Another common talking point is that the authors of 2A could never have imagined modern assault rifles, which is a rifle capable of full auto fire that can be rapidly reloaded.
The Continental Congress inquired into the Belton flintlock for arming the entirety of the revolutionary army. Although it never made it out of prototyping, the Belton used 16-20 superimposed rounds that could be fired rapidly in sequence with one trigger pull; in other words, it was a full auto musket with a standard capacity of up to 20 shots.
At the time of the second amendment's writing, the Austrian army's standard issue rifle was the Girardoni air rifle, and one was carried on the Lewis and Clarke expedition. It had a gravity fed 20 round tubular magazine, where the user would point the rifle upwards for about a second while he pressed a button on the side to load another ball. This enabled shooting at a pace a little slower than a lever action of the late 19th century. Austrian soldiers typically carried additional tubes full of round balls which allowed reloading in a matter seconds.
Although the actual mechanics would be difficult to work out, it would take very little imagination at the time to envision a rifle that was as quick to reload as the Girardoni with the full auto capabilities of the Belton, which progressives would easily recognize as an assault weapon.
Progressives are looking for a fix to a symptom of the problems they have wrought upon society. A better question to ask is why these incidents of mass violence have become so prevalent now, when they were entirely unheard of back when a teenager could freely purchase machine guns and explosives at the local hardware store. What has changed in the nature of society that is causing people to so thoroughly reject it that they resort to indiscriminate violence? Of course, answering that question first requires an acknowledgement that we have progressed towards a society that is unfit for humans, which is an idea that progressives are physically incapable of considering.
which progressives would easily recognize as an assault weapon.
Definitely wouldn't be an assault weapon, since I doubt it would've had some of the defining features like a muzzle break or a pistol grip.
I really hate how people keep falling for this "assault weapon" bullshit. It's a bullshit term made up to make people confuse it with the term "assault rifle". It's a term they made up for the purpose of scaring the normies and keeping them under control.
The use of "assault weapon" was meant as a rhetorical flourish, under the assumption that this is preaching to the choir who do not need the typical deconstruction of leftist framing as would be required for a normie reader.
Another common talking point is that the authors of 2A could never have imagined modern assault rifles, which is a rifle capable of full auto fire that can be rapidly reloaded.
The Continental Congress inquired into the Belton flintlock for arming the entirety of the revolutionary army. Although it never made it out of prototyping, the Belton used 16-20 superimposed rounds that could be fired rapidly in sequence with one trigger pull; in other words, it was a full auto musket with a standard capacity of up to 20 shots.
At the time of the second amendment's writing, the Austrian army's standard issue rifle was the Girardoni air rifle, and one was carried on the Lewis and Clarke expedition. It had a gravity fed 20 round tubular magazine, where the user would point the rifle upwards for about a second while he pressed a button on the side to load another ball. This enabled shooting at a pace a little slower than a lever action of the late 19th century. Austrian soldiers typically carried additional tubes full of round balls which allowed reloading in a matter seconds.
Although the actual mechanics would be difficult to work out, it would take very little imagination at the time to envision a rifle that was as quick to reload as the Girardoni with the full auto capabilities of the Belton, which progressives would easily recognize as an assault weapon.
Progressives are looking for a fix to a symptom of the problems they have wrought upon society. A better question to ask is why these incidents of mass violence have become so prevalent now, when they were entirely unheard of back when a teenager could freely purchase machine guns and explosives at the local hardware store. What has changed in the nature of society that is causing people to so thoroughly reject it that they resort to indiscriminate violence? Of course, answering that question first requires an acknowledgement that we have progressed towards a society that is unfit for humans, which is an idea that progressives are physically incapable of considering.
Definitely wouldn't be an assault weapon, since I doubt it would've had some of the defining features like a muzzle break or a pistol grip.
I really hate how people keep falling for this "assault weapon" bullshit. It's a bullshit term made up to make people confuse it with the term "assault rifle". It's a term they made up for the purpose of scaring the normies and keeping them under control.
The use of "assault weapon" was meant as a rhetorical flourish, under the assumption that this is preaching to the choir who do not need the typical deconstruction of leftist framing as would be required for a normie reader.