That guy, at left, was not in the Revolutionary War, although there are probably moments, from time to time, when he wishes he had been.
He is demonstrating how a musket works.
In case you wonder, a musket works this way:
First, you shove some gunpowder down the barrel, and after it, a lead pellet wrapped in cloth or paper.
Then you pour a little powder in the pan, where a spark can ignite it.
Pulling the trigger slams a piece of flint against a piece of steel, which produces sparks, igniting the powder in the pan which, in turn, flashes through a small hole, igniting the powder in the barrel, which explosion shoves the lead shot out through the barrel.
The gun has a hammer, which has three positions: closed, half-cocked, and cocked. When closed, the gun is useful as a decoration, or maybe a club. At half-cock, the gun can be loaded, but it will not fire, which is a great comfort for clumsy patriots. Only at full cock can the musket be fired.
Got that? You don't want to go off half-cocked. You can't.
The Constitution of the United States says that you have a right to bear such an arm, because if the British come back and try to reclaim the country, again, we will need a militia, and a militia is a citizenry armed with muskets, ready to shoot Redcoats.
If you are a strict constructionist, then you know that the writers of the Constitution could not have been talking about semi-automatic weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment, because there was no such thing then. There were muskets, and an occasional cannon, which was a kind of musket on wheels moved about by horses and ships. Nobody took a cannon home to protect the wife and kids and oxen, so the Founding Fathers said nothing about the right to bear a cannon. Or a bazooka. Or an F-15.
I see no reason why people should not be required to demonstrate their competence at firing a musket or, for that matter, licensing and registering it. A few muskets would undoubtedly fall into the hands of fools and fiends, but mass murders would be few and far between if the shooter had to half-cock his musket, ram powder and ball down the barrel, add a little powder to the pan, cock his weapon, and then fire again. A fifth-grade gym teacher could handle him between shots. Maybe hose down his powder.
If you think the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the present time, then you would have to figure out who the enemy is--the Redcoats have gone back to the British Empire, and the Empire has gone to hell in a referendum--and hardly anybody has a musket, anymore. The Well-Regulated Militia doesn't want anybody to show up with a musket, anyway. There are, of course, a lot of semi-automatic machine guns all around, but the Militia sure as heck isn't going to send you home with one, and the military has no way to deal with all the knock-offs in the middle of a skirmish.
It is fair, I suppose, to admit that the Constitution does not say anything about semi-automatics, or drones, but it does seem a shame to think that all it applies to is muskets and good lads with horses and a swords boots that fit either the left or the right foot. Or neither.
It seems a shame to suggest that all we can do is interpret the Constitution literally, because then only White men counted as men, and women could not vote, but maybe that is what we ought to do, even if it makes the whole thing irrelevant for most matters. When duty calls, we could still send militia men and muskets off to Iraq, I suppose, but it might not go well for them unless the enemy had only camels and quirts and Korans. No chance, I think.
Of course, I suppose we could think about it. Dig a little deeper. Not go off half-cocked.
He is demonstrating how a musket works.
In case you wonder, a musket works this way:
First, you shove some gunpowder down the barrel, and after it, a lead pellet wrapped in cloth or paper.
Then you pour a little powder in the pan, where a spark can ignite it.
Pulling the trigger slams a piece of flint against a piece of steel, which produces sparks, igniting the powder in the pan which, in turn, flashes through a small hole, igniting the powder in the barrel, which explosion shoves the lead shot out through the barrel.
The gun has a hammer, which has three positions: closed, half-cocked, and cocked. When closed, the gun is useful as a decoration, or maybe a club. At half-cock, the gun can be loaded, but it will not fire, which is a great comfort for clumsy patriots. Only at full cock can the musket be fired.
Got that? You don't want to go off half-cocked. You can't.
The Constitution of the United States says that you have a right to bear such an arm, because if the British come back and try to reclaim the country, again, we will need a militia, and a militia is a citizenry armed with muskets, ready to shoot Redcoats.
If you are a strict constructionist, then you know that the writers of the Constitution could not have been talking about semi-automatic weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment, because there was no such thing then. There were muskets, and an occasional cannon, which was a kind of musket on wheels moved about by horses and ships. Nobody took a cannon home to protect the wife and kids and oxen, so the Founding Fathers said nothing about the right to bear a cannon. Or a bazooka. Or an F-15.
I see no reason why people should not be required to demonstrate their competence at firing a musket or, for that matter, licensing and registering it. A few muskets would undoubtedly fall into the hands of fools and fiends, but mass murders would be few and far between if the shooter had to half-cock his musket, ram powder and ball down the barrel, add a little powder to the pan, cock his weapon, and then fire again. A fifth-grade gym teacher could handle him between shots. Maybe hose down his powder.
If you think the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the present time, then you would have to figure out who the enemy is--the Redcoats have gone back to the British Empire, and the Empire has gone to hell in a referendum--and hardly anybody has a musket, anymore. The Well-Regulated Militia doesn't want anybody to show up with a musket, anyway. There are, of course, a lot of semi-automatic machine guns all around, but the Militia sure as heck isn't going to send you home with one, and the military has no way to deal with all the knock-offs in the middle of a skirmish.
It is fair, I suppose, to admit that the Constitution does not say anything about semi-automatics, or drones, but it does seem a shame to think that all it applies to is muskets and good lads with horses and a swords boots that fit either the left or the right foot. Or neither.
It seems a shame to suggest that all we can do is interpret the Constitution literally, because then only White men counted as men, and women could not vote, but maybe that is what we ought to do, even if it makes the whole thing irrelevant for most matters. When duty calls, we could still send militia men and muskets off to Iraq, I suppose, but it might not go well for them unless the enemy had only camels and quirts and Korans. No chance, I think.
Of course, I suppose we could think about it. Dig a little deeper. Not go off half-cocked.
Comments
Post a Comment