02-04-2013 10:30 AM
Zig al-din wrote:
Now THAT is sexy. Can you do sweep pick shredding on a harpsichord?
Only one way to find out!
02-04-2013 10:30 AM
lol
Post the results!
02-04-2013 10:36 AM
It really is moot when you consider the fact that what a group of wealthy assholes, 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.
02-04-2013 10:43 AM
radomu wrote:It really is moot when you consider the fact that what a group of wealthy assholes, 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... ![]()
02-04-2013 01:28 PM
GTRMAN wrote:
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.
Bullshit...the only person making that argument is you.
2. If it's not a serious statement, then why do they keep saying it?
Who is this "they" you claim is making the argument? Give us a link, a name...anything.
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.
Bullshit...your whole tantrum is one big strawman.
02-04-2013 02:07 PM
02-04-2013 10:33 PM
moonlightin wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
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.
Which is why I said learn to shoot... that whole accuracy thing.
i've shot black powder weapons, it has a ball of lead. no riffling in the barrel, makes it way inaccurate.
weapons got more accurate when they figured that out.
that's why i wondered how anyone got killed back then.
accuracy depends on the spin of the projectile to keep it straight and on target.
not come out of the barrel and take a left. lol!! like a knuckelball.
sure u can hit something as big as a deer, but it won't be the best kill shot. usually they hit it and followed it til it bled out.
no way u could snipe with one.
02-04-2013 10:35 PM
Kreatorkind wrote:
Tom Hicks wrote:
Kreatorkind wrote:
I want a war elephant with rocket launchers mounted on it's back!
armoured combat bears!
I want one of those too!
narnia stuff? it might chap your ass.
02-04-2013 10:45 PM - edited 02-04-2013 10:57 PM
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.
02-04-2013 11:04 PM
yumpy wrote:
moonlightin wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
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.
Which is why I said learn to shoot... that whole accuracy thing.
weapons got more accurate when they figured that out.
that's why i wondered how anyone got killed back then.
They fired upon one another at much closer range back then. Plus, you had a whole line of soldiers firing a single shot at the same time while the lines behind them reloaded. They were bound to hit something.
02-04-2013 11:29 PM
Fred Fartboski wrote:
yumpy wrote:
moonlightin wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
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.
Which is why I said learn to shoot... that whole accuracy thing.
weapons got more accurate when they figured that out.
that's why i wondered how anyone got killed back then.
They fired upon one another at much closer range back then. Plus, you had a whole line of soldiers firing a single shot at the same time while the lines behind them reloaded. They were bound to hit something.
true.
that's why the brits got their asses kicked.
bright red coats and drums. facepalm.
wtf?
noble to be sure, but not that smart for fighting a people that hunt for a living.
02-05-2013 03:58 AM
Well n00b.. perhaps you should spend more time on the forum reading posts by senior members and previous threads before you call bullshit.
Graeca wrote:
GTRMAN wrote:
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.
Bullshit...the only person making that argument is you.
2. If it's not a serious statement, then why do they keep saying it?
Who is this "they" you claim is making the argument? Give us a link, a name...anything.
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.
Bullshit...your whole tantrum is one big strawman.
02-05-2013 04:01 AM
Fred Fartboski wrote:
yumpy wrote:
moonlightin wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
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.
Which is why I said learn to shoot... that whole accuracy thing.
weapons got more accurate when they figured that out.
that's why i wondered how anyone got killed back then.
They fired upon one another at much closer range back then. Plus, you had a whole line of soldiers firing a single shot at the same time while the lines behind them reloaded. They were bound to hit something.
u r a regular fuckin patton.
02-05-2013 04:54 AM
yumpy wrote:
moonlightin wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
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.
Which is why I said learn to shoot... that whole accuracy thing.
i've shot black powder weapons, it has a ball of lead. no riffling in the barrel, makes it way inaccurate.
weapons got more accurate when they figured that out.
that's why i wondered how anyone got killed back then.
accuracy depends on the spin of the projectile to keep it straight and on target.
not come out of the barrel and take a left. lol!! like a knuckelball.
sure u can hit something as big as a deer, but it won't be the best kill shot. usually they hit it and followed it til it bled out.
no way u could snipe with one.
Why would I need too? In a home invasion scenario, I wouldn't need a sniper's rifle.
02-05-2013 07:25 AM
Ed wrote:
At least this thread does away with the ol' "they didnt have atomic bombs back in the day" argument.
The fact is, the second amendment gives a reason as to why people are allowed to keep and bear arms. That reason "being necessary to the security of a free State" is the reason why nuclear weapons are not protected by the second amendment, or even muskets. Nukes will just turn the free state into a radioactive dust cloud, while muskets would be totally ineffective for the job.
So what you are saying is that I don' need nukes.
Who are you to tell me what I need and don't need.
02-05-2013 07:49 AM
yumpy wrote:true.
that's why the brits got their asses kicked.
bright red coats and drums. facepalm.
wtf?
noble to be sure, but not that smart for fighting a people that hunt for a living.
I bet a lot of it was psychology. How do you convince people to march out and face bullets anyway? It's got to be very choreographed when you've got an army of peasant conscripts thousands of miles from home.
02-05-2013 07:56 AM
02-05-2013 08:00 AM
Ed wrote:
At least this thread does away with the ol' "they didnt have atomic bombs back in the day" argument.
The fact is, the second amendment gives a reason as to why people are allowed to keep and bear arms. That reason "being necessary to the security of a free State" is the reason why nuclear weapons are not protected by the second amendment, or even muskets. Nukes will just turn the free state into a radioactive dust cloud, while muskets would be totally ineffective for the job.
LOL like gun nuts are capable of preserving the security of any state with any amount of AR-15s
02-05-2013 08:01 AM - edited 02-05-2013 08:06 AM
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
02-05-2013 08:43 AM
yumpy wrote:
Fred Fartboski wrote:
yumpy wrote:
moonlightin wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
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.
Which is why I said learn to shoot... that whole accuracy thing.
weapons got more accurate when they figured that out.
that's why i wondered how anyone got killed back then.
They fired upon one another at much closer range back then. Plus, you had a whole line of soldiers firing a single shot at the same time while the lines behind them reloaded. They were bound to hit something.
true.
that's why the brits got their asses kicked.
bright red coats and drums. facepalm.
wtf?
noble to be sure, but not that smart for fighting a people that hunt for a living.
LOL
If it wasn't for France, there might not be a United States of America.
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC