Liberal Forum

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:55 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:55 am

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

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

28 Jul 2022, 9:38 am

Are you therefore allowed to carry a tactical nuclear missile?

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 9:57 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:57 am

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.
 

 

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield so in addition civilians can afford them.  Plus, the overlying context of the thread is the debunking the myth that framers could only envision muskets so the 2A was about muskets only.

Many weapons of the 1800s were designed for the battlefield.  There was no civilian prohibition.

DeezerShoove » 28 Jul 2022, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:47 am

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, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:02 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield so in addition civilians can afford them.  Plus, the overlying context of the thread is the debunking the myth that framers could only envision muskets so the 2A was about muskets only.

Many weapons of the 1800s were designed for the battlefield.  There was no civilian prohibition.

Absurd is, by definition, absurd.


 

 

FOS » 28 Jul 2022, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:03 am

How bout the 1300s?

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

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:05 am

Facts are facts.  Which is why you ignored it. 

You got anything on topic?

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:03 am

DeezerShoove » 28 Jul 2022, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:47 am

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.

Now, you just gave me one more thing to research in my spare time.  Interesting theory, and I don't know the answer to this.  I note that I have a civil war era Remington NMA 1858 which does have an octagonal barrel.  I also have a Colt SAA 1st Gen revolver which has a round barrel.  And, a Swiss 1882 pistol which has an octagonal barrel. 
 

 

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:19 am

Many are the facts, however there is no RATIONAL argument for the promiscuous civilian distribution of weapons designed for combat.

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:21 am

Your opinion is noted.  Anything else?

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:23 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:21 am

Your opinion is noted.  Anything else?

Maybe...

But it is unlikely to be retained following another circle around the bowl.
 

 

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:20 am

My Henry Big Boy has an octagon barrel.

Skans » 28 Jul 2022, 10:36 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:36 am

I like the Henry Octagonal, particularly the 30-30 with solid brass receiver. Thought about buying one several times, just haven't done it. Still, given that it is a modern gun made on modern equipment, that doesn't really answer the question of whether there was a practical reason to make octagonal barreled guns over round.

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.

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 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.

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield so in addition civilians can afford them.  Plus, the overlying context of the thread is the debunking the myth that framers could only envision muskets so the 2A was about muskets only.

Many weapons of the 1800s were designed for the battlefield.  There was no civilian prohibition.

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am

This is one remarkably stupid human being.

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 6:10 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:10 am

Troll, you should be able to refute the post.  If not you are just trolling.