.

First, a recap of US History:

April 1777, the Continental Congress sought to purchase repeating flint lock rifles 14 years before the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The belief that the Funding Fathers could not have imagined repeating rifles could exist someday is false.

November 15, 1777, Articles of Confederation were adopted.
September 17, 1787, US Constitution was adopted.
September 25, 1789, 12 Amendments to the Constitution were proposed.
December 15, 1791, Ten of the 12 Amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

========================================

Logan Metesh is an historian with a focus on firearms history and development. He runs High Caliber History LLC.
www.HighCaliberHistory.com

With more than a decade of experience working for the Smithsonian Institution, the National Park Service, and the NRA Museums, his ability to present history and research in an engaging manner has made him a sought after consultant, writer, and museum professional.


Video Link: www.YouTube.com/watch?v=pHQF3g07TxI

https://www.TheTruthAboutGuns....Bill-Rights-Drafted/

The Founding Fathers Did Know About Repeating Rifles Before the Bill of Rights Was Drafted
by Logan Metesh
July 13, 2016


Gun control advocates often claim that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have conceived of repeating rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The history of Joseph Belton, an inventor and gunsmith from Philadelphia, and his correspondence with the Continental Congress proves otherwise.

Belton claimed to have devised a new form of flintlock musket that was capable of firing as many as sixteen consecutive shots in as little as twenty seconds. After the gun had fired its consecutive loads, it could then be reloaded individually like all other traditional weapons of that time.

Bolton wrote to Congress about his new invention on April 11, 1777, letting them know he could be available to demonstrate it to them at any time.

Intrigued by Belton’s claim, Congress ordered 100 examples of his “new improved gun.” They authorized him to oversee the construction of new guns, or alteration of existing guns, so that they were capable of discharging eight rounds with one loading and that he “receive a reasonable compensation for his trouble, and be allowed all just and necessary expences [sic].”

On May 7, Belton replied to Congress with his terms regarding what he felt to be reasonable compensation. He wanted to arm 100 men with his invention, demonstrate the capabilities to top military officers, and see how many men the officers felt his 100 men were equivalent to.

For example, 100 specially-armed men were equivalent to 200 regularly-armed men, or more. For his ability to double the manpower, he felt that he was entitled to £1,000 from each state that he armed 100 of their men.

Belton justified his price by claiming that a state could not raise, equip, and clothe 100 men for £1,000, making his 100 men armed as though they were 200 men a bargain. For reference, £1,000 in 1777 is the equivalent of £116,500 in 2016. If all 13 states outfitted 100 men, Belton would receive £13,000 – or a cool £1.5 million today.

Belton argued that arming 3,000 men or more with his invention created enumerable advantages beyond description on the battlefield and that, as such, his compensation was “vastly reasonable” and that if the Congress refused his terms, he wouldn’t do it. (For those doing the math, 3,000 men armed with Belton’s repeater would mean that he’d collect almost £3.5 million if adjusted to 2016.)

Belton must have realized immediately that his demands were more than outlandish because the next day, on May 8, he wrote a letter to John Hancock lowering his fee to £500 for doubling, £1,500 for tripling, £2,000 for quadrupling, and so forth.

On May 15, Congress read Belton’s letter to the body. They quickly dismissed it because of his “extraordinary allowance.” (No one saw that coming, right?) Congress considered the matter dropped and didn’t reply to Belton, likely assuming he would take their lack of reply as a refusal.

Having heard nothing from Congress, Belton wrote them again on June 14. This time, he claimed he could make the shots accurately out to 100 yards and then, obviously feeling that wasn’t impressive enough, said he could make the shots out to 200 yards and would be available to demonstrate this to the body on the State House Yard.

Again, he heard nothing for almost a month.

Still undeterred, Belton wrote Congress again on July 10. This time, he tried to rile members of the body by claiming that Great Britain regularly pays £500 for such services. He also enclosed a letter signed by General Horatio Gates, Major General Benedict Arnold (before he became a turncoat), well-known scientist David Rittenhouse, and others, all claiming that his invention would be of “great Service” and that Belton is entitled to “a hansome [sic] reward from the Publick [sic].”

Having received the letter immediately, Congress resolved that same day to refer Belton’s petition to the Board of War, made up of five delegates. Among these five delegates were future 2nd President of the United States, John Adams, and Benjamin Harrison V, father and great-grandfather of the 9th and 23rd Presidents of the United States, respectively.

Nine days later on July 19, Congress got word from the Board of War. They dismissed Belton’s petition altogether. At this point, he must have finally gotten the hint that Congress wasn’t going to authorize such exorbitant payment for his services because the historic record turns up no more correspondence between Belton and Congress.

Despite the fact that Joseph Belton failed to convince the Continental Congress to outfit colonial soldiers with his repeating rifle, it’s still a very important story. Belton invented his gun in 1777. The Bill of Rights wasn’t ratified until 1791.

I’m no math whiz, but even I know that means our Founding Fathers not only knew about repeating rifles 14 years before the creation of the Second Amendment, but that they thought highly enough of the design to pursue further development and implementation of such technology.

So, the next time someone tells you the Second Amendment was never designed to protect the right to own a repeating rifle, or that it was only meant to apply to flintlock muskets, sit them down and tell them the story of Joseph Belton and his repeating flintlock musket.

With superposed loads and a sliding hammer/frizzen assembly. Not exactly what you would imagine, but Star Wars of the day. Would take a brave operator, with eight charged chambers (presumably - no example exists today, but similar designs) lined up between your face and your supporting arm....

This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum,

Let us not forget the Ferguson rifle - not a repeater, but designed specifically to maintain a high rate of fire, and apparently used at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle

Would it matter if they hadn't? The argument that the Second Amendment was created with single-shot, muzzle-loading flintlock rifles in mind is preposterous, so why respond to it?

This silly, desperate argument from the left that firearms as they exist today did not exist back then, and that the Founding Fathers did not even envision such firearms, and therefore the Second Amendment should be revoked, or that it does not apply to the current battle over self-loading firearms (meaning that your 2A rights are limited only to flintlocks), is easily picked apart.

Let's apply this nonsense argument to the First Amendment- OK from now on, you guys are allowed to express yourselves without fear of interference from the government only when using those means of communication which existed in the late 18th Century: You may express your views without fear of reproach in the following manner: direct communication- that is to say that you may speak to a crowd or group or individuals when they are within sound of your voice; you may publish your thoughts in newspapers; you may post broadsides so that they may be seen in, say, the town square; you may write letters. And that's it. Forget radio, TV, and the internet. Hell, you can't transmit your ideas via telegram or even telegraph. Furthermore, when you write your letters, you must use a goose quill and an inkwell, and when you speak to crowds, no electronic amplification is allowed- that is, if you want your First Amendment protections. If you publish in newspapers or broadsides, this must be done by means of a manual printing press, one leaf at a time.

After all, such technologies did not exist in the late 18th Century.

OK? It's absolutely preposterous. If this rationale applies to one portion of the Constitution, it applies to the Constitution in its entirety. It's laughable. So, why should we be concerned- beyond a healthy curiosity of a subject in which gun owners may have interest- if repeating firearms were requested, pondered, created or employed in the late 18th Century? Why should we even acknowledge this idiotic rationale from people who are putting this crap forth only because they wish to disarm us?

Carrier pigeon. Did they use carrier pigeons in the late 18th Century to deliver messages? If so, add carrier pigeon to the list of communication methods protected by the First Amendment.

.

Hi Para,
I agree with you, the 2nd Amendment being limited to only single shot flint lock is preposterous.

I was surprised to learn that these weapons existed and I am in awe of the ability of these gunsmiths to craft such advances using flint technology.

Also, Logan Metesh posted his first video about six months ago and his YouTube channel has less than 200 subscribers. I enjoy finding quality info and wanted to share his knowledge with others that might enjoy his videos.

.

The left ceases to use common sense when it comes to this. The flint lock was all they had at the time to use in mass quantities and something most every man had if they could afford it. Articles like this and others show they had intended to make/design/use whatever they could for/keeping their freedom from the Brits. Too bad common sense has lost it's way to them.

There actually is an example in existence today of his earlier 8 shot design. The Smithsonian Museum of American History has it in their possession though it is not on display. At some point within the last year or two they posted photos of it to their website. It's interesting to note that it does not have a sliding lockwork assembly and appears to entirely rely on a fused firing chain to discharge its 8 shots in a roman candle-esque fashion. Photos of it can be seen here: https://americanhistory.si.edu...h/object/nmah_440031

The later 16 shot design that he demonstrated to Gen. Gates, Maj. Arnold and David Rittenhouse seems lost to history. Beltons highest claim was to be able to make a 20 shot version that could be made to discharge all 20 shots in as little as 5 seconds, thus achieving a cylic rate of 240rds/min. That's faster than most people can accurately manage with an AR without resorting to bumpfiring.

.

In the collection of The Royal Armouries in the UK, is the seven shot version of Belton's Flintlock built in 1786 bearing the ownership marks of the East India Company.



Link to video:
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=-wOmUM40G2U

Never mind the privately owned cannons and armed ships of the line used in the revolution.

What's really laughable is that there are supposedly educated people who don't understand that the purpose of the 2A was to ensure that the citizens of the United States would be able to arm themselves in a manner to defend themselves from the tyranny of government.

...such as Presidential candidates openly saying "If elected, we will seize your firearms."

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
...such as Presidential candidates openly saying "If elected, we will seize your firearms."

Should be booted out of politics all together and serving fries at McDonalds.
He took an oath to serve the American people not attack their rights.

It's funny how liberals always assume that the founding fathers would have been horrified by advances in firearm technology instead of welcoming it. Would they really have thought that as government power grows and government obtains more advanced weapons, the citizens must be locked into having 200 year old muskets? Or any weapon that puts them at a severe disadvantage to their government. Would they really have thought that the very entity that the constitution was written to restrain could and should regulate what weapons the people could use?
This argument is one of the most absurd and stupid that the libs have yet to come up with.

So I was pondering this question the other day:

Not that it has a snowball's chance in hell of EVER happening, but what IF ol' Francis "Beto" got elected POTUS. How in the name of Zeus' BUTTHOLE could he take the Oath of Office knowing he is openly against the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, which he would have to swear to uphold, protect, and defend??? Things that make you go, "hmmmmm......"

On a side note to the matter at hand...before there were guns, there were slingshots; reference David and Goliath [1 Samuel, Ch 17]. Does anyone here NOT think that at some point, David didn't think to himself, "hmmm...I wonder how I could make a sling to rapid fire these stones one after another". Right? Am I right or am I right??