Gayle King: Writers of 2nd Amendment ‘Were Talking about Muskets’

[mystery-ak]

Gayle King: Writers of 2nd Amendment ‘Were Talking about Muskets’

Ian Hanchett 25 May 2022

On Wednesday’s broadcast of “CBS Mornings,” co-host Gayle King said that when the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, “they were talking about muskets. I do not think if they were here today that they were thinking that people, kids, would have these assault rifles.”

After Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), who represents Uvalde, stated that he is willing to debate policy at another time, but not today, King responded, “I hear you loud and clear, and I certainly don’t want to debate this. And I, too, am thinking about the survivors and the victims. But this is the issue. This keeps happening, and we keep skirting around it and we keep saying, somebody do something, and nobody does anything. And we keep hearing it’s the Second Amendment rights, the right to bear arms. And I keep thinking, when the founding fathers wrote that, they were talking about muskets. I do not think if they were here today that they were thinking that people, kids, would have these assault rifles. So, if not now to debate it, if not — not debate, discuss it, I just want to know…you’re in a position of power. You’re in a position of power to change things. And if we can’t talk about it and we can’t make changes, when can we talk about it? To me, this is a perfect day to talk about it.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/05/25/gayle-king-writers-of-2nd-amendment-were-talking-about-muskets/

[Kamaji]

The modern-day weapons used in these shootings have been around for decades and decades, and gun ownership has dropped over those same decades, but school shootings only really became a "thing" in the 1980s or so.  Why is that?  The weapons didn't change; so what did?

[mountaineer]

The writers of the First Amendment were talking only about quill pens, too, Gayle - right?

[The_Reader_David]

Muskets, rifles, pistols, cannon, swords, bayonets,... they were talking about all then available weaponry of war.  And, yes, private citizens owned cannon back in those days -- how else would you outfit a privateer if you were granted letters of marque and reprisal?  The cannon on the town square wasn't a disabled artillery piece from some ancient time, but the local militia's artillery piece, probably bought with private subscription, rather than with tax moneys.

[Cyber Liberty]

The writers of the First Amendment were talking only about quill pens, too, Gayle - right?

Or Guttenberg Presses.

[Kamaji]

And the authors of the Fourth Amendment certainly weren't talking about telephones or computers, right?

[Smokin Joe]

You can't tell me Washington (George, that is) would not have been thrilled to have even a couple of Maxim Machine guns and a wagonload of ammo to face the British. Sickened by the carnage, perhaps, but militarily thrilled.

Just because arms are better does not mean they should be excluded.

[Hoodat]

The writers of the First Amendment were talking only about quill pens, too, Gayle - right?

Spot on.

[Hoodat]

Gayle King: Writers of 2nd Amendment ‘Were Talking about Muskets’

Civilians didn't own muskets.  They were cheap military weapons designed for line warfare.  Civilians owned rifles.

[AARguy]

Muskets are a type of rifle that were around long before modern weapons. A musket was a state-of-the art "rifle" in its day. Actually, the word "rifle" refers to grooves in the barrel of a rifle and the way a bullet is set to spinning as it travels down a "rifled" barrel. That whole technology did not exist in the era of the American revolution. It came much later.

[mountaineer]

Ned Ryun wrote this after the Parkland shooting in 2018:

The Second Amendment is a human right — ignorance toward it is troubling
by Ned Ryun, opinion contributor - 02/25/18 1:30 PM ET
 The Hill

In the wake of the Parkland, Fla., shooting some people are pushing their hopes for gun control, even gun confiscation, while others are virtue signaling and offering no real solutions for actually dealing with school safety, such as raising the age to 21 to purchase a rifle when in fact the average age of a mass shooter in America is 35 years old.

If we really care about school safety, there are some viable solutions. Schools can be made “harder” targets, and with four of my own children in public school, that is my priority. We can protect our children while not infringing on basic constitutional rights.

We need to repeal the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act and stop advertising to madmen with guns that almost everyone on school grounds is unarmed.

The act, a brainchild of the Left and passed with the support of milquetoast Republicans in 1990, was a dangerous act of virtue signaling that actually made our schools some of the softest targets in the country.  ...

The ignorance on display regarding the Second Amendment and its history is troubling and is due to the fact that no one really teaches about our rights ensconced in our Constitution.

They weren’t pulled from thin air but from the idea of natural law and the concept of human rights endowed by a Creator.  ...

We were created to be free, yet with our deeply imperfect human nature there is a need for government — “If all men were angels, no government would be necessary.” As we’re no angels, we’ve a need for government to insure God-given rights and have none of them taken away. 

Yet let’s never assume that government is essentially good. It is a necessary evil in an imperfect world. It is naive to trust the explosive mix of imperfect human nature combined with the awesome power of the state. And let’s be honest — as the government failed those children in Parkland so many times, why on earth would we engender more trust in government? It should do precisely the opposite.  ...

Entire article at The Hill

[Free Vulcan]

Gee Gayle, bring up ratty, old, debunked retread arguments much?

[DefiantMassRINO]

The Founders were talking about an armed, vigilant citizenry and armed, vigilant state militias to check and balance Federal power.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"well regulated Militia" is a term open to interpretation.

The choice of "State" versus "nation, country, or government" is also interesting.

On that train of thought ... the States preserve the right to maintain militias ... which necessitates that people keep and bear arms.

Preserving indivudual rights to bear arms also preserved the States ability to maintain militias to check and balance Federal power.

They knew if the Federal Government disarmed the citizenry, it was also disarming the States, which would leave no check or balance against Federal tyrrany.

[Hoodat]

Actually, the word "rifle" refers to grooves in the barrel of a rifle and the way a bullet is set to spinning as it travels down a "rifled" barrel. That whole technology did not exist in the era of the American revolution.

Yes, it did.  Grooved long rifles were developed by American colonists in the early 18th Century.

[Hoodat]

"well regulated Militia" is a term open to interpretation.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation.  It is unambiguous and explicit.

[AARguy]

Leonardo DaVinci invented a flying machine but man did not actually fly until long after. Rifled weapons are similar. They weren't used much until after the Revolution.

[Smokin Joe]

Muskets are a type of rifle that were around long before modern weapons. A musket was a state-of-the art "rifle" in its day. Actually, the word "rifle" refers to grooves in the barrel of a rifle and the way a bullet is set to spinning as it travels down a "rifled" barrel. That whole technology did not exist in the era of the American revolution. It came much later.

Sorry, but WRONG. https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.php?smallarms_id=363
Rifled firearms were made in America from the 1730s and were known for being significantly more accurate than the smoothbore muskets.


The standard issue military muskets of the European armies were designed for use as an area weapon, to be employed by massed troops on the open battlefield. They were not the best hunting arms, and rifles were developed here for greater accuracy. That innovation not only made hunting more likely to succeed, but in warfare, employed specifically against officers by sharpshooters (something unheard of in Europe) had the power to turn the tide of battle. The colonists had learned the skulking way of war from the Indians and employed it against the British. Sniping was born here.

[Hoodat]

The battle of Kings Mountain was fought almost exclusively with long rifles -  Kentucky rifles on the American side, and Ferguson rifles (the first breech loaded) on the British side.  Kings Mountain was a decisive American victory won by a bunch of Scottish mountain men living in the Appalachians.  Here is what British Col. George Hanger of Tarleton's cavalry had to say about the American rifles:

I never in my life saw better rifles (or men who shot better) than those made in America; they are chiefly made in Lancaster, and two or three neighboring towns in that vicinity, in Pennsylvania. The barrels weigh about six pounds two or three ounces, and carry a ball no larger than thirty-six to the pound; at least I never saw one of the larger caliber, and I have seen many hundreds and hundreds. I am not going to relate anything respecting the American war; but to mention one instance, as a proof of most excellent skill of an American rifleman. If any man shew me an instance of better shooting, I will stand corrected.  .  .  .

https://web.archive.org/web/20070703033439/http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/popular/12/ps12-2.htm

Long rifles would also prove their worth during the Battle of Chalmette during the War of 1812.  With muskets still in wide use, the American lines repelled an assault of Highlanders launched against a group of Tennessee militia who brought their own rifles to the battle.

[sneakypete]

I would LOVE to hear someone ask that dingbat on live tv to describe a musket.

[sneakypete]

The modern-day weapons used in these shootings have been around for decades and decades, and gun ownership has dropped over those same decades, but school shootings only really became a "thing" in the 1980s or so.  Why is that?  The weapons didn't change; so what did?

Nobody used to make excuses for murderers,or to lay blame on a bad job on the tools used by the mechanic or carpenter.

In all of history,there has never been even ONE case of a firearm or any other weapon leaving home on it's own to go harm or kill anyone.

BTW,I  hate to write this because I KNOW somebody is going to be screaming "racist!" at me,but to the best of MY memory,nobody ever started blaming the guns until most of the senseless murders started being committed by minorities,primarily blacks.

[sneakypete]

Muskets, rifles, pistols, cannon, swords, bayonets,... they were talking about all then available weaponry of war.  And, yes, private citizens owned cannon back in those days 

@The_Reader_David

Hell,you can own them now if you have the money and fill out the permits. Steven Speilberg even owns at least TWO Soviet Missile Launder trucks,complete with the missiles.

I remember this well because when they reached the port on the left coast and US Customs agents went on board the cargo ship to inspect the load,they discovered an actual multiple warhead nuke missile inside one of them.

PLEASE NOTE. I am not suggesting in ANY way that Spielberg intentionally bought a nuke. I have zero doubt that with his money and influence he could easily buy one if he wanted,but he is NOT stupid enough to buy one and have it shipped with the launcher.

Hell,there are some countries that don't have as much money as he has.

When I went to the local sheriff to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon,he told his secretary to go ahead and give (sell me) any permit for anything I wanted,including machine guns.

There MAY be something I want LESS than a freaking machine gun,but I have a hard time figuring out what it would be,unless it was something as useless and a Dim wife. Even then she would be preferable to an inaccurate firearm. I could always rent her out to drunks and make a little money.

MY preference has always been about accuracy above all. Give me something that will shoot one small 3 to 5 shot hole in a bullseye at 100 yards,and I will get as giddy as a schoolgirl.

 

[sneakypete]

Or Guttenberg Presses.

@Cyber Liberty

Probably THE most dangerous mechanical devices ever invented,if you are a government.

[sneakypete]

Civilians didn't own muskets.  They were cheap military weapons designed for line warfare.  Civilians owned rifles.

@Hoodat

EXCELLENT point,and one I keep overlooking myself. The rifled barrel "squirrel rifles" of the colonists is what scared the HELL out of the Red Coats. Just a few riflemen playing "shoot and scoot" slightly ahead of the British advances could and would raise havoc.

[sneakypete]

Gee Gayle, bring up ratty, old, debunked retread arguments much?

@Free Vulcan

Well,speaking of "ratty,old,retreads"........

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

Probably THE most dangerous mechanical devices ever invented,if you are a government.

That's why the Press is considered the second greatest invention in history, right behind the Wheel.

https://www.factretriever.com/top-ten-inventions

[Kamaji]

Actually, the Second Amendment was intended to permit state militias to field forces that could resist a standing federal army

While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

Thus, the amendment should permit the ownership of whatever weapons are necessary to resist a federal army, not simply muskets.

[sneakypete]

Actually, the Second Amendment was intended to permit state militias to field forces that could resist a standing federal army

Thus, the amendment should permit the ownership of whatever weapons are necessary to resist a federal army, not simply muskets.

@Kamaji

It does and they do. They just pimped out the meaning by insisting huge fees be charged so only the wealthy could afford the proper permits.

End run around the Constitution.

[AARguy]

Gun control is predicated on the assumption that a woman, raped and strangled with her pantyhose, lying dead in her own blood and vomit, is somehow morally superior to that same woman standing over the rapist's dead body explaining to police how he got that bullet hole in his head.

[sneakypete]

Gun control is predicated on the assumption that a woman, raped and strangled with her pantyhose, lying dead in her own blood and vomit, is somehow morally superior to that same woman standing over the rapist's dead body explaining to police how he got that bullet hole in his head.

@AARguy

The REAL basis for gun control is the desire by government to make EVERYONE totally dependent on them for protection as well as for everything else in life.

It's all about government power and has nothing to do with public safety. In FACT,the opposite is true,and is proven EVERY time an armed citizen protects themselves or someone else from a violent assault and maybe even death.

Governments are jealous of their power. ALL governments,EVERYWHERE.

[Bigun]

@AARguy

The REAL basis for gun control is the desire by government to make EVERYONE totally dependent on them for protection as well as for everything else in life.

It's all about government power and has nothing to do with public safety. In FACT,the opposite is true,and is proven EVERY time an armed citizen protects themselves or someone else from a violent assault and maybe even death.

Governments are jealous of their power. ALL governments,EVERYWHERE.

  

[Cyber Liberty]

 

Yes!  By God, @sneakypete is a true gift to TBR!

[AARguy]

Even back during the Revolution, liberals had no idea what weaponry was about. A singing group led by a British Army Officer of the era made a famous song about it. You may have heard of it... "Musket Love" by The Captain and Tenille

[sneakypete]

Even back during the Revolution, liberals had no idea what weaponry was about. A singing group led by a British Army Officer of the era made a famous song about it. You may have heard of it... "Musket Love" by The Captain and Tenille

@AARguy

LOL!

Not sure how many are going to get the reference,but most my age probably will.

[Kamaji]

Even back during the Revolution, liberals had no idea what weaponry was about. A singing group led by a British Army Officer of the era made a famous song about it. You may have heard of it... "Musket Love" by The Captain and Tenille

[Smokin Joe]

But it wasn't the musket that won the war, it was the Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles that selectively eliminated command personnel and with far greater accuracy, served to eliminate British troops as well. The musket was an area weapon when employed in large numbers by massed troops, but Americans had managed to learn the skulking way of war of the Iroquois and other tribes, and coupled with the accuracy of the rifles, did serious damage to the British command and noncommissioned officers.

The whole premise is fallacious, and I have little doubt that had Washington's army had AK-47 s and a supply of ammunition available, they would have enthusiastically applied them.

[andy58-in-nh]

The whole premise is fallacious, and I have little doubt that had Washington's army had AK-47 s and a supply of ammunition available, they would have enthusiastically applied them.

All true, of course.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written with quill pens.

Yet, their words and their meaning were not invalidated by technological advances, nor were such advances ever assumed to be categorically excluded from their effect. 

[Wingnut]

Or Guttenberg Presses.

Can I get one of those at Starbucks?

[Wingnut]

But it wasn't the musket that won the war, it was the Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles that selectively eliminated command personnel and with far greater accuracy, served to eliminate British troops as well. The musket was an area weapon when employed in large numbers by massed troops, but Americans had managed to learn the skulking way of war of the Iroquois and other tribes, and coupled with the accuracy of the rifles, did serious damage to the British command and noncommissioned officers.

The whole premise is fallacious, and I have little doubt that had Washington's army had AK-47 s and a supply of ammunition available, they would have enthusiastically applied them.

The Aliens should have given them phasers.

[BellyAche]

All true, of course.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written with quill pens.

Yet, their words and their meaning were not invalidated by technological advances, nor were such advances ever assumed to be categorically excluded from their effect.

Quill pens!  Never thought of this observation. Love it!!! And wonderfully written. 

[libertybele]

Ok, I had to look up to see who Gayle King is -- no further explanation needed.

[verga]

Gayle King: Writers of 2nd Amendment ‘Were Talking about Muskets’

Ian Hanchett 25 May 2022

On Wednesday’s broadcast of “CBS Mornings,” co-host Gayle King said that when the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, “they were talking about muskets. I do not think if they were here today that they were thinking that people, kids, would have these assault rifles.”

Stupid Beyotch, they were talking about he current state of the art in weaponry. They had just fought off a tyranicsl goveernment and wasnted toamke sure the people were going to be protected from the same thing happening again.

[verga]

Even back during the Revolution, liberals had no idea what weaponry was about. A singing group led by a British Army Officer of the era made a famous song about it. You may have heard of it... "Musket Love" by The Captain and Tenille

Great now I have an ear warm 

[txradioguy]

"well regulated Militia" is a term open to interpretation.

No it's not really.

[txradioguy]

Ok, I had to look up to see who Gayle King is -- no further explanation needed.

Oprah's long term girlfriend.

[txradioguy]

Muskets are a type of rifle that were around long before modern weapons. A musket was a state-of-the art "rifle" in its day. Actually, the word "rifle" refers to grooves in the barrel of a rifle and the way a bullet is set to spinning as it travels down a "rifled" barrel. That whole technology did not exist in the era of the American revolution. It came much later.

Siri: What is the Kentucky Rifle?

[Wingnut]

Even back during the Revolution, liberals had no idea what weaponry was about. A singing group led by a British Army Officer of the era made a famous song about it. You may have heard of it... "Musket Love" by The Captain and Tenille

That is the famous song about  Musket Susie and Musket Sam
Doing the jitterbug out in musket land

[massadvj]

The founding fathers envisioned two possible futures: (1) a federal government so small that it would be unable to garner the resources to defend itself, and (2) a federal government so large that it had a standing army large enough to defend itself.  In either case, it made sense to have an armed citizenry. In the first case to defend the country, and in the second case to defend the citizenry against the possibility of the military being used against it.

[Smokin Joe]

The founding fathers envisioned two possible futures: (1) a federal government so small that it would be unable to garner the resources to defend itself, and (2) a federal government so large that it had a standing army large enough to defend itself.  In either case, it made sense to have an armed citizenry. In the first case to defend the country, and in the second case to defend the citizenry against the possibility of the military being used against it.

Thats it in a nutshell.

The security of a free State depends on being able to defend itself from outside threats, but at the same time to be able to defend itself from those who would take it over from within, using the standing army (and destroy that freedom).
The sentiment was that the vast number of citizens, by force of arms if necessary, would so overwhelm the standing army in the event of the latter scenario, that even in the absence of military training, the citizens would prevail and retain their freedom.
In the event for a foreign threat, those same citizens could augment the Military, and by virtue of being familiar with arms, be more easily trained to enter those ranks.

For freedom, this was seen as a win/win, no matter which way events transpired, and in the event neither was necessary, no harm was done. Ours is an armed tradition.

[berdie]

How in the living daylights does Gayle King know the founder's intent? Is she a medium?

[DefiantMassRINO]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to have citizens and states act as a check and balance on Federal overreach.

The British marched on Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, to seize the colonial minutemen's arms from the Armory in Concord.