The Supremes

[Chad Fuck 17658]

24 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

This whole attack on abortion will have disastrous collateral consequences.

Indeed it will.  This opinion will ultimately go down in infamy like Plessy and similar cases.  It'll be a long hard road back from this one. 

[TwiceHorn 31434]

48 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Jesus, after oral arguments I was a tiny bit hopeful they'd enjoin state judges and/or clerks. This really is essentially the worst case scenario:

 

Any questions about whether ACB and Kavanaugh are willing to risk the Court's reputation and integrity have been answered. 

Goddammit, that's the wrong 'bortion case to dismiss improvidently granted.  Christ on a cracker.

Edited December 10, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[High Plains Drifter 11024]

On 11/3/2021 at 2:26 PM, wildcat09 said:

 

John Roberts is a fucking idiot. 

 

On 11/3/2021 at 2:58 PM, Captainant said:

Voter ID laws exist. Irony is dead. Fuck John Roberts.

 

I hope this Fletcher guy pointed that out to Roberts.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31434]

20 hours ago, elfenix said:

 

The nutty thing is, I don't think that "jewish-palestinian conflict" thing is part of mainline Catholic eschatology.  That one is usually reserved for the fundagelicals.

Just goes to show that Barrett is more of an Opus Dei Bapto-Catholic than catholic Catholic.

[wildcat09 29338]

What's really awful about this is that, to get any clarity at all and hopefully narrow the Court's permission slip to invalidate Constitutional rights, a liberal state essentially has to try the same thing now with gun rights or religion. It's like the conservative justices want to pour shitloads of gas all over the culture wars.

[Lurch 5922]

That’s my question. How should we use this new tactic for our benefit?

[cactusflinthead 27598]

25 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What's really awful about this is that, to get any clarity at all and hopefully narrow the Court's permission slip to invalidate Constitutional rights, a liberal state essentially has to try the same thing now with gun rights or religion. It's like the conservative justices want to pour shitloads of gas all over the culture wars.

You're expecting logical consistency?

Bwahaha! Tell it again.

They are going to contort themselves in ways seemingly impossible to render the verdict they want, Constitution be damned.

[elfenix 34221]

What's really awful about this is that, to get any clarity at all and hopefully narrow the Court's permission slip to invalidate Constitutional rights, a liberal state essentially has to try the same thing now with gun rights or religion. It's like the conservative justices want to pour shitloads of gas all over the culture wars.

Have you heard Alito give a speech?

[JimmyJames 12271]

Time for California to pass private bounty laws for sellers of guns. 
 

Fucking A this court sucks.

[Biff Tannen 45661]

21 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This current court is a complete joke 

Well good news is we only have to deal with it for the next 50 years or so. 

[Woland 732]

Well good news is we only have to deal with it for the next 50 years or so. 

Or until the upcoming civil war.

[tx 3 putt 76862]

2 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

This whole attack on abortion will have disastrous collateral consequences.

until I see it on Election Day, no it won’t 

[Lurch 5922]

Well good news is we only have to deal with it for the next 50 years or so. 

I know it’s still a pipe dream, but at least we’re a hair closer to packing the court to fix it

[wildcat09 29338]

And here we go:

 

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by wildcat09

[Brisketexan 105043]

And here we go:
 
 

It’s the only sane outcome after an insane decision.

Let’s go.

[DDD Dad 14323]

It’s just signaling the reversal of the right to privacy since it isn’t expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. 
 

Gun bounty law will easily be distinguished because second amendment. 

[Chad Fuck 17658]

And here we go:
 
 

That didn’t take nearly as long as I expected.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33859]

30 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

It’s just signaling the reversal of the right to privacy since it isn’t expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. 
 

Gun bounty law will easily be distinguished because second amendment. 

you're the guy that explains why a certain scene in a sci-fi movie wouldn't work because of some little-known physics loophole and you therefore ruin the movie for everyone, aren't you?

but seriously, the CA law may not hold up for long, but it lays the framework for other states to do the same. and it will have an effect

Edited December 12, 2021 by Longhorn_Fan68

[DDD Dad 14323]

5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you're the guy that explains why a certain scene in a sci-fi movie wouldn't work because of some little-known physics loophole and you therefore ruin the movie for everyone, aren't you?

but seriously, the CA law may not hold up for long, but it lays the framework for other states to do the same. and it will have an effect

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

On 12/10/2021 at 10:38 AM, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

I hope this Fletcher guy pointed that out to Roberts.

 

 

You do understand the difference between may issue and shall issue, right?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

Nearly two days later, I believe we are hearing the sound of those who thought they were clever realizing they were advocating for a system where the government can arbitrarily decide who can  exercise constitutional rights such as voting based on whether the applicant is rich and powerful enough to give them bribes. And also whether or not they are a dirty undesirable immigrant. Congrats, yall! You've succeeded in making your first baby steps towards joining the GQP!

[tx 3 putt 76862]

On 12/12/2021 at 12:28 PM, DDD Dad said:

It’s just signaling the reversal of the right to privacy since it isn’t expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. 
 

Gun bounty law will easily be distinguished because second amendment. 

 

where are gun manufactures protected in the 2nd amendment ? 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

If you honestly think that the founding fathers and the congresses of the original colonies that ratified the bill of rights intended that the gunsmiths or armories that made the guns of the time should be held liable for private citizens misusing them, then you should probably not open your mouth and inform everyone of your foolishness. 

Additionally,  firearm manufacturers are protected from such frivolous lawsuits by federal law.

[TwiceHorn 31434]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

where are gun manufactures protected in the 2nd amendment ? 

DDD Dad's point is that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, in the text, for everyone to read.

Whereas neither the right or privacy nor the right to an abortion is written into the constitution.

Thus, while the right to abortion is insecure against clever, but blatantly unconstitutional. incursions, the right to bear arms is more fundamental and will not be infringed upon in a similar manner.

Some animals are more equal than others.

[Willfully Horn 7999]

There’s no right to murder, or negligently hurt another, with firearms. Explain why CA can’t grant standing to the general  public, as Texas has done, when an individual kills someone, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Comma

[Bookman 4638]

6 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If you honestly think that the founding fathers and the congresses of the original colonies that ratified the bill of rights intended that the gunsmiths or armories that made the guns of the time should be held liable for private citizens misusing them, then you should probably not open your mouth and inform everyone of your foolishness. 

Additionally,  firearm manufacturers are protected from such frivolous lawsuits by federal law.

Why don't you believe in State's rights?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

That's the dumbest gotcha response I've seen in a long time. Like it's amazing you can even figure out how to shovel food into your mouth, chew, and swallow.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

When are they going to enforce the first 4 words of the second amendment? "A well regulated militia" always seems to be a disregarded qualifier. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

The idea that the second amendment was only meant to protect the organized militia is a historical fiction that completely ignores history in favor of creating laws that just so happen to discriminate against minorities. But of course that is completely coincidental and totally wasn't the point. It's totally ok that they are discriminated against though, because the point was never to disenfranchise them.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Historical fiction based on? 

Who are these minorities you are referring to? 

Are we talking some CRT for gun owners? 

[TwiceHorn 31434]

On 12/15/2021 at 12:34 AM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Nearly two days later, I believe we are hearing the sound of those who thought they were clever realizing they were advocating for a system where the government can arbitrarily decide who can  exercise constitutional rights such as voting based on whether the applicant is rich and powerful enough to give them bribes. And also whether or not they are a dirty undesirable immigrant. Congrats, yall! You've succeeded in making your first baby steps towards joining the GQP!

Well, I mean that is what the Texas Legislature has done, although I'm not sure it's the product of bribes.  You see other states moving in that direction.

And the point of using the SB 8 model to infringe on fundamental rights is not because it's the right thing to do, it is to show the Supreme Court and those who made it this way what a grievous mistake they have made.  Calling it a mistake is generous.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

The founders believed that a militia force was necessary for defences  both foreign and domestic. They created the organized militia and the unorganized militia, which consisted of all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 who were not a member of any other armed forces. They were required to provide their own arms and were expected to be competent in their use. While this expectation did not always work out as intended, the intention was clearly laid out. Without an armed and competent citizenry they would not be able to raise a militia like Washington did during the whiskey rebellion. The government even had to resort to conscription in some cases to fill out their militia, so it is pretty hard to argue that by militia they meant only the national gaurd.

As far as disenfranchisement goes, there are numerous examples of gun control laws being passed to suppress potential rebellions by slaves or recently freed slaves. Even Ronald Reagan pushed for and passed gun control in response to the Black Panthers arming themselves during protests.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, I mean that is what the Texas Legislature has done, although I'm not sure it's the product of bribes.  You see other states moving in that direction.

And the point of using the SB 8 model to infringe on fundamental rights is not because it's the right thing to do, it is to show the Supreme Court and those who made it this way what a grievous mistake they have made.  Calling it a mistake is generous.

No question there. I'm not a fan of abortion, but it was pretty clear from the get go that if Texas' law was allowed to stand it would mark the end of pretty much all the civil liberties we enjoy today.

['stache 21789]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

DDD Dad's point is that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, in the text, for everyone to read.

Whereas neither the right or privacy nor the right to an abortion is written into the constitution.

Thus, while the right to abortion is insecure against clever, but blatantly unconstitutional. incursions, the right to bear arms is more fundamental and will not be infringed upon in a similar manner.

Some animals are more equal than others.

The "bounty" system was specifically designed to avoid any sort of judicial review, hence the merits of the underlying constitutionality question is never reached. There is zero chance even this court could reach different conclusions on whether they can even reach the merits of the case. They are fucking around and slow playing it because they are political hacks, but I'm pretty sure they are allowing judicial review eventually. Kavanaugh himself specifically mentioned gun rights in a manner suggested by Newsome. They know if they allow this precedent, the liberul states will fuck around too, so they will not ultimately allow this system to survive. The worst part is that they are allowing the system to go into effect for now, because again, they are political hacks, and they are just biding time until they overrule Roe entirely in a few weeks. If California does the same thing with guns, by the time it hits the court, they will have invalidated bounty systems and abortion will be illegal in half the fucking states.

['stache 21789]

1 hour ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

When are they going to enforce the first 4 words of the second amendment? "A well regulated militia" always seems to be a disregarded qualifier. 

Scalia is a textualist and an originalist, unless he doesn't like the text or the result of original intent. In the Heller decision, he literally said the "militia" clause doesn't matter. So that is the law of the land now, the founders' words matter, unless they don't. Scalia'd!

[TwiceHorn 31434]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

There is zero chance even this court could reach different conclusions on whether they can even reach the merits of the case.

I have mildly defended the Court, historically.  But I am not sure this is true.

And, I have become rather convinced that they are delaying this reckoning on SB8 because they are going to reverse Roe.

[wildcat09 29338]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have mildly defended the Court, historically.  But I am not sure this is true.

And, I have become rather convinced that they are delaying this reckoning on SB8 because they are going to reverse Roe.

The thing is, enjoining SB8 because they’re gonna go ahead and overrule Roe in Dobbs would’ve made the most sense. Why ratify such a direct challenge to the Court’s power when you’ve got a preferable vehicle for accomplishing your political ends right at hand? 

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that this was a trial run to gauge the public backlash. Had there been an angrier reaction from the public, a couple of the justices may have reconsidered how far they’re willing to go on Roe. 

['stache 21789]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have mildly defended the Court, historically.  But I am not sure this is true.

And, I have become rather convinced that they are delaying this reckoning on SB8 because they are going to reverse Roe.

Isn't that exactly what I said? I'm talking about the bounties case. There is no way they would say they can't review the constitutionality of the underlying issue on abortion but they can if its guns. They are delaying it because, as you say, they'll be overturning Roe in the other case. They will then say you can't evade review through a bounty system. As you said before, it'll then get to the merits. It's okay for abortion becasue it's not a constitutional right anymore, it's not okay for guns because Scalia said guns is good.

[elfenix 34221]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

DDD Dad's point is that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, in the text, for everyone to read.

Whereas neither the right or privacy nor the right to an abortion is written into the constitution.

Thus, while the right to abortion is insecure against clever, but blatantly unconstitutional. incursions, the right to bear arms is more fundamental and will not be infringed upon in a similar manner.

Some animals are more equal than others.

this view is unconstitutional.  you'd think textualists would know that. 

[elfenix 34221]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The thing is, enjoining SB8 because they’re gonna go ahead and overrule Roe in Dobbs would’ve made the most sense. Why ratify such a direct challenge to the Court’s power when you’ve got a preferable vehicle for accomplishing your political ends right at hand? 

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that this was a trial run to gauge the public backlash. Had there been an angrier reaction from the public, a couple of the justices may have reconsidered how far they’re willing to go on Roe. 

not much anger from the public because the press releases said that the suit can go forward.  nevermind that the suit that is allowed to go forward basically has no teeth.  ohhhhh, the state licensing board can't discipline me for performing an abortion that i'm not going to perform because every person who can manage to pay the filing fee can still sue me.

Edited December 16, 2021 by elfenix

[tx 3 putt 76862]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Scalia is a textualist and an originalist, unless he doesn't like the text or the result of original intent. In the Heller decision, he literally said the "militia" clause doesn't matter. So that is the law of the land now, the founders' words matter, unless they don't. Scalia'd!

Of llcourse it didn’t matter to him, it interfers with his political views 

[SubliminalHorn 6781]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The thing is, enjoining SB8 because they’re gonna go ahead and overrule Roe in Dobbs would’ve made the most sense. Why ratify such a direct challenge to the Court’s power when you’ve got a preferable vehicle for accomplishing your political ends right at hand? 

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that this was a trial run to gauge the public backlash. Had there been an angrier reaction from the public, a couple of the justices may have reconsidered how far they’re willing to go on Roe. 

I don't think there has been an angrier reaction because most people don’t really understand what the decision means.

[TwiceHorn 31434]

I was re-reading Heller, and didn't get very far, but I wanted to point something out about Scalia, consistent with what I have said.

Early on in the opinion, he tosses this out:

Quote

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

That is pretty close to as counter-originalist as you can get.  He slides a lot of these nuggets into his opinions.

[JimmyJames 12271]

56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was re-reading Heller, and didn't get very far, but I wanted to point something out about Scalia, consistent with what I have said.

Early on in the opinion, he tosses this out:

That is pretty close to as counter-originalist as you can get.  He slides a lot of these nuggets into his opinions.

Yeah that’s pretty rich. By the time he wrote Heller he was in full on hack mode. 

[wildcat09 29338]

He was always in full hack mode.  If anyone wants to get real mad for a day, read his opinion in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (which Breyer and Souter fucking joined, those worthless fucks). It's a truly infuriating case and one of the best examples of what bullshit Scalia's supposed commitment to originalism and textualism was.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

He was always in full hack mode.  If anyone wants to get real mad for a day, read his opinion in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (which Breyer and Souter fucking joined, those worthless fucks). It's a truly infuriating case and one of the best examples of what bullshit Scalia's supposed commitment to originalism and textualism was.

Usually but not always, but it got worse over time. His 2003 dissent in State Farm v. Campbell regarding punitive damages is both a good example of him occasionally sticking to his supposed principles as well as a great example of Kennedy being a complete corporate hack along with some Dems as well. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was re-reading Heller, and didn't get very far, but I wanted to point something out about Scalia, consistent with what I have said.

Early on in the opinion, he tosses this out:

That is pretty close to as counter-originalist as you can get.  He slides a lot of these nuggets into his opinions.

Is it though? The founding fathers were almost certainly aware of developments being made in repeating firearms and knew that the technology would improve. If they intended only for muskets, longrifles, and fowling pieces  to be protected by the second amendment they would surely have specified that. There is a pretty impressive list of flintlock repeaters and at least one completely new technology that dates back to the founding of our nation, some even going back to the mid seventeenth century.

The Kalthoff repeater was a type of repeating firearm that was designed by members of the Kalthoff family around 1630, and became the first repeating firearm to be brought into military service. At least nineteen gunsmiths are known to have made weapons following the Kalthoff design. Some early Kalthoff guns were wheellocks, but the rest were flintlocks. The capacity varied between 5 and 30 rounds, depending on the style of the magazines. There were two major variations in it's mechanism, but both could readied to fire again in just a couple of seconds. They were expensive to make and maintain, but founders such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson likely knew of them because of their interest in inventions and technology.

The Lorenzoni system dates back to the mid seventeenth century and used a different mechanism, but still operated by lever. At least one American gunsmith, John Cookson, is believed to have made guns of this type. He advertised repeating flintlocks that could fire nine shots in the Boston Gazette in 1756. He also has the same name as a contemporary London gunsmith who is known to have made guns utilizing this mechanism. Historians believe they were related.

The Puckle gun, patented in 1718, was invented by James Puckle, a British inventor. It had a bore of 1.5 inches and utilized a removable revolving cylinder that held between 6 and eleven shots. During a demonstration, it was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes during a driving rain storm. That a shot about every six and a half seconds, counting reloading time. An impressive feat, especially given the sensitivity of the guns of the day to the weather.

The Belton gun, was a gun that had the capacity to shoot eight rounds in eight, five, or three seconds of time. The Continental Congress actually placed an order for 100 of them in 1777, but cancelled it when his bid came back to high. It is believed that it used paper cartridges with a fuse system not unlike roman candles. The founders were clearly aware of this, since they tried to order them.

The Girardoni air rifle is believed to be the air rifle of Lewis and Clark fame. Anybody who has read Undaunted Courage should be familiar with it. It had a magazine capacity of 20 balls that could be fired as long as sufficient air pressure remained in it's reservoir. It saw service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. Whether or not the founders were aware of it at the time the second amendment was ratified is unclear, but Jefferson procured one before the 1803 Lewis and Clark expedition. He never gave any indication that he didn't consider it as acceptable under the Second Amendment.

The Nock gun was a multi barreled gun invented in England in 1779. It had vent holes linking the barrels so that all of them would fire at once. The Royal Navy purchased 500 of them in 1780.

The Chambers swivel gun was similar to the Nock gun in that it had several barrels, however it could fire between 175 and 220 rounds in rapid succession, roman candle style. Many people consider this the first machine gun. The founding fathers tested it at Alexander Hamilton's estate and it saw naval service during the War of 1812.

 

So, to say that the founders didn't anticipate firearms technology improving and only intended the Second Amendment to protect muskets, longrifles, and shotguns in use at the time ignores much of history.

[wildcat09 29338]

Man, nobody gives a shit about your boner for ancient guns.

[DDD Dad 14323]

Is it though? The founding fathers were almost certainly aware of developments being made in repeating firearms and knew that the technology would improve. If they intended only for muskets, longrifles, and fowling pieces  to be protected by the second amendment they would surely have specified that. There is a pretty impressive list of flintlock repeaters and at least one completely new technology that dates back to the founding of our nation, some even going back to the mid seventeenth century.
The Kalthoff repeater was a type of repeating firearm that was designed by members of the Kalthoff family around 1630, and became the first repeating firearm to be brought into military service. At least nineteen gunsmiths are known to have made weapons following the Kalthoff design. Some early Kalthoff guns were wheellocks, but the rest were flintlocks. The capacity varied between 5 and 30 rounds, depending on the style of the magazines. There were two major variations in it's mechanism, but both could readied to fire again in just a couple of seconds. They were expensive to make and maintain, but founders such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson likely knew of them because of their interest in inventions and technology.
The Lorenzoni system dates back to the mid seventeenth century and used a different mechanism, but still operated by lever. At least one American gunsmith, John Cookson, is believed to have made guns of this type. He advertised repeating flintlocks that could fire nine shots in the Boston Gazette in 1756. He also has the same name as a contemporary London gunsmith who is known to have made guns utilizing this mechanism. Historians believe they were related.
The Puckle gun, patented in 1718, was invented by James Puckle, a British inventor. It had a bore of 1.5 inches and utilized a removable revolving cylinder that held between 6 and eleven shots. During a demonstration, it was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes during a driving rain storm. That a shot about every six and a half seconds, counting reloading time. An impressive feat, especially given the sensitivity of the guns of the day to the weather.
The Belton gun, was a gun that had the capacity to shoot eight rounds in eight, five, or three seconds of time. The Continental Congress actually placed an order for 100 of them in 1777, but cancelled it when his bid came back to high. It is believed that it used paper cartridges with a fuse system not unlike roman candles. The founders were clearly aware of this, since they tried to order them.
The Girardoni air rifle is believed to be the air rifle of Lewis and Clark fame. Anybody who has read Undaunted Courage should be familiar with it. It had a magazine capacity of 20 balls that could be fired as long as sufficient air pressure remained in it's reservoir. It saw service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. Whether or not the founders were aware of it at the time the second amendment was ratified is unclear, but Jefferson procured one before the 1803 Lewis and Clark expedition. He never gave any indication that he didn't consider it as acceptable under the Second Amendment.
The Nock gun was a multi barreled gun invented in England in 1779. It had vent holes linking the barrels so that all of them would fire at once. The Royal Navy purchased 500 of them in 1780.
The Chambers swivel gun was similar to the Nock gun in that it had several barrels, however it could fire between 175 and 220 rounds in rapid succession, roman candle style. Many people consider this the first machine gun. The founding fathers tested it at Alexander Hamilton's estate and it saw naval service during the War of 1812.
 
So, to say that the founders didn't anticipate firearms technology improving and only intended the Second Amendment to protect muskets, longrifles, and shotguns in use at the time ignores much of history.

Ok fine. Now explain the Heller court’s disregard for the first clause of the amendment.

[TwiceHorn 31434]

47 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Is it though? The founding fathers were almost certainly aware of developments being made in repeating firearms and knew that the technology would improve. If they intended only for muskets, longrifles, and fowling pieces  to be protected by the second amendment they would surely have specified that. There is a pretty impressive list of flintlock repeaters and at least one completely new technology that dates back to the founding of our nation, some even going back to the mid seventeenth century.

The Kalthoff repeater was a type of repeating firearm that was designed by members of the Kalthoff family around 1630, and became the first repeating firearm to be brought into military service. At least nineteen gunsmiths are known to have made weapons following the Kalthoff design. Some early Kalthoff guns were wheellocks, but the rest were flintlocks. The capacity varied between 5 and 30 rounds, depending on the style of the magazines. There were two major variations in it's mechanism, but both could readied to fire again in just a couple of seconds. They were expensive to make and maintain, but founders such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson likely knew of them because of their interest in inventions and technology.

The Lorenzoni system dates back to the mid seventeenth century and used a different mechanism, but still operated by lever. At least one American gunsmith, John Cookson, is believed to have made guns of this type. He advertised repeating flintlocks that could fire nine shots in the Boston Gazette in 1756. He also has the same name as a contemporary London gunsmith who is known to have made guns utilizing this mechanism. Historians believe they were related.

The Puckle gun, patented in 1718, was invented by James Puckle, a British inventor. It had a bore of 1.5 inches and utilized a removable revolving cylinder that held between 6 and eleven shots. During a demonstration, it was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes during a driving rain storm. That a shot about every six and a half seconds, counting reloading time. An impressive feat, especially given the sensitivity of the guns of the day to the weather.

The Belton gun, was a gun that had the capacity to shoot eight rounds in eight, five, or three seconds of time. The Continental Congress actually placed an order for 100 of them in 1777, but cancelled it when his bid came back to high. It is believed that it used paper cartridges with a fuse system not unlike roman candles. The founders were clearly aware of this, since they tried to order them.

The Girardoni air rifle is believed to be the air rifle of Lewis and Clark fame. Anybody who has read Undaunted Courage should be familiar with it. It had a magazine capacity of 20 balls that could be fired as long as sufficient air pressure remained in it's reservoir. It saw service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. Whether or not the founders were aware of it at the time the second amendment was ratified is unclear, but Jefferson procured one before the 1803 Lewis and Clark expedition. He never gave any indication that he didn't consider it as acceptable under the Second Amendment.

The Nock gun was a multi barreled gun invented in England in 1779. It had vent holes linking the barrels so that all of them would fire at once. The Royal Navy purchased 500 of them in 1780.

The Chambers swivel gun was similar to the Nock gun in that it had several barrels, however it could fire between 175 and 220 rounds in rapid succession, roman candle style. Many people consider this the first machine gun. The founding fathers tested it at Alexander Hamilton's estate and it saw naval service during the War of 1812.

 

So, to say that the founders didn't anticipate firearms technology improving and only intended the Second Amendment to protect muskets, longrifles, and shotguns in use at the time ignores much of history.

That may be true, but he didn't confine his examples to the Second Amendment.