What did the Founders mean...

[jimmy the one]

60. eli whitney's cotton gun

johnston first wrote: Most civilian arms were superior to military weapons. For example, civilians had rifles, while the military only had muskets. The same is true of repeating weapons from that time until well into the 19th century.

johnston: I was refering to what was available on the commercial market vs what was military issue. Also, provide a source.

I could agree after rifle technology had been developed further, into the early 1800's, that civilians had access to the better of the two firearms, musket or rifle. (And rifled muskets were what they were called early on).
Tench Coxe post war sold firearms to both civilians and the govt/militias, didn't matter to him - his sales pitch was something like 'americans should be armed' (and today gun zealots drool). The national armories at Springfield & Harpers Ferry didn't start producing many guns till early 1800's, so both military & civilian were pretty much dependent upon commercial sales. I think eli whitney was contracted by the govt to provide over 10,000 guns - he failed miserably. Excepting of course the 'fms' foreign military sales circa 1775 from france & belgium re 100,000 charlemagnes & 25,000 belgian muskets.

But to call civilian arms ie rifles 'superior' to military weapons ie muskets is a wrong way to put it. Sure the rifle was superior to the musket for civilians hunting game or plinking varmints or sniping from behind trees when time was not of the essence when you did not have to stand & defend, but the musket was far superior for military battles, when 3 musket balls could be loaded for every rifle bullet, and the musket could wield a bayonet while the rifle could not.
You read in a previous post of mine how the late 1790's congressional war dept (was it?) thought the musket superior to the rifle. You are either using modern sophisticated rifles & comparing with muskets, or are under some misconception.

What specifically do you want a source for?