To those that make claim that the founders of our nation never expected that we would have the arms we do today. I submit that you are woefully incorrect in your assumption. To Wit:
"...Organ Guns
"Organ Guns (or War Carts) were primitive, yet effective, multi-chambered
and multi-barreled monstrosities. As early as 1339, a firearm called
the Ribauld, or Ribauldequin, was mentioned as a having several iron
tubes that were arranged to fire stone projectiles simultaneously. This
weapon was purportedly used to good advantage by Edward III in one of
England’s wars with France by blasting an opening in the unyielding
ranks of heavily armored pikemen who were to keep the cavalry from the
bowmen.
"These muzzle-loading battery guns had their barrels arranged in a
side-by-side arrangement in a massive wooden frame that led to them
being called “Organ Guns.” When the iron ball projectile came into use
in 1381 replacing pebbles and stones, many new variations of the Organ
Gun were developed, all in an effort to deliver a great quantity of
projectiles in a concentrated area all at one time.
"In 1382, the army at Ghent had 200 battery guns. A design
constructed in 1387 had 144 barrels grouped in batteries of twelve
allowing twelve salvos of twelve balls each to be fired. In 1411, the
Burgundian army had 2,000 battery guns at their disposal. Louis XII
(1498-1515) is reported to have used a gun having 50 barrels arranged to
be fired in a single volley.
"Obviously, these weapons were clumsy and difficult to transport and
could be termed only a moderate success. Though all the barrels could
be fired in a single volley or in rapid succession, long periods of
inaction due to the manual muzzle reloading of each barrel negated the
advantage of momentary volume of fire and were thus employed in an
auxiliary or supporting role due to its inability to deliver sustained
fire. Nevertheless, their volume of fire was in great demand and used
in many theaters of operation throughout Europe.
Though there were many variations as to arrangements of barrels and
mounting, the only improvement on these weapons was the train of
ignition from one barrel to another. It was shortened in order so that
all the barrels could be fired simultaneously or as nearly as
simultaneously as possible.
Puckle’s “Defense” Gun
Further development of rapid-firing weapons stagnated due to a lack of
technological advancement, particularly in ignition. In the beginning,
the practical system of ignition was a manually applied slow-match or
fuse. From the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, the slow-match
continued to be the primary means of ignition though improvements were
made to the application of this method; though fire was still required
for ignition. From the sixteenth century to 1807, an era of mechanical
means of producing fire evolved using friction of flint upon steel to
produce a spark. Wheel-lock and flintlock mechanical methods were
prevalent at this time but they did not lend themselves to producing any
new revolutionary advancement in rapid fire development. There were
many ideas presented by a variety of inventors, and, perhaps a single
working model was built, but no guns were ever actually put into
production – with one exception.
In 1717, James Puckle demonstrated his gun, called the Defense, to
the English Board of Ordnance and a patent, number 418, was granted in
London on May 15, 1718, on a single barreled gun with a revolver-like
mechanism that allowed a semblance of rapid fire operation. In a
demonstration in 1722, Puckle’s gun fired 63 shots in seven minutes; a
truly remarkable performance at this time period. The English Board of
Ordnance remained unimpressed and no further action was taken on their
part. Nevertheless, Puckle’s Defense gun actually went into production,
an example is extant, and is historically important for a number of
reasons.
The machine gun that we recognize today had to have a genesis in
concept. While Puckle’s gun is nowhere near what we now have today
operationally, it did contain certain aspects that are worth noting
particularly with its mount. The gun operated using a flintlock
ignition system on top of the cylinder. A crank arrangement at the rear
of the cylinder tightened the cylinder up against the barrel. When
tight, the flintlock was activated, igniting the charge in the chamber
and expelling the bullet. The crank was unscrewed loosening the
cylinder, which was turned to present the next chamber to the barrel.
The screw handle was tightened and the gun was ready to fire again.
When all the chambers were empty, totally unscrewing the crank allowed
it to be removed, the revolving chambers removed, and a fresh, loaded
set replaced. A particularly odd feature of the Puckle gun is that the
inventor provided two sets of chambers for his gun. One provided for
shooting square bullets for use against Turks and the other shot round
bullets for use against Christians....
Well now, that certainly obliterates the errant claim that the founders '
never could have foreseen the weapons of today' theory, NOW DOESN'T IT? Which of course throws some additional light on the subject of just what was intended by:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
It is interesting to note that the framers used the broad term of "arms" in the amendment. Which leaves wide open the various types of weapons that were intended to be SECURED in the hands of We The People. If they had meant "pistols", "muskets", "rifles", or "shotguns". Then those are the "arms" that they would have specified. But they were obviously aware of the advances in modern weaponry. And, employed a term that could not be twisted by a tyrannical government. In order to diminish the types of arms available in the hands of the people. We were INTENDED to be armed as our military was armed. To Wit:
"...Little more can reasonably be
aimed at, with respect to the PEOPLE AT LARGE, than to have them
properly ARMED and EQUIPPED .... but if circumstances should at any
time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that
army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while
there is a large body of citizens, LITTLE, if at ALL, INFERIOR to
them in discipline and the USE OF ARMS, who stand ready to DEFEND
THEIR OWN RIGHTS, and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to
me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; and
the best possible security against it, if it should
exist."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29, Independent
Journal, Wednesday, January 9, 1788.
"Besides the advantage of being
armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every
other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the
people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed,
forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more
insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can
admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several
kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources
will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be
able to shake off their yokes . . . . Let us not insult the free and
gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be
less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual
possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to
rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no
longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce
themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long
train of insidious measures which must precede and produce
it."--James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46,
Tuesday, January 29, 1788.
Believe that the words; "that
army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while
there is a large body of citizens, LITTLE, if at ALL, INFERIOR to
them in discipline and the USE OF ARMS..." Make it quite clear that we are entitled to EVERY weapon that our military currently possesses. And, that all current '
regulations' and '
laws' currently enacted by our governments. Are, in FACT, direct infringements upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
No comments:
Post a Comment