Quote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 29, 2015, 08:16:56 AMQuote from: Septy on August 29, 2015, 08:09:09 AMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 29, 2015, 05:51:35 AMQuote from: Verbatim on August 29, 2015, 12:12:08 AMQuote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.not to mention, their whole idea of a "firearm" was a fucking musketI've typed up in depth replies to this before... we've had repeating firearms since the late 1600's if I'm remembering right.Uhh the cartridge which is basically needed for that wasn't invented until about 1860Okay, I found the post, but it was more on the reactionary nature of firearms laws than the technology itself, but you're free to look into the history yourself.QuoteRepeating firearm technology was developed as early as 1680, and by the early 1800's we saw widespread use of the Girandoni air rifle (which if not for antique exemptions, the rifle would be illegal to own in states that have certain "high capacity" bans). There wasn't a federal ruling restricting firearms of any kind until 1934, well after the introduction of fully automatic arms as a reactionary measure to combat mafia related violence. The next biggest federal act happened in 1968 as a reactionary measure to prevent someone else from mail-ordering a crappy Italian bolt-action service rifle from an NRA magazine and shooting the president... again.That's a lot of time and a lot of development without change to laws or the amendment itself, many of the founding fathers would have saw repeating rifles before they died in the first two decades of the 1800's.Just a question out of curiosity, but how common were those guns back when the second amendment was drafted? I've never made the argument of "but muskets" myself as I don't think it has much merit, but I always see responses among the lines of "but guns x and y already existed and they were more effective than simple muskets". I don't doubt that those claims are correct, but I always wonder how commonly used those guns actually were. From what I've gathered, they seem a little too expensive and rare for the everyday common man to own. Tl;dr am I wrong in thinking that the more modern, semi/full auto firearms were a rarity or exclusive tool circa 1790?
Quote from: Septy on August 29, 2015, 08:09:09 AMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 29, 2015, 05:51:35 AMQuote from: Verbatim on August 29, 2015, 12:12:08 AMQuote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.not to mention, their whole idea of a "firearm" was a fucking musketI've typed up in depth replies to this before... we've had repeating firearms since the late 1600's if I'm remembering right.Uhh the cartridge which is basically needed for that wasn't invented until about 1860Okay, I found the post, but it was more on the reactionary nature of firearms laws than the technology itself, but you're free to look into the history yourself.QuoteRepeating firearm technology was developed as early as 1680, and by the early 1800's we saw widespread use of the Girandoni air rifle (which if not for antique exemptions, the rifle would be illegal to own in states that have certain "high capacity" bans). There wasn't a federal ruling restricting firearms of any kind until 1934, well after the introduction of fully automatic arms as a reactionary measure to combat mafia related violence. The next biggest federal act happened in 1968 as a reactionary measure to prevent someone else from mail-ordering a crappy Italian bolt-action service rifle from an NRA magazine and shooting the president... again.That's a lot of time and a lot of development without change to laws or the amendment itself, many of the founding fathers would have saw repeating rifles before they died in the first two decades of the 1800's.
Quote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 29, 2015, 05:51:35 AMQuote from: Verbatim on August 29, 2015, 12:12:08 AMQuote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.not to mention, their whole idea of a "firearm" was a fucking musketI've typed up in depth replies to this before... we've had repeating firearms since the late 1600's if I'm remembering right.Uhh the cartridge which is basically needed for that wasn't invented until about 1860
Quote from: Verbatim on August 29, 2015, 12:12:08 AMQuote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.not to mention, their whole idea of a "firearm" was a fucking musketI've typed up in depth replies to this before... we've had repeating firearms since the late 1600's if I'm remembering right.
Quote from: Prime CIA on August 28, 2015, 11:52:42 PMReminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.not to mention, their whole idea of a "firearm" was a fucking musket
Reminder that the Bill of Rights (those unalienable things people keep talking about) speaks of arms in general, not specifically firearms. The framers were very certain in the vagueness of language they used so that specific rights couldn't be taken away via loopholes.
Repeating firearm technology was developed as early as 1680, and by the early 1800's we saw widespread use of the Girandoni air rifle (which if not for antique exemptions, the rifle would be illegal to own in states that have certain "high capacity" bans). There wasn't a federal ruling restricting firearms of any kind until 1934, well after the introduction of fully automatic arms as a reactionary measure to combat mafia related violence. The next biggest federal act happened in 1968 as a reactionary measure to prevent someone else from mail-ordering a crappy Italian bolt-action service rifle from an NRA magazine and shooting the president... again.That's a lot of time and a lot of development without change to laws or the amendment itself, many of the founding fathers would have saw repeating rifles before they died in the first two decades of the 1800's.
I'd develop a way to 3d print uppers.
Quote from: Ironically on August 30, 2015, 06:17:25 PMI'd develop a way to 3d print uppers.That would be nice. It would save on a lot of the materials wasted with one of the current methods of machining uppers. I'd be curious as to how they'd do it though.
Hand everyone a sword and armor. If they want to deal with each other. It must be through glorious combat!
How would you help gun control in the U.S.
