Could the writers of The Bill of Rights have anticipated modern guns? Meet the auto cannon, the Puckle gun, from 1718
Here is a gun from 1718 that can fire 9 or so cannon shells very rapidly. Once the principle was developed the number of shells that could be quickly fired could be increased even more. The Puckle gun was developed long before the Gatling gun in 1862. If a auto cannon was developed well before The Bill of Rights, how could it be claimed that they couldn't foresee machine guns and other modern weapons?
It is pretty clear that the Royce Wilson article has a typo/error when it says that metallic cartridges weren't developed until the 1950s.
Labels: SecondAmendment
posted by John Lott at 1:23 PM
6 Comments:
Where's R. Lee Ermey when you need him? This thing needs shooting really badly.
Tres cool! I don't think it was the technology that did them in, it was the marketing: no one wanted to buy a "Puckle gun". Heh.
You left out the best part. The inventor planned on round bullets for Christians and square ones for "infidels."
Love this info. As for a weapon of this type being developed at the time that it was, I am not surprised. There were many differing types of multi shot weapons developed in the 18th Century long before the adoption of the Second Amendment.
One of the things that many so called 'liberals' seem to focus on, are the 'commas' in the 2nd. There exists only one comma within the amendment, and it is misrepresented by many, including Wikipedia. As presented, and adopted, it reads thusly; “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Only one comma! When it was copied, the copyist injected the extra commas. As for SCOTUS saying that the individual right is subject to government control, SCOTUS is wrong.
If we look at what SCOTUS has done over the years, we will see a pattern of a bloodless coup d'état's against the Bill of Rights whereby SCOTUS nullified Amendments by a stroke of a pen.
e.g. Post Reconstruction cases whereby blacks were disenfranchised, not allowed to bear arms, etc. Cruikshank, Presser, etc. Hell, Sotomayor has even referenced these cases to back up her when she breaks her oath.
As for what the authors of the Bill of Rights had anticipated, the 2nd is a fine example for the simple fact that tyrants always disarm the people via laws, ergo the inclusion of the Militia clause along with the non infringement clause(Federalist 29 defines the militia clearly). The Militia is comprised of State Citizens, and not an arm of the Federal government (Article 1, Sec 8).
So, if the authors of the Bill of Rights did not anticipate things, why does Article 1, Sec 8 allow for an Federal Army and Navy while the 2nd allows for armed citizens to form a militia to protect the individual States?
After all, the National Guard is a Federal force, and not a militia.
Of course they could. Are we to believe that our Founding Fathers couldn't foresee a future with better weapons and better technology?
Of course it's never been about technology or prescience of technology, it's about human nature and the corrupting influence of power.
Post a Comment
<< Home