That's correct - there was no ban on private ownership of any "weapon of war" in those days.The residents of Boonesboro, KY actually built their own cannon during a siege of the fort by the British and Indians. Since they had no foundry to cast one, they built it out of a hollow oak log bound with iron bands. it burst on the third shot, but no one ever got arrested to manufacturing their own weapons of war, because it was not illegal.
The first weapons to undergo any ban were not firearms of any kind, nor even military weapons - it was understood that military weapons were explicitly allowed by the Second Amendment, and not to be tampered with by government. They were knives, "dirks" specifically. Many of those bans continue to this day. In my state of Virginia, for example, bans on dirks are still on the books, although I know of no one who has been arrested for possessing one. Also banned here, I know not why, are "throwing stars", nunchaku, and butterfly knives. I know not why - they banned them some time when I was elsewhere, because those items were not illegal here when I was growing up. A consequence of that is that I own some that I bought legally as a teenager, but which are now illegal to possess. The stars/ shuriken are not particularly effective for anything other than to distract an attacker with, and the butterfly knives are so complex to operate that no one bothers to learn how any more. I'm one of the few people in this state that I know of that can used one.
Butcher knives out of your kitchen are far more dangerous than any of the above, yet they are paradoxically still legal here, which tells me weapons bans are never about deadliness of the object. They are instead only about control, and the unreasonable fears of cowards for "scary-looking", but ultimately less lethal, weapons.
I can think of nowhere in the US that cannons were banned before 1934 by the passage of the GCA of 1934 which also banned private possession of machine guns, which would have been an unthinkable ban just ten years previous to it's enactment, since machine guns are explicitly "weapons of war", and therefore the very kind of weapons explicitly protected against banning by the Second Amendment.
The fact is, that a semantic focus on "gun violence" - or "knife violence", "crowbar violence", or even "claw hammer violence" is intended to shift the focus from the real problem, which is "violence" in any of it's forms, to an inanimate object that can do no violence at all without a violent person wielding it. It seems to me that focus should be on violence and the perpetrators thereof rather than whatever tool they chose to project their violence with at the moment. Until that focus is re-acquired, violence will always be on our streets, simply because the people who perpetrate it are condoned to live there.
As an example, in the UK I am given to understand that firearms are heavily restricted. Has that eliminated the violence in, for example, London? No. The violent people, since they are allowed to still walk among us unfettered, have simply shifted to other implements of destruction. Until the root cause - violent people - is addressed, violence will remain a fact of daily life as one by one the implements used are focused upon and eliminated rather than the root cause, until we are down to bricks and pointy sticks. Even then, the violent people among us will make use of those.
.
The first weapons to undergo any ban were not firearms of any kind, nor even military weapons - it was understood that military weapons were explicitly allowed by the Second Amendment, and not to be tampered with by government. They were knives, "dirks" specifically. Many of those bans continue to this day. In my state of Virginia, for example, bans on dirks are still on the books, although I know of no one who has been arrested for possessing one. Also banned here, I know not why, are "throwing stars", nunchaku, and butterfly knives. I know not why - they banned them some time when I was elsewhere, because those items were not illegal here when I was growing up. A consequence of that is that I own some that I bought legally as a teenager, but which are now illegal to possess. The stars/ shuriken are not particularly effective for anything other than to distract an attacker with, and the butterfly knives are so complex to operate that no one bothers to learn how any more. I'm one of the few people in this state that I know of that can used one.
Butcher knives out of your kitchen are far more dangerous than any of the above, yet they are paradoxically still legal here, which tells me weapons bans are never about deadliness of the object. They are instead only about control, and the unreasonable fears of cowards for "scary-looking", but ultimately less lethal, weapons.
I can think of nowhere in the US that cannons were banned before 1934 by the passage of the GCA of 1934 which also banned private possession of machine guns, which would have been an unthinkable ban just ten years previous to it's enactment, since machine guns are explicitly "weapons of war", and therefore the very kind of weapons explicitly protected against banning by the Second Amendment.
The fact is, that a semantic focus on "gun violence" - or "knife violence", "crowbar violence", or even "claw hammer violence" is intended to shift the focus from the real problem, which is "violence" in any of it's forms, to an inanimate object that can do no violence at all without a violent person wielding it. It seems to me that focus should be on violence and the perpetrators thereof rather than whatever tool they chose to project their violence with at the moment. Until that focus is re-acquired, violence will always be on our streets, simply because the people who perpetrate it are condoned to live there.
As an example, in the UK I am given to understand that firearms are heavily restricted. Has that eliminated the violence in, for example, London? No. The violent people, since they are allowed to still walk among us unfettered, have simply shifted to other implements of destruction. Until the root cause - violent people - is addressed, violence will remain a fact of daily life as one by one the implements used are focused upon and eliminated rather than the root cause, until we are down to bricks and pointy sticks. Even then, the violent people among us will make use of those.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’