Liberal Forum

We often hear the Gun Banners (same people as the mask nazis) loudly proclaim that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the people to own Muskets, not multi-shot assault weapons. One nimrod on here, @razoo  claims that bullets weren't even invented until the mid 1800', long after the Constitutions was written.  Except, he doesn't understand that Muskets actually fire bullets. Muskets simply don't use cartridges which contain powder, primer and bullet in a brass casing.

The truth is they did have multi-shot assault weapons available in the 1700's, even long before the Constitution was drafted.  In 1718, James Puckle invented and patented what was essentially a machine gun. The Puckle gun had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes.  This was a military gun intended for use aboard British ships to repel individual boarders.This gun was certainly known at the time of the American Revolution.



The Ferguson Rifle, invented by a British officer Ferguson was a flint lock, but it was breech loading rather than the standard muzzle-loaded rifle. It could fire up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day. Using the Ferguson Rifle, light infantry troops could continue loading and firing without breaking cover, even when lying prone. This rifle was used by the British against the Americans in 1777.

Even earlier than mid-1700's were multi-barrel Matchlocks which allowed successive firing of bullets relatively rapidly without having to reload each time. Here is an example of such a matchlock below:


Here's a different example of a little bit later model, but still well before the late 1700's:



I believe that one is a 9-shot and notice how nice the machining is on it.

Clearly, multi-shot rapid fire weapons were quite desirable even in the 1700's.  These are not hunting weapons, they are intended as weapons of war.  So, if the drafters of the Constitution meant only "muskets", they would have clearly said muskets.  They were aware of different weapons systems, and they chose the word "arms".  Not even "firearms", by the way, just "arms".

So, moving into the 21st century, "arms" would include things such as particle beam weapons and laser cannons that can be operated by an individual.

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 8:22 am

We often hear the Gun Banners (same people as the mask nazis) loudly proclaim that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the people to own Muskets, not multi-shot assault weapons. One nimrod on here, @razoo  claims that bullets weren't even invented until the mid 1800', long after the Constitutions was written.  Except, he doesn't understand that Muskets actually fire bullets. Muskets simply don't use cartridges which contain powder, primer and bullet in a brass casing.

The truth is they did have multi-shot assault weapons available in the 1700's, even long before the Constitution was drafted.  In 1718, James Puckle invented and patented what was essentially a machine gun. The Puckle gun had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes.  This was a military gun intended for use aboard British ships to repel individual boarders.This gun was certainly known at the time of the American Revolution.




 

I have tried to explain it to them.  One of the major factors as to why they were not used much by the avg guy had to do with price.  Each of those weapons had to be hand crafted.  No real interchangeable parts.  They were expensive.  That's why James Madison, father of the 2A, as president funded development of a repeating rifle that could be mass produced and the average guy could afford it.  
 

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 8:37 am

I have tried to explain it to them.  One of the major factors as to why they were not used much by the avg guy had to do with price.  Each of those weapons had to be hand crafted.  No real interchangeable parts.  They were expensive.  That's why James Madison, father of the 2A, as president funded development of a repeating rifle that could be mass produced and the average guy could afford it.
 

Huey, you are exactly right.  The technology to create such weapons of war was there, prior to the drafting of the Constitution.  The time and cost of producing such weapons made them unaffordable  to the common man or even to a burgeoning nation trying to arm its citizens to fight a war against an empire.  So, they had to make do with the weapons that were commonly available at the time. That didn't mean that such weapons were ever prohibited in any way.  They were simply cost prohibitive, much like machine guns today (but for other reasons).


 

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 8:47 am

Huey, you are exactly right.  The technology to create such weapons of war was there, prior to the drafting of the Constitution.  The time and cost of producing such weapons made them unaffordable  to the common man or even to a burgeoning nation trying to arm its citizens to fight a war against an empire.  So, they had to make do with the weapons that were commonly available at the time. That didn't mean that such weapons were ever prohibited in any way.  They were simply cost prohibitive, much like machine guns today (but for other reasons).

The Revenant was a story about that very thing.
The movie did not do justice to the fact that Hugh Glass wanted his piece back.
Vengeance was certainly in play but the gun's importance was put in the background for movie marketing.

DeezerShoove » 28 Jul 2022, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 8:55 am

The Revenant was a story about that very thing.
The movie did not do justice to the fact that Hugh Glass wanted his piece back.
Vengeance was certainly in play but the gun's importance was put in the background for movie marketing.

I didn't realize this.  What was the significance of his Hugh Glass's rifle?
 

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 8:58 am

I didn't realize this.  What was the significance of his Hugh Glass's rifle?

Interesting article put it in perspective for me.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/conten ... his-rifle/

DeezerShoove » 28 Jul 2022, 9:03 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:03 am

Interesting article put it in perspective for me.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/conten ... his-rifle/

I took the time to read that article - well worth the read. I've watched the movie several times with my wife (her favorite movie), and I do recall noticing the rifle and that it had an octagonal barrel, and recall thinking to myself "nicely made". But, as I am no expert on the rifles of that era, I didn't think much of it to see if they got it correct or not.

When it comes to guns, you might think you know a lot, but really, there's just so much more to learn.
 
 
 

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 8:22 am

We often hear the Gun Banners (same people as the mask nazis) loudly proclaim that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the people to own Muskets, not multi-shot assault weapons. One nimrod on here, @razoo  claims that bullets weren't even invented until the mid 1800', long after the Constitutions was written.  Except, he doesn't understand that Muskets actually fire bullets. Muskets simply don't use cartridges which contain powder, primer and bullet in a brass casing.

The truth is they did have multi-shot assault weapons available in the 1700's, even long before the Constitution was drafted.  In 1718, James Puckle invented and patented what was essentially a machine gun. The Puckle gun had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes.  This was a military gun intended for use aboard British ships to repel individual boarders.This gun was certainly known at the time of the American Revolution.



The Ferguson Rifle, invented by a British officer Ferguson was a flint lock, but it was breech loading rather than the standard muzzle-loaded rifle. It could fire up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day. Using the Ferguson Rifle, light infantry troops could continue loading and firing without breaking cover, even when lying prone. This rifle was used by the British against the Americans in 1777.

Even earlier than mid-1700's were multi-barrel Matchlocks which allowed successive firing of bullets relatively rapidly without having to reload each time. Here is an example of such a matchlock below:


Here's a different example of a little bit later model, but still well before the late 1700's:



I believe that one is a 9-shot and notice how nice the machining is on it.

Clearly, multi-shot rapid fire weapons were quite desirable even in the 1700's.  These are not hunting weapons, they are intended as weapons of war.  So, if the drafters of the Constitution meant only "muskets", they would have clearly said muskets.  They were aware of different weapons systems, and they chose the word "arms".  Not even "firearms", by the way, just "arms".

So, moving into the 21st century, "arms" would include things such as particle beam weapons and laser cannons that can be operated by an individual.

 The Chinese had been firing rockets for 500 years 


 

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:25 am

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 8:22 am

We often hear the Gun Banners (same people as the mask nazis) loudly proclaim that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the people to own Muskets, not multi-shot assault weapons. One nimrod on here, @razoo  claims that bullets weren't even invented until the mid 1800', long after the Constitutions was written.  Except, he doesn't understand that Muskets actually fire bullets. Muskets simply don't use cartridges which contain powder, primer and bullet in a brass casing.

The truth is they did have multi-shot assault weapons available in the 1700's, even long before the Constitution was drafted.  In 1718, James Puckle invented and patented what was essentially a machine gun. The Puckle gun had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes.  This was a military gun intended for use aboard British ships to repel individual boarders.This gun was certainly known at the time of the American Revolution.



The Ferguson Rifle, invented by a British officer Ferguson was a flint lock, but it was breech loading rather than the standard muzzle-loaded rifle. It could fire up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day. Using the Ferguson Rifle, light infantry troops could continue loading and firing without breaking cover, even when lying prone. This rifle was used by the British against the Americans in 1777.

Even earlier than mid-1700's were multi-barrel Matchlocks which allowed successive firing of bullets relatively rapidly without having to reload each time. Here is an example of such a matchlock below:


Here's a different example of a little bit later model, but still well before the late 1700's:



I believe that one is a 9-shot and notice how nice the machining is on it.

Clearly, multi-shot rapid fire weapons were quite desirable even in the 1700's.  These are not hunting weapons, they are intended as weapons of war.  So, if the drafters of the Constitution meant only "muskets", they would have clearly said muskets.  They were aware of different weapons systems, and they chose the word "arms".  Not even "firearms", by the way, just "arms".

So, moving into the 21st century, "arms" would include things such as particle beam weapons and laser cannons that can be operated by an individual.

 The Chinese had been firing rockets for 500 years 


 

 

And repeating rifles have been around since the early 1600s.

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s.

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

I posted all of this for you in the past but you ignored it by using strike thru. 
 

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:25 am

 The Chinese had been firing rockets for 500 years

Yes.  And, rockets were used during the Revolutionary War.
 

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:35 am

Yes.  And, rockets were used during the Revolutionary War.

Are you therefore allowed to carry a tactical nuclear missile?

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:31 am

And repeating rifles have been around since the early 1600s.

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s.

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

I posted all of this for you in the past but you ignored it by using strike thru.

which is irrelevant for the same reason chinese rockets are.
 

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 9:38 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:38 am

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:35 am

Yes.  And, rockets were used during the Revolutionary War.

Are you therefore allowed to carry a tactical nuclear missile?

 

I have already answered that for you a while back.  They are classified as WMDs, not firearms.

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:20 am

I took the time to read that article - well worth the read. I've watched the movie several times with my wife (her favorite movie), and I do recall noticing the rifle and that it had an octagonal barrel, and recall thinking to myself "nicely made". But, as I am no expert on the rifles of that era, I didn't think much of it to see if they got it correct or not.

When it comes to guns, you might think you know a lot, but really, there's just so much more to learn.

A wise man knows how much he does not know.   


edit:
I think the early barrels were much simpler to manufacture having flats to fixture with in order to ream/rifle.

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:45 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:31 am

And repeating rifles have been around since the early 1600s.

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s.

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

I posted all of this for you in the past but you ignored it by using strike thru.

which is irrelevant for the same reason chinese rockets are.
 

 

Actually, to the topic which is the myth that the framers only knew about muskets it is extremely relevant. 

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:48 am

Actually, to the topic which is the myth that the framers only knew about muskets it is extremely relevant.

No...because there is a context.



 

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:53 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:48 am

Actually, to the topic which is the myth that the framers only knew about muskets it is extremely relevant.

No...because there is a context.



 

 

If you think there is another "context" by all means post it. 

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:46 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:46 am

I have already answered that for you a while back.  They are classified as WMDs, not firearms.

please spare me "Tiny on Taxonomy"
 

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 9:54 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:54 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:46 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:46 am

I have already answered that for you a while back.  They are classified as WMDs, not firearms.

please spare me "Tiny on Taxonomy"
 

 

Not getting to your usual diversionary BS on this thread.  If you wish to discuss the topic I'm game. 

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:54 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:54 am

If you think there is another "context" by all means post it.

I could tell you to pound sand or read my sig...

But, in the interest of efficiency -

This is in the context of justifying the civilian possession of weaponry designed for use on the battlefield.

It is a patently absurd argument.