just because we've had more inventions in recent history. Innovation happened slower back then, but there were still large improvements in technology during the Founding Fathers' lives. Ben Franklin, who was one of the Founding Fathers himself, invented a lot of stuff during his life. > You are looking at this with 21st century eyes So are you. One of the reasons American citizens haven't had to bear their arms (some exceptions[1][2][3][4]) is because we have them and are able to use them if necessary. Few people are willing to die for a cause, and far fewer are willing if they have reason to expect their death will be in vain, and for their side to lose. People are only willing to give up the rights they have now because they don't know what it was like without them. > I am pretty sure that if you walked into the Constitution Convention of 1787 and laid out an AR15 and said, "One day a young man with this weapon will walk into a school and kill 20 children and 6 staff members with one of these and mass shootings happen with regularity." I am pretty sure the 2nd Amendment would be a lot different and a lot more clear. We definitely agree that the Founding Fathers would be horrified by modern society. However, I don't think their reaction would be to limit firearm ownership. (Probably, they would probably want to know why tax dollars are going to the federal gov't to create public schools and why adults failed the kid) Would they have also changed the First Amendment to limit religion to Christian/Puritan variants? Probably not; they created the Bill of Rights to acknowledge rights that no human can morally take from another person, since the rights come from God*. Ultimately, we can't prevent others from causing harm. Making black powder is easy and cheap, and tossing some fireworks in a pressure cooker or a pipe is something anyone can do. If we could hypothetically remove all guns from the entire world, badguys would cause harm through other methods, such as bombings or vehicle attacks[5]. We need to fix the root causes of these evils, not ban the weapon(s) they currently use so we can feel good about doing something. - Lastly, I'm assuming you made this mistake in good faith but implying that our priority for minimizing mass murders should be banning AR-15 style rifles is misleading. Most mass shootings are committed with handguns[6]. So why not ban handguns then? Because in America, guns are used in a defensive manner far more often than they're used to murder people[7][8]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff (not an endorsement, but it's relevant) [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Korean_Americans_during_the_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Korean_... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack [6]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/06/16/why-banning-ar-15s-and-other-assault-weapons-wont-stop-mass-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/06/16/why-... [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use [8]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-16 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

by mullen 7y ago

calibas 7y ago

Wikipedia says rifles were used during the Revolutionary War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview They were more accurate than muskets, but slower loading, so muskets were preferred.

sigzero 7y ago

Yeah, because they were totally oblivious to "invention". They knew exactly what "arms" meant and it wasn't a static term.

bacondude3 7y ago

> semi-auto and fully auto rifles not invented until about 1910 Not true; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing... > In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds [...] Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner 1777 was 14 years before our Bill of Rights was ratified, and 4 shots/second is faster than an average person can fire any semi-auto weapon, including an AR-15. Also, do you really think the Founding Fathers didn't envision technological advancement? Of course they couldn't have predicted exactly what our current technology looks like, but I'm sure they saw the progression from clubs to swords to guns and expected weapons to continue getting more effective. How could anybody not expect technology to advance over time? It's literally been doing that since the beginning of the world.

mullen 7y ago
> Not true; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun#Early_rapid-firing.... I should have been more clear. I meant Machine Guns that a regular person could carry and fire without setting up a stand. Maxim and Browning had demonstrated Machine Guns around 1880 to 1900, but they were big and heavy and not something a single individual would carry and they clearly were not for the civilian market. > 1777 was 14 years before our Bill of Rights was ratified, and 4 shots/second is faster than an average person can fire any semi-auto weapon, including an AR-15. The evidence that these guns existed is scant; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock The 4 bullets pistols are the only example they have and that idea is an old and well known one. > Also, do you really think the Founding Fathers didn't envision technological advancement? Of course they couldn't have predicted exactly what our current technology looks like, but I'm sure they saw the progression from clubs to swords to guns and expected weapons to continue getting more effective. How could anybody not expect technology to advance over time? It's literally been doing that since the beginning of the world. You are looking at this with 21st century eyes where every 10 years the world changes so much. The world of the Founding Fathers in 1788 was a world very similar to the world of 1688 and 1588. The food and clothes were different and not much else. To say that the Founding Fathers could have imagined a AR15 or AK47 is real stretch of the imagination. I am pretty sure that if you walked into the Constitution Convention of 1787 and laid out an AR15 and said, "One day a young man with this weapon will walk into a school and kill 20 children and 6 staff members with one of these and mass shootings happen with regularity." I am pretty sure the 2nd Amendment would be a lot different and a lot more clear.
- bacondude3 7y ago
  I'm sorry this got so long, but I don't want to rewrite the entire thing now... > The evidence that these guns existed is scant Yes, but the idea of them existing was enough to interest Congress, who tried to order 100 of them. They backed out of their order due to the cost. If they had existed at a reasonable price, one can assume Congress would have gone through with their order. > The world of the Founding Fathers in 1788 was a world very similar to the world of 1688 and 1588 You're discounting the technological advancement of that era just because we've had more inventions in recent history. Innovation happened slower back then, but there were still large improvements in technology during the Founding Fathers' lives. Ben Franklin, who was one of the Founding Fathers himself, invented a lot of stuff during his life. > You are looking at this with 21st century eyes So are you. One of the reasons American citizens haven't had to bear their arms (some exceptions[1][2][3][4]) is because we have them and are able to use them if necessary. Few people are willing to die for a cause, and far fewer are willing if they have reason to expect their death will be in vain, and for their side to lose. People are only willing to give up the rights they have now because they don't know what it was like without them. > I am pretty sure that if you walked into the Constitution Convention of 1787 and laid out an AR15 and said, "One day a young man with this weapon will walk into a school and kill 20 children and 6 staff members with one of these and mass shootings happen with regularity." I am pretty sure the 2nd Amendment would be a lot different and a lot more clear. We definitely agree that the Founding Fathers would be horrified by modern society. However, I don't think their reaction would be to limit firearm ownership. (Probably, they would probably want to know why tax dollars are going to the federal gov't to create public schools and why adults failed the kid) Would they have also changed the First Amendment to limit religion to Christian/Puritan variants? Probably not; they created the Bill of Rights to acknowledge rights that no human can morally take from another person, since the rights come from God*. Ultimately, we can't prevent others from causing harm. Making black powder is easy and cheap, and tossing some fireworks in a pressure cooker or a pipe is something anyone can do. If we could hypothetically remove all guns from the entire world, badguys would cause harm through other methods, such as bombings or vehicle attacks[5]. We need to fix the root causes of these evils, not ban the weapon(s) they currently use so we can feel good about doing something. - Lastly, I'm assuming you made this mistake in good faith but implying that our priority for minimizing mass murders should be banning AR-15 style rifles is misleading. Most mass shootings are committed with handguns[6]. So why not ban handguns then? Because in America, guns are used in a defensive manner far more often than they're used to murder people[7][8]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff (not an endorsement, but it's relevant) [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Korean_Americans_during_the_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Korean_... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack [6]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/06/16/why-banning-ar-15s-and-other-assault-weapons-wont-stop-mass-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/06/16/why-... [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use [8]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-16 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...