1791 to 2015 an interesting comparison

[Mark W.]

Ok we all know the bull about the second amendment being ratified in 1791 and so that somehow means the founders only intended us to have Flintlock/muzzleloaders

Well let see what that means from the bullets point of view

Let use the most common type of military firearm in use in 1791

A British Patent Musket Smooth bore .75 cal (that's frecking 3/4" Diameter for anyone taught with common core math)

now this firearm was commonly fired with 100 grains of Black powder and a patched .710" to bare .690" Round soft lead ball. (the .710" was used for accuracy the .690 was used for speed as it would load as quick as 4 rounds a min) The results of this load in the case of a patched .710 ball was a

Muzzle velocity of approx. 1000fps with a muzzle energy of approx. 1223 ft·lbf in tests the ball travels approx. 17.75" in Ballistic gelatin.

Now lets look a 5.56mm .224" solid copper jacket spire point bullet a common military loading is 62 grain FMJBT the results are approx.

Muzzle velocity of approx. 3100fps with a muzzle energy of approx. 1,303 ft·lbf
I'm sure you have all seen various Ballistic Gelatin tests

So in terms of killing power we really haven't changed that much over the .75 cal Musket so they can all just SHUT UP

Read More

 

[Medic!]

The Left also say's they don't mind us having hunting rifles like our fore fathers.
As if the second was about hunting?

When a Liberal asks me ''What do you need a gun like that for?'' [Talking about my AR]
I remind them that the second amendment is talking about guns meant to defend myself against, and put down people! Not Bambi!

And don't you want me to be the most effective Militiaman I can be when I'm fighting for this countries rights? After all? I will have to pick up the slack you left buy not owning a gun!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

While I agree , and think one should be free to own any type of firearm one wants , I do wonder if we are the same type of people we were in 1791.
It seems to me that people now a days view the 2nd Amendment and firearms in general much differently than in 1791.
We as a people are also much different socially than in 1791.

Now as I said earlier I feel that the 2nd Amendment insures that we as a people should be able to own any firearm , including military types , I often wonder if some of todays Americans understand the world in which the writers of the Bill of rights lived in , and respect the responsibility we have inherited.
Too often it seems as if folks take the Bill of Rights for granted.

Also some people seem to have taken firearms almost as a religion as it were , and seem to think that the firearm is a cure for all ills.
Forgetting that the firearm like anything else is as good or bad as the person using it.
Just my 2 cents and not trying to cause a fuss ...
Andy

 

[Medic!]

While I agree , and think one should be free to own any type of firearm one wants , I do wonder if we are the same type of people we were in 1791.
It seems to me that people now a days view the 2nd Amendment and firearms in general much differently than in 1791.
We as a people are also much different socially than in 1791.

Now as I said earlier I feel that the 2nd Amendment insures that we as a people should be able to own any firearm , including military types , I often wonder if some of todays Americans understand the world in which the writers of the Bill of rights lived in , and respect the responsibility we have inherited.
Too often it seems as if folks take the Bill of Rights for granted.

Also some people seem to have taken firearms almost as a religion as it were , and seem to think that the firearm is a cure for all ills.
Forgetting that the firearm like anything else is as good or bad as the person using it.
Just my 2 cents and not trying to cause a fuss ...
Andy

''James Madison, who would become the fourth President of the United States, was the document's primary author. Called the "Father of the Constitution," Madison didn't think we needed a Bill of Rights and the document that emerged from the Convention in 1787 reflected his conviction. He believed the Constitution as it was written already spelled out what the Federal Government could do – and, he believed, if it wasn't in that document, it wasn't any of the Federal Government's business. No further protection was necessary.''

-The constitution project-

The problem today is. We look at the Bill of rights as our only express rights.
It defines certain rights. But that's not where our rights end.

In effect. It has become the limit of our rights! Just as Madison feared.

 

[308]

And there was the 1780 Girandoni 22-shot repeating air rifle...an air rifle cabable of "spraying" bullutz before spraying bullutz was a scary term invented by ignorant libtards.

 

[etrain16]

Also some people seem to have taken firearms almost as a religion as it were , and seem to think that the firearm is a cure for all ills.

Yes, perhaps there are people that see it that way, but I think we have to ask the question why? Honestly, for much of our history, guns were just part of our nation. Perhaps not as ubiquitous as they are today, but then, we didn't have a constant and growing onslaught of legislation aimed at restricting or removing guns from our grasp. It's funny, looking back on history, how people could order guns, even full auto Thompsons, through the mail - and no one thought anything of it.

Then, when the first gun control steps began in the 30's, a foundation was laid for restricting rights on Americans. It seemed fairly stable until 1968's ban. At that point, the gun control effort really got underway, and American's rights no longer seemed as assured as they once were. Today, it's an all out assault on our right to keep and bear arms. And, when you think about it, it's really human nature to want what they're told they can't have. If you look at the sales and ownership of guns in the US, you see a real trend in that as gun control measures increased, so did not only the ownership of more gun, but the growth in manufacturing and innovation in new parts and pieces to go with them.

Are guns a cure all? Are they a savior? No. But to many Americans, they symbolize something that many of us don't take lightly - freedom. Not only freedom, but the ability, as a people, to defend ourselves against those that would take it from us. Sure, some would love to see a 2nd American Revolution, but I think that is a small number of folks. Most just want to be left alone, with their rights and freedom intact, untouched by an increasingly overreaching government. If they continue to push this direction, they may just help that minority grow into something they really do need to worry about. Americans will not give up their guns, and I believe there is a line that Americans will not allow to be crossed with regard to limits on their guns. I think we're almost there.

I honestly believe, if the Democrat party dropped gun control altogether as a platform, and if politicians just let Americans be Americans when it comes to guns, the proliferation of AR's, etc. would fall off considerably. People are easily motivated by fear and uncertainty, and the fact that we are facing an uncertain future for firearms ownership, well, I'm not surprised that Americans are reacting the way they are. The funny thing is, it is, ultimately, the gun control lunatics that are the ones responsible for this massive arming of America. They are causing this, yet continue to push even harder for more control. It makes no sense, but then, when has a politician ever really made sense?

So, is a gun a cure all? No. But it is a symbol, and a powerful one at that, and one that holds considerable power in the hands of a public that think their own government doesn't trust them. They would do well to remember the past history of this country's founding. We may not be the same people today, but that's not to say we couldn't become what those people were again, if necessary. I, for one, hope that it never comes to that. I, for one, hope that politicians will come to their senses and get off the gun control kick once and for all.

 

[Pops1911]

I watched something on the History Channel recently that did a decent job of describing the weapons of the Revolution. Talked about the Brown Bess musket too. What I found really fascinating was the part about the American Long Rifle. Unlike other rifles used by the Brits it could reliably make accurate shots out to 250 yds. Seemed to be put to very good use for sniping off the Brit officers and creating havoc in the ranks of the redcoats. This program talked about how it turned the tide of the war. That got me to thinking that it was the perfect sniper rifle of its day and just about every frontiersman owned one. Can you imagine every household today with a Barrett ready to go? Just some thoughts before my 2nd cup o' joe.

 

[Deebow]

The 2nd Amendment isn't about "need."

If you have the right to self defense (be it from tyranny or from crime) then you have a right to whatever tools make it possible for you to exercise that right. Just as if you have the right to speak out about whatever you are passionate about, you can use whatever tools are available to you to do that.

If your friendly neighborhood libturd says that the 2nd Amendment protected muskets only; tell them to get the fudgeknuckle off the Internet then and start writing their blog with a quill pen by candle light. And when they are ready to publish it, find a printing press or practice reading it on the street corner by starting with "Hear Ye Hear Ye."



Until then; this is my "musket."

 

[Medic!]

The 2nd Amendment isn't about "need."

If you have the right to self defense (be it from tyranny or from crime) then you have a right to whatever tools make it possible for you to exercise that right. Just as if you have the right to speak out about whatever you are passionate about, you can use whatever tools are available to you to do that.

If your friendly neighborhood libturd says that the 2nd Amendment protected muskets only; tell them to get the fudgeknuckle off the Internet then and start writing their blog with a quill pen by candle light. And when they are ready to publish it, find a printing press or practice reading it on the street corner by starting with "Hear Ye Hear Ye."

View attachment 268122

Until then; this is my "musket."

I get your point.
But I think the words ''being necessary'' implies a need?

 

[Caveman Jim]

What the left has always failed to understand in their attempts disarming law abiding Americas is that guns are inanimate objects and the crazy people and criminals are the ones that are doing all this killing. Not once have sided with law abiding people that want to protect themselves and their family. Not once have they sided with the law abiding people that are ready willing and able to fight a tyrannical government when that time comes.
They could care less about anyone's freedoms (but their own when it arises) all they want is to push their agendas on every American citizen to gain control of every aspect of their lives.

 

[Charliehorse]

 

[etrain16]

View attachment 268143

I could have gone through my day without hearing Piers' name, but watching him get served is worth it.

 

[Spray-n-pray]

Piers is 10 lbs of $#!+ in a 5 lb bag.