Did it take 3 minutes to reload a musket when the second amendment to the US constitution was ratified?U.S. weapon restrictions during 19th centuryWhen did blade fuller appear?Have US troops ever been lawfully quartered in private homes during wartime under the Third Amendment?How long did it take to make a 16th Century arrow?When did hand cannons become handguns?Why was the first production PzKpfw V (Panther) called the Ausf.D, and the second production version called the Ausf.A?Was the “natural born citizen” requirement for the President inserted into the US Constitution by Alexander Hamilton's enemies?US Citizenship Prior to the 14th AmendmentHas chattel slavery ever been used as a criminal punishment in the USA since the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment?
How will the crew exit Starship when it lands on Mars?
Why does Principal Vagina say, "no relation" after introducing himself?
Why is Trump releasing or not of his taxes such a big deal?
What is the gold linker?
Limiting sensor input voltage without biasing measurement
I need an automatic way of making a lot of numbered folders
First author doesn't want a co-author to read the whole paper
Digit Date Range
Element-wise multiplication of an array and a matrix
Why is technology bad for children?
How can you tell apart the pronounciation at the end between the "meine" and "meiner" in the daily spoken situation?
Could an American state survive nuclear war?
Does any politician honestly want a No Deal Brexit?
Why is Mars cold?
Vergil Book XII, Line 756 | Meter Question
Where does the upgrade to macOS Catalina move root "/" directory files?
If we should encrypt the message rather than the method of transfer, why do we care about wifi security? Is this just security theatre?
How does Golos work with cards that increase mana costs?
Direct consequences for Trump if he continues hindering impeachment investigation?
Are dead worlds a good galactic barrier?
How to prove that invoices are really unpaid?
Axiom of choice and cartesian product
Moonlight bright enough to see by
Why do military jets sometimes have elevators in a depressed position when parked?
Did it take 3 minutes to reload a musket when the second amendment to the US constitution was ratified?
U.S. weapon restrictions during 19th centuryWhen did blade fuller appear?Have US troops ever been lawfully quartered in private homes during wartime under the Third Amendment?How long did it take to make a 16th Century arrow?When did hand cannons become handguns?Why was the first production PzKpfw V (Panther) called the Ausf.D, and the second production version called the Ausf.A?Was the “natural born citizen” requirement for the President inserted into the US Constitution by Alexander Hamilton's enemies?US Citizenship Prior to the 14th AmendmentHas chattel slavery ever been used as a criminal punishment in the USA since the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
The NPR News podcast and video Beto O'Rourke Wants To Ban, Confiscate Some Guns. Texas Voters Want Details (about 6.5 minutes long) contains the following assertion by Congressman O'Rourke:
In under three minutes, in a Walmart in El Paso Texas, 22 people were killed.
When the second amendment was adopted and ratified, it took three minutes to reload your musket.
Full discussion
Question: Did it in fact take something like three minutes to reload muskets when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified? Is a "three minute musket" representative of the best military individual firearm of the day for warfare?
weapons us-constitution
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
6644 silver badges15 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The NPR News podcast and video Beto O'Rourke Wants To Ban, Confiscate Some Guns. Texas Voters Want Details (about 6.5 minutes long) contains the following assertion by Congressman O'Rourke:
In under three minutes, in a Walmart in El Paso Texas, 22 people were killed.
When the second amendment was adopted and ratified, it took three minutes to reload your musket.
Full discussion
Question: Did it in fact take something like three minutes to reload muskets when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified? Is a "three minute musket" representative of the best military individual firearm of the day for warfare?
weapons us-constitution
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
6644 silver badges15 bronze badges
Honestly, I'd push back against the implicit assumption in Mr. O'Rourke's statement that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted the same way in 1787 as it is today, and only the weapons have changed. That's just flat out wrong, and you aren't going to make any good historical conclusions by following that incorrect reasoning to its conclusion. When it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress, not states or cities. We have a whole question about this.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
It didn't even take that long to load and fire a cannon, let alone a musket.
– Ring
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
The NPR News podcast and video Beto O'Rourke Wants To Ban, Confiscate Some Guns. Texas Voters Want Details (about 6.5 minutes long) contains the following assertion by Congressman O'Rourke:
In under three minutes, in a Walmart in El Paso Texas, 22 people were killed.
When the second amendment was adopted and ratified, it took three minutes to reload your musket.
Full discussion
Question: Did it in fact take something like three minutes to reload muskets when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified? Is a "three minute musket" representative of the best military individual firearm of the day for warfare?
weapons us-constitution
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
6644 silver badges15 bronze badges
The NPR News podcast and video Beto O'Rourke Wants To Ban, Confiscate Some Guns. Texas Voters Want Details (about 6.5 minutes long) contains the following assertion by Congressman O'Rourke:
In under three minutes, in a Walmart in El Paso Texas, 22 people were killed.
When the second amendment was adopted and ratified, it took three minutes to reload your musket.
Full discussion
Question: Did it in fact take something like three minutes to reload muskets when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified? Is a "three minute musket" representative of the best military individual firearm of the day for warfare?
weapons us-constitution
weapons us-constitution
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
6644 silver badges15 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
6644 silver badges15 bronze badges
edited 8 hours ago
uhoh
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
6644 silver badges15 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
6644 silver badges15 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
6644 silver badges15 bronze badges
6644 silver badges15 bronze badges
Honestly, I'd push back against the implicit assumption in Mr. O'Rourke's statement that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted the same way in 1787 as it is today, and only the weapons have changed. That's just flat out wrong, and you aren't going to make any good historical conclusions by following that incorrect reasoning to its conclusion. When it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress, not states or cities. We have a whole question about this.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
It didn't even take that long to load and fire a cannon, let alone a musket.
– Ring
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
Honestly, I'd push back against the implicit assumption in Mr. O'Rourke's statement that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted the same way in 1787 as it is today, and only the weapons have changed. That's just flat out wrong, and you aren't going to make any good historical conclusions by following that incorrect reasoning to its conclusion. When it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress, not states or cities. We have a whole question about this.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
It didn't even take that long to load and fire a cannon, let alone a musket.
– Ring
6 hours ago
Honestly, I'd push back against the implicit assumption in Mr. O'Rourke's statement that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted the same way in 1787 as it is today, and only the weapons have changed. That's just flat out wrong, and you aren't going to make any good historical conclusions by following that incorrect reasoning to its conclusion. When it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress, not states or cities. We have a whole question about this.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
Honestly, I'd push back against the implicit assumption in Mr. O'Rourke's statement that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted the same way in 1787 as it is today, and only the weapons have changed. That's just flat out wrong, and you aren't going to make any good historical conclusions by following that incorrect reasoning to its conclusion. When it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress, not states or cities. We have a whole question about this.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
1
It didn't even take that long to load and fire a cannon, let alone a musket.
– Ring
6 hours ago
It didn't even take that long to load and fire a cannon, let alone a musket.
– Ring
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
No. The rate of fire of competent musketeers was considerably greater than one round every three minutes when the Second Amendment was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century.
In his book The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Hans Delbruck included a section titled 'Rapidity of fire in the eighteenth century'. He states that:
"... a competent musketeer could load without command four or five times in a minute, and the platoon could fire five salvos on command in two minutes, and this was increased to almost three per minute."
- p285
By 1779 in Europe, a regulation required recruits to practice loading and firing with powder:
“... daily and be continued until the new men could fire four times in a minute."
- ibid
Although Delbruck went on to observe that Berenhorst wrote:
“at least 15 seconds were needed to load and fire with ball cartridges”
so it would have been impossible to get off a full four shots in a minute.
Nevertheless, a firing rate in excess of three shots per minute was certainly perfectly possible with contemporary muskets in the late eighteenth century.
edited 7 hours ago
Santiago
3,76111 silver badges21 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
62.9k8 gold badges225 silver badges291 bronze badges
Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
– sempaiscuba♦
6 hours ago
What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
– C Monsour
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f54949%2fdid-it-take-3-minutes-to-reload-a-musket-when-the-second-amendment-to-the-us-con%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No. The rate of fire of competent musketeers was considerably greater than one round every three minutes when the Second Amendment was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century.
In his book The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Hans Delbruck included a section titled 'Rapidity of fire in the eighteenth century'. He states that:
"... a competent musketeer could load without command four or five times in a minute, and the platoon could fire five salvos on command in two minutes, and this was increased to almost three per minute."
- p285
By 1779 in Europe, a regulation required recruits to practice loading and firing with powder:
“... daily and be continued until the new men could fire four times in a minute."
- ibid
Although Delbruck went on to observe that Berenhorst wrote:
“at least 15 seconds were needed to load and fire with ball cartridges”
so it would have been impossible to get off a full four shots in a minute.
Nevertheless, a firing rate in excess of three shots per minute was certainly perfectly possible with contemporary muskets in the late eighteenth century.
edited 7 hours ago
Santiago
3,76111 silver badges21 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
62.9k8 gold badges225 silver badges291 bronze badges
Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
– sempaiscuba♦
6 hours ago
What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
– C Monsour
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
No. The rate of fire of competent musketeers was considerably greater than one round every three minutes when the Second Amendment was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century.
In his book The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Hans Delbruck included a section titled 'Rapidity of fire in the eighteenth century'. He states that:
"... a competent musketeer could load without command four or five times in a minute, and the platoon could fire five salvos on command in two minutes, and this was increased to almost three per minute."
- p285
By 1779 in Europe, a regulation required recruits to practice loading and firing with powder:
“... daily and be continued until the new men could fire four times in a minute."
- ibid
Although Delbruck went on to observe that Berenhorst wrote:
“at least 15 seconds were needed to load and fire with ball cartridges”
so it would have been impossible to get off a full four shots in a minute.
Nevertheless, a firing rate in excess of three shots per minute was certainly perfectly possible with contemporary muskets in the late eighteenth century.
edited 7 hours ago
Santiago
3,76111 silver badges21 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
62.9k8 gold badges225 silver badges291 bronze badges
Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
– sempaiscuba♦
6 hours ago
What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
– C Monsour
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
No. The rate of fire of competent musketeers was considerably greater than one round every three minutes when the Second Amendment was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century.
In his book The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Hans Delbruck included a section titled 'Rapidity of fire in the eighteenth century'. He states that:
"... a competent musketeer could load without command four or five times in a minute, and the platoon could fire five salvos on command in two minutes, and this was increased to almost three per minute."
- p285
By 1779 in Europe, a regulation required recruits to practice loading and firing with powder:
“... daily and be continued until the new men could fire four times in a minute."
- ibid
Although Delbruck went on to observe that Berenhorst wrote:
“at least 15 seconds were needed to load and fire with ball cartridges”
so it would have been impossible to get off a full four shots in a minute.
Nevertheless, a firing rate in excess of three shots per minute was certainly perfectly possible with contemporary muskets in the late eighteenth century.
edited 7 hours ago
Santiago
3,76111 silver badges21 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
62.9k8 gold badges225 silver badges291 bronze badges
No. The rate of fire of competent musketeers was considerably greater than one round every three minutes when the Second Amendment was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century.
In his book The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Hans Delbruck included a section titled 'Rapidity of fire in the eighteenth century'. He states that:
"... a competent musketeer could load without command four or five times in a minute, and the platoon could fire five salvos on command in two minutes, and this was increased to almost three per minute."
- p285
By 1779 in Europe, a regulation required recruits to practice loading and firing with powder:
“... daily and be continued until the new men could fire four times in a minute."
- ibid
Although Delbruck went on to observe that Berenhorst wrote:
“at least 15 seconds were needed to load and fire with ball cartridges”
so it would have been impossible to get off a full four shots in a minute.
Nevertheless, a firing rate in excess of three shots per minute was certainly perfectly possible with contemporary muskets in the late eighteenth century.
edited 7 hours ago
Santiago
3,76111 silver badges21 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
62.9k8 gold badges225 silver badges291 bronze badges
edited 7 hours ago
Santiago
3,76111 silver badges21 bronze badges
edited 7 hours ago
Santiago
3,76111 silver badges21 bronze badges
edited 7 hours ago
Santiago
3,76111 silver badges21 bronze badges
3,76111 silver badges21 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
62.9k8 gold badges225 silver badges291 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
62.9k8 gold badges225 silver badges291 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
62.9k8 gold badges225 silver badges291 bronze badges
62.9k8 gold badges225 silver badges291 bronze badges
Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
– sempaiscuba♦
6 hours ago
What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
– C Monsour
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
– sempaiscuba♦
6 hours ago
What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
– C Monsour
3 hours ago
Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
– sempaiscuba♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
– sempaiscuba♦
6 hours ago
What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
@T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
– C Monsour
3 hours ago
@T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
– C Monsour
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f54949%2fdid-it-take-3-minutes-to-reload-a-musket-when-the-second-amendment-to-the-us-con%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Honestly, I'd push back against the implicit assumption in Mr. O'Rourke's statement that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted the same way in 1787 as it is today, and only the weapons have changed. That's just flat out wrong, and you aren't going to make any good historical conclusions by following that incorrect reasoning to its conclusion. When it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress, not states or cities. We have a whole question about this.
– T.E.D.♦
6 hours ago
1
It didn't even take that long to load and fire a cannon, let alone a musket.
– Ring
6 hours ago