> I can't help but think the founding fathers probably wrote the second amendment with single shot muskets in mind. Others have mentioned the state of small ar

> I can't help but think the founding fathers probably wrote the second amendment with single shot muskets in mind. Others have mentioned the state of small arms development at the time, so I'll take a different approach. Elsewhere in the Constitution are provisions for the issuance of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". These basically commissioned private ships to serve on behalf of the US government and take enemy ships and cargoes on the high seas. For this provision to be usable at all, private ship owners must have been expected to have appropriate arms at their disposal - muskets, sure, but also swivel guns and cannon. If private individuals were expected to have access to ships armed with weapon able to bombard coastal towns and fortifications... how much sense would it make to believe that those same individuals shouldn't have access to effective small arms?