Mr. Executive Order and Chief at it again

[Gondwanaland]

When it was created, we were still dealing with single load rifles that could maybe fire a round or two per minute (I will not go down rabbit trails debating how many seconds it took to reload in 1776). We didn't even have a metallic cartridge load yet. Now we have legal weapons that can accurately fire multiple rounds per second - as fast as someone can squeeze a trigger and that can be reload by just grabbing a magazine of 10 or more bullets and sliding out the old and pushing in the new.

Are you people seriously still pushing this lie?

Ignoring for the moment that your logic means the 1st amendment shouldn't protect free speech beyond anyone using an old fashioned printing press, there were numerous guns available at the time that allowed rapid fire, multiple-round capacity. The Ferguson rifle was literally used in the Revolutionary War and was a breechloading flintlock that could fire 7 rounds a minute.

the girandoni air rifle existed within 2 years of the revolution, and provided rapid fire from a 19 round magazine.

the belton flintlock was a rapid fire gun that existed around the same time.

well before the revolution, the Puckle Gun was invented. On shipping manifests when it was transported, it was called a machine gun (IIRC the first use of that term).

So please, spare us this tired nonsense that the founders didn't understand that technology advances and that they only knew about single fire muskets.

[Gondwanaland]

as I said in another thread. These so called "ghost guns" that Biden mentioned are not something you can just buy online. You would have to make them yourself. The kits you can buy online use lower receivers that regulated and contain serial numbers. In order to buy one you have to have it, along with the various other pieces sent to a licensed FFL local gun store and fill out the same paperwork and pass the same background check as if you were buying an assembled gun. The only thing you could buy without a serial number would be if you bought a solid blank receiver, which you would have to mill out and machine yourself to make a working receiver. Meaning you would be a gunsmith or some such expert.

And pistol braces are something the ATF mandated be used on AR Pistols in place of shoulder stocks because they didn't want them being used like a rifle. WIthout them, the pistol, which has a 10 inch barrel, is harder to control meaning you can shoot something or someone you don't intend to. So banning them makes the gun less safe than before. Biden claiming to want to ban them to make the guns "less accurate" would be like if he decided to ban gun sights to make them less accurate. Stupid. If you are using a gun, it should be as under control as possible to prevent accidentally shooting someone you didn't intend to.

I know a lot of disabled people (largely vets) who use pistol braces to safely shoot.

[Cow Poke]

Are you people seriously still pushing this lie?

Ignoring for the moment that your logic means the 1st amendment shouldn't protect free speech beyond anyone using an old fashioned printing press, there were numerous guns available at the time that allowed rapid fire, multiple-round capacity. The Ferguson rifle was literally used in the Revolutionary War and was a breechloading flintlock that could fire 7 rounds a minute.

the girandoni air rifle existed within 2 years of the revolution, and provided rapid fire from a 19 round magazine.

the belton flintlock was a rapid fire gun that existed around the same time.

well before the revolution, the Puckle Gun was invented. On shipping manifests when it was transported, it was called a machine gun (IIRC the first use of that term).

So please, spare us this tired nonsense that the founders didn't understand that technology advances and that they only knew about single fire muskets.

And they didn't enact the Second Amendment because they wanted to go hunting, but because they saw the need to defend themselves from a rogue or out of control government.

[seanD]

And they didn't enact the Second Amendment because they wanted to go hunting, but because they saw the need to defend themselves from a rogue or out of control government.

Or even just against criminals intent on invading my home. If the criminal, who's obviously NOT going to abide by any gun laws, has an AK, why shouldn't I be allowed to acquire an equal or better weapon to match his weapon in order to protect myself?

[Cow Poke]

Or even just against criminals intent on invading my home. If the criminal, who's obviously NOT going to abide by any gun laws, has an AK, why shouldn't I be allowed to acquire an equal or better weapon to match his weapon to protect myself?

EGGzackly - my main point was that it was NOT so they could have hunting guns -- which is what I hear liberals say from time to time.

And all these gun laws will restrict lawful gunowners, and the criminals won't give a flyin' flip.

[oxmixmudd]

Are you people seriously still pushing this lie?

Ignoring for the moment that your logic means the 1st amendment shouldn't protect free speech beyond anyone using an old fashioned printing press, there were numerous guns available at the time that allowed rapid fire, multiple-round capacity. The Ferguson rifle was literally used in the Revolutionary War and was a breechloading flintlock that could fire 7 rounds a minute.

the girandoni air rifle existed within 2 years of the revolution, and provided rapid fire from a 19 round magazine.

the belton flintlock was a rapid fire gun that existed around the same time.

well before the revolution, the Puckle Gun was invented. On shipping manifests when it was transported, it was called a machine gun (IIRC the first use of that term).

So please, spare us this tired nonsense that the founders didn't understand that technology advances and that they only knew about single fire muskets.

And please don't pretend that the weaponry of the time was even close to what was available in the late 1800's, or now. Or that what the average citizen had available to them at the time, or even that was issued to the average soldier, was even close to as efficient at killing people as what we have today in terms of the capacity to fire multiple rounds quickly and accurately.

[seanD]

EGGzackly - my main point was that it was NOT so they could have hunting guns -- which is what I hear liberals say from time to time.

And all these gun laws will restrict lawful gunowners, and the criminals won't give a flyin' flip.

They don't think it through. Even intelligent lefties like Ox just base their arguments on meaningless lefty slogans about gun control.

[Mountain Man]

Are you people seriously still pushing this lie?

Ignoring for the moment that your logic means the 1st amendment shouldn't protect free speech beyond anyone using an old fashioned printing press, there were numerous guns available at the time that allowed rapid fire, multiple-round capacity. The Ferguson rifle was literally used in the Revolutionary War and was a breechloading flintlock that could fire 7 rounds a minute.

the girandoni air rifle existed within 2 years of the revolution, and provided rapid fire from a 19 round magazine.

the belton flintlock was a rapid fire gun that existed around the same time.

well before the revolution, the Puckle Gun was invented. On shipping manifests when it was transported, it was called a machine gun (IIRC the first use of that term).

So please, spare us this tired nonsense that the founders didn't understand that technology advances and that they only knew about single fire muskets.

If the Founders had meant muskets then they would have said muskets. Instead, they used the broad term "arms" which refers to any type of weapon.

[Cow Poke]

If the Founders had meant muskets then they would have said muskets. Instead, they used the broad term "arms" which refers to any type of weapon.

And if they intended to be able to defend themselves against a rogue or out of control government, they'd need something comparable to that rogue or out of control government.

[kccd]

And they didn't enact the Second Amendment because they wanted to go hunting, but because they saw the need to defend themselves from a rogue or out of control government.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Article 1, Section 8 specifically gives Congress the duty to put down armed insurrections. In no place in the Constitution does it state that such insurrections might be needed and related to gun ownership.

[kccd]

Or even just against criminals intent on invading my home. If the criminal, who's obviously NOT going to abide by any gun laws, has an AK, why shouldn't I be allowed to acquire an equal or better weapon to match his weapon in order to protect myself?

Why do you choose to live in such a dangerous place? How common are home invasions in your neighborhood? Sounds like a terrible place to live.

[Cow Poke]

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Article 1, Section 8 specifically gives Congress the duty to put down armed insurrections. In no place in the Constitution does it state that such insurrections might be needed and related to gun ownership.

You're cute.

[Mountain Man]

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Article 1, Section 8 specifically gives Congress the duty to put down armed insurrections. In no place in the Constitution does it state that such insurrections might be needed and related to gun ownership.

The Founding Fathers were considered insurrectionists by the English government.

[kccd]

If the Founders had meant muskets then they would have said muskets. Instead, they used the broad term "arms" which refers to any type of weapon.

But automatic weapons are banned as well as things like surface to air missiles and hand grenades, and other types of arms.

The issue is not whether there should be restricted weapons, but where we should draw that line. This is important as weapons have become more sophisticated and deadly.

[seanD]

Why do you choose to live in such a dangerous place? How common are home invasions in your neighborhood? Sounds like a terrible place to live.

Undoubtedly coming from a "privileged white liberal" living in the suburbs.