• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Various gun control topics

Cigar said:
I'm a Progressive Democrat and I have nothing to do with Gun Control, unless you're talking about a 4 step holster draw.

I'm for Controlling who gets the Guns.

I live my life in such a way that I'm allowed to own and carry Guns. Those that don't simply shouldn't.

If I show I'm not a responsible driver, I won't get a license.
If I don't have the mental capacity to drive a car or take the test, I won't get a license.
if I can't see well enough to read road signs, I won't get a license.

This isn't about Rights, as more about responsibility, mental capacity and sight!
Click to expand...

Cigar, I commend you Sir, this is possibly the best post I have seen from you on 2 political forums.:applaud

Except the party you belong to, would disarm you, come to party of reason, there is strength in #'s
 
Last edited:
OlNate said:
Do you think these qualify as repeating rifles? The Belton rearing flintlock, from what I can tell, was just a number of barrels firing at once from a single charge, and the other was an air rifle...not gunpowder at all. In my mind, the first real repeating rifle, the one that was more than just a quickly abandoned gimmick, was the Henry repeating rifle...

(Not trying to be snooty, as I've been accused in this thread, I'm actually interested...hehe)
Click to expand...

Dr Robert Beeman has an interesting article on air guns. Sometime in the early 1900's the airgun industry had a law passed prohibiting the fed ever classifying air guns as firearms, like they do in gun control countrys.

The technology of air guns is rapidly equaling firearms (I will post a thread on big bore air guns soon)
 
OlNate said:
Not until 70 years after the 2nd amendment was written... Not that I'm trying to make a particular point, just figured you'd want to make sure you had your facts straight...... #notantigun
Click to expand...

That's not true.

Jefferson owned this one. Used by the Austrian Army.

https://www.ammoland.com/2014/06/look-at-thomas-jeffersons-assault-rifle/#axzz4kscKBy17

Repeater, 22 round magazine, bolt type loader.

Machines had existed since before gunpowder to launch multi missiles without reloading. Both arrows and rockets.

Why is it such a stretch to assume Jefferson and the rest of the founders could and did know of repeating firearms?
 
Last edited:
OlNate said:
You should know I do a little research before I comment...here, check it out:

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

EDIT: the part I got wrong was the number of years...the patent was put in 1860, but apparently Mr. Henry invented it a few years before.
Click to expand...

Even your article mentions several repeating weapons invented prior to your alleged 70 years.

Lagatz Rifle A modification of the Lorenzoni system, invented in the 18th century.[2]
Thomson Rifle A repeating rifle patented in 1814, using multiple breeches to obtain repeating fire.[3]
Girandoni air rifle – Repeating air rifle designed in 1779
 
jimbo said:
Even your article mentions several repeating weapons invented prior to your alleged 70 years.

Lagatz Rifle A modification of the Lorenzoni system, invented in the 18th century.[2]
Thomson Rifle A repeating rifle patented in 1814, using multiple breeches to obtain repeating fire.[3]
Girandoni air rifle – Repeating air rifle designed in 1779
Click to expand...

Ok, but look at the two examples you've listed that would have been around in the time when the second amendment was written... the Lorenzoni system bears zero resemblance to a repeating rifle...two chambers, one with bullets, the other with gun powder, some kind of mixing motion that places the two elements where they need to go...not exactly a Henry repeater. The other is an air gun, and was quickly abandoned because of it's impracticality (I think I read 1500 hand cranks of an air pump to fire off 30 rounds, or hooking it up on the field to some kind of pump wagon...), and the high degree of training required to use it. I mean, yes, technically they could fire more quickly than a musket, no argument. But they couldn't been considered realistically viable, otherwise why was everyone running around with muskets? Compare that to the functionality of the Henry repeater...I mean, it's comparing apples and asteroids... Looking carefully at both of these, neither gives any clear indication of what would come, what most folks consider a repeating rifle...in my opinion. :)

Anyway, thanks for the chat, don't get bent out of shape, I'm not anti gun, not here to battle...just seemed like a weird claim, given what my understanding of a repeating rifle is.
 
TurtleDude said:
I doubt anyone in 1790 or so could even dream of an internet since stuff like electricity as a power source, radio waves etc were not something one could envision based on the state of the art at the time

one can always envision a current device working faster. they had firearms that could fire 7-8 rounds a minute. envisioning one that tired 70 rounds a minute was easy. My late grandfather was a student of military history and a decorated artillery officer in WWI. His oldest son-KIA at Okinawa, was a Naval fighter pilot. My grandfather noted in WWI he figured he'd live to see planes that would go 5-10 times as fast as the ones used in WWI and that there would be machine guns that could shoot much faster than the ones his men used. I suspect just about anyone who was racing in the Indy 500 in 1930 would -if they are still around-not be surprised how fast the current cars can go

so when morons claim that the second amendment writers couldn't envision machine guns, that's just plain idiotic. The technology of a machine gun really isn't all that advanced over a flintlock rifle that was the state of the art infantry weapon of the Revolutionary war. pulling a trigger releases a spring loaded hammer to detonate a small charge of explosive material which in turn detonates a larger charge of explosive material to propel a projectile
Click to expand...

Not to mention that technology was already happening with the designing of the The Kentucky Long Rifle which benefited from rifling and a extended barrel that made better use of the expanding pressure and a spinning projectile which extended accuracy form 60 yards, out to 250 yards. Experts with this rifle decimated the British Officer ranks in the field. It was a huge step in accessible & accurate firearms for the settlers and changed how the Revolution would be fought. It took longer to load, but who cares when you have a 190 yard distance cushion between yourself and some poor British guy with a Brown Bessie.

The modern sniper was born.
 
OlNate said:
Ok, but look at the two examples you've listed that would have been around in the time when the second amendment was written... the Lorenzoni system bears zero resemblance to a repeating rifle...two chambers, one with bullets, the other with gun powder, some kind of mixing motion that places the two elements where they need to go...not exactly a Henry repeater. The other is an air gun, and was quickly abandoned because of it's impracticality (I think I read 1500 hand cranks of an air pump to fire off 30 rounds, or hooking it up on the field to some kind of pump wagon...), and the high degree of training required to use it. I mean, yes, technically they could fire more quickly than a musket, no argument. But they couldn't been considered realistically viable, otherwise why was everyone running around with muskets? Compare that to the functionality of the Henry repeater...I mean, it's comparing apples and asteroids... Looking carefully at both of these, neither gives any clear indication of what would come, what most folks consider a repeating rifle...in my opinion. :)

Anyway, thanks for the chat, don't get bent out of shape, I'm not anti gun, not here to battle...just seemed like a weird claim, given what my understanding of a repeating rifle is.
Click to expand...

You entirely miss the point. The question was, did the founders envision repeating weapons. The answer is, absolutely. Not only envision, but were working on them. The early examples weren't as efficient as today's mini gun but guys like Jefferson and Franklin were certainly thinking along those lines.

U have no idea what your idea of what a repeating rifle is, bur most would believe that it is a rifle capable of firing 2 or more projectiles without reloading.

BTW, regarding air guns, the US used them in WW II. Repeating ones at that.
 
jimbo said:
You entirely miss the point. The question was, did the founders envision repeating weapons. The answer is, absolutely. Not only envision, but were working on them. The early examples weren't as efficient as today's mini gun but guys like Jefferson and Franklin were certainly thinking along those lines.

U have no idea what your idea of what a repeating rifle is, bur most would believe that it is a rifle capable of firing 2 or more projectiles without reloading.

BTW, regarding air guns, the US used them in WW II. Repeating ones at that.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't miss any point, was just talking in a different direction for a sec. I didn't see any point in debating the OP...the second anyone steps over the line on the second amendment down there, there will be war, there's no way that you guys will let it happen, so why the fuss and frenzy? Just seemed like an opportunity to talk about something interesting.... Not for nothing, but you 2nd amendment guys are a touchy bunch..........

Anyway, regardless, I still think saying that either of these two systems could predict modern day rifles is like saying this:

flying-bike.webp

allowed people to envision this:

stealth bomber.webp


Maybe...? But that would be some serious foresight...
 
Last edited:
OlNate said:
No, I didn't miss any point, was just talking in a different direction for a sec. I didn't see any point in debating the OP...the second anyone steps over the line on the second amendment down there, there will be war, there's no way that you guys will let it happen, so why the fuss and frenzy? Just seemed like an opportunity to talk about something interesting.... Not for nothing, but you 2nd amendment guys are a touchy bunch..........

Anyway, regardless, I still think saying that either of these two systems could predict modern day rifles is like saying this:

View attachment 67219137

allowed people to envision this:

View attachment 67219138


Maybe...? But that would be some serious foresight...
Click to expand...

I guess that includes me as a second amendment guy. You would be correct. Along with a 1st, 3rd, 4th, and so on.

Predict modern weapons? Maybe, maybe not. But they did recognize the advantage of firepower and were working on it. Which was the point.

No real difference than flight. Did the early inventors envision 1500 MPH jets able to carry thousands of pounds? Probably not, but they still thought of being able to leap tall buildings at a single bound.
 
jimbo said:
I guess that includes me as a second amendment guy. You would be correct. Along with a 1st, 3rd, 4th, and so on.

Predict modern weapons? Maybe, maybe not. But they did recognize the advantage of firepower and were working on it. Which was the point.

No real difference than flight. Did the early inventors envision 1500 MPH jets able to carry thousands of pounds? Probably not, but they still thought of being able to leap tall buildings at a single bound.
Click to expand...

How did those photos get in there after I posted?
 
jimbo said:
I guess that includes me as a second amendment guy. You would be correct. Along with a 1st, 3rd, 4th, and so on.

Predict modern weapons? Maybe, maybe not. But they did recognize the advantage of firepower and were working on it. Which was the point.

No real difference than flight. Did the early inventors envision 1500 MPH jets able to carry thousands of pounds? Probably not, but they still thought of being able to leap tall buildings at a single bound.
Click to expand...

But did the guys creating the airplane, even the first war planes of the WW1, envision the destructive potential of a jet that could carry a nuclear payload? It's more the destructive potential that is at question. Could someone in the age of muskets, even with the systems mentioned, ever imagine that a single person could have the destructive potential that one has today,with available weapons? I mean, a 2nd amendment purist could easily justify having a plane that could drop a nuke, and the nuke too... The only limitation would be budget... Is that what was intended? Where's the line? Is there one? Should there be?

Anyway, I don't know if whether or not the founding fathers envisioned the destructive potential of today's weapons factors into the discussion, in terms of the validity of the 2nd amendment. Laws change with circumstances, there is lots of precedent, even in the constitution...though that's a lot harder than changing basic laws. And being from a different country, and being pro-responsible-gun-ownership, I don't know that I necessarily wish to weigh in...not my business. I think you guys have some gun-related problems you need to work out, but I think repealing the 2nd, as the most hard core anti gun folks would like, is impossible...you can't put toothpaste back in the tube. I just find the process of addressing those issues, as well as the history behind it, interesting, so thanks for indulging me in the conversation. :)
 
OlNate said:
But did the guys creating the airplane, even the first war planes of the WW1, envision the destructive potential of a jet that could carry a nuclear payload? It's more the destructive potential that is at question. Could someone in the age of muskets, even with the systems mentioned, ever imagine that a single person could have the destructive potential that one has today,with available weapons? I mean, a 2nd amendment purist could easily justify having a plane that could drop a nuke, and the nuke too... The only limitation would be budget... Is that what was intended? Where's the line? Is there one? Should there be?

Anyway, I don't know if whether or not the founding fathers envisioned the destructive potential of today's weapons factors into the discussion, in terms of the validity of the 2nd amendment. Laws change with circumstances, there is lots of precedent, even in the constitution...though that's a lot harder than changing basic laws. And being from a different country, and being pro-responsible-gun-ownership, I don't know that I necessarily wish to weigh in...not my business. I think you guys have some gun-related problems you need to work out, but I think repealing the 2nd, as the most hard core anti gun folks would like, is impossible...you can't put toothpaste back in the tube. I just find the process of addressing those issues, as well as the history behind it, interesting, so thanks for indulging me in the conversation. :)
Click to expand...

I wasn't necessarily talking about airplanes, but flight. Imagined and predicted long before WW I.

I would expect that the Wright Brothers fully expected airplanes to improve over time. I would also expect that many carrying a musket wished for a weapon that they didn't have to spend so much time getting ready for the next shot.

Nuclear weapons? Probably not. But the guy firing the 20 MM cannon and loading it with a stick surely would have thought about how nice it would be to have a 40mm cannon that he could without exposing himself to enemy musket fire.

I have no doubt that when the founders penned "shall not be infringed" they meant "shall not be infringed".
 
Here's a good topic. Sentient guns, some how people are saying guns kill people, which is a load of crap. People kill people a gun can't pull its own trigger. If you say "well in the movies when someone dies the gun starts shooting" that's muscle reflexes. I'd like to see an anti-gun person's counter to this.
 
JLee1977 said:
Girandoni air rifle was invented in 1779 (12 years before the Bill of Rights was finally added to the Constitution). It features a 20 round tubular magazine, which can be quickly reloaded and is capable of firing 30 rounds before its air reservoir needs to be refilled. It is a repeating rifle and its magazine is gravity fed.

If advancements in firearm technology was a concern why is there no record of attempts to pass federal legislation up until 1934?
Click to expand...

Although I see you're point and I'm very pro-gun, air rifles are not technically firearms. The projectile has to propelled by combustion.
 
OlNate said:
But did the guys creating the airplane, even the first war planes of the WW1, envision the destructive potential of a jet that could carry a nuclear payload? It's more the destructive potential that is at question. Could someone in the age of muskets, even with the systems mentioned, ever imagine that a single person could have the destructive potential that one has today,with available weapons? I mean, a 2nd amendment purist could easily justify having a plane that could drop a nuke, and the nuke too... The only limitation would be budget... Is that what was intended? Where's the line? Is there one? Should there be?

Anyway, I don't know if whether or not the founding fathers envisioned the destructive potential of today's weapons factors into the discussion, in terms of the validity of the 2nd amendment. Laws change with circumstances, there is lots of precedent, even in the constitution...though that's a lot harder than changing basic laws. And being from a different country, and being pro-responsible-gun-ownership, I don't know that I necessarily wish to weigh in...not my business. I think you guys have some gun-related problems you need to work out, but I think repealing the 2nd, as the most hard core anti gun folks would like, is impossible...you can't put toothpaste back in the tube. I just find the process of addressing those issues, as well as the history behind it, interesting, so thanks for indulging me in the conversation. :)
Click to expand...

To your nuclear payload comment, no, but I'm sure they imagined a bigger bomb.
 
OlNate said:
No, I haven't...they look fun, though. But neither are repeating rifles, by definition. Just more barrels... Would be fun additions to the collection, though...not sure if the puckel gun would be legal up here, though...hehe... But maybe.
Click to expand...

What about the .40 caliber Austrian gun made in the 1790's that Lewis & Clark took with them to impress the locals.
The Austrians used from 1780 to 1815 to very good effect against Napoleon.
and it was an air rifle that fired a .40 caliber ball repeatedly for about 20 shots.
now let me find a link...
I saw You Tube video on it that would blow your theory out of the water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
 
Last edited:
OlNate said:
You saw the #notantigun, right? First patented repeating rifle was in 1860............... The devil's in the details, just seemed like an interesting distinction, but less so with the knee jerk aggression.
Click to expand...

maybe the first US patent, but this 20 shot repeater was in active military use in 1780 in Austria, and yes, a few of them made it over here as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
 
PleasantValley said:
What about the .40 caliber Austrian gun made in the 1790's that Lewis & Clark took with them to impress the locals.
The Austrians used from 1780 to 1815 to very good effect against Napoleon.
and it was an air rifle that fired a .40 caliber ball repeatedly for about 20 shots.
now let me find a link...
I saw You Tube video on it that would blow your theory out of the water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
Click to expand...

PleasantValley said:
maybe the first US patent, but this 20 shot repeater was in active military use in 1780 in Austria, and yes, a few of them made it over here as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
Click to expand...

Yup, I checked those out, thanks to references from other folks...but if you look at them, yes, they repeat, but the mechanism to do so is so cumbersome that they were abandoned. It's a far cry from what we consider a repeating rifle today.... Cool, no question, again, guys, I'm not anti-gun... I think it would be a lot of fun to fire one of these bad boys off...but given the re-pump time or infrastructure required to operate these continuously, it makes them more of a novelty than anything else.

One thing I could not find was what percentage of the Austrian military actually used these... Were they standard issue, or was this more for a specialized force? Given the time it would take to set them up again after expending their air supply, I would imagine some pretty interesting tactics / formations would be required to win anything... "Ok, duck for the first 30 shots, boys, after that we'll have like 10 minutes to mop them up".... hehe

Basically, though a very cool piece of old tech, I still have serious doubts as to whether or not it would provide a crystal clear picture of what guns would be today, and ok, it repeats...but compared to a Henry repeater, which could be reloaded in seconds by a competent user, and in a minute or two by a novice (important to note for comparison purposes as well, given the amount of training required to operate the air gun), I don't know, it seems worlds apart.
 
OlNate said:
Yup, I checked those out, thanks to references from other folks...but if you look at them, yes, they repeat, but the mechanism to do so is so cumbersome that they were abandoned. It's a far cry from what we consider a repeating rifle today.... Cool, no question, again, guys, I'm not anti-gun... I think it would be a lot of fun to fire one of these bad boys off...but given the re-pump time or infrastructure required to operate these continuously, it makes them more of a novelty than anything else.

One thing I could not find was what percentage of the Austrian military actually used these... Were they standard issue, or was this more for a specialized force? Given the time it would take to set them up again after expending their air supply, I would imagine some pretty interesting tactics / formations would be required to win anything... "Ok, duck for the first 30 shots, boys, after that we'll have like 10 minutes to mop them up".... hehe

Basically, though a very cool piece of old tech, I still have serious doubts as to whether or not it would provide a crystal clear picture of what guns would be today, and ok, it repeats...but compared to a Henry repeater, which could be reloaded in seconds by a competent user, and in a minute or two by a novice (important to note for comparison purposes as well, given the amount of training required to operate the air gun), I don't know, it seems worlds apart.
Click to expand...

I used to seriously be into airguns and read everything I could-in one of the early (mid to late 70s) Beeman Precision Airguns catalog, it noted that Napoleon issued orders that enemies caught with those airguns were to be summarily shot. He apparently thought they were 'unfair'
 
OlNate said:
Do you think these qualify as repeating rifles? The Belton rearing flintlock, from what I can tell, was just a number of barrels firing at once from a single charge, and the other was an air rifle...not gunpowder at all. In my mind, the first real repeating rifle, the one that was more than just a quickly abandoned gimmick, was the Henry repeating rifle...

(Not trying to be snooty, as I've been accused in this thread, I'm actually interested...hehe)
Click to expand...
This would qualify as a repeater, the first example was a Chinese design from IIRC the 1400s, it's not about what is considered a repetitive shot today, but rather a shot pattern based on one effort and multiple rounds.
 
OlNate said:
No, I didn't miss any point, was just talking in a different direction for a sec. I didn't see any point in debating the OP...the second anyone steps over the line on the second amendment down there, there will be war, there's no way that you guys will let it happen, so why the fuss and frenzy? Just seemed like an opportunity to talk about something interesting.... Not for nothing, but you 2nd amendment guys are a touchy bunch..........

Anyway, regardless, I still think saying that either of these two systems could predict modern day rifles is like saying this:

View attachment 67219137

allowed people to envision this:

View attachment 67219138


Maybe...? But that would be some serious foresight...
Click to expand...

You don't seem to have a very high opinion of people's imaginations. Ask H.G. Wells and Jules Verne what they envisioned long before anyone ever saw an airplane.
 
TurtleDude said:
we have edified the board about that repeater that allowed about 9 shots a minute.
Click to expand...
I figured, the Chinese invented a multiple projectile weapon many centuries before the US existed. It's amazing to see how badly the "founders couldn't have envisioned........" argument goes. Hell, merchant vessels were equipped with cannon from the beginning, that was the height of artillery at the time and got a thumbs up from the founders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom