You can't post this on the internet! There's no way the founders could've predicted or accounted for modern technology.
Write this upon parchment with a quill, and have it delivered by horseback so that I may properly enjoy it.
Wait... so the founding fathers created our democratic principals of government based in part on the fact that they didn’t feel “common” people were qualified to run a direct democracy and have the expertise or wisdom on all relevant issues and that experts should guide law and government.... and could never have foreseen modern media like the internet.... where common people have a platform to reach the whole country or the world.... something essentially impossible in their day.... so.... we need regulations on things like YouTube and Facebook and Instagram because when the founding fathers cane up with “freedom of speech,” the tools of speech were less efficient?
Be careful famous. Some yahoo is going to take this to heart and start a movement. The good news is that the point is so logical and is such a perfect parallel for this particular argument on guns, that you have little risk of anyone who makes this argument taking this seriously as well reasoned logic isn’t the strong suit of that particular group.
Times certainly have changed haven’t they? The founding fathers wrote this when huge portions of our nation were rural homesteads, and the entire country had a smaller population than a single major city today. About 2.5 million people at the time. People tended to own property- and “defending your home” wasn’t as likely to be done from 5-10ft away and more likely a distance of yards where the shortcomings of a muzzle loaded weapon weren’t so extreme. As for smooth bore weapons- riffling was not ubiquitous but existed since the 14th century. It was used on weapons in the revolutionary war as well.
Muzzle loaded weapons have trouble with riffling- but breach loaded weapons were more commonly found riffled. The smoothbore riddles were not accurate by modern standards, but carried the power of a .50 caliber weapon give or take and were accurate to a mansized target to about 100 yards. Accuracy could be improved by using a cloth over the ball- this wasn’t super common in infantry fights because emphasis in battle field tactics was largely on “volleys”- a wall of bullets fired as quickly as possible. Hunters and those not firing in formation could take the time to wad ammo and aim.
The image of the musket as useless is overblown. Bows are very effective weapons- yet most major militaries has transitioned to muskets as their primary weapons by the late 1700’s- why would they choose a musket over the cheaper and established technology of a bow if there wasn’t a tactical advantage?
Write this upon parchment with a quill, and have it delivered by horseback so that I may properly enjoy it.