• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

BOOMcat12B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
70
Location
Missouri
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:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!
 

Preyn2

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
13
Location
Burnet, Tx
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?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Semi-automatics were in existence during the time period that the constitution was written...

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

Xulld

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
159
Location
Florida
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.
 

Barnett3006

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
98
Location
Tennessee, USA
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.
 

Xulld

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
159
Location
Florida
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.

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 . . .
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
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.
 

Pejerrey

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
14
Location
Oakland ca
. 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 :D) 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:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

Keylock

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
196
Location
OKC
Top