• nexguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    The Forefathers didn’t come close to living up to their own words. We are still striving to meet them hundreds of years later. It’s a good goal.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Equally however a lot of that stipulations make no sense.

      For example the gun laws were developed back when firing a shot required about a 45-minute reload session. I somehow doubt that automatic rifles were predicted and considered.

      I highly suspect they thought that the American people would be intelligent enough to make their own constitution when the current one became invalid, sadly not.

      • Patches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Just as the founding fathers intended

        Own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, “Tally ho lads” the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended

      • VegaLyrae@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not to say that the 2nd amendment, as written, isn’t totally wild.

        However I do want to mention that the Continental congress was petitioned by John Belton in 1777 to purchase his 16-shot musket. It also had a not-quite-magazine that could be replaced very quickly. The 16 shots could be fired as quickly as the user could pull the triggers (yes it had multiple).

        Given this, it seems likely that the people writing the constitution ten years later had some idea of rapid fire weaponry.

        Just 20 years after that, they sent Lewis and Clarke expedition out with a relatively rapid firing airgun.

        It is reasonable to say that rapid fire weaponry was contemporaneous to the constitution writing era.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I was going to essentially say this same thing so I’ll just add there was also the Chambers ‘machine gun’ a flintlock naval gun able of firing 224 shots @ ~120 rounds per minute.

          The technology we associate with periods of time isn’t reflective of the peak of technology but more often the median. In the last army rifle trials a company was trying to get a rifle with caseless ammunition in service. That technology has been around since the 1850s and still hasn’t been adopted by anyone despite it’s obvious advantages.

      • Montagge@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        They were also written with the idea that the US wouldn’t have a standing army, but would instead rely on volunteers. You need to have your volunteers armed and at least somewhat proficient with a firearm.

        Of course that’s also how you get the war of 1812 lol.