The Founders had a repeating firearm which functioned quite similarly to the AR-15. It was called the Girandoni air rifle, and was taken by Lewis and Clarke on their expedition. 20 round magazines, 30 shot air compression system, with shooters generally taking 5 magazines and 3 air compression tanks for ~90 shots at any given time.
It amazes me that this gun didn't catch on even more than it did at the time, and we had to wait for the Spencer repeaters to see significant advancement in high capacity rifle tech.
>we only had muskets back then, you don't need anything else leftists don't even realize muskets were illegal from 1994-2004 because a bayonet mount instantly made an assault weapon
Adrian Ward
At the time, that rifle was made with the bleeding edge of manufacturing technology.
only a few Cities had the level of industrialization needed to build it.
Jonathan Powell
The militia clause specifically meant that the right to keep and bear arms was meant for military weapons. The initial drafts of the 2nd Amendment defined members of the militia as the body of the people.
>"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
Joseph Gonzalez
Huh, I thought I had read that Madison burned all the notes from discussions on their intent to avoid debates like this.
Gabriel Foster
The elipsis in the quote is an obfuscation.
The quote directly from the national archives, written in James Madison's own words, is:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Note the absence of the elipsis- there is nothing between "bear" and "arms."
Thats interesting stuff, but didn't Madison specifically not want us to use his comments for enforcement. I always took it as a desire to maximize the liberties provided in the constitution, but that's just me. I think the founders would be mortified to see how narrowly the courts have interpreted the amendments.
Zachary Cook
Not surprising at all. The United States was mostly modeled after the Roman emprie in the republic area frist and after Greek city states secound. The right to always bear your weapon, own property and be able to express your thoughts is really the way to tell whether you are a citizen or a slave.
Evan Nelson
The Roman military couldn't bear their arms in Rome during the republic except under extremely rare circumstances with Senate approval. The citizenry could never arm themselves in the city during the Republic era AFAIK (they could of course own/possess them and arm themselves outside the city).
Isaac Anderson
How many rebel generals decided to cross the Tiber in full knowledge of precisely that?
Grayson Lopez
Oh I am not in any way arguing that the Romans were right to ban weapons in the city (though maybe banning the military in Rome was a pretty fucking rock solid idea). I was just pointing out that the 2nd amendment is not a good parallel to Rome. We came up with something different and better.
Adrian Foster
>The Roman military couldn't bear their arms in Rome True, but the regular military wasn’t really allowed in Rome anyway they had a city guard and a senate guard. Military leaders without troops were allowed to carry their weapons, to the best of my knowledge even often before the senate. It’s factually inaccurate that roman citizens weren’t allowed to bear arms. Out of they city they almost always were allowed to carry weapons. In the city limitations were possible, but mostly only against shields and amour, not against knives and swords.
Justin Young
>mostly only against shields and amour, not against knives and swords.
Interesting that swords would be allowed but shields not. Since Rome was essentially a war-cult society, I suppose it makes sense. You can fuck a cunt up, but can't suit up because then it probably means you were planning to be the cunt in the first place.
Jason Perez
You can buy modern +2500fps air rifles that shoot large caliber projectiles without a background check. They'll drop an elk no problem, though hunting with one is illegal.
Ian Stewart
Pilum and other far reaching weapons were also stronger restricted within city parameters. I guess this and the ban on defense weapons was that if somebody started something they could stop it faster. Also they couldn’t really say no axes and swords, because you need an ax for many jobs and you also often need knives and it’s rather hard say what’s a still a knife and what’s already a sword,
Leo Reed
Got a link? That sounds pretty cool
the knife sword thing is kind of like the semi-automatic rifle thing- the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle is semantics.
Jason Ross
The founders knew that if you want something then you need to have the power to do/keep it. Disarmed nations are slave nations. You can only keep what the government lets you and that includes your kids.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Henry_Lee In 1788 wrote: >The military forces of a free country may be considered under three general descriptions — 1. The militia. 2. the navy — and 3. the regular troops >A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves >The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important >militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined >by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided.
Are you protecting your community from thieves, foreigners and corporate scum? If yes, then you should have guns. Or are you just a moron with gun working for foreigner corporate bosses who is a thief of community? Then you aren't suppose to have guns.
Americans haven't establish any militia, guns were never meant to be for loner dumbasses, militia was suppose to protect society from corruption, thieves and foreigners. You failed at most basic goal of why you have guns.
Alexander Brown
My reason for bringing his words up was not for enforcement. People are arguing intent. His intent is pretty clear in that quote, and attempts to recast the intent by omitting historical records seems wrong.
Honestly, it's not the price but the capacity that I find disappointing. In my mind, having an air pressure system should allow for 100+ round magazines, these don't even compete with my 30 round p-mags.
Carson Johnson
I would give my left nut for one of these with a safe reproduction pressure tank and the complete kit for casting shot etc.
Leo Parker
And the tanks are bulky and a pain to refill. Most people use them for boars because the pigs don't seem to care if one of them dies as long as it dies quietly. Also poaching. You probably go on a list when you buy one. They're nifty though, I'd happily receive one as a gift.
Asher Hill
these had been around awhile at the time. square bullets please
firearms were deadlier back them. Higher kill rate per hit.
Bullets were crudely cast chunks of lead. Blunderbusses would be filled with all sorts of shit.
Getting grazed could land you with a massive infection, gangrene, tetanus.
No pain killer or antibiotics.
Modern guns would have to be filled with bullets that give you Malaria
Jaxson Thomas
civilians were encouraged to make their own cannons and high explosives at home.
That is like the modern government asking you to make pipe bombs and your own nukes.
The founding fathers were hardcore guerrillas.
Adam Foster
>I would give my left nut for one of these with a safe reproduction pressure tank You can buy them anywhere here or in the US, pellets a a dime a dozen. I bough one of these pic related last year (single shot, but .45 cal though) pyramydair.com/a/Air_guns/Air_rifles/Precharged_Pneumatic_PCP_Air_Rifles/155
These aren't 20 shot magazines with ~.50 caliber though. Somehow all the modern air rifles fall short of the revolutionary model on caliber/capacity. I feel like we are discovering an untapped market here.
Easton Stewart
Well yeah, best I can find is in .50 single shot or .22 with a 30 shot mag (semi auto). Probably some regulation on the max pressure that the gov deems safe. 20 .50 cal shots would take a lot of air. I get about 8-20 good single shots out of mine before it needs a recharge. It's bolt action single, will smash a cinder block though
James Thomas
>8-20 *8-10
Michael Ross
So it would need a lot of air, but it seems that 250 years ago we could get it going with just a hand crank and 1500 turns for 30 shots. How have we not improved, and in fact regressed since the time of the fife?!
Charles Hall
>The founding fathers didn't want you to have an AR-15 They were revolutionaries, and used to fucking fuel each other to grievous injury and death over insult and disagreement. Why do people want to pretend the founders would be shocked by violence with guns?
>How have we not improved Ah, I just looked up the Girandoni air rifle, it does have some serious draw-backs compared to modern .50 cal. It is not semi auto, rather it is a repeater and it only has a 500fps projectile velocity. Modern high powered big bore air rifles today are 1000-1400fps. Also it used a smooth bore and ball shot, as opposed to the modern 'bullet' shaped ammo and a rifled barrel. Still I agree with modern materials and machining someone should be able to make what you are suggesting
Ayden Perry
>smooth bore it was riffled according to vid from comments: >The fellow who carried one with the Lewis and Clark expedition complained about the amount of time he spent keeping it in firing order. Lots of things could go wrong with it because of the internal complexity. They would often make demonstrations of the weapon when meeting various native tribes. The natives never knew how many of the things the expedition had and that probably saved them from being attacked on at least two occasions.
Colton Collins
Faggots who want gun control fail to realize semi-automatic flintlock rifles were an actual thing before the USA even existed, amazing piece of engineering like the Kalthoff Repeater, or even multishot cannons that fired just as fast as modern machine gun.
The founding father would have fucking loved having that kind of weaponry if it wasn't from the fact that it was a real pain to maintain and to make the piece for on a industrial scale, at least with the insurance that it wouldn't misfire due to a madly handforged ammo or rifle cannon.
Nathan Fisher
All valid points. I just feel like someone should build an air-powered rifle with 100 shots, each at 50-60 grain. Weight wouldn't be enormous, physical size wouldn't be enormous, cost shouldn't be too obscene. It could be a game changer.
this picture doesn't make sense. how do i use a piece of bacon to defend myself from a government of satanic pedophile cannibal occultists who worship jews and fuck each other like the faggot masons they are?
Sebastian Perez
Check this one out Air Ordnance SMG .22 Fully Automatic Air Rifle 100 round belt feed, 12 rounds/sec youtube.com/watch?v=-ksIFQSh2n0
I think the idea was that the founders wanted the people to have the same caliber of arms the government does.
Jason Rivera
They had a woman on tv who is related to George Washington himself. She says her entire family agrees he wouldn’t have been ok with this and would want ARs banned. So there you have it
Ethan Rodriguez
1/10 I replied
Luke Clark
Cool as fuck and under 700 bucks. As you said, the 22 pellets are a bit light, but how could I complain about tommy guns with 100 round drums that are 100% legal?! air-ordnance.com/smg-22-tactical-hpa-limited-edition/
James Jackson
The founders probably didn't think there would be such a large faction 240 years later trying to survive vert the meaning of the words they wrote in an effort to radically change the country they founded into something they never intended.
Hudson Green
The shots were 700fps not 500fps did you even do your research
He must be spinning in his grave, but it's fake so.
Charles Walker
Why not just.... take the bayonet off. Are Americans actually this stupid
Logan Ortiz
He means the thing you put the bayonet on, dumbass.
John Watson
Yeah. Take it off lol is that seriously so hard to comprehend
Blake Allen
It's part of the gun, you stupid Australian shit. You can't take it off.
Sebastian Gray
Wait wait wait, literal assault rifles are ok, but an out-dated musket is banned because you can mount a fucking KNIFE on it? Is this a joke?
Isaiah Cooper
The joke is that leftist lawmakers don't know anything about guns. So they ban anything that sounds scary.
Zachary Campbell
He's saying the bayonet mount classifies muskets as assault rifles, which made them banned during the assault weapons ban
James Taylor
No, it isn't. Ever been on the stabbing end of a bayoneted weapon? Would you want to be? Do you even comprehend what that would be like? You fucking non-American retards know so little about violence it's absolutely embarrassing that you need our protection. Jesus Christ.
Not that I support banning it because SHALL, but there's certainly a public safety argument to be made.
Kevin Rodriguez
>hurt durr this gun is dangerous because it has knife on it. So Americans ARE this retarded
Ethan Hughes
Democrats, yes.
Owen Lee
Are you abbo?
Brody Torres
Probably not as bad as being shredded by an AR-15
Gavin Clark
No my friend, I guarantee no about would spend his time typing anything but centrelink forms
So do retards naturally gravitate to the Democratic party or does the democratic elite keep their members stupified to be nothing but useless idiots
Lucas Perez
>a knife >more dangerous than a gun Just doesn't make sense pal
Kayden Cruz
”The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ~Thomas Jefferson
”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” ~George Washington
"The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” ~George Washington
”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington
”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” ~Alexander Hamilton
”To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” ~George Mason
”Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.” ~Thomas Paine
”The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.” ~James Monroe
”To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” ~George Washington
”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ~Thomas Jefferson (quoting Cesare Beccaria)
It isn't just Democrats. Being a politician allows one to assume the mantle of knowledge of all things and a natural understanding of how the world should work. Combine that with the ability to pass laws to effect their desired outcome and it's easy to see why the world is shit.
Wyatt Thomas
It's not a firearm.
Aaron Hernandez
The founders were some of the smartest people in the world but they couldn't have possibly imagined that firearms technology would ever improve in any way.
Also they clearly meant for only muskets to be protected that's why the 2nd Amendment clearly states "the right to keep and bear muskets" if they wanted all weapons to be protected they would have used some word like "arms" instead of "muskets."
Ian Ortiz
>The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. The militia is addendum.
