Nope ......... I can't see Trump there!

Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.

kingdragonfly:

Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.

From what I've seen, for high kill rates, US revolutionary soldiers were more likely to use their bayonets than shooting.

One of the quickest and deadliest US revolutionary soldiers was Samuel Whittemore.

In anticipation of an ambush, he loaded his musket, and two dueling pistols. Then he ambushed the 47th Regiment from behind a stone wall. He shot three times and killed three, before they reached him. He could not get off a second volley.

It's claimed he took about 20 seconds to reload one gun.

Fast forward to Las Vegas, a single crazy individual shot 90 shots in 10 seconds.

My point is the kill rate for a single armed person could not have been envisionage by the US founding fathers 241 years ago.

Add that at the time of adopting the 2nd Amendment most of the US was wilderness. There was no organised police, help was probably days or weeks away and they were in the process of invading multiple Nations on the continent. They needed weapons for hunting and self defence. Most of that does not apply now and it is time the US reviewed the amendment.

kingdragonfly:

Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.

From what I've seen, for high kill rates, US revolutionary soldiers were more likely to use their bayonets than shooting.

One of the quickest and deadliest US revolutionary soldiers was Samuel Whittemore.

In anticipation of an ambush, he loaded his musket, and two dueling pistols. Then he ambushed the 47th Regiment from behind a stone wall. He shot three times and killed three, before they reached him. He could not get off a second volley.

It's claimed he took about 20 seconds to reload one gun.

Fast forward to Las Vegas, a single crazy individual shot 90 shots in 10 seconds.

My point is the kill rate for a single armed person could not have been envisionage by the US founding fathers 241 years ago.

There was the Lewis and Clark Expedition that Thomas Jefferson commissioned.

The Rifle used was a Windbüchse a 20 shot rifle while it was powered by air it was defiantly lethal.

If we look at the quotes I posted before the founding fathers clearly didn't want the right to bear arms just for external threats or hunting.

The tyranny of local government was clearly a concern and the right to defend ones self against local threats.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense" - Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers, NO.28

"The Laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"-Thomas Jefferson Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1774-1776

MikeB4:

 

kingdragonfly:

Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.

From what I've seen, for high kill rates, US revolutionary soldiers were more likely to use their bayonets than shooting.

One of the quickest and deadliest US revolutionary soldiers was Samuel Whittemore.

In anticipation of an ambush, he loaded his musket, and two dueling pistols. Then he ambushed the 47th Regiment from behind a stone wall. He shot three times and killed three, before they reached him. He could not get off a second volley.

It's claimed he took about 20 seconds to reload one gun.

Fast forward to Las Vegas, a single crazy individual shot 90 shots in 10 seconds.

My point is the kill rate for a single armed person could not have been envisionage by the US founding fathers 241 years ago.

 

 

 

Add that at the time of adopting the 2nd Amendment most of the US was wilderness. There was no organised police, help was probably days or weeks away and they were in the process of invading multiple Nations on the continent. They needed weapons for hunting and self defence. Most of that does not apply now and it is time the US reviewed the amendment.

 

Your modern interpretation and bias overlays that. To them, they were clearing space.

Geektastic:

MikeB4:

kingdragonfly:

Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.

From what I've seen, for high kill rates, US revolutionary soldiers were more likely to use their bayonets than shooting.

One of the quickest and deadliest US revolutionary soldiers was Samuel Whittemore.

In anticipation of an ambush, he loaded his musket, and two dueling pistols. Then he ambushed the 47th Regiment from behind a stone wall. He shot three times and killed three, before they reached him. He could not get off a second volley.

It's claimed he took about 20 seconds to reload one gun.

Fast forward to Las Vegas, a single crazy individual shot 90 shots in 10 seconds.

My point is the kill rate for a single armed person could not have been envisionage by the US founding fathers 241 years ago.

 

Add that at the time of adopting the 2nd Amendment most of the US was wilderness. There was no organised police, help was probably days or weeks away and they were in the process of invading multiple Nations on the continent. They needed weapons for hunting and self defence. Most of that does not apply now and it is time the US reviewed the amendment.

 

Your modern interpretation and bias overlays that. To them, they were clearing space.

Stan: There was the Lewis and Clark Expedition that Thomas Jefferson commissioned.

The Rifle used was a Windbüchse a 20 shot rifle while it was powered by air it was defiantly lethal.

kingdragonfly:

Stan: There was the Lewis and Clark Expedition that Thomas Jefferson commissioned.

 

The Rifle used was a Windbüchse a 20 shot rifle while it was powered by air it was defiantly lethal.

Not to be pedantic, but that was really a demonstration weapon;

When the bill of rights was written, and the second amendment, it was only used in Austria.

Even when Lewis and Clark came along some years later, it was used to intimidate Native Americans in highly orchestrated demonstrations.

It was way too delicate to actually use for anything practical.

As an aside, the second amendment was called an "amendment" by the founding father;

They didn't choose to call it "the irrevocable."

It was in the particular Lewis and Clark expedition but it was used in warfare, I guess point being that in the life time of the founding fathers they did see multi shot weapons and to assume that they never thought weapons would improve over time is a tad naive.

I guess it depends the on your perspective on the constitution its the founding document of the United States of America, changing the right to free speech would be near on impossible as would the right to bear arms because of the amount of patriotism.

Like I suggested if you want gun laws to change it can't be sudden strict gun control: Because A: It wouldn't work B: It would probably send the country into a civil war as many Americans believe in the right to bear arms.

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.

Stan:

 

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.

 

Trump and guns should both not be subject to partisan politics.

If you want to say something positive about Trump, feel free.  The "echo chamber" you think you see is just a simple fact that on rational analysis, justifying his position on basically everything usually falls apart.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

People seem to accept that doesn't allow you to carry a rocket launcher around a shopping mall, or a hand gun into a schoolroom or aeroplane - so the "right" is "infringed" routinely, as matter of course.

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.

 

 

Trump and guns should both not be subject to partisan politics.

 

If you want to say something positive about Trump, feel free.  The "echo chamber" you think you see is just a simple fact that on rational analysis, justifying his position on basically everything usually falls apart.

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

People seem to accept that doesn't allow you to carry a rocket launcher around a shopping mall, or a hand gun into a schoolroom or aeroplane - so the "right" is "infringed" routinely, as matter of course.

 

 

 

This is what im talking about . 

Why do a large % of Americans seemingly disagree with you? Its a different culture.

What about the large youtube (millions of subscribers) that agrees with a large amount of what trump is doing? Are people following them not rational? Are you that arrogant to assume your position is the definition of rationality? 

This is my point about gun control you CAN'T just impose strict gun regulations on the USA all at once its not possible because of there culture thats rooted in the constitution.

If you want to change its needs to be done slowly and carefully and should not infringe on the millions of responsible gun owners. 

Stan:

 

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.

 

 

Trump and guns should both not be subject to partisan politics.

 

If you want to say something positive about Trump, feel free.  The "echo chamber" you think you see is just a simple fact that on rational analysis, justifying his position on basically everything usually falls apart.

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

People seem to accept that doesn't allow you to carry a rocket launcher around a shopping mall, or a hand gun into a schoolroom or aeroplane - so the "right" is "infringed" routinely, as matter of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what im talking about . 

 

Why do a large % of Americans seemingly disagree with you? Its a different culture.

 

What about the large youtube (millions of subscribers) that agrees with a large amount of what trump is doing? Are people following them not rational? Are you that arrogant to assume your position is the definition of rationality? 

 

 

 

On both issues (gun control and Trump) many Americans are profoundly ignorant of how the 95% of people on the planet - who aren't Americans - live and think.

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.

 

 

Trump and guns should both not be subject to partisan politics.

 

If you want to say something positive about Trump, feel free.  The "echo chamber" you think you see is just a simple fact that on rational analysis, justifying his position on basically everything usually falls apart.

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

People seem to accept that doesn't allow you to carry a rocket launcher around a shopping mall, or a hand gun into a schoolroom or aeroplane - so the "right" is "infringed" routinely, as matter of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what im talking about . 

 

Why do a large % of Americans seemingly disagree with you? Its a different culture.

 

What about the large youtube (millions of subscribers) that agrees with a large amount of what trump is doing? Are people following them not rational? Are you that arrogant to assume your position is the definition of rationality? 

 

 

 

 

On both issues (gun control and Trump) many Americans are profoundly ignorant of how the 95% of people on the planet - who aren't Americans - live and think.

 

Ignorant to what standard? Your standard of intellectualism? Because they disagree with you? 

Its a very blanket statement. I can promise you that there are many people who are pro Trump and/or anti gun control that are more intelligent that you or I and thats just statistical.

How ever its off topic and it doesn't prove anything.