Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. The weapon in question existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution
2. This weapon made muskets obsolete
3. It was not the rifle
In that it was indeed the rifle which made the musket obsolete, I get the sinking feeling that you are referencing some weapon which never caught on, and in such a case, your clue about the founding fathers was misleading/false.
1. The weapon in question existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution
2. This weapon made muskets obsolete
3. It was not the rifle
In that it was indeed the rifle which made the musket obsolete, I get the sinking feeling that you are referencing some weapon which never caught on, and in such a case, your clue about the founding fathers was misleading/false.
Now, wait a minute, I said it was a rifle in that it was a weapon not handled by one hand. Whether or not it had a rifled barrel is unknown but to simplify it, I called muskets and rifles "rifles" collectively.
As far as whether or not it made muskets obsolete is debatable but beside the point. Let me put it this way, for who this man was, for what he did, his place in history makes this commercial useless:
Finally, for what he did, the knowledge was long in existence and for the founding fathers in that they were the intelligent men they were, there is a decent chance that they had come across his work.
As far as "something that never caught on"......oh, yes, it caught on, quite massively.
Now, wait a minute, I said it was a rifle in that it was a weapon not handled by one hand. Whether or not it had a rifled barrel is unknown but to simplify it, I called muskets and rifles "rifles" collectively.
As far as whether or not it made muskets obsolete is debatable but beside the point. Let me put it this way, for who this man was, for what he did, his place in history makes this commercial useless:
Finally, for what he did, the knowledge was long in existence and for the founding fathers in that they were the intelligent men they were, there is a decent chance that they had come across his work.
As far as "something that never caught on"......oh, yes, it caught on, quite massively.
Okay, I was right, you do not have your facts straight.
What makes a rifle a rifle is the rifling of the barrel. If it has the cut grooves in the barrel designed to impart a ballistic spin, it is a rifle. If it does not, it is a smoothbore. Muskets and rifles are not the same thing, regardless of your desire to "simplify."
Further, you original hint suggested that the founding fathers were well aware of this weapon, now you have altered that to "decent chance" that they were aware.
I get the feeling that this is going to turn out to be something that represents your opinion rather than something that is well known history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
