Historical realities

[olafpfj]

I've often become quite incensed at my FB feed. I work in entertainment which is generally a liberal cesspool. We often hear the ridiculous statement that the 2nd amendment is outdated and our "quaint slave owning" founders couldn't possible conceive of modern firepower. They further claim that we should only be limited to arms of the day. Keep in mind that those "arms of the day" kept much of the known world subdued quite handily.

I would like to see a scenario where an active shooter is hobbled by period weapons of 1776. To be fair so should the responding authorities. The police should have the same period technology for communication, travel and firepower. They need word of mouth, horseback and consistent black powder firearms. In a similar situation to San Bernadino would the authorities of the day fared any better?

Sure the terrorists would have slower reloads but given the equal limitations of law enforcement would it have made any difference? If the SB attack had occurred 200+ years ago would anything have been different? I say no...nothing would have changed. They killed 14 people which (personal tragedy aside) isn't actually that many given that they may have had more firepower but less time to engage.

Just throwing that out there. Tired of hearing that some of the most educated and learned men in history couldn't conceive of "modern" firepower. The hubris of modern Intellectuals is astounding.

I can carry a modern .45 S&W pistol but I worry about my switchblade and rapier. Something stinks and it isn't my pistol.

[Jago668]

Nothing would have stopped you from carrying several already loaded blackpowder weapons. So entirely possible within a short time frame to get several people. There were also "semi-automatic" weapons during that time period as well. Look up Puckle guns, and Kalthoff repeaters. Both would be rare and expensive, but possible (and around prior to the revolutionary war).

[olafpfj]

Nothing would have stopped you from carrying several already loaded blackpowder weapons. So entirely possible within a short time frame to get several people. There were also "semi-automatic" weapons during that time period as well. Look up Puckle guns, and Kalthoff repeaters. Both would be rare and expensive, but possible (and around prior to the revolutionary war).

Exactly...you would've had multiple "NY Reloads". Puckle guns and whatnot would fall under the modern equivalent of "tracking point" and other DARPA ideas that work but aren't actually ready for prime time. Stick to actual deployed technology of the day instead of what was a test bed.

I want to hear about speculation of period scenarios and even modern situations using old gear. The Paris attacks at Bataclan lasted over an hour. Could they have done the same damage given that many reported they reloaded at leisure without interference? The claim is that limited magazines require a pause in shooting where a victim could upset their OODA loop. If we went to single shot but more assailants would it matter? That is the logical solution to the single shot limitation. As long as one person is locked and loaded no one will move...right?

What I'm getting at is a dismissal of the anti "appeal to novelty". Just because guns are modern and new doesn't mean anything has changed. You could do just as well today with ancient equipment and subsequent matching manpower. An AR15 with 2 people is the same as a Brown Bess with 15. Nothing much has actually changed.

Am I wrong in this line of thinking? I don't think I am and I would love to throw it in the elitist anti gun idiots incapable of rational thought.

[Glockster]

I've often become quite incensed at my FB feed. I work in entertainment which is generally a liberal cesspool. We often hear the ridiculous statement that the 2nd amendment is outdated and our "quaint slave owning" founders couldn't possible conceive of modern firepower. They further claim that we should only be limited to arms of the day. Keep in mind that those "arms of the day" kept much of the known world subdued quite handily.

I would like to see a scenario where an active shooter is hobbled by period weapons of 1776. To be fair so should the responding authorities. The police should have the same period technology for communication, travel and firepower. They need word of mouth, horseback and consistent black powder firearms. In a similar situation to San Bernadino would the authorities of the day fared any better?

Sure the terrorists would have slower reloads but given the equal limitations of law enforcement would it have made any difference? If the SB attack had occurred 200+ years ago would anything have been different? I say no...nothing would have changed. They killed 14 people which (personal tragedy aside) isn't actually that many given that they may have had more firepower but less time to engage.

Just throwing that out there. Tired of hearing that some of the most educated and learned men in history couldn't conceive of "modern" firepower. The hubris of modern Intellectuals is astounding.

I can carry a modern .45 S&W pistol but I worry about my switchblade and rapier. Something stinks and it isn't my pistol.

And yet they have no problem whatsoever utilizing their computer to access social media for the purpose of exercising their right to free speech, even though our founding fathers never envisioned having that kind of ability to have mass communications that far surpassed the crude printing press available to the founding fathers, or what a town crier could "share." I think that the founding fathers anticipated that things would change, and that so would our capabilities. Hence why there was no mention of freedom of the press but only if using a circa 1700's printing press. Or right to bear a musket, instead of just stating arms.

[kragluver]

The 2nd Amendment does not have the word guns or firearms in it. It says arms which imply all manners of military implements. Rapid fire (in a relative sense), multi shot breechloading weapons did indeed exist in the 1780s when the US Constitution was crafted. They were just bulky and expensive. The most successful design of that day was arguably the Ferguson Rifle (a British design) that could be fired between 6-10 shots/ minute. There was also a repeating breechloading pistol that dated to the 1600's. The nay-sayers who claim the Founders could not have conceived of rapid fire weapons just don't know their history multi-barrrel weapons - the forerunner to the Gatling were just around the corner.

[Middle Age Russ]

The Founders understood that arms -- tools that can be used either offensively or defensively in interpersonal conflict -- were one of the technologies that would change over time. Some of the Founders were inventors while others were farmers, craftsmen and nascent industrialists. Many of these men would have been aware of Puckle guns and the like. Also, many of the cannon used by the Americans in the Revolutionary War were privately owned. It is telling that the term "Arms" is used in crafting the Second Amendment with no further definition -- rail guns and pulsed energy weapons are getting closer to deployment yet they fall under this term as easily as a bow, a Brown Bess, a bayonet, a 1903 Springfield, a tomahawk, an 1873 Peacemaker, a cavalry saber, a Remington 870, a Ghurka Kukri or a Glock 17.

The effectiveness of any group of men with any sort of weapons relies on tools, tactics, training and resolve. Can fighting units work effectively with single shot muzzle loaders, bayonets and swords? They did once. The technology in use now makes them relatively less effective than more contemporary tools. At the man to man level, though, the first shot/slice may decide the outcome.

[VMI77]

First off, the anti-gun crowd is at best ignorant of history and for the most part also stupid. Rapid fire high pressure air guns also existed. Air guns were around since 1580.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun

In the 17th century, air guns, in calibers .30–.51, were used to hunt big game deer and wild boar. These air rifles were charged using a pump to fill an air reservoir and gave velocities from 650 to 1,000 feet per second (200–300 m/s). They were also used in warfare; the most recognized example being the Girandoni Military Repeating Air Rifle.

https://wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

The Girardoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance, but it was eventually removed from service for several reasons. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs.

The rifle was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 lbs (4.5 kg), about the same basic size and weight as other muskets of the time. It fired a .46 caliber ball [3] (caliber is contested, original sources such as Dolleczek [4] describe the caliber as 13mm) and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls. This gravity operated design was such that the rifle had to be pointed upwards in order to drop each ball into the breech block. Unlike its contemporary, muzzle-loading muskets, which required the rifleman to stand up to reload with powder and ball, the shooter could reload a ball from the magazine by holding the rifle vertically while lying on his back and operating the ball delivery mechanism. The rifleman then could roll back into position to fire, allowing the rifleman to keep a "low profile". Contemporary regulations of 1788 required that each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, be equipped with three compressed air reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle), cleaning stick, hand pump, lead ladle, and 100 lead balls, 1 in the chamber, 19 in the magazine built into the rifle and the remaining 80 in four tin tubes. Equipment not carried attached to the rifle was held in a special leather knapsack. It was also necessary to keep the leather gaskets of the reservoir moist in order to maintain a good seal and prevent leakage.[5]

The air reservoir was in the club-shaped butt. With a full air reservoir, the Girardoni air rifle had the capacity to shoot 30 shots at useful pressure. These balls were effective to approximately 125 yards on a full air reservoir. The power declined as the air reservoir was emptied.

Thomas Jefferson, who had a little something to do with the process that yielded the Constitution, sent Lewis and Clark on their way with one of these rifles and they used it to demonstrate their fire power to the Native Americans hoping that it would prevent being attacked.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on the expedition.

Since the BIll of Rights wasn't ratified until 11 years after these rifles had been in use any anti-gun nut claiming the Founders could never have imagined this kind of 30 round "high capacity" firepower are either ignorant of history and desire to stay that way or they're liars.

The Bill of Rights amendments are the first 10 amendments of the United States Constitution. 17 amendments to the United States Constitution were proposed by Congress on March 4, 1789, 17 months after it was signed and put into effect. The Senate trimmed the list to 12 on September 25, and President Washington sent them to the states on October 2, 1789.

The ten we are so familiar with were finally ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. See the two unratified amendments.

http://www.revolutionary-war.net/bill-o ... ments.html

[The Annoyed Man]

We often hear the ridiculous statement that the 2nd amendment is outdated and our "quaint slave owning" founders couldn't possible conceive of modern firepower.

The founders couldn't have conceived of the Internet, word processing, radio, television, web and sheet fed offset presses, Word, Excel, PDF, Xerography (or even mimeography), modern acid free papers, fiberoptics, and about a million other tools for communication....... but that doesn't negate any of the protections of the First Amendment. Tell your liberal friends for me..... well, I can't say it here, but it is two words.

[Smokey]

If this had happened back then, I imagine more people would have tried to respond/take out the attacker. There was probably more self reliance and more armed people back then.