Yes twice as much at full peak . Does it use much ? Nope . <| sep |> It ' s a heart with eyes . <| sep |> yes , it ' s hyperbole <| sep |> That ' s not really an answer to my point . It ' s a refutation of your point . You said The right to bear arms was written into the constitution at a time when a single shot from a musket was all that was possible before having to take a long time to reload . Which is false because there are examples of guns that aren ' t single shot muskets that they used back then . particularly those owned by average citizens , were not automatic . I ' d like a source on that . Quantum computers exist right now , but that doesn ' t mean everyone has quantum computers . Irrelevant , your point was that there was no alternative to muskets at the time . a single shot from a musket was all that was possible before having to take a long time to reload . Not that others existed , but weren ' t owned as much . Regardless of price , it is possible for someone to get hold of an automatic weapon , and I think that ' s wrongIt ' s extremely difficult to get one . Feel free to downvote all you like , I haven ' t downvoted you . I can ' t think of a single situation where I would consider arming the general public would improve things . We ' re not arming the general public , we ' re making it possible for them to arm themselves for whatever purposes they need that gun for . The founding fathers wanted the government to have reasonable fear of the people . When the people fear the government , there is tyranny when the government fears the people , there is liberty . Thomas JeffersonWhen you disarm the people , you create more possiblity for tyranny to take hold . I don ' t own a gun , but there are definitely things they can be useful for .