LeviF Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 So at the time of the second amendment passing, an expert marksman could get off about four rounds a minute. Maybe five. A fully automatic gets off, what, 500? I just saw 540. 9 per second. I'm sure this is what the founding fathers wanted to protect. Again, a canard with no grounding in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 The definition of "terrorism" is NOT "something that scares people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Washington PostVerified account @washingtonpost 19m19 minutes ago In wake of Las Vegas shootings, no plans to bring gun silencer bill to House floor, Ryan says Stephen MillerVerified account @redsteeze 14m14 minutes ago Stephen Miller Retweeted Washington Post He doesn't plan to bring a bill banning bananas either. Both played an equal part in the vegas shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 So at the time of the second amendment passing, an expert marksman could get off about four rounds a minute. Maybe five. A fully automatic gets off, what, 500? I just saw 540. 9 per second. I'm sure this is what the founding fathers wanted to protect. The founding fathers wanted a people's militia as a counter to the standing army of a nation-state. So you could argue that it's EXACTLY what they wanted to protect. You can slice-and-dice this issue any way you like, frankly. And automatics rarely fire at their cyclical rate, because of barrel heating and reloading. An automatic that "fires 500rpm" would have an effective rate more like 50 rpm (rule of thumb: effective rate = cyclical rate/10). Stephen MillerVerified account @redsteeze 14m14 minutes ago Stephen Miller Retweeted Washington Post He doesn't plan to bring a bill banning bananas either. Both played an equal part in the vegas shooting. Too bad. I !@#$ing hate bananas. True story: due to the grease rationing in World War 2, shipyards had a shortage of grease for lubricating the skids to launch ships. So instead of grease, they used bananas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Again, a canard with no grounding in reality. I recently did a lot of research on guns during the revolutionary war for a project. Numerous sources and historians mentioned how long it took for expert shooters to get shots off. Four per minute was what most of them said. So I know that to be accurate. Rifles even took longer than muskets. As far as fully automatics go that nine per second was what I just read. You can debate that. Please do. I'd like to know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 can these unfunny hacks called "latenight" at least wait for the blood to be mopped up before their tired gun control Dem nonsense? we're here to be entertained, tell us jokes, funnymen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 I recently did a lot of research on guns during the revolutionary war for a project. Numerous sources and historians mentioned how long it took for expert shooters to get shots off. Four per minute was what most of them said. So I know that to be accurate. Rifles even took longer than muskets. As far as fully automatics go that nine per second was what I just read. You can debate that. Please do. I'd like to know for sure. Key word: "expert" The Prussian Army would manage 2-3 per minute (one every 30 seconds) in the 1750's, and that was considered standard as late as the Napoleonic War. Just clarifying that you're not talking about the typical rate of fire, but the extreme of expert shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 The founding fathers wanted a people's militia as a counter to the standing army of a nation-state. So you could argue that it's EXACTLY what they wanted to protect. You can slice-and-dice this issue any way you like, frankly. And automatics rarely fire at their cyclical rate, because of barrel heating and reloading. An automatic that "fires 500rpm" would have an effective rate more like 50 rpm (rule of thumb: effective rate = cyclical rate/10). Too bad. I !@#$ing hate bananas. True story: due to the grease rationing in World War 2, shipyards had a shortage of grease for lubricating the skids to launch ships. So instead of grease, they used bananas. Bananas are really a great food. Very good for people that exercise a lot. I have been eating a lot lately and this weekend I ran, worked out a lot and didn't feel tired, sore or anything Monday. I credit the bananas. And the fact I'm finally getting over an ankle injury. Nice WW2 story there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Key word: "expert" The Prussian Army would manage 2-3 per minute (one every 30 seconds) in the 1750's, and that was considered standard as late as the Napoleonic War. Just clarifying that you're not talking about the typical rate of fire, but the extreme of expert shots. I read about 30 books and that many articles on guns in 1776. Most of the top historians. Some by gun experts. That idea of the best shooters and snipers getting off at most four per minute was rampant. Almost all used that same number. Even the professional Hessians. The most I saw from anyone was eight per minute but that was twenty years later and an outlier. One or more mentioned the shooters in the armies youre talking about as most of them being very good. They were the professional soldiers. You might know this but a little fun fact that the word sniper came from the British soldiers a couple decades earlier fighting in some backwoods place, and if they could shoot down the elusive Snipe bird, their mates would call them snipers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 I recently did a lot of research on guns during the revolutionary war for a project. Numerous sources and historians mentioned how long it took for expert shooters to get shots off. Four per minute was what most of them said. So I know that to be accurate. Rifles even took longer than muskets. As far as fully automatics go that nine per second was what I just read. You can debate that. Please do. I'd like to know for sure. Oh no, you're right on those numbers. Though Tom is also right that effective rate of fire is much different than the rate that they're technically capable of firing. What I take issue with is that the founders had no idea that there would ever be rifles that could fire faster than one could shove powder and a ball down a muzzle. Such rifles already existed. And even if they didn't, I tend to think the founders were less short-sighted than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Oh no, you're right on those numbers. Though Tom is also right that effective rate of fire is much different than the rate that they're technically capable of firing. What I take issue with is that the founders had no idea that there would ever be rifles that could fire faster than one could shove powder and a ball down a muzzle. Such rifles already existed. And even if they didn't, I tend to think the founders were less short-sighted than that. Founders would have been fine with increasing the right to defending oneself from home and country invasion. They wouldn't have been fine with a lot of other things that are a complete desecration of freedom and liberty in personal action, which hopefully get overturned by the SCOTUS shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Let's just sum your post up as: "I am selfish & entitled and don't give a flyin' phuck about anybody else and my happiness is the most important. Me make a hard choice for others? No thanks, I will just offer my hollow prayers. That's easy." You should be introduced to Ben Franklin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Oh no, you're right on those numbers. Though Tom is also right that effective rate of fire is much different than the rate that they're technically capable of firing. What I take issue with is that the founders had no idea that there would ever be rifles that could fire faster than one could shove powder and a ball down a muzzle. Such rifles already existed. And even if they didn't, I tend to think the founders were less short-sighted than that. Interesting points. But people are funny about how they look at the future. A lot of people just assume that the future will be much like the present. If you look at a lot of science fiction, its really just the present with a few added technologies, not the incredible social, cultural changes that accompany technological change. And this are supposedly the "thinkers" about the future. Founders would have been fine with increasing the right to defending oneself from home and country invasion. They wouldn't have been fine with a lot of other things that are a complete desecration of freedom and liberty in personal action, which hopefully get overturned by the SCOTUS shortly. Some founders yes, some no. Let's remember the "Founders" were not the ones that added the Bill of Rights, that was Congress after the Constiution was written Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 I expect no less from a dunce like Gator, but if you would actually open the link, you would see why that statement followed. Why Did The Las Vegas Shooter Target A Country Music Festival? It was not a random choice. Support Free Speech ===> Racist Support Free Exercise of Religion ==> Bigot Support Due Process ==> Rapist Support Right to Keep/Bear Arms ==> Murderer Gosh, every time we seek to exercise our rights liberals say we're bad. keep asking me why people want a gun free country................... when 98% of mass shooting occurred in gun-free zones from 1950-2016. We must pass laws weve wanted forever that we admit wouldnt have made a difference - every Democrat and most journalists. God... So much insecurity. Are you kidding me? Are you really that so insecure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 God... So much insecurity. Are you kidding me? Are you really that so insecure? Can we slow down your rate of retardo posts to less than one per page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Can we slow down your rate of retardo posts to less than one per page? It was the founding fathers' intent for the First Amendment. They never expected the internet would allow people to be so stupid so quickly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Oh no, you're right on those numbers. Though Tom is also right that effective rate of fire is much different than the rate that they're technically capable of firing. What I take issue with is that the founders had no idea that there would ever be rifles that could fire faster than one could shove powder and a ball down a muzzle. Such rifles already existed. And even if they didn't, I tend to think the founders were less short-sighted than that. One can speculate all we want about what the founders would or wouldn't do. I just did it myself. It's an interesting exercise. I truly doubt, and this is just an opinion, that these specific guys, from everything that I have read, which is a lot, would be as steadfast about keeping the second amendment as sacred as the right and the NRA and such do now. These guys would have a very strong opinion on what is going on right now, and I very much doubt it would be I'm worried about our republic and our freedom crumbling if there werent as many guns as people, and our citizens must be able to keep automatic weapons to protect them from standing armies of nation states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Oh no, you're right on those numbers. Though Tom is also right that effective rate of fire is much different than the rate that they're technically capable of firing. What I take issue with is that the founders had no idea that there would ever be rifles that could fire faster than one could shove powder and a ball down a muzzle. Such rifles already existed. And even if they didn't, I tend to think the founders were less short-sighted than that. What's missing from this argument: - That the Founders didn't speak to restricting future use based on technological advances. Several of the key Founders were themselves inventors, and clearly knew that weaponry would improve. - That the Founders were more concerned with the "why" than the "what". The purpose of a specifically enumerated protection, instead of leaving it to the inclusion of the 10th, stresses how vital they felt that "why" was. And the "why" hasn't changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Just a point to ponder. Number of Americans killed on battlefields in all wars in history: 1,396,733 Killed by firearms in the US since 1968: 1,516,863 we are good at war! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Just a point to ponder. Number of Americans killed on battlefields in all wars in history: 1,396,733 Killed by firearms in the US since 1968: 1,516,863 This is the "passing yards," of fire arm statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts