In the days of the Founding Fathers almost everyone would have possessed a firearm, and carried on them.
True, but what kind of firearms were they? Big difference between muzzleloading flintlock muskets and what is used to shoot up schools today.
2112, how did I know you would bring up that old line. You have obviously missed out on the lessons on historical firearms in previous threads.
Since you asked.
Cookson Rifle, a 9 shot repeating rifle (lever action) that was developed in the 1690's (that's 80 years before the Revolution) and one that the Continental Congress issued an order to John Cookson of Boston for 100 rifles to be used in the Revolutionary War. You can go to the NRA Museum and look at one of them on line.
There were the Loernzoni system pistols available for purchase, but they were made in small numbers.
How about actual revolvers. Stopler made, and sold, revolvers as early as 1597.
How about the Puckle Gun, commonly acknowledge as the earliest machine gun, used it the Revolution and first made in 1719.
Not to forget the Girindonii rifle, a 10 shot, revolving cylinder affair.
A Girandoni Rifle was magazine fed, fired 22 shots of .46 caliber lead balls in one minute, and, it was an air rifle.
The Ferguson Rifle wasn't multi shot, but it was one of the several breech loading firearms used by both sides.
The Kalthoff repeating musket, 16 shot.
In a letter to the Continental Congress, April 1777, Joseph Belton stated: "May it please your honors, I would just inform this honorable assembly, that I have discover'd an improvement, in the use of small armes, wherin a small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five, or three seconds of time."
He was speaking of the Belton Flintlock. The Continental Congress was interested, but decided the cost was too much for their budget.
So, YES, they knew of developments in firearms, knew of repeating rifles, knew of a type of firearm that later became the machine gun, knew of revolvers, multi shot rifles, and even air guns.
Need more examples, let me know.
I don't hate guns or gun owners I hate inaction based on words when people owned a musket that took 2 minutes to load and shoot compared to now when people think of guns as toys not weapons.
Goldtop, your seemingly hatred for those who own firearms has been noted. I don't believe it to be an opinion, just somehow you don't like firearms and those who own them. I also find your descriptive phrases to be offensive.
In the days of the Founding Fathers almost everyone would have possessed a firearm, and carried on them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you are not one of the "shootin' range" jackasses that Goldtop was referencing, there is no need to be offended. He has a point that a certain percentage (which calculates to millions) of gun-o-philes are stone cold losers. The power of a guns is obviously very attractive to people who cannot find success in normal social operating systems.
In the days of the Founding Fathers almost everyone crapped into a hole in their yard and thought it was sanitary. Times change... hopefully for the good of public health. By "public health", I mean not having bullet holes in your body at the grocery store.
His offensive post was that he made no distinction between any and included all.
I don't hate guns or gun owners I hate inaction based on words when people owned a musket that took 2 minutes to load and shoot compared to now when people think of guns as toys not weapons.
Read post above yours.
What show were you watching to cause that kind of reaction?
In the days of the Founding Fathers almost everyone crapped into a hole in their yard and thought it was sanitary.
And they wiped with corn cobs. They were made of stronger stuff.
Only those who didn't live with those high falutin', rich city ways.
If you had money, you used a sponge.
I don't hate guns or gun owners I hate inaction based on words when people owned a musket that took 2 minutes to load and shoot compared to now when people think of guns as toys not weapons.
Read post above yours.
In everyone of your examples they were going to be used in military settings by the Continental congress in war against the British or other military uses. There's no mention of the everyday civilians using these weapons to protect themselves from their neighbor.
I have no issue with guns being used in military actions or public police actions.
I have no issue with people who want to hunt. I have family that does.
I have an issue when people think owning a gun is more important than a child feeling free at school and puts that above sensible changes to make that happen
More of anything just means more. Not everyone should own a weapon and it should be a very long hard process to own one. They're not toys they are designed to kill. Lawn darts weren't
In the days of the Founding Fathers almost everyone would have possessed a firearm, and carried on them.
True, but what kind of firearms were they? Big difference between muzzleloading flintlock muskets and what is used to shoot up schools today.
2112, how did I know you would bring up that old line. You have obviously missed out on the lessons on historical firearms in previous threads.
Since you asked.
Cookson Rifle, a 9 shot repeating rifle (lever action) that was developed in the 1690's (that's 80 years before the Revolution) and one that the Continental Congress issued an order to John Cookson of Boston for 100 rifles to be used in the Revolutionary War. You can go to the NRA Museum and look at one of them on line.
There were the Loernzoni system pistols available for purchase, but they were made in small numbers.
How about actual revolvers. Stopler made, and sold, revolvers as early as 1597.
How about the Puckle Gun, commonly acknowledge as the earliest machine gun, used it the Revolution and first made in 1719.
Not to forget the Girindonii rifle, a 10 shot, revolving cylinder affair.
A Girandoni Rifle was magazine fed, fired 22 shots of .46 caliber lead balls in one minute, and, it was an air rifle.The Ferguson Rifle wasn't multi shot, but it was one of the several breech loading firearms used by both sides.
The Kalthoff repeating musket, 16 shot.
In a letter to the Continental Congress, April 1777, Joseph Belton stated: "May it please your honors, I would just inform this honorable assembly, that I have discover'd an improvement, in the use of small armes, wherin a small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five, or three seconds of time."
He was speaking of the Belton Flintlock. The Continental Congress was interested, but decided the cost was too much for their budget.
So, YES, they knew of developments in firearms, knew of repeating rifles, knew of a type of firearm that later became the machine gun, knew of revolvers, multi shot rifles, and even air guns.
Need more examples, let me know.
Yet those weren't the arms that most people owned. As you pointed out, even the government couldn't afford them. And certainly the accuracy of those weapons are nothing like they are today.
And no, I am not a gun hater. I own a couple guns myself, as well as a large collection of swords and knives. I don't, however, think ordinary citizens need to own military type weapons. I also think stronger background checks are needed, as some people should never have access to firearms
Here's the 2nd Amendment in full:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (Caps so you know where the break is.)
Sweet! Since it doesn’t mention specific types of arms, then we can ban civilian ownership of many types of arms, and confiscate them.....you know, since the people will always have the right to purchase a firearm. And since the pro-gun crowd is all about losing rights, and upholding the 2nd amendment, then this should be ok with them.
You are quite right in saying it does not restrict what type or how many firearms you own. It also does not mention anything about being able to ban firearms, or restrict who can own them.
In the days of the Founding Fathers almost everyone would have possessed a firearm, and carried on them.
True, but what kind of firearms were they? Big difference between muzzleloading flintlock muskets and what is used to shoot up schools today.
2112, how did I know you would bring up that old line. You have obviously missed out on the lessons on historical firearms in previous threads.
Since you asked.
Cookson Rifle, a 9 shot repeating rifle (lever action) that was developed in the 1690's (that's 80 years before the Revolution) and one that the Continental Congress issued an order to John Cookson of Boston for 100 rifles to be used in the Revolutionary War. You can go to the NRA Museum and look at one of them on line.
There were the Loernzoni system pistols available for purchase, but they were made in small numbers.
How about actual revolvers. Stopler made, and sold, revolvers as early as 1597.
How about the Puckle Gun, commonly acknowledge as the earliest machine gun, used it the Revolution and first made in 1719.
Not to forget the Girindonii rifle, a 10 shot, revolving cylinder affair.
A Girandoni Rifle was magazine fed, fired 22 shots of .46 caliber lead balls in one minute, and, it was an air rifle.The Ferguson Rifle wasn't multi shot, but it was one of the several breech loading firearms used by both sides.
The Kalthoff repeating musket, 16 shot.
In a letter to the Continental Congress, April 1777, Joseph Belton stated: "May it please your honors, I would just inform this honorable assembly, that I have discover'd an improvement, in the use of small armes, wherin a small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five, or three seconds of time."
He was speaking of the Belton Flintlock. The Continental Congress was interested, but decided the cost was too much for their budget.
So, YES, they knew of developments in firearms, knew of repeating rifles, knew of a type of firearm that later became the machine gun, knew of revolvers, multi shot rifles, and even air guns.
Need more examples, let me know.
Yet those weren't the arms that most people owned. As you pointed out, even the government couldn't afford them. And certainly the accuracy of those weapons are nothing like they are today.
And no, I am not a gun hater. I own a couple guns myself, as well as a large collection of swords and knives. I don't, however, think ordinary citizens need to own military type weapons. I also think stronger background checks are needed, as some people should never have access to firearms
Wrong again. Remember that the Continental Congress could not levy taxes and thus had to rely on donations from countries like France and selling bonds to fund it's actions, and had very little to do so. The individual colonies had to pay and equip their militias.
In 1781 Robert Morris started the office of Superintendent of Finance. He then took the debt of the war onto his shoulders and personally financed the war to the end. He died virtually penniless since all the "Continentals", money issued by the Congress, became worthless, thus the saying "Not worth a continental."
Individuals took on the tasks of purchasing needed arms and supplies that Congress could not purchase so the weapons I listed earlier were mainly owned by private citizens who came to the need of the Army and Navy.
There was no distinction between military and civilian firearms, except in the English side of the war.
BTW, you do know that the majority of military firearms are derivatives of firearms developed for civilian use?
That’s interesting reading Jerry on the history of firearms, thx for sharing - you’re a real scholar bro! But yes they’ve been around since the 1690s & before, & quickly grew into weapons of destruction, ie the Revolutionary War>the War of 1812>the Civil War>the intro of airplanes into warfare in WW I..... the present - great post at 4:51 today btw
The last sentence of 2112’s post at 6:31 has been said millions of times before & will be in the future - guns and people are like oil & water, a bad mix - & they’re stuck w/each other
It also does not mention anything about being able to ban firearms, or restrict who can own them.
Which is irrelevant to whether we are legally allowed to ban certain types of firearms.
Think about what it would take to get it into the Constitution to allow that.
That’s interesting reading Jerry on the history of firearms, thx for sharing - you’re a real scholar bro! But yes they’ve been around since the 1690s & before, & quickly grew into weapons of destruction, ie the Revolutionary War>the War of 1812>the Civil War>the intro of airplanes into warfare in WW I..... the present - great post at 4:51 today btw
The last sentence of 2112’s post at 6:31 has been said millions of times before & will be in the future - guns and people are like oil & water, a bad mix - & they’re stuck w/each other
Just about like everything else that has been invented, military derivatives have fallen in behind.
Boats, spears, knives, rocks, clubs, guns, planes, all had use for the individual, then developed into a military weapon.
It also does not mention anything about being able to ban firearms, or restrict who can own them.
Which is irrelevant to whether we are legally allowed to ban certain types of firearms.
Think about what it would take to get it into the Constitution to allow that.
Nothing needs to happen/change with the Constitution in order to ban any type of firearm. Assault weapons were already banned at one point. We just need to do it again and make it permanent. (My opinion, obviously.)
There is no possible explanation that I will buy into for why a civilian needs an AR-15 or similar weapon. Period. My brother was just telling me that his friend has one (AR-15) in which he has over $3,000 wrapped up that he uses for hunting deer. I told him his buddy sounds like a real d-bag.
If somebody wants to play with military-style weapons, they need to sign up for the military.
Another minor who is also a Student. So sad.
But it's NOT a Mental Heath issue...
You have made this point endlessly. What are the mental health solutions that you or your right-wing heroes have ready to go that will do anything to fix this epidemic?
What do I think?
Horrific parenting
The boys Mother had reportedly been battered by the Father, with him whe was no longer living. She had filed for custody of the child and the Father died (not sure if by suicide). The child seems to be yet another one who cannot handle the stress of his life and sought a way out.
It also does not mention anything about being able to ban firearms, or restrict who can own them.
Which is irrelevant to whether we are legally allowed to ban certain types of firearms.
Think about what it would take to get it into the Constitution to allow that.
Nothing needs to happen/change with the Constitution in order to ban any type of firearm. Assault weapons were already banned at one point. We just need to do it again and make it permanent. (My opinion, obviously.)
There is no possible explanation that I will buy into for why a civilian needs an AR-15 or similar weapon. Period. My brother was just telling me that his friend has one (AR-15) in which he has over $3,000 wrapped up that he uses for hunting deer. I told him his buddy sounds like a real d-bag.
If somebody wants to play with military-style weapons, they need to sign up for the military.
The AR-15 is not a military weapon. It would never withstand a day of combat use.
You must also be anti-hunting?
Another minor who is also a Student. So sad.
But it's NOT a Mental Heath issue...
You have made this point endlessly. What are the mental health solutions that you or your right-wing heroes have ready to go that will do anything to fix this epidemic?
What do I think?
Horrific parenting
The boys Mother had reportedly been battered by the Father, with him whe was no longer living. She had filed for custody of the child and the Father died (not sure if by suicide). The child seems to be yet another one who cannot handle the stress of his life and sought a way out.
Why then did he shoot other students? Were they part of the abuse? Did they harm him in any way?
They’re questions there’s no answers to - the kid couldn’t take any more, snapped & got a gun in his hand
In the face of tragedy it was a good turn indeed by the Phila Eagles to host the conclusion of last week’s high school football game that was cut tragically short by a gunfight that left a 10 year old boy in critical condition
A damper was put on the Eagles’ fine gesture when awhile later it was announced that the boy had passed away - a further damper on an already-sad occasion - they finished the game, the Eagles were there for encouragement & the public wasn’t invited
No apparent follow up on the Fresno incident, the creeps that shot up a backyard barbecue leaving 4 dead others injured, still on the loose apparently
Sorry for the blabbing, it’s 4 sure not like it’s a subject near & dear to my heart
[Edited on 11/22/2019 by Stephen]
Nothing needs to happen/change with the Constitution in order to ban any type of firearm. Assault weapons were already banned at one point. We just need to do it again and make it permanent. (My opinion, obviously.)
There is no possible explanation that I will buy into for why a civilian needs an AR-15 or similar weapon. Period. My brother was just telling me that his friend has one (AR-15) in which he has over $3,000 wrapped up that he uses for hunting deer. I told him his buddy sounds like a real d-bag.
Agreed 100%.
Well, it's your opinion, but if I were you, I wouldn't want adhill58 brothers' buddy know you think of him as a d-bag. He might not like it.
but if I were you, I wouldn't want adhill58 brothers' buddy know you think of him as a d-bag. He might not like it.
Point?
Read post above yours.
Read post above yours.
People who want to murder someone for calling them a d-bag, are the exact people who should be on a federal no-buy list, and are the precise reason why there should be merit-based set of checks and requirements to pass before obtaining a permit to purchase. Anyone too irritated to take these few extra steps, are also the exact types that clearly don't have a healthy temperament, and should be on a no-buy list as well.
fixed your spelling.
Why would someone want to murder you for calling them a d-bag? They might want to re-arrange your bodily profile, but why murder you.
Like Brer said, best not to call anybody a d-bag, weather they are armed or not.
See, you just have the wrong idea about gun owners if you automatically think gun owner=murderer.
They might want to re-arrange your bodily profile
These animals should be on a federal no-buy list.
Why? You were the one calling them a d-bag. Maybe you should be on the Federal no-talk list.
Know this thread isn’t everyone’s cup of tea
The murders of that Madison Wis couple, however, boggles the mind - right there w/Chuck Stuart, Catrina Costello.......
Married successful couple
Victims of a deliberate execution
The killer was their daughter’s boyfriend
Was captain of the football team - had participated in community youth-group volunteering - had also had a couple of significant scrapes w/the law
The couple was picked up by the kid & another kid, & taken to the arboretum - in a car the parents had loaned their daughter - she & her boyfriend had been living at her parents house - the parents had relocated them, & they were still living off her parents when this kind well-liked couple met a ghastly end
The kid later told his friend he was surprised she hadn’t met a quick end like her husband - she died at the hospital
The killer’s friend, who was in on it from the start & helped carry out the executions, Had No Criminal Record
The daughter? God only knows
Mickey Spillane couldn’t come up w/this stuff - beyond comprehension
Those two 18 year old kids who did this had to have known beforehand they’d be spending the rest of their lives behind bars if they went thru w/it
Post submitted as a glimpse into the human condition - the basest of all instincts, man or animal, slumbers in the human psyche
[Edited on 4/11/2020 by Stephen]
“It couldn’t have been a worse situation”
That’s how the situation was described after a bus was commandeered at rifle point today in Dallas - rifleman dead, 2 officers wounded
At Least 10 Dead In Nova Scotia
A well known wealthy dentist in Nova Scotia snapped - got dressed up in police clothing, grabbed a gun, hopped in his car - & went on a shooting binge b4 being arrested at a gas station - info is still evolving
So on this, the 25th anniversary of the OKC bombing, we know that there is a long way to go in minimizing horrific attacks - the Timothy McVeighs & worse are still out there
[Edited on 4/19/2020 by Stephen]
Well, unfortunately, the Coronavirus crisis with its seclusion, distance, fear, media attention etc, could lead to higher rates of folks with anxiety, emotionally and mentally distressed folks, many heavily armed................joe
It doesn’t get any prettier as details emerge - 18 dead, 16 crime locations - initially thought arrested, shooter dead
It just goes to show that anyone in any station in life, rich/poor etc, can become deranged/unhinged at any given time for whatever reason, & succumb to criminal insanity
[Edited on 4/20/2020 by Stephen]
It was an argument w/his girlfriend that made him snap, apparently
How an argument would spark a crime spree of that magnitude is beyond reason, but when she saw that he was morphing into a psychotic murderer, she managed to escape the house & hid out overnight in the woods
Emerged from woods at 6:30 a.m., called 911 & that’s when the gravity of the situation became known - that he was in police clothing driving around heavily armed in a car w/police markings
Her phone call likely saved some lives, authorities later said - yet it was still too late - 22 dead
Cree-py
[Edited on 4/25/2020 by Stephen]
Wow - didn't miss a beat there, not even a pause for breath - two seconds of bogus sentiment then straight into gun politics. Quickest I've ever seen that happen on a shooting thread, though of course gun politics is the only reason for these threads, so you aren't being singled out - this was just more honest and to the point - real fast some Charlie Brown teacher noise wawawaA wa wa waaa wa then boom "Mental health".
[Edited on 11/14/2019 by BrerRabbit]
Mass shootings is not a rational act unless you are in the military and are trained to kill on command then we are supposed to applaud. [That is what they want you to believe, they are wrong.]
Guns were not meant to be used for mass killings. Their purpose is self protection and preservation against a disturbed person or persons who want to disrupt peace, safety and security. God permits killing when done defensively that's it. Predatory murder like wars not allowed but if someone comes to your land to wage war on you, you may fight back to defend yourself, your home, your religion.
[Edited on 4/27/2020 by gina]
The murder of that elderly couple as they prayed at their son’s grave at a Delaware veterans cemetery turns the stomach
85 & 86 years old - had prayed at their son’s grave almost daily since his 2017 death, said another of their sons, his twin brother - his parents had been married 61 years
in a random attack as they were kneeling in prayer, some twisted section 8 wackjob, who should never have been out among people, snuck up behind them, & murdered them
It makes us realize that people are the same as vultures, predators, weasels -
post it realizing such atrocities cause little more than a ripple nowadays - the sickfuck is also dead, what a godawful price had to be paid tho
Prayers on this Sunday morn
[Edited on 5/17/2020 by Stephen]
I was having a pretty good day until I read that.
I too cannot let it get to me.
When it does get to me I need an escape.
I try to leave things to God and His Sovereignty.
But sometimes I fail and question Him
Then I leave it alone.
