Did the Founding Fathers Want Citizens to Have Military Weapons?

The reason for the 2nd Amendment was written was to give the citizen Military grade weapons to protect themselves from the Government. In 1776 the Military grade weapons was a Mussel loader now it is a fully automatic weapon. Thomas Jefferson said, "an Armed man is a Citizen, an unarmed man is a subject." This country was founded on the premise that all citizens are Sovereign.

I agree full auto has no place in the civilian world. They are designed to be used on fast moving vehicles or aircraft to shoot the enemy. They are also good for laying down cover fire so your soldiers can get into a better position to assault the enemy. It will also kill large numbers of people in a crowd. For civilians is waste too much ammo and you have no idea where most of the bullets are going. Semi-auto is good. Select fire puts the bullets where you want them. I used to own a Ruger 10-22 rifle; it was a semi-automatic weapon with a variety of clips. Anywhere from 10 to 50 rounds. Given this; the Ruger 10-22 carbine is considered an Assault weapon in the state of New Jersey. I am certain it has a similar classification in other states. I agree it is a lethal weapon.

My question is; What designates a weapon as an assault weapon? All firearms: Pistols, Rifles, Carbines, Shotguns are designed to Kill. Pistols are designed to kill people. Many states outlaw pistols for hunting. It does not matter if it is mussel loader, Breach loader single shot, semi or full auto all firearms are all designed to kill. By that reckoning, all firearms are assault weapons.

The mussel loaders of the Revolution were the military weapons of the day. In my opinion from reading the Federalist Papers; the argument that the 2nd amendment only pertains to those type of weapons is flawed as those were the high tech military weapons of that time. In the civil war, breech loader riffles were developed. Repeating Lever and bolt action rifles came soon after. Black powder cap and ball pistols were refitted to use cartridges. The carbine and semi-auto and full auto weapons came a short time later. The founding fathers were adamant in the Federalist Papers that an armed society will keep the government in fear of the people; not the people in fear of the government. I believe if we were able to ask the founding fathers do you think it is a good idea that the people of today to have military grade weapons to defend themselves from the government they would to a man say “Yes.”

As for banning all firearms; this will never work. Anyone who wants to can make a zip gun in the privacy of their home with hand tools and supplies from a hardware store. It will take a while and may not be the best weapon. Then again, firearms started out as handcrafted weapons of exceptional quality. A person in a basic machine shop can manufacturer a pistol, rifle or shotgun in a short amount of time. 3D printers can print a firearm in a few hours. A man in Bulgaria created a key fob gun for personal protection. It is a very small weapon that shoots 22 or 38 caliber bullets. It has a short range of a few feet and fits between 2 fingers. It can be made in a machine shop in less than an hour.

Whatever laws the government passes someone will find a way around it. If the government bans smokeless powder used in the cartridges; someone with a high school level chemistry class education can make a suitable substitute. If all firearms are banned and confiscated then murderous people will find different ways to cause mayhem. Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma City bomber used a truck, fertilizer, and diesel fuel for domestic terrorism.

Guns are not the problem. There is no simple panacea cure for the violence in this country. I will be the first to say I do not have all of the answers on how to fix this huge problem in our country. Any of the simple answers have been put forth and tried. Many have failed. I do believe we need to get back to a Nuclear family for the majority of the people in the country. This will help stabilize many communities. A strong family was the basis of our country for most of its history. But this is a topic for another day.

As always I look forward to the discussion on my views. These are my views and I believe they are for the most part correct. If you have an opposing view I desire a spirited conversation.

“...The smooth bore 69 cal. muzzle loading musket remained the standard infantry weapon in the U.S. Army until 1855. There some militia units armed with the “Mississippi” rifle during the Mexican war...”

Not the case.

The United States was one of the first nations in the world to equip troops with a standard-issue military rifle: the M1803. See the final page of the December 2017 print issue of American Rifleman magazine (the “I have this old gun ...” regular feature). It was of half-stock configuration, made at Harpers Ferry. The column author, Garry James, says it was 60 caliber, but Flayderman lists it as 54 caliber.

From 1803 until 1855, US land forces used two standard long arms, issuing rifles to some units and smoothbore muskets to most other units. It was recognized that the rifle offered greater range and accuracy, but was more difficult and slower to load; the musket, on the other hand, offered quicker loading, and thus superior short-range firepower (shots per minute). Rifle troops were allowed a full minute to load; musket troops were required to load four rounds per minute.

Later rifles were the M1814, M1817, and M1841 muzzle loaders. All were 54 caliber. The first US-issue breechloaders were made on the Hall pattern at Harpers Ferry, starting with the M1819 in 52 caliber.

(The M1841 earned its nickname “Mississippi Rifle” thanks to its use in the Mexican War by a Mississippi regiment under the command of Jefferson Davis, a graduate of West Point and a Regular Army officer at the time. Davis later became President of the Confederacy.)

Numerous experiments were made to combine the quick-loading capabilities of a smoothbore with the accuracy and range of a rifle: the Baker, Thouvenin, and Delvigne systems were some. These were all English or European in origin.

The problem received its best solution in the 1840s when Capt Claude-Etienne Minie of the French Army developed a hollow-base bullet. A small iron plug was placed in the base; when the arm fired, the hot gases rammed the plug into the soft lead of the projectile, expanding it to grip the rifling.

Capt James Burton, a US Army officer assigned to Harpers Ferry, perfected Minie’s concept by reshaping the hollow base; the plug was dispensed with. The US Rifle Musket M1855 adopted in that year was of 58 caliber, firing the new projectile. Effective range more than tripled compared to the smoothbore musket with no loss of rapidity in loading, and the dual-caliber system was obsolete.

“Minie balls” were used extensively during the Crimean War and the American Civil War.

Thousands of M1841 rifles were rebored to 58 cal. Many 69 cal muskets were rifled; many flintlocks were converted to percussion as well.

“... the AR-15 is not a military weapon. It was originally designed and sold as a civilian weapon and has never been used by the US Military.”

Definitely not the case.

ArmaLite developed the original arm from designs by Eugene Stoner: they called it the AR-10. It was a select-fire arm in 7.62x51mm NATO and ArmaLite hoped it would compete to become the new US standard issue infantry arm.

AR-10 arrived too late to become a serious contender, and as a developmental item suffered some problems. By then, the selection process was nearing its end and the only rifles with any chances were FN’s prototype FAL (T48 in US Ordnance nomenclature) and the T44, an in-house design no more than a slightly-improved Garand. The latter was selected and became the M14 in 1957.

Stoner left ArmaLite. The firm then learned of the Small-Caliber High Velocity program, by which the Ordnance Corps was seeking rifles chambered in cartridges of roughly 22 cal bore size with much higher muzzle velocities. A team at ArmaLite reworked the AR-10 into a rifle of smaller dimensions firing the 222 Remington round; the cartridge was considered insufficiently speedy by the Ordnance Corps and Remington worked up new cartridges of greater propellant capacity. ArmaLite chambered its downsized rifle for the round that became the 223 Remington and named it the AR-15; some were sent to Southeast Asia with advisory teams - field reports were optimistic.

The US Air Force wanted a lightweight rifle to replace its M2 Carbines, which Army Ordnance was now refusing to support after the adoption of the M14. Colt’s was licensed to make the new purely military select-fire AR-15; ArmaLite had no production facilities at the time. Asserting authority as DoD executive agent for small arms, the Army prevailed upon DoD to suspend USAF’s contract, but various field commands arranged for more production and fielding of what soon became the M16.

Colt’s designed a semi-only version of its military rifle and marketed it as the “AR-15,” starting in the 1960s. Many parts did swap with military arms and still do. The first Colt rifle was officially called the SP-1; both that designation and “AR-15” are stamped on early examples.

ArmaLite licensed AR-10 production to Artillerie Inrichtigen in the Netherlands. They produced some 20,000 rifles and sold them around the world. Field reports from locations from Sudan to the East Indies indicated it was an accurate, serviceable, durable arm.

“Back in those days the civilian had better arms than the military.
Army-—smooth bore musket. Civilian—super accurate rifle.
Army adopts a muzzle loading rifle-—civilians had breachloaders.
Army adopts a breach loading single shot rifle—civilians had tube fed cartridge rifles, some holding up to 32 rounds.
Army adopts a 5 shot bolt action rifle,-—Civilians had lever actions, pump actions, early semi-auto rifles, and were experimenting with full auto rifles.
Army adopts a semi-auto rifle,—citizens banned from full auto rifles due to taxing. ...”

Mostly nonsense. Much of which has been handed down as Holy Writ, perpetuated in editions of Small Arms of the World predating Nr 10.

At the time of the American War of Independence, rifles were far too expensive for general use. Each was custom-made, and calibers were not standardized enough to permit use of uniform-size ammunition; each rifleman had to have a bullet mould custom-reamed to fit his rifle with him, to cast bullets over the campfire. No rifle of the period 1775-1783 mounted a bayonet; once rifle-armed troops discharged their pieces, they were helpless if a nearby enemy force mounted a bayonet attack.

Breechloaders were mostly a curiosity and a rich man’s plaything until metallic cartridges were developed in the 1850s. Even then, the cartridges were not reliable and were of inferior power to any muzzle loader. Moreover, breechloaders were more expensive than muzzle loaders, fragile, and more demanding of careful maintenance. Repairs - when possible - were far more problematic. These considerations ruled them out as military arms, at a time when a penny-pinching Congress and a shortsighted, mulish, complacent citizenry demanded low military expenditures.

Repeaters were even more problematic. Their chief limitation was the burden of the powerful cartridge used by the military. The Henry rifle fired what was no more than a pistol round, and was very fragile. Early centerfire lever actions like the Winchester 1873 were very large and heavy, and the newer cartridges were not that much better than the rimfire round for the Henry. Not until Winchester introduced the M1886 was there a reliable, strong, durable rifle that could handle the military 45-70 round. Super-capacity rifles like the Evans (34-shot) fired very small rounds inferior to some revolver rounds. A tube-fed breech-loader, fully loaded with full-power rounds, could be a weighty proposition indeed: far more than any average soldier would be inclined to carry.

Every military organization that adopted a bolt-action repeater used internal magazines of no more than six shots (except the British: their first Lee rifles held eight shots, later ones held ten). Detachable box magazines were terribly fragile and unreliable - a problem that wasn’t really solved until the 1950s. Tube magazines were not widely used - the new sharp-pointed jacketed bullets would set off primers in a chain-fire.

No lever action chambered a cartridge as powerful as the new bottleneck rounds loaded with smokeless powder. The sole exception was Winchester’s M1895. Slide-action rifles were never a factor: Remington was the only company to make any. And their rifles faced the same power limits as did lever actions. Slide actions did see success as shotguns.

Semi-auto (self-loading) rifles were foreseen as greatly superior in a tactical sense before 1900, but ran into problems of reliability and durability - especially feed reliability. Rough field conditions - muddy trenches etc - made the most severe demands on autoloading guns. Machine guns were perfected earlier because their parts could be made larger and heavier. Individual rifles faced severe constraints of size and weight; the most careful manufacture and heat-treatments had to be employed, to create a successful military rifle. The US 30-06 military cartridge made the design situation that much more difficult: it was the longest military rifle round of its day and was extremely powerful.

The US Army has been obsessed with full-auto arms for individual issue for decades. Field commanders begged and pleaded for select-fire Garands during WWII. Army Ordnance was convinced it could build a rifle weighing no more than an M1 Garand, capable of full auto fire, that was fully controllable, firing a “full power” round equivalent to 30-06; they failed. The M14 - adopted in 1957, not 1956 - was never controllable. And it was plagued with production problems ... as late as 1961, M1s were still in the hands of troops in key spots. You can see them slung on the shoulders of US troops in Germany, in newsreel footage of the construction of the Berlin Wall.

Full-auto fire is believed to be essential to modern infantry tactics, but is of less utility to any civilian shooter operating alone, with constraints on transport and resupply that implies. Volume fire, in concert with many other fires from crew-served weapons fielded by all service branches, is central to infantry action. No lone operator can duplicate it - even if that person did have the funds to obtain the ammunition, they could never carry enough to make it tell.

And hand-held full-auto fire is of greatly inferior effective range. According to many ground-force officers, no more than 75 yards.

“http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html
The above is a link to a site that I believe is fairly accurate. Cannon on ships was almost 15,000 private, and 1200 government. ...”

Partially misstates the situation at the time of the American War of Independence. Cannons were not all the same.

There were indeed many more privateers putting to sea than warships of the Continental Navy. But privateers typically mounted guns of much smaller size - six-pounders on down to two-pounders or smaller. And there were fewer guns per privateer: no more than needed to face down a cargo vessel.

Real warships of the day mounted guns of much larger size: nine-pounders on up to as large as 32-pounders. And each vessel mounted many more guns than a privateer would. These factors made any warship a much more costly proposition than a privateer. The latter relied on intimidation, and would flee from a real warship if they could.

The Colonies were continually pinched for funds, and thus could never float a naval force of any size that could challenge the Royal Navy.

“...My question is; What designates a weapon as an assault weapon? ...” [FrankLea, initial post]

Nothing designates it at all. “Assault weapon” has no legal meaning and is nowhere used in military nomenclature. Annoyingly, some gunwriters have used it, but they do not bother with definitions.

It’s an entirely made-up term concocted by the anti-gun people and eagerly tossed about by the media, who have amplified it and perpetuated. Plainly coined to sound threatening and faintly military - confuses the ignorant, as it sounds enough like “assault rifle” which does have a formal military definition, and as a select-fire arm is in civilian hands only in very small numbers. Tightly regulated at that.

Weapons are just weapons. No more than that. Tools. They just lie there, having no willpower, no moral agency of their own. People who believe otherwise are so ill-informed that we cannot communicate with them. They are too childish, too fearful to be able to have any useful input to public policy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.