I've spent a lot of time over the years illustrating how the Founding Fathers actually knew a lot more about what the future held for firearms development than anti-gunners want you to think. There were repeating arms at the time, after all, and some interesting technological strings that held a lot of promise.
But today, I'm going to do something different. I'm going to look at an op-ed that, to be frank, is more properly termed as an unhinged screed, and what the author says about guns and the Founding Fathers.
As Donald Trump’s polls and popularity drop, as he is losing his MAGA base and a war he started in Iran, so he drops regulations on guns. Nothing says "I love you" like an AR-15.
Bump stocks and rights for the mentally ill are in. To hell with gun control, it’s full steam ahead. And don’t go to Glenwood South in Raleigh at night without a flak jacket.
The number of guns in America remains staggering. There are a reported 393 million civilian firearms in the United States, some 120.5 per 100 people. Every Tom, Dick and Harry will have one, or two, or a cabinet full of weapons they call a “collection.”
Collecting stamps is far less dangerous.
Shootings and killings are part of the everyday fare.
The Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the deadliness of modern weapons. The percussive effect of today’s guns makes a hit even more dangerous. Torn skin, shredded muscles, broken bones and nerve damage happen even if no one dies. Muskets and lead balls were what the founders knew.
For all the originalists on the Supreme Court, interpretation of gun legislation is a no-brainer.
I'm not really going to get into the misunderstandings about things like the new ATF rules regarding mental health and gun purchases except to say that it's not remotely what she's suggesting here, and bump stocks were already legal, but as I said, it's more of an unhinged rant than an actual argument for the most part.
But look at the claim of what the Founding Fathers knew. They knew muskets and lead balls.
Well, to be certain, they knew that.
They also knew heavy artillery, which was perfectly legal at the time. I know Joe Biden kept claiming that they weren't, but that claim was debunked even by some on the left. Considering he didn't know if he was wearing underwear at the time, it seems unwise to use him as a source on anything. Especially when it's a documented fact that private parties could own artillery.
Hell, they could put them on ships and get a letter of marque that would allow them to be privateers. In other words, it was legal for private citizens to own literal warships.
You think an AR-15 can unleash carnage? Imagine what a coastal town being shelled is like.
Nothing I have in my gun safe or can get via a local FFL holder is capable of that kind of firepower, and it was perfectly legal. In fact, it's still legal. You can own one of those exact same cannons, fully functional, and do so without any permits or even having to go through a licensed dealer.
Even if the Founding Fathers couldn't envision repeating arms despite the Puckle gun existing, or the Girardoni air rifle that was capable of a fairly quick rate of fire, especially for those days, to claim they only knew muskets is a profoundly stupid thing to maintain.
However, anti-gunners are perfectly content saying some really dumb things because they figure the mainstream media won't call them on it. They're right, which is why the mainstream media is such a massive issue.
