Gun-Grabbers Say ‘Let Them Have Muskets’ — Here’s The Flaw In Their Logic

The Constitution is a problem for gun-grabbers. A favorite work-around is that the Framers never wanted us to have — how many times have you heard this one — ‘weapons of war’.

Had they known the sorts of weapons that would be invented, the argument goes, surely they would have excluded THESE from their Second Amendment, right?

The right’s usual flippant response to that is that we no longer write with quills and parchment, and that surely the internet is not covered by the First Amendment.

That’s not a bad argument by analogy, but it doesn’t face the criticism head-on. Was the Second Amendment only meant for muskets, or did they imagine Americans being permitted, or even encouraged to own what we are now seeing called ‘weapons of war?’

To answer that, we need to look back at the weapons in use in the time of the Framers, don’t we?

Most of the combatants, on both sides, did use muskets. In particular, they used the Brown Bess musket which is described in some detail in this article.

If that was all that had been used by either side, any response we gave to them would require arguments beyond the scope of the Framers’ actual intent.

But Americans did have an advantage that the British didn’t have. They had the use of a new advancement in arms. They had the American longrifle.

This gave the British a disadvantage for which they had no real solution. Muskets, while dangerous enough to punch through more than one human target, were not very accurate. Like arrow volleys before them, effective use required a volley of fire being rained down on a tightly-packed group of enemies.

The Americans, because they had riflemen in their ranks, had much greater accuracy than the British Regulars, and could pick off high-value targets at much greater range.

The commanding British general at the battle, Gen. John Burgoyne, who was the boss of Brig. Gen. Fraser at the Battle of Saratoga, later wrote of the sudden deadly impact of the American riflemen: “The enemy had with their army great numbers of marksmen, armed with rifle-barrel pieces; these, during an engagement, hovered upon the flanks in small detachments, and were very expert in securing themselves, and in shifting their ground. In this action many placed themselves in high trees in the rear of their own line, and there was seldom a minute’s interval of smoke, in any part of our line without officers being taken off by a single shot.”

The British feared the Colonial riflemen so much they called them “widow-makers.” Indeed the best picture of American riflemen comes from the unfortunate British troops who had to face them in battle. British Capt. Henry Beaufoy wrote that his combat-hardened troops, “when they understood they were opposed by riflemen … felt a degree of terror never inspired by general action, from the idea that a rifleman always singled out an individual, who was almost certain of being killed or wounded.” He explained that the Americans “were in the habit of forming themselves into small bands often of twelve, who, accustomed to shooting in hunting parties, went out in a sort of predatory warfare, each carrying his ammunition and provisions and returning when he was exhausted. From the incessant attacks of these bodies, their opponents could never be prepared: as the first knowledge of a patrol in the neighbourhood was generally given by a volley of well-directed fire, that perhaps killed or wounded the greater part.”

Col. George Hanger, a British officer who served in South Carolina, was so impressed by the American’s deadly skill he wrote to the folks back home: “I never in my life saw better rifles (or men who shot better) than those made in America.” Another British officer reported that an expert rifleman could hit the head of a man at 200 yards, and if he “were to get perfect aim at 300 yards at me, standing still, he would most undoubtedly hit me unless it were a very windy day.” — AmericanRifleman

Not only were the Framers ok with citizens owning firepower equal to or better than the military standard of the day, but they may not have secured the American Independence without it.

And since an armed citizen is the last defense not only against threats to his life in terms of wild animals or aggressive criminals, but against future government tyranny itself, the burden of proof rests on the gun-grabbers to explain why the honest citizen should have inferior firepower to what he would be forced to face if his own government would go rogue.

Psalms of War: Prayers That Literally Kick Ass is a collection, from the book of Psalms, regarding how David rolled in prayer. I bet you haven’t heard these read, prayed, or sung in church against our formidable enemies — and therein lies the Church’s problem. We’re not using the spiritual weapons God gave us to waylay the powers of darkness. It might be time to dust them off and offer ‘em up if you’re truly concerned about the state of Christ’s Church and of our nation.

Also included in this book, Psalms of War, are reproductions of the author’s original art from his Biblical Badass Series of oil paintings.

This is a great gift for the prayer warriors. Real. Raw. Relevant.