Founding Fathers and machine guns

[Nyanman]

Why do people say the founding fathers could have never imagined a machine gun?
The Puckle gun, considered the ancestor of machine guns, was invented in 1718.
A man by the name of Joseph Belton invented a flintlock that fired multiple shots for one pull of the trigger, and some examples were commissioned for testing by congress the Continental Congress in 1777.
Given that they would have seen that gun, my guess would be that they could imaging it firing more rounds with not much difficulty.

Enjoy the history lesson on old firearms.

[dustoff31]

Why do people say the founding fathers could have never imagined a machine gun?

Beats me. The really bizare thing is that they say this while on radio, television, the internet, or some such media.

[unusedusername]

For those of us who have no idea what a puckle gun is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

http://patriciahysell.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/puckle-gun/

[killmime1234]

It doesn't matter how big or fast or crazy the guns get in the future, the 2nd Amendment is still just as accurate and relevant. It's purpose is to make sure the people can always match what their government has in case it were to become so oppressive that another revolution becomes necessary.

[MrPlutonium]

For those of us who have no idea what a puckle gun is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

http://patriciahysell.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/puckle-gun/

Square bullets against muslims? Anyone else confused? Are square shaped objects like kryponite to Allah?

[dieselpower]

Most Founding Fathers owned a cannon... a weapon capable to destroy a building 1,000+ yards away.

[dixieD]

Why do people say the founding fathers could have never imagined a machine gun?

I think if the founders could have imagined a machine gun, that they would have written a third amendment that would have read "One third of any tax collected, for any purpose, must be directed toward the purchase of weapons in common use to be provided to the citizens of the United States, in order to preserve a more tranquil relationship between the People and their Government. If taxes are being levied to support a standing military then one half of those taxes shall be used to provide like arms to the People."

[odysseus]

Most Founding Fathers owned a cannon... a weapon capable to destroy a building 1,000+ yards away.

Exactly. The narrative that tries to be argued about the intent of the Founding Fathers in regards to the 2A that machine guns and etc. were never intended is false and a modern erroneous one. The true intent and reasons for the RKBA and 2A are clear for anyone to read in supporting documents too of the time, and yes common people owned cannons and other arms that were equal to military infantry of the time.

Here we are today arguing about "evil" semiauto pistols and rifles that hold more than 10 rounds today. Patently false and an infringement on inalienable 2A rights. Just call it as it is.

[stix213]

For those of us who have no idea what a puckle gun is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

http://patriciahysell.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/puckle-gun/

LOL!

Puckle demonstrated two versions of the basic design: one, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets. The square bullets were invented in part by Kyle Tunis and were considered to be more damaging. They would, according to the patent, convince the Turks of the "benefits of Christian civilization." The square bullets, however, were discontinued due to their unpredictable flight pattern.

[myk]

Say what you will about a bunch of rich, slave-owning aristocrats who didn't want to pay their taxes, but I believe the Founding Fathers were brilliant enough to leave the 2A open enough to accept the arms of the future, or else they would have been more specific in the amendment itself. Besides, they truly understood that in order to keep a free state, its citizens had to have the right and the ability to repel a tyrannical government.

Now the REAL question to me is why the f**king anti's/grabbers don't understand the 2A and its intent already and leave it and us the hell alone...

[robcoe]

Why do people say the founding fathers could have never imagined a machine gun?
The Puckle gun, considered the ancestor of machine guns, was invented in 1718.
A man by the name of Joseph Belton invented a flintlock that fired multiple shots for one pull of the trigger, and some examples were commissioned for testing by congress the Continental Congress in 1777.
Given that they would have seen that gun, my guess would be that they could imaging it firing more rounds with not much difficulty.

Enjoy the history lesson on old firearms.

It's actually worse than that, as early as the 16th century there were wheellock rifles capable of firing multiple bursts out of a single barrel using superimposed loads.

One example I saw was capable of firing 2 8 round bursts, or as the Brady Campaign would say "OMG it's a high capacity assault machine rifle".

[five.five-six]

Most Founding Fathers owned a cannon... a weapon capable to destroy a building 1,000+ yards away.

And grenades, bombs, mines, mortars, some had warships.


I didn't know about a puckle gun ... this is full WIN!

[aklon]

I love it when some anti-rights enthusiast comes up with this one:; "When the Second Amendment was written people had muskets; the Founding Fathers didn't include machine guns."

To that I say: "And by that logic, freedom of the press means just that: a press. Come to think of it, I like the way you interpet the Constitution. I agree with you, so I'll keep my musket and we can get rid of radio, television, and movies. After all, the Founding Fathers didn't include those in 'freedom of the press.'"

[Root66]

It doesn't matter how big or fast or crazy the guns get in the future, the 2nd Amendment is still just as accurate and relevant. It's purpose is to make sure the people can always match what their government has in case it were to become so oppressive that another revolution becomes necessary.

Yep, the 2A isn't about hunting or personal protection, it's about revolution. Read the writings of the framers.