J
Jeff, CA
Guest
I was surprised to find myself thinking about this the instant I woke up this morning. I'm probably the last one to have thought about this.
"Assault weapons" are vilified because they:
1. are "designed to kill"
2. are "designed to fire as many shots as possible in as short a time as possible"
3. aren't powerful or accurate "enough" for hunting and other sporting purposes
4. are "weapons of war"
And therefore, aren't what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. In fact, there was "no such thing" in their world.
Or was there? Consider the muskets prevalent at that time - state of the art military hardware:
1. their smooth, loose-fitting bore was specifically intended to allow the user to load as fast as possible, and thereby fire as many shots as possible in as short a time as possible.
2. The loose, smooth bore also degraded their accuracy - so much so that they weren't aimed at a particular soldier; rather, they were pointed at a line of soldiers and fired. They probably weren't accurate enough for hunting (they had rifles for that).
3. They were designed and built for organized military groups - a "weapon of war", though they were undoubtedly available to the average citizen.
Thus, by definition (the antis' definition), the musket of the founding fathers' time was an "assault weapon". Given the fact that the founding fathers certainly had personal experience with these "weapons of war", is there any doubt that they had this sort of gun firmly in mind when they wrote the 2nd? Could anyone really believe they were naive enough not to understand the concept and purpose of what was the "assault weapon" of their time?
IMNSHO, it's a slap in the face of the FF for the antis to argue that the FF couldn't have forseen the evolution of firearms, and the "logical" extension that the 2nd doesn't apply to certain modern guns.
Your thoughts?
"Assault weapons" are vilified because they:
1. are "designed to kill"
2. are "designed to fire as many shots as possible in as short a time as possible"
3. aren't powerful or accurate "enough" for hunting and other sporting purposes
4. are "weapons of war"
And therefore, aren't what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. In fact, there was "no such thing" in their world.
Or was there? Consider the muskets prevalent at that time - state of the art military hardware:
1. their smooth, loose-fitting bore was specifically intended to allow the user to load as fast as possible, and thereby fire as many shots as possible in as short a time as possible.
2. The loose, smooth bore also degraded their accuracy - so much so that they weren't aimed at a particular soldier; rather, they were pointed at a line of soldiers and fired. They probably weren't accurate enough for hunting (they had rifles for that).
3. They were designed and built for organized military groups - a "weapon of war", though they were undoubtedly available to the average citizen.
Thus, by definition (the antis' definition), the musket of the founding fathers' time was an "assault weapon". Given the fact that the founding fathers certainly had personal experience with these "weapons of war", is there any doubt that they had this sort of gun firmly in mind when they wrote the 2nd? Could anyone really believe they were naive enough not to understand the concept and purpose of what was the "assault weapon" of their time?
IMNSHO, it's a slap in the face of the FF for the antis to argue that the FF couldn't have forseen the evolution of firearms, and the "logical" extension that the 2nd doesn't apply to certain modern guns.
Your thoughts?
