Anti-rights bigots like to make a lot of noise about how firearms that are capable of taking multiple shots before reloading are relatively recent inventions, and thus things like semi-automatic home-defense rifles (i.e. AR-15s) are not protected under the Second Amendment. Ignoring the obvious similarities between that argument, and one that can be made for the First Amendment (hellooo, Internet), that claim simply is not true:
Built with a detachable skeleton-type shoulder stock as well as a removable 21-inch octagonal barrel, the Jennings rifle was capable of firing twelve shots without reloading. This multi-shot arm was loaded with a dozen superimposed bullets and alternating powder charges, each placed one on top on another down the bore, and was fitted with twelve individual touchholes, each also being equipped with a swivel cover.
In firing, the first charge towards the barrel was discharged first, and then the movable lockplate was pulled back to the next swivel cover position.
That integral twelve-round magazine (in much the same style as the Metal Storm system… only about 175 years earlier) allows the operator to shoot, move the lockplate, recock, and fire again, and reloading was probably greatly simplified by the removable barrel giving direct access to the receiver. And this system dates back to 1821.
It is undeniably true that our Founding Fathers could not have predicted the technological advances that have transpired over the past 234 years… but it would take a true fool indeed to believe that those men would set aside rights they so ardently fought for just because we tool-using monkeys figured out how to do things better and faster. And, as I said, any technology-based argument against the rights protected by the Second Amendment can just as easily be fielded against those rights protected by the First…
(Courtesy of Say Uncle.)
Not to mention the Puckle gun, which predates the 2nd Amendment.
You might add a bit to that argument. Those very same forefathers came up with a nifty little pamphlet entitled “Common Sense”. That indicates they just might have had some. They were obviously intelligent folks, some of the brightest we had at the time. An awful lot of what they put into the design of the government was based on observations of the results of the rather lengthy history of man’s prior governing attempts. So, they were smart, had common sense, and were keenly aware of historical changes. Only a complete imbecile would not have noticed the changes in the technology of weaponry over previous centuries. And thus, only a complete imbecile would conclude that the founding fathers never once sat around and thought that ‘arms’ technology would someday advance. “Mr. Franklin, what advances do you see in the future of armament? Why, none at all Mr. Jefferson. Technology will simply never advance beyond what we see today!” DOH!
@John Hardin – Hell, depending on how loosely you define the concept, “volley guns” date back to the 1300s, with some bastardized cannon known as the “Ribauldequin”. The concept was not foreign, by any stretch.
@Groundhog – Hell, in their own lifetimes, technology took a few substantial steps forward, showing just how little they knew about the world around them, and what we mere mortals were capable of creating. Granted, scientists of the period had a propensity for proclaiming “we know EVERYTHING!”, but, hell, like you point out, Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers.
The argument is unquestionably a bald-faced insult to the Founders, a narrow-minded fallacy, and equally applicable to all the Amendments. But it still just keeps cropping up. Kinda dumb, really.
Or you could point out that the last time governmental forces tried to deny Americans the right to bear “military” arms, quite a few guys in red coats never went home.
It wasn’t the hunting guns the Brits were after…
Hell, there was not that big of a difference between “military” and “personal” arms back then – the former tended to be somewhat more mass produced, especially for line militaries like the British, but even so, Eli Whitne was barely out of diapers for the War of Independence. No automatic fire. No magazines. In reality, personally-owned and -produced firearms tended to be demonstrably more accurate and effective than their military counterparts, primarily because people spent a lot of time and effort making them that way.
As usual, though, rational thought does not really enter the equation for anti-rights bigots…