Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:50 AM

Bozita (26,949 posts)

THIS is what firearms looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written ...

Do you think the Founding Fathers could even imagine automatic weapons with 30 round ammo clips?

I don't.

160 replies, 6219 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

160 replies	Author	Time	Post
THIS is what firearms looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written ... (Original post)	Bozita	Dec 2012	OP
When the goofs show up here with a picture of a quill pen	Loudly	Dec 2012	#1
Ask 'em where the First A's qualifying clause is...	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#6
It's past time to put "well regulated" to good use	neverforget	Dec 2012	#2
Militia.	pscot	Dec 2012	#4
Regulated	Beaverhausen	Dec 2012	#12
Precisely	Sherman A1	Dec 2012	#21
At the time the BOR was written,	Jenoch	Dec 2012	#111
And do we have well run? No. We have disastrously run.	robinlynne	Dec 2012	#113
We have the National Guard and . . .	brush	Dec 2012	#120
Why are you including automatics?	Jenoch	Dec 2012	#130
Take a look at these videos	brush	Dec 2012	#143
Implicit in "Well run" is a	Sherman A1	Dec 2012	#117
Girandoni Air Rifle	wercal	Dec 2012	#3
???	Bozita	Dec 2012	#5
Wiki:	yewberry	Dec 2012	#7
Lewis and Clark had an air rifle with them	Progressive dog	Dec 2012	#36
and here I thought the weapons of Anatoray in "Last Exile" were pure fantasy.	MNBrewer	Dec 2012	#47
There was also the puckle gun...	beevul	Dec 2012	#122
WTF. Fail again. 1500 strokes for 30 rounds! Lets replace all guns with it now!!	Logical	Dec 2012	#9
It's not so hard.	Glassunion	Dec 2012	#11
Serious question....	Logical	Dec 2012	#57
I know that there are air rifles today	Glassunion	Dec 2012	#63
Wow, but I am curious why no one offers this. I am sure it would be popular.	Logical	Dec 2012	#69
It might be the shape of the round	wercal	Dec 2012	#72
Fairly common	lumberjack_jeff	Dec 2012	#105
There are some powerful air guns	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#106
Yeah, I'm sure by the 700th stroke the shooter would be tackled and handcuffed already.	JaneyVee	Dec 2012	#31
Right. And because this gun had so many problems....	Barack_America	Dec 2012	#30
The Technology was there	wercal	Dec 2012	#67
The drafters of the second amendment were not armorers	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#78
The OP established what the FF knew about	wercal	Dec 2012	#86
You have not established they knew about this BB gun	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#115
Fine. You can have a paintball gun	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#56
Its lethal at 150 yards	wercal	Dec 2012	#68
Yah right...	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#71
Question	wercal	Dec 2012	#77
How many prisons were needed when gold was banned?	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#81
You didn't address the questiom at all	wercal	Dec 2012	#85
Lead paint and drugs are readily distinguishable.	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#88
Bad example	wercal	Dec 2012	#107
Then what are you worried about?	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#109
Yep..just like assault weapons became so rarified	wercal	Dec 2012	#123
"Rarefied"?	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#137
Still waiting for an answer on that shotgun	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#136
No the police took the shotgun	wercal	Dec 2012	#141
There is a great difference	billh58	Dec 2012	#148
Irrelevant	Spider Jerusalem	Dec 2012	#65
How on earth is it irrelevant	wercal	Dec 2012	#70
Was it a weapon then in common military use? No.	Spider Jerusalem	Dec 2012	#76
I guess the fact it was used in a military at that time	wercal	Dec 2012	#80
Again that's pretty largely irrelevant	Spider Jerusalem	Dec 2012	#91
I've actually read the federalist papers on the subject...	wercal	Dec 2012	#135
Get this - you have to roll around on the ground between shots!	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#74
I guess you're right	wercal	Dec 2012	#83
WTF are you on about now?	jberryhill	Dec 2012	#87
Uh, no, they didn't live in a rapidly changing world	Confusious	Dec 2012	#110
You do realize that the 18th century	wercal	Dec 2012	#139
And historians dispute when that happened	Confusious	Dec 2012	#142
Please do yourself a favor and read a history book	wercal	Dec 2012	#144
You can go to Wikipedia or open any history book and find out what I said is true.	Confusious	Dec 2012	#145
I'm sure the irony of your last statement	wercal	Dec 2012	#146
There's no irony	Confusious	Dec 2012	#147
What else can I tell you	wercal	Dec 2012	#149
Saying "you seem to be stuck on internet searches and wikipedia"	Confusious	Dec 2012	#151
Gun Freak?	wercal	Dec 2012	#152
I am realistic enough to know that we cannot merely presume original intent,	Confusious	Dec 2012	#153
This is what people keep missing	nadinbrzezinski	Dec 2012	#8
I really am not sure if semiautomatic rifles would have changed their minds.	HereSince1628	Dec 2012	#100
Reading the Federalists and Jefferson	nadinbrzezinski	Dec 2012	#116
I think you may be right. n/t	HereSince1628	Dec 2012	#118
I have said that before	hfojvt	Dec 2012	#10
As an owner of a black powder rifle I can understand the bayonet thing	newfie11	Dec 2012	#19
In contrast, 100 years later	pscot	Dec 2012	#40
It wasn't even about the guns -- it was that there was no standing army	starroute	Dec 2012	#13
This needs to be an OP. I'm getting tired of seeing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment being	pacalo	Dec 2012	#15
You should email Supreme Court Justices and tell they have it all wrong and misinterpreted it.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Dec 2012	#20
Okay, that's funny.	pacalo	Dec 2012	#23
Right .... because the supremes never get it wrong	etherealtruth	Dec 2012	#27
Four out of nine SCOTUS justices already agree.	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#35
It's not as easy as you suggest.	Jenoch	Dec 2012	#132
Until tis court. Now it is regular practice. n/t	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#133
You support the most rightwing court in 70 years?	Warren Stupidity	Dec 2012	#48
No, but theirs is the only opinion that technically matters.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Dec 2012	#50
And again, all it will take is one of the evil five to leave	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#61
Really? You made an appeal to authority mocking the poster.	Warren Stupidity	Dec 2012	#95
Such a sage court	Doctor_J	Dec 2012	#62
They already know they have it wrong	tkmorris	Dec 2012	#156
well, the gun nuts claim they can protect from invasions/our government	Doctor_J	Dec 2012	#60
I am fied up with the cowards of today hiding behind the 2nd amendment	Skittles	Dec 2012	#14
YOU TELL 'EM, SKITTLES!	pacalo	Dec 2012	#16
Why do they never, EVER explain the part about the "well regulated militia"?... I guess it's because	world wide wally	Dec 2012	#17
They would be apalled and bewildered by today's weapons	Liberal In Texas	Dec 2012	#18
Damn... what kind of weapon light is that?	OneTenthofOnePercent	Dec 2012	#22
Some may want it for their rearview mirrors.	pacalo	Dec 2012	#24
huh?	OneTenthofOnePercent	Dec 2012	#25
You do realize that rifles that held muliple shots were available back then	Travis_0004	Dec 2012	#26
So replace all guns with those, deal?	JaneyVee	Dec 2012	#32
Lol!	NealK	Dec 2012	#112
You do realize that the memorized rightwing rebuttals are just getting boring, right?	Warren Stupidity	Dec 2012	#49
If facts are boring, then I aplogize.	Travis_0004	Dec 2012	#82
You do realize that it doesn't take very much to convert a semi-automatic weapon....	OldDem2012	Dec 2012	#54
Actually it does..	Mec9000	Dec 2012	#66
So installing a slide is an incredibly tough modification?	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#73
It is still semi auto	Mec9000	Dec 2012	#84
Yet it allows you to fire at nearly automatic rates of fire	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#90
not really	Mec9000	Dec 2012	#92
Yes, really.	billh58	Dec 2012	#150
LOL!! Yeah, okay....whatever you say. nt.	OldDem2012	Dec 2012	#104
Actually-	needledriver	Dec 2012	#28
Do you think the Founding Fathers were stupid?	Taitertots	Dec 2012	#29
They also thought blacks were 3/5ths of a person & women couldn't vote.	JaneyVee	Dec 2012	#33
Ah, so you are of a mind that the founding fathers were geniuses with perfect foresight	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#39
Is your position is that the Founding Fathers didn't think firearms technology would advance?	Taitertots	Dec 2012	#43
Of course they knew it would advance	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#45
The rate of advancement argument is non-sense	Taitertots	Dec 2012	#51
Your arguments are ludicrous	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#52
Firearms technology hasn't	Taitertots	Dec 2012	#99
Firearms technology barely budged in the fifty years prior to the AWI.	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#101
No, there were huge breakthroughs in firearms technology in the lives of the Founding Fathers	Taitertots	Dec 2012	#103
Your NRA talking point assertions that	billh58	Dec 2012	#154
Wow, that's a whole basketball squad of strawmen...	friendly_iconoclast	Dec 2012	#155
Responding to the wrong post sorry	Taitertots	Dec 2012	#158
It is not good that you have ignored everything I've ever posted...	Taitertots	Dec 2012	#157
Your subject line is very true,	billh58	Dec 2012	#159
Good, don't reply to my posts with idiotic bullshit.	Taitertots	Dec 2012	#160
And most people owned them, and how many used to them for killing people?	The Straight Story	Dec 2012	#34
Even less reason to let the new model 'Murkin	pscot	Dec 2012	#44
Top of the line current technology of the day. Why would they be required to own anything less?	geckosfeet	Dec 2012	#37
"The Last of the Mohicans"....	Iggy	Dec 2012	#38
What an utterly irrelevant comment to make.	1-Old-Man	Dec 2012	#41
How long did it take to reload them? What range were they accurate to?	DainBramaged	Dec 2012	#42
You really believe Lanza could have slaughtered 22 kids and 5 adults	pscot	Dec 2012	#46
The rate of fire of a muzzle-loading musket and/or rifle at the time of the American Revolution....	OldDem2012	Dec 2012	#58
When drug gangs, rapists, home invasion thugs	guardian	Dec 2012	#53
Home invasions happen a lot in your 'hood?	GoneOffShore	Dec 2012	#55
The "stupid musket argument" is exactly the context of the world in which the....	OldDem2012	Dec 2012	#59
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH@!!!	Zoeisright	Dec 2012	#121
if a gun is my "little penis substitute"	guardian	Dec 2012	#131
”Never trust a government that doesn’t trust its own citizens with guns.” ~ Benjamin Franklin.	-..__...	Dec 2012	#64
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. ~ Benjamin Franklin	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#75
+100	RetroLounge	Dec 2012	#114
I'd rather trust the government than be forced to trust idiot neighbors like Nancy Lanza.	Dems to Win	Dec 2012	#119
Awesome post	Berserker	Dec 2012	#138
If you wanted to fire 30 rounds in a short period of time you needed 30 men with muskets.	yellowcanine	Dec 2012	#79
It's winter	Berserker	Dec 2012	#140
More examples of privately owned arms.	Egalitarian Thug	Dec 2012	#89
I don't think that a field gun would have commonly been privately owned in the 18th century.	Spider Jerusalem	Dec 2012	#93
You might not think it, but they were, and they were part of the reason for the 2nd.	Egalitarian Thug	Dec 2012	#94
Well, no, they weren't	Spider Jerusalem	Dec 2012	#96
But that is not the point, now is it? This thread and my reply are about the 18th - 19th century.	Egalitarian Thug	Dec 2012	#97
And again it's pretty largely irrelevant to the context of the 2nd	Spider Jerusalem	Dec 2012	#98
Well first, you're just wrong about ownership of artillery by colonists. The Continental Congress	Egalitarian Thug	Dec 2012	#102
No, actually, I'm not wrong	Spider Jerusalem	Dec 2012	#108
This message was hidden by jury decision.	Egalitarian Thug	Dec 2012	#124
Do you want citations? because I can provide those.	Spider Jerusalem	Dec 2012	#125
Because I just knew you don't have anything to do but sit here waiting for someone to	Egalitarian Thug	Dec 2012	#127
This message was hidden by jury decision.	Spider Jerusalem	Dec 2012	#134
I'll be back tomorrow to hear your next batch of dung. n/t	Egalitarian Thug	Dec 2012	#128
This is what free speech looked like when the 1st Amendment was written	Recursion	Dec 2012	#126
THIS is what our "original intent" SCOTUS said the 1st Amendment has ALWAYS meant ...	Bozita	Dec 2012	#129

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:53 AM

Loudly (1,177 posts)

1. When the goofs show up here with a picture of a quill pen

please be ready to explain the difference to them.

Reply to this post

Response to Loudly (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:28 AM

CTyankee (35,008 posts)

6. Ask 'em where the First A's qualifying clause is...

ask 'em why the Second A is the only one of the first 10 that has such a qualifier.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:55 AM

neverforget (6,313 posts)

2. It's past time to put "well regulated" to good use

Reply to this post

Response to neverforget (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:07 AM

pscot (13,888 posts)

4. Militia.

A well regulated militia.

Reply to this post

Response to pscot (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:28 AM

Beaverhausen (20,521 posts)

12. Regulated

Well regulated

Reply to this post

Response to neverforget (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:21 AM

Sherman A1 (11,535 posts)

21. Precisely

The 2nd Amendment can be interpreted differently than it is currently and the word "regulated" is certainly a part of that Amendment.

Reply to this post

Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:33 PM

Jenoch (1,629 posts)

111. At the time the BOR was written,

the word 'regulayed' meant well run, or operating at high efficiency.

Reply to this post

Response to Jenoch (Reply #111)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:53 PM

robinlynne (15,163 posts)

113. And do we have well run? No. We have disastrously run.

We do not ahve a militia to protect the freedom of the land either. We have individuals who like shooting animals and people.

Reply to this post

Response to robinlynne (Reply #113)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:19 PM

brush (1,023 posts)

120. We have the National Guard and . . .

. . . state troopers and county sheriff departments and local police, not to mention a standing army, that, if you think about it, is plenty enough well regulated militia. And I agree that we don't need every Tom, Dick and crazy individuals who like shooting animals and people walking around armed with automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Shotguns and sporting rifles okay, but we do not need automatic and semi-automatic weapons, even handguns, because they are for SHOOTING PEOPLE. Only the military and police should have them.

Reply to this post

Response to brush (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:24 AM

Jenoch (1,629 posts)

130. Why are you including automatics?

When was the last time one was used in a crime?

Reply to this post

Response to Jenoch (Reply #130)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:05 AM

brush (1,023 posts)

143. Take a look at these videos

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:06 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

The first one shows how easy it is to "bump" fire the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, one of the weapons used at the Newtown shooting. Look at this video and tell me this semi-automatic is not easily converted to an automatic weapon.

A semi-automatic Glock was also used at Newtown. This handgun can also be "bump" fired. Look at this video.

That's why I'm including automatic weapons, as being used in crimes. They are military weapons designed to kill many people as quickly as possible. And why does any civilian need an automatic weapon unless he/she plans to use it to kill people? And handguns are also designed to kill people.

Reply to this post

Response to Jenoch (Reply #111)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:16 PM

Sherman A1 (11,535 posts)

117. Implicit in "Well run" is a

set of rules or standards. If there are no standards and the rules or procedures established to reach those standards, how could anyone determine said high efficiency? Could the militia maintain a prescribed rate of march or rate of fire with their weaponry? How would one know without rules to achieve & standards by which to measure? Regulation is very much part of the amendment.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:57 AM

wercal (223 posts)

3. Girandoni Air Rifle

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:21 AM

Bozita (26,949 posts)

5. ???

More info, please.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:33 AM

yewberry (5,839 posts)

7. Wiki:

Air rifle from 1790: The Girandoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance, but it was eventually removed from service for several reasons. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs themselves, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply.

In addition, the weapon was very delicate and a small break could make it inoperable. Finally, it was very different from any other weapon of the time and any soldier using it needed to be highly trained.

Apparently someone thought this gun was a big whoop.

Reply to this post

Response to yewberry (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:24 AM

Progressive dog (978 posts)

36. Lewis and Clark had an air rifle with them

Same one or were there others?

Reply to this post

Response to yewberry (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:59 AM

MNBrewer (5,604 posts)

47. and here I thought the weapons of Anatoray in "Last Exile" were pure fantasy.

Thanks for the info.

Reply to this post

Response to yewberry (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:40 PM

beevul (6,880 posts)

122. There was also the puckle gun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:41 AM

Logical (7,997 posts)

9. WTF. Fail again. 1500 strokes for 30 rounds! Lets replace all guns with it now!!

Reply to this post

Response to Logical (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:23 AM

Glassunion (5,054 posts)

11. It's not so hard.

They had external canisters. You could pre-charge the canisters and carry th with you.

If IIRC the soldiers that used this weapon carried 3 canisters and 100 rounds of ammunition. The tubular magazine held 20 rounds.

It would have been such a popular weapon if you had to pump it that many times in the middle of a fight.

Reply to this post

Response to Glassunion (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:30 AM

Logical (7,997 posts)

57. Serious question....

Are there air rifles that powerful now? Why not still use that technology?

Reply to this post

Response to Logical (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:05 PM

Glassunion (5,054 posts)

63. I know that there are air rifles today

But I'm not sure if they are making rifles that are as powerful (caliber and velocity)

I'm sure that technology can do it, but careful what you wish for. An air gun of today can be powered by rather small canisters. Also the projectiles, since they do not need gunpowder will be more than half the size of a round of ammunition. Meaning a gun that could hold 30 rounds in a magazine could now hold 60 or even 90 of the same caliber.

Reply to this post

Response to Glassunion (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:29 PM

Logical (7,997 posts)

69. Wow, but I am curious why no one offers this. I am sure it would be popular.

Reply to this post

Response to Logical (Reply #69)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:33 PM

wercal (223 posts)

72. It might be the shape of the round

Seems the best way to feed this with a round that always keeps an air seal is a 'round' round like a paintball or b-b. And modern shapes are more aaccurate and lethal. (but a pellet gun might shoot down my theory).

Reply to this post

Response to Logical (Reply #69)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:58 PM

lumberjack_jeff (24,509 posts)

105. Fairly common

http://www.americanairgunhunter.com/bigboregallery_1.html

Reply to this post

Response to Logical (Reply #69)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:09 PM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

106. There are some powerful air guns

While most people think of Daisy BB guns, there are some serious ones available. Still, nobody is going to squeeze off 100 rounds non stop.

As delinquent teens, a friend and I once modified a Daisy with a jig that held a 22 round and used the barrel of the BB gun to send a firing pin into the back of the round. We fired it once, and it scared the bejeebers out of us.

Reply to this post

Response to Logical (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:09 AM

JaneyVee (3,801 posts)

31. Yeah, I'm sure by the 700th stroke the shooter would be tackled and handcuffed already.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:08 AM

Barack_America (24,436 posts)

30. Right. And because this gun had so many problems....

And just generally sucked, they had reason to believe the technology was not possible.

This was your point, right?

Reply to this post

Response to Barack_America (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:19 PM

wercal (223 posts)

67. The Technology was there

Just merely pointing out that more than just a flintlock could imagined in that era.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #67)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:41 PM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

78. The drafters of the second amendment were not armorers

The discussion is about what the framers may have understood to be "arms". The existence of an obscure air rifle requiring the shooter to lay down on the ground between shots does not establish that anyone involved in drafting the second amendment even knew of the existence of such a thing. Whether a couple of scientists had one decades later is also completely irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Response to jberryhill (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:03 PM

wercal (223 posts)

86. The OP established what the FF knew about

.....but I can't challenge that because we don't know what they knew about?

Ok

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #86)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:04 PM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

115. You have not established they knew about this BB gun

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:29 AM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

56. Fine. You can have a paintball gun

Because that's pretty much what that is.

Reply to this post

Response to jberryhill (Reply #56)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:21 PM

wercal (223 posts)

68. Its lethal at 150 yards

Very comparable to a modern 0.45 ACP.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:31 PM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

71. Yah right...

I have no problem with a "repeating rifle" that requires the shooter to roll around on the ground doing gymnastics between shots.

This is a bullshit example of a very finicky and unreliable instrument paraded around as some sort of argument that the drafters of the second amendment would have any common knowledge of magazine-fed semi auto rifles. Nobody - NOBODY - is talking about banning air rifles, and the regular parade of the Girandoni regiment through these discussions is a tiresome and irrelevant distraction.

Reply to this post

Response to jberryhill (Reply #71)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:41 PM

wercal (223 posts)

77. Question

How would all these guns be banned? How wouldIt be enforced? Keeping in mind that our prisons are full.

Here in Topeka two police officers were murdered last week, by a guy who had been caught with a sawed off shotgun eighteen months prior. No prison space equalled probation for him.

So seriously, these new gun laws are complete fantasy unless we build a thousand new prisons.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #77)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:50 PM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

81. How many prisons were needed when gold was banned?

I used to know a lot of people who had lawn darts and cars without air bags. None of them went to prison.

Try selling a piano with ivory keys, tortoise shell framed glasses, whale meat, leaded gasoline - my goodness do you know that we had millions of cars on the road that were designed for leaded gasoline?

What happened to lead paint, too? It was everywhere. But oddly, even when an old home is sold, that's part of the inspection.

Reply to this post

Response to jberryhill (Reply #81)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:00 PM

wercal (223 posts)

85. You didn't address the questiom at all

We have lnown felons caught with guns (illegal for them) and sawed off shotguns (illegal for everybody)....getting zero jail or prison time. So exactly how would we enforce a new slate of gun laws?

You should replace the war on lead paint example woth the war on drugs example.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #85)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:20 PM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

88. Lead paint and drugs are readily distinguishable.

I guess the idea of speed limit signs and red lights must mystify you.

I mean, how do they work? How is it that you can have a road, post a sign, and affect not only the average speed on that road, but also reduce the incidence of speeding AND actually reduce the top speed and frequency of persons driving far in excess of a number that is painted on a sign?

It's just a mystery.

Reply to this post

Response to jberryhill (Reply #88)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:11 PM

wercal (223 posts)

107. Bad example

I'm a civil engineer. With rare exception, our county sets speed limits based on fast people actually drive. We literally have a guy hidden with a radar gun all day. We average all the speeds and take 85 percent of that. You really can't radically alter people's behaviour....all you can do is gently nudge.

You still haven't addressed the question. How will all these new gun laws be enforced? Especially considering the fact we don't have the reources to incarcerate known felons caught with a sawed off shotgun? What magic pill will make the new laws more enforceable?

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #107)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:23 PM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

109. Then what are you worried about?

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:26 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Tell me, in the case you mentioned, what happened to the sawed off shotgun? Where is it now?

Banning thirty round magazines doesn't require a single square foot of prison space, because nobody has to go to jail in order to carry that out.

If there were a $500 fine and loss of the magazine, not only does it not require a single square foot of jail space, but it is revenue positive.

The consequence, over time, is that there are fewer of them and they are less readily accessible. Additionally, people like the gun owner in the Newtown situation would not have them around the house for others to steal or otherwise get ahold of them. There's your "gentle nudge".

Reply to this post

Response to jberryhill (Reply #109)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:45 PM

wercal (223 posts)

123. Yep..just like assault weapons became so rarified

.....during their ten year ban.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #123)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:41 AM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

137. "Rarefied"?

Can we at least agree on using English as a language of discussion here?

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #107)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:39 AM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

136. Still waiting for an answer on that shotgun

What happened to that sawed off shotgun? Did they give it back to him?

You are simply going to refuse to recognize that banning certain things does not require incarcerating ANYONE. What it does do is to reduce over time the availability of those things in circulation.

Get pulled over for a traffic stop today with a 30 round magazine in the back seat? No problem, as long as you are complying with your state's transportation requirements.

Get pulled over with one in the backseat if they are banned? It is taken on the spot and you get a ticket for a fine. Don't pay the fine, get your wages garnished.

We do these things with, say, requiring safety glass in storm doors on houses. How did that happen? Where are the people who went to jail for not replacing the glass in their storm doors?

The answer is nobody went to jail over it. But you can't buy a storm door without safety glass, and you can't sell a house that doesn't have it in the storm doors.

You know how many millions of baby cribs had gaps that were too wide, and were a strangulation hazard? Gone. And the prisons are not full.

Where are the flammable baby pajamas? Where did they all go? What prison is filled with the people caught selling them?

They must have an entire supermax facility for people who tear the tags off mattresses.

Reply to this post

Response to jberryhill (Reply #136)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:39 AM

wercal (223 posts)

141. No the police took the shotgun

..but here's the shocking part: he found another illegal gun and killed two police officers. Funerals were held today btw.

None of your examples are good analogies...and I suspect you know it. Requiring baby pajamas to be flame retardant does not take them out of the market altogether. They are still available, with minor modification, and no 'pajama runners' are going to smuggle them in to the country. You know the same is not true with guns.

My local school district is installing a card lock system at all doors over the Christmas break. Its an imperfect response, but at least its feasible. I like that kind of quick action....but go ahead and keep believing that new gun laws will be obeyed more than the old ones.....and you are advocating for a solution that could be feasibly implemented in the next 25 years. Me...I think its a complete waste of time.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:59 PM

billh58 (2,624 posts)

148. There is a great difference

between legislation making something illegal, and social legislation aimed at taxation and regulation for the purposes of public safety.

But for the sake of argument, are you saying that gun manufacturers and gun owners would be willing to risk breaking a law just because they opposed it? Of the millions of gun owners in this nation, there are only a relative handful who are radical enough to "go down shooting," (see the Gungeon) and we can do without those hardcore gun fetishists anyway.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:09 PM

Spider Jerusalem (15,359 posts)

65. Irrelevant

small production (only 1500 total produced, most of which were in service with the Austrian army...40 per regiment, eventually retired because of reliability issues); not common anywhere and especially not in America; not practical for large scale manufacture because the manufacturing techniques of the time made precision-crafting of important components quite difficult. You might as well say the Puckle gun, which was also around in the 1800's and was about as practical and widely used.

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:30 PM

wercal (223 posts)

70. How on earth is it irrelevant

The OP implied that the founding fathers could never imagine weapons being any more advancedtadvancedthan flintlocks.

But here we have a portable, repeating weapon from that era. Who cares if not many were made...the ff didn't need to imagine or predict anything...theae things existed.

And please don't tell me they never heard of it. This was an era of international trade and communication, and revolutions in methods to reproduce the printed word.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #70)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:40 PM

Spider Jerusalem (15,359 posts)

76. Was it a weapon then in common military use? No.

Was it a weapon that could have been conceived as being in common military use given the available technology of the time? Again, no. The common weapons of the colonial era militia were the Kentucky rifle and the Brown Bess musket. The standard issue weapons of the US Army for a long time after this period were single-shot muzzle- and breech-loading muskets, rifled muskets and rifles, from the 1795 Springfield through the 1873 Springfield, only being replaced in the 1890's by the M1892 Krag. Saying that "well here is this impractical and limited-production weapon that fired more rounds and was never in military service, so there!" isn't really any kind of argument that men of the late 18th century could have imagined such weapons as practical for military or militia use.

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:47 PM

wercal (223 posts)

80. I guess the fact it was used in a military at that time

....doesn't matter.

We're talking semantics anyway. This was an age of scientific discovery....a futuristic weapon would only spark the imagination as to what incredible things would be possible in the future.

Just like we view inventions today.

Not the other way around.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #80)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:36 PM

Spider Jerusalem (15,359 posts)

91. Again that's pretty largely irrelevant

I find it quite interesting to observe the general ignorance of historical context re the Second Amendment and "a well-regulated militia" among pro-"individual rights" people. Do you actually know anything about what a militia is? About why there was one? About the late-18th century debate between Federalism and Republicanism in the context of the early USA and the Constitution? The English Civil War and the disarming of Scotland? Because all of these things are very much relevant to the intent and purpose, in historical context, of the Second Amendment. Considering the manifold ways in which society, government, and the relation of the states to the federal government, have evolved in the last 220 years? They have ceased to have any relevance whatever.

Historical context: in intent the Second Amendment is a guarantee to the several states of the right to maintain militias. It is a guarantee against an overly powerful central Federal government with a standing army. This is because of the debate between Hamiltonian Federalism and Jeffersonian Republicanism; in further historical context, the Confederacy represents the logical conclusion of the Jeffersonian tendency (the idea that the Union is a loose confederation of sovereign states). The Civil War resolved the conflict in favour of the Hamiltonian idea of a strong Federal government. The citizen militias of the 18th century have long since been supplanted by the National Guard (each state's national guard being under the nominal command of the governor). Properly considered, it doesn't matter a bit what sort of weapons people 220 years ago might have envisioned as possible, because the rationale for the "citizen militia" has been obviated by the many developments in society and government that have happened since.

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #91)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:19 AM

wercal (223 posts)

135. I've actually read the federalist papers on the subject...

As well as quotes and testimony from founding fathers in subsequent years and court cases.

Its easily found online; and, I highly recommend it.

BTW...the founding fathers recognized that they could not predict the future...so they put in place a mechanism to change the constitution. Instead of guessing at what they meant (if you choose not to read the federalist papers), why not advocate for an ammendment?

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:35 PM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

74. Get this - you have to roll around on the ground between shots!

The feed mechanism wasn't even as good as the hopper on a paintball gun, and the Girandoni Regiment wants us to believe that this air rifle it is no different from a clip fed firearm.

Reply to this post

Response to jberryhill (Reply #74)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:54 PM

wercal (223 posts)

83. I guess you're right

Same way I looked at my first cell phone (taking up the front seat of my car and useless outside of the city) and thought 'this thing will never take off'.

Wait...I didn't think that. That's not how we look at inventions. The founding fathers were not cavemen. They knew they lived in a rapidly changing world.... .we have books and movies about 'ray guns', complete with 'stun' mode, yet these men could not have similar daydreams about the future?

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #83)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:11 PM

jberryhill (29,856 posts)

87. WTF are you on about now?

You want a phaser now?

The Constitution was not "my fantasy weapon book of dreams", okay. These are people who couldn't imagine, say, letting women vote.

Well now we know it's because they were preoccupied with an Austrian BB gun for which you've shown no evidence they had knowledge at the time (Lewis and Clark was decades later, and there is no proof their air rifle was this gun).

There are much better pump guns available right now, and yes they are lethal and nobody is suggesting banning them.

It's a bullshit distraction to pretend the second amendment was drafted with this thing in mind.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #83)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:28 PM

Confusious (8,312 posts)

110. Uh, no, they didn't live in a rapidly changing world

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

The industrial revolution didn't start until the 19th century.

The world was pretty much much the same as it had been for the past 75 years, with on average, one new big invention every 3-4 years. The 19th saw at least one every year. So, no, it wasn't "changing rapidly."

There were a bunch of new ideas, but they mostly revolved around the state of man, not the invention of new items.

Reply to this post

Response to Confusious (Reply #110)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:49 AM

wercal (223 posts)

139. You do realize that the 18th century

was called the 'first industrial revolution'?

Little ole thing called the steam engine was invented.

You may have heard the name of an inventor from the era....Benjamin Franklin.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #139)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:56 AM

Confusious (8,312 posts)

142. And historians dispute when that happened

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:07 AM USA/ET - Edit history (5)

Little ole thing called the steam engine was invented.

Yea, in 1712. They really didn't do anything until they were improved by James watt 65 years later (WOW Look at the rate of change there!), and then only in England to pump out mines for the next couple of decades. Even then, they were weak little things, not the powerhouse you hoped I would think you were referring too.

and like I said, which you ignored, 1 big invention every 3-4 years during the 18th century. At least 1 every year during the 19th.

Nothing really changed during the 18th century. People went on using muskets into the 19th century, even during a little spat called the "civil war." That they could see guns spouting hundreds of bullets a minute is a fantasy in your gun addled mind.

Total Fail.

Reply to this post

Response to Confusious (Reply #142)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:45 AM

wercal (223 posts)

144. Please do yourself a favor and read a history book

Repeating the same falsehood over and over doesnn't make it true.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #144)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:17 PM

Confusious (8,312 posts)

145. You can go to Wikipedia or open any history book and find out what I said is true.

But you would rather live in your own little world.

Reply to this post

Response to Confusious (Reply #145)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:53 PM

wercal (223 posts)

146. I'm sure the irony of your last statement

...is lost on you. Sigh.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #146)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:47 PM

Confusious (8,312 posts)

147. There's no irony

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:48 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Because I checked it before I wrote it.

I've given dates and names and facts. What have you offered up?

bullshit sighs.

Reply to this post

Response to Confusious (Reply #147)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:28 PM

wercal (223 posts)

149. What else can I tell you

The 18th century is called the 'first industrial revolution'. The movement from an agrarian to an urban society started. Man's understanding of electricity made quantum leaps. The steam engine and steamships were developed. It was an age of international trade and travel. Advancements in seed drills and threshers accelerated the scale of farming. The founding fathers lived in a land with a great unexplored wilderness to their west. It was an age of exploration and adventure....scientific exploration and enlightenment - to include the great experiment that is this nation.

Yet I'm the one thinking small and in a box..because I refuse to believe the founding fathers could only look backward and saw no potential in the inventions and changing world around them?

Since you seem to be stuck on internet searches and wikipedia....search 18th century changing world....and let a little enlightenment into your life.

Good grief! The 18th century was one of the most transformative in the history of the western world...I can't help you if you're not willing to learn.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #149)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:27 AM

Confusious (8,312 posts)

151. Saying "you seem to be stuck on internet searches and wikipedia"

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:48 AM USA/ET - Edit history (6)

Is like saying "you seem to be stuck on facts." Uh, yea, and the "fact" that you have a problem with it means you're obviously bullshitting.

As far as the founders, I never said they "looked back" all the time. They did to a certain extent. The english civil wars, the greeks, the protestant reformation, they also looked forward somewhat. (WTF is with you gun freaks and "all or nothing?")

But to say that they could look forward and see the guns of today is a superman sized leap. The people who used the maxim machine gun in the 18th century couldn't see the slaughter on the battlefield of world war I. They all thought it would be over in month.

Einstein, the most intelligent man of the 20th century, thought quantum theory was bullshit. Even the most intelligent can't read the future.
"Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice." - Albert Einstein

You want me to believe they were some sort of supermen who could could see 150 years into the future to see the assault weapons of today. Even 100 years to see the maxim machine gun?

Yea, right. Do you have a great offer from Nigeria I can't pass up?

PS.
The 16th and 17th centuries had just as many big inventions as many as the 18th, yet you keep wanting to say there was "so much change."
As I pointed out, it took 65 years for the steam engine to become something marginally useful.
"understanding" electricity, that would have to be the 19th century again.

your search words were pretty lame BTW

Reply to this post

Response to Confusious (Reply #151)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:52 AM

wercal (223 posts)

152. Gun Freak?

I own one rifle.

Its a 0.22....in case you don't know that is pretty small.

And its bolt action....that means I have to somewhat manually chamber each round by sliding a bolt back and then forward again.

I own nothing else....so I hardly think of myself as a 'gun freak'......but I am a realist. I am realistic enough to know that we cannot merely presume original intent, without erring on the side of the individual. (and trust me, the fact that a repeating weapon existed in the revolutionary era is not minor at all). You want to change the second ammendment, you are going to have to ammend it. That won't happen; and the OP was mindless and emotional bluster....same goes for labeling me a gun freak btw.

I'd rather not waste time on such fantasy pursuits, and concentrate on realistic solutions. I already mentioned on this thread that my school district is installing card lock at the high school over Christmas break. My engineering company worked on improvents to several elememtary schools over the last few years, which icluded secure foyers to prevent such tragedies. These are real solutions...not just fantasies. Here's another realistic pursuit: abolish the gun show loophole. That could happen TODAY....the political support is there. It is estimated this would stop 40 percent of AR-15 sales. But no....we're gonna get stuck on stupid, play guessing games with what the founding fathers meant, and call for an outright ban - that will NEVER happen.

But I'm the small minded one.

Reply to this post

Response to wercal (Reply #152)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:07 AM

Confusious (8,312 posts)

153. I am realistic enough to know that we cannot merely presume original intent,

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:10 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Sorry, but we presume original intent all the time.

On the other hand, original intent is usually bullshit. We don't live in a world were it takes months to get to Europe, the only means being a boat, horses aren't the primary means of transportation, communication long distance isn't done by letter, etc, etc, etc

My prediction:

I don't think it matters how many or who, massacres are just something that we're going to put up with. The politicians just ain't got the balls. People will forget the victims until the next massacre. Just hope you're not in the wrong place at the wrong time. CC ain't gonna save the hobby warriors, nor will it save the victims.

The gun lobby and gun nuts will blame everything but guns, and around and around we go. Spending hundreds of billions to protect people from an industry that's only worth 2 billion. (As your engineering company is doing)

Of course, I don't have the luxury of forgetting anymore. I'm reminded every time I get into the shower and wash the 45 scar, one on the front of my leg and one on the back, where someone who shouldn't have had a gun had one and tried to kill me with it last year.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:39 AM

nadinbrzezinski (120,150 posts)

8. This is what people keep missing

Those were state of the art infantry weapons. They meant militias. They distrusted standing armies.

The people who own an AR...universal conscription, that is what they meant.

Reply to this post

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:15 PM

HereSince1628 (26,664 posts)

100. I really am not sure if semiautomatic rifles would have changed their minds.

They wanted militias capable of suppressing internal rebellions and being able to project force against potential external enemies

I can't say with any certainty that they would have written the 2nd Amendment differently had they known about Bushmasters. They might have embraced the added firepower.

And perhaps more importantly they may have meant something entirely different than the current interpretation...they may have in their minds have tightly tied bearing arms to militias.

Reply to this post

Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #100)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:11 PM

nadinbrzezinski (120,150 posts)

116. Reading the Federalists and Jefferson

And the context...

1.- What the hell are you doing with a standing army? Ok, if they knew go 1812...that mostly settled that.

2.- to them people with infantry rifles, mostly white, mostly property owners, had that social contract to drill. Some were from poorer classes, why the colonel was the man raising the regiment.

Knowing the context, I am pretty sure they would ask how often people drill with the township militia.

Reply to this post

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #116)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:22 PM

HereSince1628 (26,664 posts)

118. I think you may be right. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:15 AM

hfojvt (31,298 posts)

10. I have said that before

look at the Paoli massacre.

The British, during the Revolutionary War, killed 53 Americans - with bayonets. The Americans were armed with rifles. Rifles which could NOT protect them against bayonets.

Sure, bayonets are attached to guns, but the gun was basically being used as a spear, not as a gun. So the gun, in 1777, was less deadly than the spear.

Reply to this post

Response to hfojvt (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:47 AM

newfie11 (3,450 posts)

19. As an owner of a black powder rifle I can understand the bayonet thing

By the time you load one you would be dead. I have friends that elk hunt with a black powder but they only get one shot.
If this type rifle, minus the bayonet, was what was used in the mass murders in this country very few of those folks would be dead today.

Our founding fathers would be horrified at the types of weapons on our streets today.

Reply to this post

Response to hfojvt (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:33 AM

pscot (13,888 posts)

40. In contrast, 100 years later

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:35 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

A British force of 150 armed with breech loading Martini-Henry rifles fought off 4000 Zulu warriors armed mainly with spears in the fight at Rorke's Drift. The Henry could fire a round every 5 seconds.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:36 AM

starroute (10,385 posts)

13. It wasn't even about the guns -- it was that there was no standing army

After the Revolution ended, all the soldiers went home. The US had no standing army. So for its own protection -- "the security of a free state" -- it needed a well-trained citizenry that could be called up at a moment's notice in case of emergency, like the Minutemen of the Revolution.

That was the point of the thing. It was based on some vague Roman ideal of the citizen-soldier -- which hadn't worked all that well even for the Romans, since professional armies are a lot more effective except under certain limited circumstances -- and it was abandoned within just a few years. Since then, the Second Amendment has been meaningless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army

After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly given land certificates and disbanded in a reflection of the republican distrust of standing armies. State militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791 and disbanded in 1796.

The War of 1812, the second and last American war against Britain, was less successful than the Revolution had been. An invasion of Canada failed, and U.S. troops were unable to stop the British from burning the new capital of Washington, D.C.. However, the Regular Army, under Generals Winfield Scott and Jacob Brown, proved they were professional and capable of defeating a British army in the Niagara campaign of 1814.

Reply to this post

Response to starroute (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:28 AM

pacalo (20,645 posts)

15. This needs to be an OP. I'm getting tired of seeing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment being

misinterpreted.

Reply to this post

Response to pacalo (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:19 AM

OneTenthofOnePercent (6,268 posts)

20. You should email Supreme Court Justices and tell they have it all wrong and misinterpreted it.

I'm sure they didn't have their facts straight.
Maybe they'll listen to you. LOL.

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:04 AM

pacalo (20,645 posts)

23. Okay, that's funny.

Even more so if you were the one doing the writing. Ever proofread before you click the reply button? LOL.

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:49 AM

etherealtruth (8,353 posts)

27. Right .... because the supremes never get it wrong

We never look back in horror and shame at their decisions . Oh, wait ... we do

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:24 AM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

35. Four out of nine SCOTUS justices already agree.

We just need one of the five morons to drop off the court and our long national nightmare will be over.

Reply to this post

Response to RomneyLies (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:37 AM

Jenoch (1,629 posts)

132. It's not as easy as you suggest.

The USSC rarely overturns a decision made by an earlier court.

Reply to this post

Response to Jenoch (Reply #132)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:47 AM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

133. Until tis court. Now it is regular practice. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:04 AM

Warren Stupidity (31,892 posts)

48. You support the most rightwing court in 70 years?

Seriously?

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:21 AM

OneTenthofOnePercent (6,268 posts)

50. No, but theirs is the only opinion that technically matters.

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:55 AM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

61. And again, all it will take is one of the evil five to leave

and the long national gun nightmare will come to an end.

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:47 PM

Warren Stupidity (31,892 posts)

95. Really? You made an appeal to authority mocking the poster.

20. You should email Supreme Court Justices and tell they have it all wrong and misinterpreted it.

I'm sure they didn't have their facts straight.
Maybe they'll listen to you. LOL.

"I'm sure they don't have their facts straight". It is very difficult to not interpret that as your support for the most rightwing court in the last 70 years. But when challenged, you do not have the courage of your convictions, and are walking back your obvious rightwing leanings I the cited post.

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:56 AM

Doctor_J (26,323 posts)

62. Such a sage court

that brought us Heller, Citizens United...This court doesn't interpret anything. They are the more corrupt in the nation's history, and should be impeached and imprisoned, and ALL of their decisions overturned.

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:18 PM

tkmorris (9,325 posts)

156. They already know they have it wrong

They interpret it the way they do because they WANT to, not because they objectively believe it to be the FF intent.

Reply to this post

Response to starroute (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:53 AM

Doctor_J (26,323 posts)

60. well, the gun nuts claim they can protect from invasions/our government

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:43 AM

Skittles (86,227 posts)

14. I am fied up with the cowards of today hiding behind the 2nd amendment

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:43 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

TIME TO TAKE THE REAL MEANING BACK!!!

Reply to this post

Response to Skittles (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:29 AM

pacalo (20,645 posts)

16. YOU TELL 'EM, SKITTLES!

(You're just adorable!)

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:40 AM

world wide wally (297 posts)

17. Why do they never, EVER explain the part about the "well regulated militia"?... I guess it's because

they are against regulations because it screws up the economy, huh?

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:45 AM

Liberal In Texas (7,402 posts)

18. They would be apalled and bewildered by today's weapons

Reply to this post

Response to Liberal In Texas (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:45 AM

OneTenthofOnePercent (6,268 posts)

22. Damn... what kind of weapon light is that?

I'm going to need to get one for my shotgun.

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:29 AM

pacalo (20,645 posts)

24. Some may want it for their rearview mirrors.

At least those make-up lovers who like to apply it while on their drive to work.

Reply to this post

Response to pacalo (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:32 AM

OneTenthofOnePercent (6,268 posts)

25. huh?

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:40 AM

Travis_0004 (934 posts)

26. You do realize that rifles that held muliple shots were available back then

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:49 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

There is an air rifle invented in 1779. It held 20 rounds. One would shoot it, tip it up, push a button, which allows a ball to be fed in the tube, and cock it, and its ready to fire. A fire rate of one shot every 5 seconds is easily doable. Not quite as fast as a modern semi auto, but still much quicker than a musket. So the fact that 20 round magazines were available 3 years after the bill of rights, I think its safe to say the founding fathers could have predicted 30 round magazines.

Also, you do know that no automatic guns are being manufactured for the civilian market right?

Reply to this post

Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:12 AM

JaneyVee (3,801 posts)

32. So replace all guns with those, deal?

Reply to this post

Response to JaneyVee (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:33 PM

NealK (103 posts)

112. Lol!

Reply to this post

Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:07 AM

Warren Stupidity (31,892 posts)

49. You do realize that the memorized rightwing rebuttals are just getting boring, right?

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:54 PM

Travis_0004 (934 posts)

82. If facts are boring, then I aplogize.

I was simply stating that the concept of a gun holding a high capacity magazine is not a recent invention. They have been around for over 200 years.

Reply to this post

Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:55 AM

OldDem2012 (3,526 posts)

54. You do realize that it doesn't take very much to convert a semi-automatic weapon....

...to full automatic, don't you?

Just my opinion, but allowing people to buy semi-automatic assault weapons is one of the biggest charades ever perpetrated by gun-sellers in the US.

Reply to this post

Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:11 PM

Mec9000 (51 posts)

66. Actually it does..

Reply to this post

Response to Mec9000 (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:34 PM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

73. So installing a slide is an incredibly tough modification?

Coulda fooled me.

Reply to this post

Response to RomneyLies (Reply #73)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:55 PM

Mec9000 (51 posts)

84. It is still semi auto

it is called bump fire... the trigger is pulled each time. It is a gimmick.

Reply to this post

Response to Mec9000 (Reply #84)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:28 PM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

90. Yet it allows you to fire at nearly automatic rates of fire

Funny thing that. Makes the distinction between semi-automatic and automatic pretty much useless.

Reply to this post

Response to RomneyLies (Reply #90)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:37 PM

Mec9000 (51 posts)

92. not really

Reply to this post

Response to Mec9000 (Reply #92)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:29 PM

billh58 (2,624 posts)

150. Yes, really.

You're really gone, and using NRA taking points did you in. Now you will have more time to play with your Gungeon buddies on FR...

Reply to this post

Response to Mec9000 (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:53 PM

OldDem2012 (3,526 posts)

104. LOL!! Yeah, okay....whatever you say. nt.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:56 AM

needledriver (228 posts)

28. Actually-

Percussion caps (as on the pistols) were not invented until several decades after the 2nd Amendment was written.

Also, that thing at the top is a Nock Volley Gun. It fires seven bullets out of seven barrels with one pull of the trigger - a surprising amount of firepower for the powdered wig set.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:58 AM

Taitertots (5,501 posts)

29. Do you think the Founding Fathers were stupid?

Do you think the founding fathers were so stupid that they didn't recognize that firearms would become more powerful and/or effective? I don't.

Reply to this post

Response to Taitertots (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:14 AM

JaneyVee (3,801 posts)

33. They also thought blacks were 3/5ths of a person & women couldn't vote.

Reply to this post

Response to Taitertots (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:29 AM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

39. Ah, so you are of a mind that the founding fathers were geniuses with perfect foresight

They had no fucking CLUE how technology would advance. Technology advanced so slowly that four score and seven years later a war was fought primarily with weapons that were barely improved over what was used in the revolutionary war. The weapons technology would advance considerably more in the twenty years after the civil war than it did in the 84 years prior to the civil war.

So don't throw around an idiotic canard. The men who wrote the second amendment could NEVER have foreseen this:

Reply to this post

Response to RomneyLies (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:43 AM

Taitertots (5,501 posts)

43. Is your position is that the Founding Fathers didn't think firearms technology would advance?

Than you must think that they were idiots.

PS- Four score and seven years was long enough to develop Gatling guns, effective percussion cap revolvers, the henry rifle....
PS- High capacity weapons existed DURING their lives.

Reply to this post

Response to Taitertots (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:50 AM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

45. Of course they knew it would advance

It had advanced in the two hundred years prior to the revolutionary war. They would have considered similar advances in the two hundred years after the revolutionary war.

What they could not know and could NEVER have predicted is the fact that the rate of technological advances increases over time. What they would have seen from historical technological advances would have seemed straight line rather than the truth of matter, which is a nearly logarithmic line.

And your "High capacity weapons existed DURING their lives." is perhaps the most ludicrous canard of the gun-huggers. The weapon you are speaking of was so crappy the only conclusion the founding fathers could have made would be that such weapons would never be practical.

Reply to this post

Response to RomneyLies (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:25 AM

Taitertots (5,501 posts)

51. The rate of advancement argument is non-sense

You are just admitting that they were aware of the fact the firearms would become significantly more effective. You are just arguing about the timescale upon which they thought the changes would happen. They were well aware of the fact that technological advances would increase the effectiveness of weapons and they were well aware of the fact the repeating weapons already existed.

Compared to the firearms of the day, the Girandoni Air Rifle was quite effective. It was used by the Austrian army for 35 years.

Reply to this post

Response to Taitertots (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:29 AM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

52. Your arguments are ludicrous

Technology has advanced more in the past fifty years than it has in the entirety of human existence prior to that.

The same could not be said in 1789.

Reply to this post

Response to RomneyLies (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:13 PM

Taitertots (5,501 posts)

99. Firearms technology hasn't

Cell phones and computers are more or less irrelevant to the discussion. Firearms have not changed much at all over the last 50 years.

Even if you consider the increasing rate of technological advancement. It still only delays the inevitable. They knew advances would happen, you are just arguing that they happened faster than expected. It doesn't change the fact that they knew firearms would become significantly more effective over time.

Reply to this post

Response to Taitertots (Reply #99)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:21 PM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

101. Firearms technology barely budged in the fifty years prior to the AWI.

Firearms technology advanced considerably in the fifty years after the ACW.

Reply to this post

Response to RomneyLies (Reply #101)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:48 PM

Taitertots (5,501 posts)

103. No, there were huge breakthroughs in firearms technology in the lives of the Founding Fathers

Flintlocks became available.
Breech loading firearms became available
Multi barrel firearms became available
Multi shot high powered air rifles became available.

The Founding Fathers witnessed the birth of the industrial revolution. The claim they wouldn't expect rapid increases in technology is not based on any historic facts or logical inferences from their writings.

There is certainly no evidence the firearms technology has increased at a logarithmic rate. The fact that firearms technology has been stagnant for over 50 years shows how laughable your claims are.

Reply to this post

Response to Taitertots (Reply #103)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:59 PM

billh58 (2,624 posts)

154. Your NRA talking point assertions that

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:02 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

the "Founding Fathers" actually wanted every American to be armed with a semi-automatic, high capacity weapon is more than laughable. You and your Gungeon buddies reflect the type of mentality that placed this country in the number one position in the world for gun deaths and injuries.

You and your "but the 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to own as many guns and as much ammo as I want," crowd are the embodiment of all that's wrong with this country. No one gives a rat's ass about the advancement of "firearm technology" except gun fetishists and NRA sheep. No, you do NOT have the right to flood this country with weapons designed specifically for the purpose of killing large numbers of people quickly. No, you do NOT have the right to carry a gun anywhere, at anytime, and for any reason. No you do NOT have the right to totally ignore the first part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment.

There is a growing movement of sane Americans who have decided that hiding behind the 2nd Amendment is no longer a valid excuse for encouraging the death of our children. Your NRA idol's answer of placing even more guns in schools is a slap in the face to the parents and victims of the recent carnage we witnessed. The NRA is about to fight its last repugnant battle against the American people before it becomes totally irrelevant.

No we don't want to take your guns away. We want you to be responsible for the fucking things, and to also be accountable when you are not responsible. We want to bring some sanity back to the sale, registration, and tracking of your fucking precious gun. We want some assurances that you meet the requirements of the community in order to purchase and own a gun.

Thanks for your time...

Reply to this post

Response to billh58 (Reply #154)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:35 PM

friendly_iconoclast (8,854 posts)

155. Wow, that's a whole basketball squad of strawmen...

Reply to this post

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #155)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:30 PM

Taitertots (5,501 posts)

158. Responding to the wrong post sorry

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:42 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Response to billh58 (Reply #154)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:28 PM

Taitertots (5,501 posts)

157. It is not good that you have ignored everything I've ever posted...

And chosen to hallucinate a new opinion for me. Do you actually want a reasonable, rational discussion? Why don't you actually address what I've posted in the context of the current discussion?

Reply to this post

Response to Taitertots (Reply #157)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:57 PM

billh58 (2,624 posts)

159. Your subject line is very true,

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:58 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

and for good reason -- I tend to not listen to radicals. And, now Bubba, I'm placing you on ignore. See ya...

Reply to this post

Response to billh58 (Reply #159)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:11 PM

Taitertots (5,501 posts)

160. Good, don't reply to my posts with idiotic bullshit.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:16 AM

The Straight Story (41,444 posts)

34. And most people owned them, and how many used to them for killing people?

Guns didn't change, people did. Hard to control them though.

Reply to this post

Response to The Straight Story (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:45 AM

pscot (13,888 posts)

44. Even less reason to let the new model 'Murkin

wander around heavily armed.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:24 AM

geckosfeet (8,796 posts)

37. Top of the line current technology of the day. Why would they be required to own anything less?

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:26 AM

Iggy (1,418 posts)

38. "The Last of the Mohicans"....

another great book.. and film starring Daniel D. Lewis as "Hawkeye"...

the film shows Hawkeye and his cohorts getting off one shot with their long rifles, and frantically re-loading so they could get off another shot before whatever they were shooting at could run away, out of range. and yeah, your powder had to be dry, or forget it.

the total lack of common sense and prioritization (health, safety and well being of our people) in our nation is appalling. it's why I don't think our nation has much of a future.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:35 AM

1-Old-Man (1,462 posts)

41. What an utterly irrelevant comment to make.

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:36 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Those guns killed just as sure as today's guns kill, it doesn't make a hoot in hell what they looked like or that today's are faster to use, the result is exactly the same and the purpose of the gun is exactly the same. Also, our rights have not changed since that time, nor can they.

Reply to this post

Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:42 AM

DainBramaged (37,792 posts)

42. How long did it take to reload them? What range were they accurate to?

And what did you do while you were reloading and were being charged by the person you shot non-fatally because the balls you shot weren't real consistent and tended to fly off target?

Could you kill 27 people in a couple of minutes, pumping up to 10 rounds in each?

What's irrelevant is your lack of realization that those guns have only a barrel in common with today's weapons of death.

Reply to this post

Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:53 AM

pscot (13,888 posts)

46. You really believe Lanza could have slaughtered 22 kids and 5 adults

if he'd had to bite the end off a cartridge, pour the powder down the barrel, insert a ball, ram it home and prime the pan between shots? The purpose may be the same, but the result is vastly different.

Reply to this post

Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:41 AM

OldDem2012 (3,526 posts)

58. The rate of fire of a muzzle-loading musket and/or rifle at the time of the American Revolution....

....was about 2-3 shots per minute in the hands of someone who really knew what they were doing. That's assuming the shooter was not being shot at from close range which tended to cause problems with one's concentration while attempting to reload. Additionally, weather played a role because wet conditions tended to make exposed gunpowder unusable.

Here's a standard loading/reloading procedure during the 18th century as typified by a soldier using the English Brown Bess musket:

Upon the command "prime and load", the soldier would make a quarter turn to the right at the same time bringing the musket to the priming position. The pan would be open following the discharge of the previous shot, meaning that the frizzen would be tilted forward.

If the musket was not being reloaded after a previous shot, the soldiers would be ordered to "Open Pan".

Upon the command "Handle cartridge", the soldier would draw a cartridge from the cartridge box worn on the soldier's right hip or on a belt in front of the soldier's belly. Cartridges consisted of a spherical lead ball wrapped in a paper cartridge which also held the gunpowder propellant. The end of the cartridge opposite from the ball would be sealed by a mere twist of the paper. The soldier then tore off the twisted end of the cartridge with the teeth and spat it out, and continued to hold the now open cartridge in his right hand.

Upon the command "prime", the soldier then pulled the hammer back to half-cock, and poured a small amount of powder from the cartridge into the priming pan. He then closed the frizzen so that the priming powder was trapped.

Upon the command "about", the butt of the musket was then lowered and moved to a position against the soldier's left calf, and held so that the soldier could then access the muzzle of the musket barrel. The soldier then poured the rest of the powder from the cartridge down the muzzle. The cartridge was then reversed, and the end of the cartridge holding the musket ball was inserted into the muzzle, with the remaining paper shoved into the muzzle above the musket ball. This paper acted as wadding to stop the ball and powder from falling out if the muzzle was lowered.

Upon the command "draw ramrods", the soldier drew the ramrod from the musket. The ramrod was grasped and reversed when removed, and the large end was inserted about one inch into the muzzle.

Upon the command "ram down cartridge", the soldier then used the ramrod to firmly ram the wadding, bullet, and powder down to the breech of the barrel. The ramrod was then removed, reversed, and returned to half way in the musket by inserting it into the first and second ramrod pipes. The soldier's hand then grasped the top of the ramrod.

Upon the command "return rammers", the soldier would quickly push the rammer the remaining amount to completely return it to its normal position. Once the ramrod was properly replaced, the soldier's right arm would be held parallel to the ground at shoulder level, with the right fingertips touching the bayonet lug, and lightly pressing the musket to the soldier's left shoulder. The soldier's left hand still supported the musket.

(At no time did the soldier place the musket on the ground to load)

Upon the command "Make Ready". The musket was brought straight up, perpendicular to the ground, with the left hand on the swell of the musket stock, the lock turned toward the soldier's face, and the soldier's right hand pulled the lock to full cock, and grasped the wrist of the musket.

Upon the command "present", the butt of the musket was brought to the soldier's right shoulder, while at the same time the soldier lowered the muzzle to firing position, parallel to the ground, and sighting (if the soldier had been trained to fire at "marks") along the barrel at the enemy.

Upon the command of "fire", the soldier pulled the trigger, and the musket (hopefully) fired. A full second was allowed to pass, and the musket was then quickly lowered to the loading position, butt against the soldier's right hip, muzzle held off center to the left at about a forty-five degree angle, and the soldier would look down at his open pan to determine if the prime had been ignited.

Obviously, an individual shooter using a muzzle-loader is going to go through the steps noted above as quickly as possible without having to rely on someone giving the orders at each stage. Yes, the old weapons killed just like modern weapons, but the rate of fire, consistency of the gunpowder, ballistics, effects of each round, long-range accuracy, and muzzle velocity of a modern semi-automatic is VASTLY improved over the old weapons. Plainly speaking, the old 18th century musket with a sustained rate of fire of 2-3 rounds per minute under optimal conditions is definitely NOT comparable in any way to the modern semi-automatic rifle capable of firing 45-60 rounds per minute under any weather conditions.

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:30 AM

guardian (2,282 posts)

53. When drug gangs, rapists, home invasion thugs

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:31 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

and other criminals restrict themselves to carrying only muskets and flintlocks THEN talk to me about about limiting my access to modern weapons. Otherwise those wanting to espouse this stupid musket argument need to STFU.

Reply to this post

Response to guardian (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:06 AM

GoneOffShore (11,118 posts)

55. Home invasions happen a lot in your 'hood?

Lots of drug gangs where you live?

Gangs of marauding rapists hiding in your garden?

Or are you just worried about your "man card"?

Reply to this post

Response to guardian (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:52 AM

OldDem2012 (3,526 posts)

59. The "stupid musket argument" is exactly the context of the world in which the....

....Founding Fathers lived. Just in case you haven't noticed, technology has greatly improved since the late 1700s when the 2nd Amendment was written.

One more point....unless you're standing guard fully armed in your house 24/7, it is my opinion that it would be extremely unlikely that you could stop a surprise home invasion by anyone.

Reply to this post

Response to guardian (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:25 PM

Zoeisright (7,805 posts)

121. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH@!!!

That is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read. Lots of drug gangs, rapists, and home invasion "thugs" in your neck of the woods, huh?

You're living in a fantasy world if you think your little penis substitute is going to keep you safe. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to hurt or kill a member of your family than stop an armed intruder.

Christ on a crutch. The stupid; it burns.

Reply to this post

Response to Zoeisright (Reply #121)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:29 AM

guardian (2,282 posts)

131. if a gun is my "little penis substitute"

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:30 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

what is the substitute for your tiny little breasts?

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:06 PM

-..__... (7,776 posts)

64. ”Never trust a government that doesn’t trust its own citizens with guns.” ~ Benjamin Franklin.

I'm not sure about all the Founding Fathers.. but, I can easily see ol Ben Franklin grinning from ear to ear while executing a mag dump with an AR-15, and thinking to himself "man... this is fucking awesome"!

"Hey Tom, George, you gotta check this thing out"!

Reply to this post

Response to -..__... (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:37 PM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

75. "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. ~ Benjamin Franklin

Reply to this post

Response to RomneyLies (Reply #75)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:56 PM

RetroLounge (36,690 posts)

114. +100

Reply to this post

Response to -..__... (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:10 PM

Dems to Win (523 posts)

119. I'd rather trust the government than be forced to trust idiot neighbors like Nancy Lanza.

Freedom doesn't mean cowering in fear of my gun loving neighbors and their teen boys.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022055101

Reply to this post

Response to -..__... (Reply #64)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:48 AM

Berserker (3,419 posts)

138. Awesome post

Good humor!

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:44 PM

yellowcanine (24,444 posts)

79. If you wanted to fire 30 rounds in a short period of time you needed 30 men with muskets.

And then they needed a minute or so to reload if you wanted another volley of 30 rounds.

Reply to this post

Response to yellowcanine (Reply #79)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:50 AM

Berserker (3,419 posts)

140. It's winter

How's the heater in your buggy working?

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:22 PM

Egalitarian Thug (7,033 posts)

89. More examples of privately owned arms.

?w=840

And they fired stuff like this

Facts matter.

Reply to this post

Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #89)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:39 PM

Spider Jerusalem (15,359 posts)

93. I don't think that a field gun would have commonly been privately owned in the 18th century.

Those were specifically military weapons with no practical use save for in battle or siege.

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #93)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:46 PM

Egalitarian Thug (7,033 posts)

94. You might not think it, but they were, and they were part of the reason for the 2nd.

As far as commonly, I suppose that depends on your definition. It was very common for the ruling class, after all, they had huge estates to protect and the British military was infamous for not being there when danger reared its ugly head. Many Commanders also extorted payments in exchange for their protection.

Reply to this post

Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #94)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:53 PM

Spider Jerusalem (15,359 posts)

96. Well, no, they weren't

except as used by militias. Private ownership of arms not used in militia service is outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment as drafted. And given that the reasons for anyone owning field artillery have been rendered irrelevant by the fact that we have police, and there's no frontier, or threat from rampaging Indians or Frenchment, it just highlights the utter irrelevance of the Second Amendment in its scope and intent to modern society.

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #96)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:04 PM

Egalitarian Thug (7,033 posts)

97. But that is not the point, now is it? This thread and my reply are about the 18th - 19th century.

Many parts of the Constitution are archaic at best. If you want to talk about making a new one, I'm all for that, but that is another topic entirely.

Reply to this post

Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #97)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:06 PM

Spider Jerusalem (15,359 posts)

98. And again it's pretty largely irrelevant to the context of the 2nd

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:07 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

because most field guns were owned by militias and kept in armouries, not owned by individuals (there may have been individual ownership of seagoing cannon on privateering vessels, which is something else, but again not within the scope of "well-regulated militia").

And I find the arguments by certain people in this thread ("look at this very rare air rifle! What about cannon, eh?") to be pretty disingenuous, really, because there's not any case to be made that either of the cited examples was ever common or, in the case of the latter in militia use, would have been privately and not collectively owned.

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #98)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:34 PM

Egalitarian Thug (7,033 posts)

102. Well first, you're just wrong about ownership of artillery by colonists. The Continental Congress

leased (and never paid for) almost all of what little field artillery was made available to General Washington. Your lack of curiosity, and resultant ignorance of the issue, does not define history.

And the reason for even responding to the OP was to point out the ridiculous premise it is based on.

This whole issue has evolved from outrage over a terrible tragedy into a colossal distraction from the impending issues that are most relevant and will absolutely effect every single person on this board.

Fin.

Reply to this post

Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #102)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:21 PM

Spider Jerusalem (15,359 posts)

108. No, actually, I'm not wrong

the fact that there were militia artillery units doesn't mean the guns were privately owned rather than collectively owned by towns and the militia regiments (they would have been kept in armories, or forts, and not on private property). All the references to procurement a look at the Journals of the Continental Congress shows are for obtaining artillery pieces directly from foundries, or of guns captured from the British. There's no reference to the use of "privately-owned" guns there whatever. Ignorance is one thing, wilful distortion is something else (and that certainly looks like what your'e engaged in).

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #108)

Egalitarian Thug This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #124)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:54 PM

Spider Jerusalem (15,359 posts)

125. Do you want citations? because I can provide those.

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #125)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:10 AM

Egalitarian Thug (7,033 posts)

127. Because I just knew you don't have anything to do but sit here waiting for someone to

reply to you, I dug out some of my old research materials.

You can start here:
The encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War : a political, social, and military history
Gregory Fremont-Barnes, Richard Alan Ryerson
ISBN 1851094083

Reply to this post

Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #127)

Spider Jerusalem This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #125)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:11 AM

Egalitarian Thug (7,033 posts)

128. I'll be back tomorrow to hear your next batch of dung. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:56 PM

Recursion (25,487 posts)

126. This is what free speech looked like when the 1st Amendment was written

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:58 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Do you think the Founding Fathers could even imagine instant publishing worldwide with the Internet?

I don't

Before you object: published works convinced a shit-ton of Americans to vote for George W. Bush. How many people did that kill? Or do you just not care, because they're Arabs?

Reply to this post

Response to Recursion (Reply #126)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:14 AM

Bozita (26,949 posts)

129. THIS is what our "original intent" SCOTUS said the 1st Amendment has ALWAYS meant ...

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)