Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 16 Jun 2022, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 8:20 pm

Oh, hell no.

Only credible citations.

You suck with the terminology, TTPS.

Blackvegetable » 16 Jun 2022, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 8:20 pm

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:52 am

Do I really need to explain it to him/her or should I let it go?

Oh, hell no.

Only credible citations.

You suck with the terminology, TTPS.

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:50 am

FOS » 16 Jun 2022, 11:42 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:42 am

 

 

Before you can make this argument you have to reconcile the fact that repeating rifles were available and known about for centuries.  The problem is they could not be mass produced and were expensive.  In 1777 the Continental Congress considered paying for a repeating flintlock.

The Belton flintlock was a repeating flintlock design using superposed loads, conceived by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resident Joseph Belton some time prior to 1777. The musket design was offered by Belton to the newly formed Continental Congress in 1777. Belton wrote that the musket could fire eight rounds with one loading,[1] and that he could support his claims "by experimental proof."[2] Belton failed to sell the musket to Congress, and later was unable to sell the design to the British Army a year after the American Revolution.[1] There are no records that indicate that the gun was ever supplied, and it is uncertain if or how exactly the Belton improvement operated.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

You are incorrect concerning cannons.

If the cannon you want to buy was manufactured before 1898 (i.e., it’s a muzzle loading model), you can do so without regulation. If it’s a “saluting cannon,” it’s also exempt. And if it’s neither a “saluting cannon” nor a pre-1898 model, you need to pay a $200 tax stamp, fill in some forms, wait a bit, and . . . well, that’s it. Cannon are categorized as “destructive devices” under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and they’re legal under federal law and in most states. You may have to jump through a few hoops to get one, but get one you assuredly can.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a ... uy-cannon/

You can buy a tank depending on state and local regulations.  More to come.

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:50 am

Before you can make this argument you have to reconcile the fact that repeating rifles were available and known about for centuries.  The problem is they could not be mass produced and were expensive.  In 1777 the Continental Congress considered paying for a repeating flintlock.

The Belton flintlock was a repeating flintlock design using superposed loads, conceived by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resident Joseph Belton some time prior to 1777. The musket design was offered by Belton to the newly formed Continental Congress in 1777. Belton wrote that the musket could fire eight rounds with one loading,[1] and that he could support his claims "by experimental proof."[2] Belton failed to sell the musket to Congress, and later was unable to sell the design to the British Army a year after the American Revolution.[1] There are no records that indicate that the gun was ever supplied, and it is uncertain if or how exactly the Belton improvement operated.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

You are incorrect concerning cannons.

If the cannon you want to buy was manufactured before 1898 (i.e., it’s a muzzle loading model), you can do so without regulation. If it’s a “saluting cannon,” it’s also exempt. And if it’s neither a “saluting cannon” nor a pre-1898 model, you need to pay a $200 tax stamp, fill in some forms, wait a bit, and . . . well, that’s it. Cannon are categorized as “destructive devices” under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and they’re legal under federal law and in most states. You may have to jump through a few hoops to get one, but get one you assuredly can.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a ... uy-cannon/

You can buy a tank depending on state and local regulations.  More to come.

razoo » 16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

Neo » 17 Jun 2022, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 7:39 am

The military at the time had muskets. Intent of the law is to allow the citizenry to have the firepower to resist and overthrow a tyrannical government thus ensuring consent of the governed. In the spirit of the law the citizenry should have access to any weapon a tyrannical government might employ against them. Time to make fully automatic weapons and tanks available to the public.

Nucleomituphobia » 17 Jun 2022, 7:10 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 7:10 am

Stick a Musket up your *** and pull the trigger

Huey » 17 Jun 2022, 7:34 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 7:34 am

@Blackvegetable  

You yapped too soon.

Neo » 17 Jun 2022, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 7:39 am

The military at the time had muskets. Intent of the law is to allow the citizenry to have the firepower to resist and overthrow a tyrannical government thus ensuring consent of the governed. In the spirit of the law the citizenry should have access to any weapon a tyrannical government might employ against them. Time to make fully automatic weapons and tanks available to the public.

Blackvegetable » 17 Jun 2022, 8:00 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:00 am

Give it the **** up, usetool.

Huey » 17 Jun 2022, 8:05 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:05 am

History of the repeating rifle:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/repeating-rifle

Blackvegetable » 17 Jun 2022, 8:08 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:08 am

Why not mortars and cruise missiles?

Blackvegetable » 17 Jun 2022, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:02 am

Chronic **** masturbator.

razoo » 16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

Neo » 17 Jun 2022, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:13 am

In other words, you concede the point. I accept your defeat.

Huey » 17 Jun 2022, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:11 am

They are not fire arms. They are a weapon or device of mass destruction.

But the myth that the framers could understand muskets is a myth.

ScottMon » 17 Jun 2022, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:04 am

i see the gun experts typing here about gun types. But I don't see any solutions. Like I've said, There is alway going to be plenty of soft targets and bullets. What is the solution.

Skans » 17 Jun 2022, 8:15 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:15 am

In 1789, there were already multi-shot weapons:


They clearly had pistols, sidearms, rifles, shotguns, and muskets.  In addition, they had rockets, cannons, bombs, and varying explosive devices.  This is why they chose the word "Arms", and not musket, or cannon, or rocket or any narrowly defined type of firearm.  The Supreme Court has examined this in depth and confirmed its meaning to be much broader than musket.

Blackvegetable » 17 Jun 2022, 8:18 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:18 am

Post the 2nd Amendment.