Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun control... Musket argument.

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gun control... Musket argument.

    I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

    Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

    And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?

    Non fui. Fui. Non sum. Non curo.

  • #2

    guntards

     

     

    original.gif

    Attached Files

    Comment


  • #3
    Dumb thread is dumb
    "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

    Comment


    • GTRMAN
      GTRMAN commented
      Editing a comment

      LithiumZero wrote:
      Dumb thread is dumb

      Please explain. Your reply was less than brilliant and I believe my points are quite valid.


  • #4
    Anyone talking about muskets is not talking about anything other than hypothetical bs just for the sake of arguing. It's the same as the other side talking about confiscation. Stupid conversations based no where near any kind of reality. Dumb thread is indeed dumb
    "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

    Comment


    • Kreatorkind
      Kreatorkind commented
      Editing a comment
      I want a war elephant with rocket launchers mounted on it's back!

    • GTRMAN
      GTRMAN commented
      Editing a comment

      LithiumZero wrote:
      Anyone talking about muskets is not talking about anything other than hypothetical bs just for the sake of arguing. It's the same as the other side talking about confiscation. Stupid conversations based no where near any kind of reality. Dumb thread is indeed dumb

      I'm sorry you cannot see the validity of the thread. Which begs the question, " If the thread is dumb, why are you posting here?".

      My questions are geared toward a paticular group of people who have made a specific argument which I addressedin the OP. If your reading comprehension is such that you are unable to comprehend that, then I suggest remedial courses because if you never made such an argument, then I wasn't addressing you.


    • Used2BMarkoh
      Used2BMarkoh commented
      Editing a comment

      LithiumZero wrote:
      ... It's the same as the other side talking about confiscation. ...

      That's what the debate is about - selective confiscation.  who should be allowed to own what, that's what the debate is about.  Calling it 'gun control' as if it had to do with controlling guns, like 'controlling a car' or 'controlling a wild bear' - it's really a bit disingenuous.

       


  • #5
    GTRMAN, nobody is seriously making an argument to only allow muskets, but just to humor you, let me correct a few of your fallacies:
     
    (1) In the hands of someone well-practiced, a black-powder rifle is extremely accurate...in the hands of someone who doesn't practice enough, ANY gun, from a BB gun to a Howitzer, is extremely innaccurate.
     
    (2) Nobody will ever use a couple of blunderbusses to pull off a crowd slaughter.
     
    If you want to attempt to start an intelligent conversation about the issue, please start w/o such ridiculous red-herrings and strawmen.

    Comment


    • GTRMAN
      GTRMAN commented
      Editing a comment

      Graeca wrote:
      GTRMAN, nobody is seriously making an argument to only allow muskets, but just to humor you, let me correct a few of your fallacies:
       
      (1) In the hands of someone well-practiced, a black-powder rifle is extremely accurate...in the hands of someone who doesn't practice enough, ANY gun, from a BB gun to a Howitzer, is extremely innaccurate.
       
      (2) Nobody will ever use a couple of blunderbusses to pull off a crowd slaughter.
       
      If you want to attempt to start an intelligent conversation about the issue, please start w/o such ridiculous red-herrings and strawmen.

      1. If they aree not making the argument seriously, then perhaps you should address them and ask them to stop.

      2. If it's not a serious statement, then why do they keep saying it?

      3. I'm not talking about modern powder rifles in the op. I specifically mentioned muvskets which were available in the 1700's and 1800's. Seems you are the one who built a strawman.

       

       


  • #6
    Markoh..... Types a lot yet says nothing. Piss off. Your sky fairy hates killing unless he's doing it. Be a good lapdog and do what he says. Leave the talk of killing machines to the rest of us
    "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

    Comment


    • #7

      GTRMAN wrote:

      I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

      Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

      And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?


      I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.

      Comment


      • Used2BMarkoh
        Used2BMarkoh commented
        Editing a comment

        moonlightin wrote:



        I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.


        Accuracy is a function of the shooter, precision is a function of the weapon. 

         


      • GTRMAN
        GTRMAN commented
        Editing a comment

        moonlightin wrote:

        GTRMAN wrote:

        I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

        Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

        And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?


        I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.


        Then those people should make their point more clear IF that's what they really mean.

         

        Muskets of that era are inherently inaccurate even in the hands of the most experienced marksmen.


      • Disemboweler
        Disemboweler commented
        Editing a comment

        moonlightin wrote:

        GTRMAN wrote:

        I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

        Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

        And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?


        I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.


        Recent legal opinion has said that sawn off shotguns are illegal, because they do not constitute a standard military weapon. In other words, having military weapons is totally cool.


    • #8

      Put the musket in the busket!

       

       

       

       

      Comment


      • #9

        Take a moment and imagine what weaponry will be like 200 years from now (hypothetical, of course.  Mankind will have blown itself up before then.)  Take two moments.  Now, make up laws today governing those future weapons.  Makes sense, right?

        Comment


        • yumpy
          yumpy commented
          Editing a comment

          Joe Bleek wrote:

          Take a moment and imagine what weaponry will be like 200 years from now (hypothetical, of course.  Mankind will have blown itself up before then.)  Take two moments.  Now, make up laws today governing those future weapons.  Makes sense, right?


          R2D2's psycho brother, lol!!

           

          a weapon is still a weapon, phazer or disrupter. 

          ban rocks and flint. 


      • #10

        GTRMAN wrote:
         Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now....

        Dumb thread of the month.

        Do you realize that anyone with a musket would only get off one shot before being tackled? Do you realize that the most musket shots anyone could ever get off is four in one minute! If muskets were all we had there would be no mass shootings, period.

         

        But of course there will never be just muskets so it's a dumb thread, a double dumb thread.

        "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4715

        Comment


        • Used2BMarkoh
          Used2BMarkoh commented
          Editing a comment

          Minning Around wrote:

          GTRMAN wrote:
           Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now....

          Dumb thread of the month.

          Do you realize that anyone with a musket would only get off one shot before being tackled? Do you realize that the most musket shots anyone could ever get off is four in one minute! If muskets were all we had there would be no mass shootings, period.

           

          But of course there will never be just muskets so it's a dumb thread, a double dumb thread.


          Well, I will agree that anybody who thinks they're going to get people to think on here is pretty dumb.  I somehow don't think we have a lot of retirees from the chess club here.

          "I say, ol' chap, humor me:  Suppose we only had muskets..."

          "Oh, shut up, you moron.  You look like a girl in those knickers and you parked next to a pickup truck with an NRA sticker"

           


        • thankyou
          thankyou commented
          Editing a comment

          This is in response to Opposite Day's great comment on the tech that the founding fathers had at their disposal.  I forgot to hit the quote button.


          "When Thomas Jefferson took the Oath of Office as the third president of the United States on March 4, 1801, the nation contained 5,308,483 persons.  Nearly one out of five was a Negro slave.  Although the boundaries stretched from the Atlantic to the Mississippi River, from the Great Lakes to nearly the gulf of Mexico (roughly a thousand miles by a thousand miles), only a small area was occupied.  Two-thirds of the people lived within fifty miles of tidewater.  Only four roads crossed the Appalachian Mountains, one from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, another from the Potomac to the Monongahela River, a third through Virginia southwestward to Knoxville, Tennessee, and a fourth through the Cumberland Gap into Kentucky.

          The potential of the United States was, if not limitless, certainly vast - and vastly greater if the nation could add the trans-Mississippi portion of the continent to its territory.  In 1801, however, it was not clear the country could hold on to its existing territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, much less add more western land. 

           

          Fewer then one in ten Americans, about half a million people, lived west of the Appalachian Mountains, but as the Whiskey Rebellion had shown, they were already disposed to think of themselves as the germ of an independent nation that would find its outlet to the world marketplace not across the mountains to the Atlantic Seaboard, but by the Ohio and Mississippi river system to the Gulf of Mexico.  This threat of secession was quite real.  The United States was only eighteen years old, had itself come into existance by an act of rebellion and secession, had changed its from of government just twelve years earlier, and thus was in a fluid political situation.

           

          In addition, it seemed unlikely that one nation could govern an entire continent.  The distances were just too great.  A critical fact in the world of 1801 was that nothing moved faster than the speed of a horse.  No human being, no manufactured item, no bushel of wheat, no side of beef (or any beef on the hoof, for that matter), no letter, no information, no idea, order, or instruction of any kind moved faster.  Nothing had ever moved any faster, and, as far as Jefferson's contemporaries were able to tell, nothing ever would.

           

          And except on a race track, no horse moved very fast.  Road conditions in the United States ranged from bad to abominable, and there weren't very many of them."

           

          ...Steve Ambrose, Undaunted Courage

           

           


      • #11

        2013 Amendment to the Constitution:  Binary plasma incinerators can only be obtained through holographic brain scans and two years of off-planet policing towards citizenship application.

        Comment


        • Zig al-din
          Zig al-din commented
          Editing a comment

          Joe Bleek wrote:

          2013 Amendment to the Constitution:  Binary plasma incinerators can only be obtained through holographic brain scans and two years of off-planet policing towards citizenship application.


           

          There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment limiting personal ownership of laser cannons that will vaporize orbiting starcruisers!! Woohoo!   


      • #12

        lol

         

        Post the results! 

        Comment


        • #13

          It really is moot when you consider the fact that what a group of wealthy ****************************s, some of whom owned slaves, said over two hundred years ago should not be an indicator to what ought to be the case in today's society.

          Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky


          Whenever you hear anything said very confidently, the first thing that should come to mind is, wait a minute is that true?

          Comment


          • Zig al-din
            Zig al-din commented
            Editing a comment

            radomu wrote:

            It really is moot when you consider the fact that what a group of wealthy ****************************s, some of whom owned slaves, said over two hundred years ago should not be an indicator to what ought to be the case in today's society.


             

            Tsk, tsk, Plato's Republic, my boy...


        • #14
          Markoh stop being a drama queen. Your panties are all in a wad. Your rants make it 100% obvious that I am far more sane than you are. Comedy gold
          "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

          Comment



          Working...
          X