Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 147

Thread: Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    70

    Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

    So I was on FB this morning and saw this as someone's status-

    All this talk about gun control or none is kinda annoying... how many more INNOCENT lives have to be lost?? Oh and just so everyone knows, when our founding fathers put the right to have guns they definitely didn't have semi automatic guns!! Sorry, just saying

    And this was my response-

    Prohibition failed...Folks still got booze. AR's (those evil black looking guns) were banned in CT and yet they were still used in the spree shooting. So tell me how did gun control help? Let em ask you this... Even though the founding fathers did not have Semi autos, what do you think the point of the second amendment was? Why did they make it # 2 in our BOR? That would imply it being rather important considering the BOR was the MAJOR rights out founding fathers thought we should have. So what happens if we lose our right to arm ourselves? Well that would allow the government free rein to do as they please, as no one would have the equipment to stop them. Another way to look at it is by thinking of your children... Would you like to protect them from murders, pedophiles, and criminals in general? Let's say you get robbed at knife point and just happen to move to slowly and the robber slits your throat, then slits your partners throat. Then your children are put into foster care, and they are subjected to a really bad life and grow up maladjusted to the real world, including behavior problems, lack of an ability to concentrate and mental instability due to massive physiological trauma wrought early in their lives. However if you were armed and a robber pulled a knife, you simply pull, aim, fire. Guess what you live, keep your money and your children do not grow up with out parents. Oh and I used a knife just as an example...Guess who does not care about laws? Criminals. Guess who will have a gun no matter what the government says? Criminals. Even if the robber is packing a firearm, with proper situational awareness and thinking you can still eliminate the threat and save your life as well as that of your children. However if uncle Sam takes away our guns then you stand roughly a 0% chance of doing anything to protect your family. Just food for thought.

    I am curious what you guys think of my response as well as what you all might of said in reply to the post. I understand I was slightly graphic but sometimes telling someone the cold hard brutal truth of worse case scenarios can be like a cold water wake up. Do you think this is going to far? I fear there will be more posts like this and more arguments coming in the future and I would like a better grasp and idea/plan of action for situations like this.

    Thanks for your time and have a good one,.
    Last edited by BOOMcat12B; 12-27-2012 at 09:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    How about the that private individuals at the time owned cannons?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    My response to the claim of "2nd amendment does not apply to our modern weapons is to remind them that when it was written it did apply to all modern weapons at the time. Also, refer them to the 1st amendment would this require that all written communication would be limited to quill and ink--- the modern form AT THE TIME!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  4. #4
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Founding fathers did not have drones, why does Obama need them? And why does he kill children with them?
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  5. #5
    Regular Member Preyn2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Burnet, Tx
    Posts
    13

    Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

    Correct: Our Founding Fathers did not have semi-automatic firearms.

    Neither did the criminals of the time. Now they do.

    Neither did the military adversaries of the time. Now they do.

    Shouldn't we be able to defend ourselves with equipment that is at least as capable as our adversaries?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Semi-automatics were in existence during the time period that the constitution was written...

    WalkingWolf ... odd, they don't like to talk about this ...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Semi-automatics were in existence during the time period that the constitution was written...

    WalkingWolf ... odd, they don't like to talk about this ...
    You have some info on this? All I can find is 1885 Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher model 85.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
    You have some info on this? All I can find is 1885 Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher model 85.
    I think all you need to find is one ... good job !

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    98
    1. Our Founding Fathers and the early citizens of the United States had exactly the same arms that most militaries had at the time, and in many cases civilian firearms where better in some ways then the standard military musket was.

    2. Our Constitution was written in 1787, 98 years prior to the Mannlicher M1885. A better example of a repeating arm of the same time period as the writing of the Constitution would have be the Girandoni Air Rifle which was accepted for service in the Austrian Army in 1780 and stayed in service for the next 35 years. The Lewis and Clark Expedition carried atleast one of these rifles for demonstration of the firepower they had to the Natives they encountered.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    The Founding Fathers may not have had semi-automatics, but they would have wanted to.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by DangerClose View Post
    The Founding Fathers may not have had semi-automatics, but they would have wanted to.
    They absolutely would have.

  12. #12
    Regular Member moonie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    High Point NC
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think all you need to find is one ... good job !
    Um wow, talk about FAIL! Good job!
    We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.

    Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Re: Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

    The Puckle Gun and Joseph Belton say hi.

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think all you need to find is one ... good job !
    Except that it wasn't invented as of the writing of the document in question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barnett3006 View Post
    1. Our Founding Fathers and the early citizens of the United States had exactly the same arms that most militaries had at the time, and in many cases civilian firearms where better in some ways then the standard military musket was.

    2. Our Constitution was written in 1787, 98 years prior to the Mannlicher M1885. A better example of a repeating arm of the same time period as the writing of the Constitution would have be the Girandoni Air Rifle which was accepted for service in the Austrian Army in 1780 and stayed in service for the next 35 years. The Lewis and Clark Expedition carried atleast one of these rifles for demonstration of the firepower they had to the Natives they encountered.
    I remember that weapon, but its really not a firearm as we currently define it is it?

    The whole game being played favors the anti's argument, like many of their arguments its tangential at best, and ignores the core concepts of the document to begin with, AND ignores the process of amending the constitution, but I digress and none of that matters to them anyways.

    For me it was just academic. I am literally that nerdy . . .

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    It wasn't until World War II (after passage of NFA '34) that standard issue military rifles caught up with, then passed, common civilian rifles, technology-wise. The biggest gap in favor of civilian arms was from the Civil War through WWI, but even in the American Revolution the farmer militiamen commonly had rifles that would far out-range the British muskets.

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnett3006 View Post
    1. Our Founding Fathers and the early citizens of the United States had exactly the same arms that most militaries had at the time, and in many cases civilian firearms where better in some ways then the standard military musket was.

    2. Our Constitution was written in 1787, 98 years prior to the Mannlicher M1885. A better example of a repeating arm of the same time period as the writing of the Constitution would have be the Girandoni Air Rifle which was accepted for service in the Austrian Army in 1780 and stayed in service for the next 35 years. The Lewis and Clark Expedition carried atleast one of these rifles for demonstration of the firepower they had to the Natives they encountered.
    Many, if not most, of the people in the revolutionary period had long guns which were superior to those of the continental army. The people commonly owned rifles whereas most of the long guns the continental army had were smooth bores. The rifle was the "assault weapon" of that period.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    I actually had a long "discussion" with a fellow on facebook about the bill of rights. He was adamant that the 1st 4th and 5th amendments were able to change to incorporate new technology and methods, but that the second was limited to only covering black powder weapons. I discontinued the discussion soon thereafter, since i was no longer willing to waste my time on such drivel. He also had an issue with the idea that a firearm is a tool, he kept wanting to say no, no, no it is a weapon it is evil, effectively. We as a country have ecome dangerously divorced from the realities underpinning our existence. No one understands that it only takes one side to commit an atrocity, that our meat does not spring forth magically wrapped in the store's freezer and that nothing is worse than misunderstanding equality of opportunity for equality of outcome.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Oakland ca
    Posts
    14

    Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    . He also had an issue with the idea that a firearm is a tool, he kept wanting to say no, no, no it is a weapon it is evil, effectively. We as a country have ecome dangerously divorced from the realities underpinning our existence. No one understands that it only takes one side to commit an atrocity, that our meat does not spring forth magically wrapped in the store's freezer and that nothing is worse than misunderstanding equality of opportunity for equality of outcome.
    Oh, I know what you mean! let me explain a bit:

    I definitively understand why some people want to make clear that weapon is not a tool, it's about semantics. The same line of thought applies to our food, like not acknowledging we are eating cow actually. It's an effort to not loose the connection with what things really are, like saying game instead of wild animals.

    However, I eat cow and my son knows we eat cows and we have to kill them to eat them and all of that. And when the time comes, if I have a shotgun soon (I hope ) for skeet and trap, he will know it is a weapon but its used as sport gear.... and if I have a tactical for HD he will know it is a weapon to defend ourselves at home from robbers and it is meant to hurt and kill them if necessary(I hope never).

    So I will teach him that my shotgun is a weapon not a tool or toy or anything else. But.... Dang, that is my opinion.

    You may have very good reasons to call it a tool, right?

    Sometimes we waste time on things like that instead of focusing on what is the problem. It's an ego thing to prove someone else wrong instead of looking for a solution to the conflict.

    I've been watching people's reactions lately and I've participated in some conversations where my eyes got opened widely to what is really going on.

    A few weeks ago I was anti-gun but I really didn't have any thoughtful conversation with any gun owner about the topic. Talking to the right people and of course with an opens mind for a logical debate, changed my perspective.

    So, don't silence yourself, there is people out there that wants a safer society and they have been sold the utopia of a gun free world, we are just a little clueless... it only takes a respectful-non-condescending good talk to make people think about the implications of what they are dreaming about, use statistics, numbers, examples of other causes of death and other mass killings using different vehicles than guns.

    Otherwise we will end up in a country where thugs and criminals are heavily armed, police arrives late and the military is busy at the other side of the world doing who knows what (I'm not familiar with their business). Bottom line, helpless civilians... the perfect environment for crime, corruption and abuse.
    Last edited by Pejerrey; 12-27-2012 at 05:59 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Wait a minute, our founding fathers did have assault weapons according to the AWB of the 1990s. Those muskets and rifles had bayonet lugs on them.

    So, since having a bayonet lug qualifies it as an assault weapon under the AWB of the 1990s, then I would have to say that our founding fathers did have assault weapons.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Folks, before debating with people ignorant of truth, you also need to work from a philosophical stance prior to discussing the specifics of firearm types... that the right to bear arms predates the writing and ratification of the 2A, the nation, the colonies and formal nations with invisible boundaries.



    Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012...ht/#more-20943

  21. #21
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    How about the that private individuals at the time owned cannons?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but a private indivual can, at least under federal law, own a muzzle loading cannon of civil war vintage with no restriction if they wanted since the NFA and GCA don't include muzzle loaders, in fact under federal law a felon could legally own a pepper box revolver or a percussion cap pistol no?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  22. #22
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    No they didn't have semi-automatic weapons, but it doesn't matter. The reason they put "shall not be infringed" into the Second Amendment was to protect us against possible restrictions in the future that would prohibit us from owning advanced weaponry. They knew technology would produce weapons they did not have at the time, and they protected our right to own those weapons by saying our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not say our right to keep and bear muskets and swords. It says ARMS!

    I would tell them if the Second Amendment doesn't protect our right to own modern firearms, then the First Amendment doesn't protect freedom of speech with bull-horns, type-writers, computers, telephones, cell phones, Facebook and other technological advancements.

    The freedom of the press is only extended to ink on paper from printing presses.

    The Fourth Amendment is only applicable to our homes and persons. Our vehicles are not protected because they were not around.

    We would not even be able to own vehicles because they are modern, and they are one of the biggest killers in America. When something is used to kill it is a weapon. Regardless of this, they can be used as weapons and they are modern, so they would have to be banned from our possession.

    This anti-gunner arguement is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If that were to be true then everything we currently have would have to be removed from our possession because they were not around then so they are not protected now.

    If their arguement were true, then we could own any current firearm with NO restrictions, because the Constitution was ratified in 1789, meaning the Commerce Clause would ONLY apply to 1789, right? If this is the case, then items of today could not be regulated under this clause because they did not exist then, right? This would work for me.

    I wish the Commerce Clause was very clear as to its intent. Well, it is clear to me, but not to those in Congress and SCOTUS. Trade can be regulated between the states by the FG, but it does not say individual products can be regulated simply because they crossed state lines. The entire meaning of the Commerce Clause has been abolished, as has the meaning and intent of the rest of the Constitution.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	hunt.jpg 
Views:	791 
Size:	25.1 KB 
ID:	9747  
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 12-27-2012 at 11:09 PM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    No they didn't have semi-automatic weapons, but it doesn't matter. The reason they put "shall not be infringed" into the Second Amendment was to protect us against possible restrictions in the future that would prohibit us from owning advanced weaponry. They knew technology would produce weapons they did not have at the time, and they protected our right to own those weapons by saying our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not say our right to keep and bear muskets and swords. It says ARMS!

    I would tell them if the Second Amendment doesn't protect our right to own modern firearms, then the First Amendment doesn't protect freedom of speech with bull-horns, type-writers, computers, telephones, cell phones, Facebook and other technological advancements.

    The freedom of the press is only extended to ink on paper from manual printing presses.

    The Fourth Amendment is only applicable to our homes and persons. Our vehicles are not protected because they were not around.

    We would not even be able to own vehicles because they are modern, and they are one of the biggest killers in America. When something is used to kill it is a weapon. Regardless of this, they can be used as weapons and they are modern, so they would have to be banned from our possession.

    This anti-gunner arguement is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If that were to be true then everything we currently have would have to be removed from our possession because they were not around then so they are not protected now.
    They did have vehicles back in the day. They were in the form of carriages, wagons, ships, etc.

    Interesting to note, 4 horse each weighing 1000lb each pulling a wagon that was 2000lbs(?) for a total of 6000lbs no license no age restriction and a mind of it's own. Car less than 4000lbs must be 16, have license, and it does not have a mind of it's own.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Oakland ca
    Posts
    14

    Our founding fathers did NOT have semi automatics.....

    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    No they didn't have semi-automatic weapons, but it doesn't matter. The reason they put "shall not be infringed" into the Second Amendment was to protect us against possible restrictions in the future that would prohibit us from owning advanced weaponry. They knew technology would produce weapons they did not have at the time, and they protected our right to own those weapons by saying our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not say our right to keep and bear muskets and swords. It says ARMS!

    I would tell them if the Second Amendment doesn't protect our right to own modern firearms, then the First Amendment doesn't protect freedom of speech with bull-horns, type-writers, computers, telephones, cell phones, Facebook and other technological advancements.

    The freedom of the press is only extended to ink on paper from printing presses.

    The Fourth Amendment is only applicable to our homes and persons. Our vehicles are not protected because they were not around.

    We would not even be able to own vehicles because they are modern, and they are one of the biggest killers in America. When something is used to kill it is a weapon. Regardless of this, they can be used as weapons and they are modern, so they would have to be banned from our possession.

    This anti-gunner arguement is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If that were to be true then everything we currently have would have to be removed from our possession because they were not around then so they are not protected now.

    If their arguement were true, then we could own any current firearm with NO restrictions, because the Constitution was ratified in 1789, meaning the Commerce Clause would ONLY apply to 1789, right? If this is the case, then items of today could not be regulated under this clause because they did not exist then, right? This would work for me.

    I wish the Commerce Clause was very clear as to its intent. Well, it is clear to me, but not to those in Congress and SCOTUS. Trade can be regulated between the states by the FG, but it does not say individual products can be regulated simply because they crossed state lines. The entire meaning of the Commerce Clause has been abolished, as has the meaning and intent of the rest of the Constitution.
    Dang man, very well said!
    O..o

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
    Except that it wasn't invented as of the writing of the document in question.


    I remember that weapon, but its really not a firearm as we currently define it is it?

    The whole game being played favors the anti's argument, like many of their arguments its tangential at best, and ignores the core concepts of the document to begin with, AND ignores the process of amending the constitution, but I digress and none of that matters to them anyways.

    For me it was just academic. I am literally that nerdy . . .
    Not by the ATF's definition of a firearm; but it did have a "large capacity" magazine that held 21 "rounds", could fire 30 shots (before the reservoir had to be changed) that are comparable in velocity and energy to today's 45 acp, was accurate to 150 yards and could except an eeeevil bayonet...sounds to me like the morons in the media would have an absolute hissy-fit over it.

    I totally agree with your second point, but I had to point out the 98 year discrepancy.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •