Biden calls for ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines

[Rich2018]

the inspiration for the M14 apparently was when a NCO assigned to a tank, who was a bit of a machinist and gunsmith rigged a MI Garand to use the 20 round magazine of the BAR.

IDK that
Smart guy...would've kicked like a mule though.

 

[Rich2018]

The british army kept them, however the british army had used rifle squads going back to and before the seven years war often using german rifles....

I don't doubt it but it would've been on a very small scale. In the Revolutionary War, the British also had a few breech loading rifles.

During the american revolution britain had rifle squads as well, they were used in smaller numbers, german soldiers and american militia were more fond of rifle squads than britain at the time yet they still had them....

One of the dedicated rifle regiments that were formed after the Revolutionary War, was the 60th rifles which was originally raised as The Royal American Regiment

# shots in 46 seconds shows a slow loader, if it had been a minute he would have barely met the british standard, even wiki on the brown bess mentions 3-6 shots per minute depending on the user, which means seven shots was not unheard of as expert shots could avoid using the wiping stick to increase lead down range....

I am dubious about a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute - Wiki doesn't mention the source
You say a rate of 7 RPM was not "unheard of" - well then, please post a reference to this "not unheard of claim" (I note that the only real evidence you have for the RoF was a YouTube video showing at best a rate of 4 RPM)

This webpage gives a rate of 4-5 rounds (and the 5 RPM must have been in ideal conditions, by a highly skilled solder, without the stress of the battlefield)

Guards Brown Bess flintlock musket

redcoat reenactors in Boston

footguards.tripod.com

Remember the doctrine was of volley fire, so a soldier fired at the same rate as the rest of his company.

You might want to actually look up british history more, when an american can point it out more than you can there is a problem.

Let me know when an American can do this.

Oh and would it also be a "problem" is a Brit was to know that the M-4 Sherman tank was a "medium" tank, when the American thought it was a "light" tank ?

Don't rely on Wiki too much. Check their sources first.

 

[RF667799]

IDK that
Smart guy...would've kicked like a mule though.

Why would it have kicked any more than the M1 Garand it was modified from? If it weighed more as a result of holding more rounds, one could even expect it to kick less.

 

[TurtleDude]

IDK that
Smart guy...would've kicked like a mule though.

not really, the ammo didn't change-it just gave the user 20 rounds rather than 8 plus you didn't have that annoying clip flying out of the weapon when the 8th shot was expended. Now in full auto-yeah it was a handful

 

[jamesrage]

Unfortunately gun sales soar after these atrocities. Now with the virus there are long lines outside gun stores on weekends across this country. Genug ist genug.

That is due to you people screaming for gun bans after every high profile mass shooting. When you people say you want to ban semiautomatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban and ban 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazines under the guise of a high capacity magazine ban the pro-2nd amendment side tends to believe that you people want to ban those things. If the Brady assault weapons never happened and anti-2nd amendment states never enacted their own assault weapons ban then I don't think we would be at 400 million (the graph is from 2017) firearms in the hands of civilians. We will probably be at 500 million firearms in the hands of civilians ten years from now,600 million firearm in the hands of civilians twenty years from now and so on due to you people screaming for firearm and magazine bans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/

 

[jamesrage]

The 2A was written in the late 18th century by people whose view of guns was the muskets kept by militia members behind there doors for quick response if they were called up. Hence the 2A wording about militias. Now that we have local, state & Federal authorities, the 2A is obsolete except to gun fanatics.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Biden calls for ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines

Of course he does, he's an idiot.

 

[jamesrage]

Unfortunately that day may come once the Repubs get finished establishing their one-party fascist states.

If you people really believed that republicans were fascist, nazis or some other untrue thing you people claim about them then you people would never try to ban any kind of firearm and would be seeking to repeal most anti-gun laws out there.

 

[Rich2018]

not really, the ammo didn't change-it just gave the user 20 rounds rather than 8 plus you didn't have that annoying clip flying out of the weapon when the 8th shot was expended. Now in full auto-yeah it was a handful

Oh sorry, I thought you meant convert it to full auto as well as we were talking about the BAR and M-14.

 

[beerftw]

I don't doubt it but it would've been on a very small scale. In the Revolutionary War, the British also had a few breech loading rifles.



One of the dedicated rifle regiments that were formed after the Revolutionary War, was the 60th rifles which was originally raised as The Royal American Regiment




I am dubious about a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute - Wiki doesn't mention the source
You say a rate of 7 RPM was not "unheard of" - well then, please post a reference to this "not unheard of claim" (I note that the only real evidence you have for the RoF was a YouTube video showing at best a rate of 4 RPM)

This webpage gives a rate of 4-5 rounds (and the 5 RPM must have been in ideal conditions, by a highly skilled solder, without the stress of the battlefield)

Guards Brown Bess flintlock musket

redcoat reenactors in Boston

footguards.tripod.com

Remember the doctrine was of volley fire, so a soldier fired at the same rate as the rest of his company.





Let me know when an American can do this.

Oh and would it also be a "problem" is a Brit was to know that the M-4 Sherman tank was a "medium" tank, when the American thought it was a "light" tank ?

Don't rely on Wiki too much. Check their sources first.

Well here is a video of a tap load with the guy moving at a much slower pace, at a proper pace it was quite easy to fire fast and was used during the napoleonic war.


Breechloaders did not matter much during the revolution, they were hardly existent, most rifles were muzzle loading, and british rifle squads did not works much different than any other nations, they did not stand with the musket shooters as they were slower to load, but often stood back from the formation exploiting the rifles range and also at an angle to ensure the rifle squads would not hit their own while firing on the enemy. The rifle squads often focused on knocking out the users of artillery and the officers putting the battle in favor of their own side by breaking up artillery response as well as leadership causing their formations to shatter. Britain did use rifle squads but was a slow adopter of them.

You would be correct the soldier in a volley formation fired at the same rate as the rest of the company, however they could fire faster than that.

Also by modern standards an m4 sherman might as well be a light tank, nearly every heavy tank on earth is more than double it's weight, and most medium tanks used as main battle tanks outweight it as well. the lighter variants of the sherman only met the medium tank minimum of 30 tons by a hair, while the heavier variants hit 40 tons.

 

[Rich2018]

Well here is a video of a tap load with the guy moving at a much slower pace, at a proper pace it was quite easy to fire fast and was used during the napoleonic war.

Did you notice the bit about him using an undersized musket ball in order to do the tap load - so no use of the ram road was required.

Breechloaders did not matter much during the revolution...

Just pointing out that the British army was not blind to progress and had no hang-up on trialing new designs

You would be correct the soldier in a volley formation fired at the same rate as the rest of the company, however they could fire faster than that.

You have yet to show it
Frankly, I think 5 rounds a minute is stretching it a bit and even if that rate could be attained, I doubt that it could be maintained for long, especially in the heat of battle

Also by modern standards an m4 sherman might as well be a light tank, nearly every heavy tank on earth is more than double it's weight, and most medium tanks used as main battle tanks outweight it as well. the lighter variants of the sherman only met the medium tank minimum of 30 tons by a hair, while the heavier variants hit 40 tons.

Sure by modern standards, but by WWI standards it was a heavy tank

The T-34 (29.2 short tons) didn't outweigh the Sherman (33.4-42.0 short tons, ), neither did the most numerous German tank the Pz IV (27.6 short tons).

 

[beerftw]

Did you notice the bit about him using an undersized musket ball in order to do the tap load - so no use of the ram road was required.



Just pointing out that the British army was not blind to progress and had no hang-up on trialing new designs



You have yet to show it
Frankly, I think 5 rounds a minute is stretching it a bit and even if that rate could be attained, I doubt that it could be maintained for long, especially in the heat of battle



Sure by modern standards, but by WWI standards it was a heavy tank

The T-34 (29.2 short tons) didn't outweigh the Sherman (33.4-42.0 short tons, ), neither did the most numerous German tank the Pz IV (27.6 short tons).

Undersized musket balls was standard then, that was how they got guns so cheap and loading so fast, they used paper to take up the clearance, making them fast to load yet still fairly accurate.

On tanks I am using modern standards as you are demanding modern standards for assault rifles, as if we used 1776 standards the brown bess would be their version of the assault rifle but you want to be period exact when it favors your argument but not when it defeats your argument.

 

[Rich2018]

Undersized musket balls was standard then...

Do you have a source for that ?
(I mean of course the musket ball had to have a diameter smaller than the musket bore, otherwise they wouldn't go in)

...that was how they got guns so cheap and loading so fast, they used paper to take up the clearance, making them fast to load yet still fairly accurate.

No, the paper did not help with accuracy, and the smaller the musket ball the greater the inaccuracy. This was called "windage"
This problem wasn't really resolved until the invention and adoption of the "minie ball"

...on tanks I am using modern standards as you are demanding modern standards for assault rifles, as if we used 1776 standards the brown bess would be their version of the assault rifle but you want to be period exact when it favors your argument but not when it defeats your argument.

No, the Brown Bess was in no way comparable to an assault rifle

In the 18th and early part of the 19th century, the infantry formation was basically like a mass shotgun.

Volley fire was a staple of infantry tactics, IIRC right up until the 2nd Boer War, in the British army
(Take a look at the movies Zulu and Zulu Dawn, set in 1879, or the movie Storm Over the Nile, set in 1898 and features a recreation of the Battle of Omdurman).

 

[CLAX1911]

People do forget that the musket was used mostly by armies due to cost, while rifles were preferred by militias as they had a longer range and could handle ambush tactics behind cover better.

But the musket was cheap, and a properly trained soldier could pull off 4-7 shots per minute, which in volley fire meant a lot of lead flying down range make accuracy a moot point. The musket and even rifled musket remained in favor until the civil war ended, repeaters existed before this country was founded, and repeating cartridge guns existed before the civil war started, yet single shot muzzloaders remained standard issue through the civil war.

Civilians often got the better tech than the military, as the military was never looking for the most bleeding edge, but rather the most practical. If it cost 7 dollars per rifle in 1777 and 3 dollars per musket, and the musket could fire faster being smooth bore they would use muskets. If it cost 120 bucks for a lorenzoni style repeater they would definately use muskets, as the cost to make one was extreme, and the labor to produce one exceeded the cost to train multiple soldiers and arm them with cheaper muskets.

So you are indeed correct the musket was the assault rifle of the day, it was the medium rifle that was the most practical, most versatile, and also cheap enough to produce in masses for a standard army.

But my point was the amendment wasn't specifically about the weaponry they had at the time.

These people just finished a war with Britain a superpower I bet if they were alive today they would want people to be able to have machine guns.

 

[Rich2018]

But my point was the amendment wasn't specifically about the weaponry they had at the time.

These people just finished a war with Britain a superpower I bet if they were alive today they would want people to be able to have machine guns.

I bet you they wouldn't

The mass shooting was unheard of then.

 

[jamesrage]

I bet you they wouldn't

The mass shooting was unheard of then.

There were lots massacres back then. After all Native Americans probably didn't appreciate American settlers. But year our founders didn't ban knives, spears, bows and arrows and other weapons because of those massacres when the 2nd amendment was written.

List of Indian massacres in North America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rich2018]

There were lots massacres back then. After all Native Americans probably didn't appreciate American settlers. But year our founders didn't ban knives, spears, bows and arrows and other weapons because of those massacres when the 2nd amendment was written.

List of Indian massacres in North America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not many mass shootings though.

 

[jamesrage]

Not many mass shootings though.

So you are saying that getting stabbed, beaten to death, clubbed to death, burned to death, hanged to death or some other way of getting murdered is somehow better than getting shot death? Like if the cops went to you right now and told you that your girlfriend, mom, brother, best friend or some other loved one was stabbed to death then you would be relieved that they weren't shot? The but they weren't shot to death so its better is idiocy of anti-2nd amendment trash.

 

[Rich2018]

So you are saying that getting stabbed, beaten to death, clubbed to death, burned to death, hanged to death or some other way of getting murdered is somehow better than getting shot death?

No
Gun control seeks to ban or restrict guns, because of the quantity shootings in general and mass shootings in particular...not by the degree of suffering experienced by the victims

Like if the cops went to you right now and told you that your girlfriend, mom, brother, best friend or some other loved one was stabbed to death then you would be relieved that they weren't shot? The but they weren't shot to death so its better is idiocy of anti-2nd amendment trash.

Of course if you lose a loved one, you suffer from grief and from loss
If they suffered during their death, there is only more grief and pain to add

I really do no get your point here. Are you trying to excuse gun related deaths by claiming it's not too bad, as other causes of death are worse ?

The framers would and could never imagine the arms they wished all citizens to have, would be turned on fellow citizens so regularly and with such widespread effect.

 

[Helix]

This is what Democrats are doing instead of forcing through HR1. They cannot prioritize.

 

[jamesrage]

No
Gun control seeks to ban or restrict guns, because of the quantity shootings in general and mass shootings in particular...not by the degree of suffering experienced by the victims

You anti-2nd amendment people seem to be under the false impression that if guns disappeared then so would murders, massacres and suicides or that they would at least drastically decrease.

I really do no get your point here. Are you trying to excuse gun related deaths by claiming it's not too bad, as other causes of death are worse ?

You are the one going on about how at least they aren't gun deaths as though somehow a murder committed with a firearm is somehow worse than one committed without a firearm.

The framers would and could never imagine the arms they wished all citizens to have, would be turned on fellow citizens so regularly and with such widespread effect.

The founders were smarter than you give them credit for. They were well aware that people would use weapons on each other for nefarious reasons. It was that when knifes, bow and arrows, crossbows, clubs and other weapons were invented. Massacres and murders went on in their day.

 

[Rich2018]

You anti-2nd amendment people seem to be under the false impression that if guns disappeared then so would murders

No, you can commit murder without a gun

Mass shootings would largely disappear though

You are the one going on about how at least they aren't gun deaths as though somehow a murder committed with a firearm is somehow worse than one committed without a firearm.

Straw man
Where did I say that ?

The founders were smarter than you give them credit for. They were well aware that people would use weapons on each other for nefarious reasons. It was that when knifes, bow and arrows, crossbows, clubs and other weapons were invented. Massacres and murders went on in their day.

Did they foresee mass shootings ?
I think not.

 

[jamesrage]

No, you can commit murder without a gun

Mass shootings would largely disappear though

Massacres in general wouldn't.

Straw man
Where did I say that ?

About every time its pointed out that murder would still occur like in your post pointing out that they did not have mass shootings even though it was pointed that they had massacres back then.

Did they foresee mass shootings ?
I think not.

They still had massacres committed with weapons other than guns. If they didn't ban knives, bows/arrows, crossbows and other weapons because of massacres committed without firearms then they would ban guns because of massacres committed with guns?

 

[Rich2018]

Massacres in general wouldn't.

Yeah they would, how many non-gun massacres can you think of in the last 20 years ?

You could probably count them on the fingers of your hands

About every time its pointed out that murder would still occur like in your post pointing out that they did not have mass shootings even though it was pointed that they had massacres back then.

But the Indian Wars are over now

They still had massacres committed with weapons other than guns. If they didn't ban knives, bows/arrows, crossbows and other weapons because of massacres committed without firearms then they would ban guns because of massacres committed with guns?

But the Indian Wars are over now
Which just goes to show that gun lovers want an 18th century law for the 21st century.

 

[jamesrage]

Yeah they would, how many non-gun massacres can you think of in the last 20 years ?

The amount of massacres in general that the UK and Australia had didn't change. So why would it here?

You could probably count them on the fingers of your hands

But the Indian Wars are over now

But the Indian Wars are over now
Which just goes to show that gun lovers want an 18th century law for the 21st century.

Which doesn't change the fact our founders knew that massacres happened in our founders' time and they wouldn't be phased by masacres commited with guns seeing how they weren't phased by massacres committed without guns.