Old M4Carbine post: semi-auto/auto guns invented when the 2nd Amendment was written?

[Grayling14]

I think I remember reading a thread here that contained a post which listed three semi-auto/auto firearms that were in existence at the time the Bill of Rights was written.
The author stated that at least one of those firearms was under consideration for the continental army, but was rejected due to the high cost.
I have searched here and online for this information, but to no avail.

Is anybody familiar with this reference? I would appreciate any help that you could provide.

[Straight Shooter]

48608

This is the only one Im aware of.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

I'll throw in rapid fire and suppressor.... in 1780.


The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it acceptance.


The Girandoni air rifle was an important first. It was the first repeating rifle of any kind to see military service.[citation needed] It was one of the first uses of a tubular magazine.

Don't get to wrapped up in this. I would just throw the argument back that does the 1A only protect single sheet fed typeface printers? I guess no new religions that weren't around at that time? Going to be some pissed of witches. On the 4th, are only the property items around then protected from search and seizure?

And then the other way is the 9A:


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

[BrigandTwoFour]

I understand the point of bringing up the Puckle Gun or Girandoni during these debates, but my advice is to avoid getting mired into technical details. I’ve been doing these debates for a long long time, and I can tell you how that line of discussion will play out. Because the focus will turn to technical/mechanical capability, the discussion will veer towards drawing some arbitrary line.

“We all agree that nobody should have a four inch naval gun, so the line exists somewhere already. I just think we need to draw it again.”

It’s fine to mention the Puckle and Girondoni, but do it in the context of philosophy. The Bill of Rights wasn’t about physical objects, it was about ideas. It’s the underlying philosophy that matters, not the physical manifestation. The government is not allowed to infringe on the right to free speech, regardless of it being a street protest or an online blog. The government cannot search and seize your property without due process, whether that is your hovel or your iPhone. The government cannot infringe upon an armed citizenry, be it swords or semi auto rifles. These are all protected individual liberties, and should be treated as such.

[docsherm]

I understand the point of bringing up the Puckle Gun or Girandoni during these debates, but my advice is to avoid getting mired into technical details. I’ve been doing these debates for a long long time, and I can tell you how that line of discussion will play out. Because the focus will turn to technical/mechanical capability, the discussion will veer towards drawing some arbitrary line.

“We all agree that nobody should have a four inch naval gun, so the line exists somewhere already. I just think we need to draw it again.”

It’s fine to mention the Puckle and Girondoni, but do it in the context of philosophy. The Bill of Rights wasn’t about physical objects, it was about ideas. It’s the underlying philosophy that matters, not the physical manifestation. The government is not allowed to infringe on the right to free speech, regardless of it being a street protest or an online blog. The government cannot search and seize your property without due process, whether that is your hovel or your iPhone. The government cannot infringe upon an armed citizenry, be it swords or semi auto rifles. These are all protected individual liberties, and should be treated as such.

Wait a minute.... I want to 4 inch naval gun. Why not. :)

I always use the argument that that most of the canons used during the American Revolution were privately owned. Many were purchase by the wealthy from France and donated to the cause. So it would stand to reason that the Founding Fathers included canons, mortars, and howitzers when they wrote the 2nd. So I want a canon with ammo for home defense, why not?

https://www.quora.com/Before-the-American-Revolutionary-War-did-private-citizens-own-cannons

[BrigandTwoFour]

I say have at it, lol. I know that, technically, owning tanks and artillery pieces are legal as well. The ammo just requires NFA fun. My point, though, was that those arguments will inevitably get lost in the minutiae of technicalities and just not be as effective against emotionally based principles.

[docsherm]

I say have at it, lol. I know that, technically, owning tanks and artillery pieces are legal as well. The ammo just requires NFA fun. My point, though, was that those arguments will inevitably get lost in the minutiae of technicalities and just not be as effective against emotionally based principles.

I completely understand and get what you are saying. But I still want a canon with ammo for home defense. :)

[elephant]

Article V (Article 5 - Mode of Amendment)

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

That pretty much sums it up! You cant amend what clearly says: "Shall Not be Infringed". So we create legislation and pass bills to bypass these silly and outdated words.