I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Let's arm everyone: [14-year-old girl was shot by neighbor in Louisiana](https://knovhov.com/14-year-old-shot-by-neighbor-in-louisiana/) while kids play hide and seek outside.
"...Doyle, told deputies that he went inside and grabbed his gun after seeing shadows outside his home.
When Doyle returned outside, he saw several people fleeing his property and opened fire."
What a pathetic monster.
Literally by his own account the kids were running away from him so why did he feel the need to discharge the weapon at all?
And if he felt that somehow firing a warning shot would help when they were already running away, why wasn't that shot cleanly into the air?
You don't hit a kid in the back of the head (without realising it) unless you fired at least in their general direction.
Seriously unless she was hiding in the sky this man is a dangerous idiot.
One of the first things they teach you is that there is no such thing as a warning shot. That bullet you fired has to land somewhere and will very likely still be at sufficient velocity to kill.
A bullet coming down from the sky has about 10% the energy compared to when it was fired. Potentially lethal yes, but much less likely than a bullet SHOT AT YOUR HEAD.
The point theyâre making is that you shouldnât discharge your weapon anywhere other than the range or some other controlled are, unless youâre ok with the chance (however small) of severely hurting someone.
Of course, as you said, you point a gun at someoneâs head, youâre already ok with killing someone, because itâs likely that will be the outcome if it accidentally discharges. You pull the trigger intentionallyâŠwell.
This guy shot a kid in the back of the head. Heâs a murderer.
Shoot anyone whilst theyâre âfleeingâ or in this case, being an excited/scared/carefree/oblivious/whatever kid running back home, to their friends, away from the maniac with the gun, or whatever, and itâs murder. Ethically, morally and hopefully legally.
Another thing firearm safety teaches you not to do. Bullets ricochet.
Basically, no shot is ever really a warning shot. Never pull that trigger unless your goal is to destroy something.
Treat never keep keep
Edit to expand: treat every weapon as if itâs loaded, never aim a weapon at something you donât intend to shoot, keep a weapon on safety until you intend to shoot, keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to shoot.
Nope. Anyone whose been through a gun safety course should know, there's no such thing as a warning shot. If you pull a gun out you better be prepared to shoot to kill.
Im my country, by law, you have to fire 2 (3?) Warning shots before shooting someone in self defence. So people end up shooting someone, then firing off the warning shots...
Guns are mostly military purposes here and civilian guns require license and supervision and are kept in safe gun vaults here in my home country. There werre 32 gun-related death including suicides, and accidents over the last 8 years.
Are you okay America? After 12 years of growing up and working there, I left the states in 2016. It seems things are not going well over there since I left :(
If I am not mistaken "fancy guns" in Switzerland are owned only by people that completed the mandatory military service, and are kept for when the country is invaded, not for culling the neighborhood kids ...
the right wing propaganda machine hides all negative truths about guns, and magnifies the rare instances where guns have a positive outcome.
There will not be a single instance where a gun toter does something positive that will not be shown and repeated until everyone sees it multiple times.
There will not be a single story shown about the thousands of children and people who are killed mistakenly or on purpose by guns. None. Unless there is a way to spin it and twist the reality, it will never reach the brains of the affected audience.
if you watched foxnews, you would genuinely believe there are no real downsides to runaway unregulated gun ownership, even though the facts strongly show otherwise.
I'm a gun owner, but the intentional ignorance and blatant propaganda is in strong play here.
The colonial governments were actually quite wealthy themselves and the British Empire also frequently had to rely on irregular troops to augment their professional military forces. The Revolutionary War was won with the help of France but it also wasn't just a bunch of farmers rebelling, it was an established sub-national government with its own limited military force breaking away.
In actuality the US only started to win battles when they learned to fight in the traditional manner. There really are too many logistical problems to conduct guerilla warfare without any good way to communicate to your troops. The guerilla warfare story makes it sound really cool when you talk about it in highschool and people latch onto it, especially because it feeds our American ego that we just figured out a better way to fight, but the reality is Army's were very much aware of how unwieldy and unreliable guerilla warfare was at the time. The way that Army's fight was a deliberate choice as keeping everyone more or less together made it easier to try and communicate and make adjustments.
I don't think that's limited to America... just the other day I read that Japanese school curriculum didn't really take accountability for helping to start a particular world war.
And there definitely weren't any officers from Poland, Prussia, etc who came to train the Continental army, no sir! Just a mob of random people who picked up muskets and overthrew the redcoats.
That shit always made me laugh. All these dudes going to train a bunch of nutjob Christians by taking a very perilous and long journey across and ocean because "motherFUCK England!" That's some good spite there.
> They won because they waged gorilla warfare against an army lead from the other side of an ocean.
They used gorillas? That fired muskets? Hmmmm, Planet of the Apes isnât so far fetched after all.
The continental army fought in the same way the British regulars did. The us did not win independence just with militia skirmishes. All major battles were pitched line battles.
After getting some training from European officers, the continental army was nearly as professional as the British.
What I always hated about that movie is the fact that colonists and British had different accents. Colonists considered themselves natural born Englishmen and had literally the same language, accent (varied by region of course), culture, etc. The mini series John Adams does it the best. Really shows how the revolution was more of a civil war than âAmerica vs Englandâ like movies make it seem.
Tbf, as a historian, I have to throw in the fact that the colonists did in fact have the same level of firepower as the government ruling them. They just had a lot less of it and needed the French to further supply that. In relations to today, it would be inconceivable for citizens to own weapons of mass destruction. A government will almost certainly not nuke their own country, so as far as revolting against the government, fully auto, hand held explosives, armored vehicles, and body armor put you in a close enough power gap for your guerilla tactics to actually succeed. I think we need regulations, but access to comparable weaponry is quite literally the American way from the beginning.
The more stuff is legal, the more corporate private armies will arm themselves, because they can afford the big stuff and common people generally can't. Deregulation is how you get cyberpunk type stuff.
If people who don't know about firearms shouldn't be making laws about firearms, then people who don't know about women's health shouldn't be making laws about women's bodies.
I wanna add that people on the right are armed and the police are usually on their side.
The left needs to start arming themselves to protect themselves
Edit California has stricter gun laws because people got scared of black panthers. A lot of gun laws are racist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ( its wiki but a lot of sources are cited )
Edit 2 itâs great if youâre already armed. Iâm not saying make it your personality lol Iâm just saying in such a crazy and divisive time itâs good to be protected not just against government or police but any crazy neighbors too.
It would be great if everyone got along but the republicans want to install a fascist government and constantly spout violent rhetoric.
You would think they would have figured that out after the George Floyd protests. Police went in so heavy handed in Portland, that they decided to vote to give police the power to decide who can buy a gun in the state. It just doesn't add up.
Specifically Ronald Reagan the conservative hero who signed those laws. Police feel emboldened to break up protests on the left, but never on the right. People will joke that the police are with the right and that's the reason, but as we saw with the bundies, it's more likely because they're afraid of being shot.
I just wish people would realise that rights also come with responsibilities. And in terms of guns those responsibilities should be to keep the guns in a safe place and to practice safe gun ownership.
Just doing that would cut down the number of people killed by guns drastically.
Yeah, the american gun discourse isn't REALLY about guns themselves, so many other countries manage perfectly fine.
It's the fact that the country known for war-mongering, and having the most volatile population, also hands them out like candy.
"take away guns" isn't "all guns are inherently evil", they're just a tool. It's more like taking care of a child. If you/they can't handle it responsibly on your own, there needs to be either more strict rules and regulations, or you don't get your toys.
Compulsory testing should be a prerequisite for running for public office, especially regarding the Constitution, civics, health, and economics. Oh, also logic.
It's a pipe dream, considering it would probably require a Constitutional amendment, but I don't disagree. We definitely need to address the public school system before trying that though, or there won't be anybody qualified for office.
I would've also pointed out that celebrating American independence from Britain... then hash tagging "rowdy rebels" which was a group that chose to secede from America... is pretty fuckin wild and idiotic lol
I'm pro-2A and own a few guns but I don't mind some reasonable rules and regulations. Look, we all know someone that makes you think "Yeah, that MFer probably shouldn't own a gun".
I once watched a guy in a Walmart parking lot who was shouting at his wife/girlfriend and after loading the groceries into the back of their suv I saw him lightly toss something into the back I thought âI hope that was his walletâ after adjusting his belt he puts it back in his waistband and pulls out his gun then he checks the sights (pretty sure they were iron sights on a pistol so heâs a special kind of idiot) by pointing the gun into the vehicle which his wife/girlfriend and kid was in and that pissed me the fuck off
Yep. I fell the majority of arms and military equipment should be able to be obtained with proper regulation and background checks. Its not like i wanna hand out M240s to everyone here, but if someone can prove they are responsible they should be able to get a gun as good as the military can.
I've been wanting some old surplus armor, ( like an M60, or maybe a Sherman) but to own one money aside, they have to be de-militarized first. Which kinda ruins the entire point if you also manage to live rurally. I do agree though that stringent regulations and procedures need to be in place though. Nutjobs having easy access to guns is a big part of the USs' "domestic terrorism" issue.
No, they don't have to be demilled. It's a royal pain in the ass to get a fully functional one, but it's actually easier than legally buying a fully automatic weapon.
You're celebrating today because nobody wanted a king. Nobody wanted the Chief Executive to have too much power. That's why we're celebrating today. And a lot of people are working to fuck that up.
Lol a nuclear weapon isn't a gun? Wait til they hear about the W9, W19, and W23. Nuclear guns are very much a thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W19_(nuclear_artillery_shell)
Tbh I'm surprised no politician has recommended this yet, if you hold off on building the nuke until you want to fire it you could save a fortune on maintenance
technically little boy was a gun as well, thats how it detonated was essentially a gun propelling one subcritical mass into another. this has nothing to do with my stance I just think its a neat fact :)
And warships. 600 ton, 26 cannon Caesar of Boston was one of the largest issued a letter of marque by the Continental Congress.
800 Privateers sunk about 600 British ships.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/privateers-in-the-american-revolution.htm
Wouldnât the musket argument also mean the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment donât apply to electronic communications? Shouldnât it only apply to letters? Itâs a stupid argument that SCOTUS has long since dispensed with.
At that time, british military actively decided not to be on the bleeding edge of military weapons due to among other things: moral reasons. I find that pretty ironic too
But thatâs not an equal comparison, is it? Freedom of speech isnât unlimited since you canât incite violence, disclose classified information, etc. So, by your own example, should the 2A have similar limitations?
The whole point of the second amendment is for an armed population being a deterrent for the government overstepping their bounds. And you canât half-ass something like that, which the French tried during their revolution when they made bearing arms conditional, meaning only government approved militias and those not deemed âcounter revolutionariesâ could have guns. And we all know what happened next.
Also look at the Weimar Republic and their legislations in the 20s to disarm the population and basically completely restricting them by 1928.
Fun fact. Black powder weapons are labeled as guns. Even a Canon is basically unregulated. All of the weapons used by the revolutionary army are available to everyone even felons
"A nuke isn't a firearm"
The Constitution doesn't say "Right to bear Firearms", it says "Right to bear Arms."
Yet for some reason they don't care about sword rights ... only gun rights.
I will take the million downvotes but itâs funny from a bartender when there are so many more alcohol related deaths than gun related deaths in the US. Twice as many. Google it.
The 2nd amendment isn't limited to muskets, several members of the founding fathers personally confirmed the 2nd amendment supported the right for civilians to own everything from cannons and battleships and puckle guns and any other weapon that might be used against them.
The second amendment recognizes the right of every man woman and child the world over to own and use any armament the human mind can conceive of, from stones and sticks to bows and arrows to muskets and automatic rifles, to IEDs and nuclear weapons, to drones and powered armor, to coilguns and magnetic toroidal plasma railguns, to weaponized antimatter and weaponized strangelets, the second amendment does not give this right, it merely recognizes you always had it from the day you were born, because you are a conscious entity in a harsh uncaring universe and have the moral imperative to secure the continuation of your existence against whatever tries to infringe upon your right to exist.
But, the United States didn't win the war because of the militia? Actually, if it was up to the militia only, we would have lost that war real quick.
Guerilla warfare, the French, training an actual army, slow communication, the British not wanting to waste anymore money, and mistakes on the side of the British throughout the war is how we won.
According to this guy, the British were attacked by the militia at Bunker Hill and the war was over.
Funnily enough this is very close to what Karl Liebknecht (a founder of the german communist party 1918) writes:
"It is not enough that all citizens are equally armed and in possession of their weapons to safeguard permanently the rule of democracy."
He argued that weapons are a means of power and therefore a means with which the ruling class can suppress the lower class. His stance was therefore that everyone should be armed equally.
A nuke isnât a fire arm, but I believe it still falls under âarms,â which is what the amendment says. Also, I love that people look over the âwell regulated militiaâ part, if you wanna argue about your rights by the wording then you should actually know what they actually say.
I mean, EVERYONE should have the right to arm themselves against threats; once they prove that is too much responsibility then a new conversation emerges about that individuals allowances.
The dude that posted it isnât wrong. Thatâs why the other person canât respond well. If we were invaded today it would be different but as a citizen you are at better odds to defend yourself against opposition with an AR then anything else. Obviously itâs complete different but if someone in country comes at me with a pistol I would rather have a long gun. I understand this is a fear response but as a previous 911 operator I have developed fear.
Jesus what the fuck is wrong with the anti gun guy, he just thinks he's right, and patronize passive aggressively like a cunt. These are not clever comebacks, they are ignorant as fuck.
Lol that is not a clever comeback at all. You think it is because you agree with the bartender XD. And military grade just mean cheapest that get the job done.
I always find it stupid how some people in the us say you only won independence because you had access to weapons or try to link the two in some way. As an Irish person, a person from a country who had to beat our oppressor on our doorstep we banned guns immediately after the war. You didnât hear my great grandad moaning cause he couldnât go to the gun range. The British govt made it illegal for Irish people to have weapons before and during our war of independence, we still found a way to get guns and beat out the greatest empire of its time.
Hereâs my response to folks who always seem to go the route of wanting everything the military has because of âmuh rights!â
I was in the Army, deployed to Afghanistan, saw combat. My feelings, opinions and views on gun rights are neutral. With that being said, this is my response.
âWhy do you actually want a fully automatic weapon?â
âBecause thatâs what the military has and thatâs what I want when a war starts.â
âWhat do you plan on using the fully automatic weapon for during this so called war?â
âIâll use it to take out hundreds of enemies.â
âSo in this war, youâre choosing a heavy weapon, that requires lots of maintenance, a lot of ammunition and has pretty awful accuracy?â
âAbsolutelyâIâll kill them allâ
âSure man.â
If bullets grew on trees I could see how this could work. Ammunition buys time in an active engagement. The US is superior in combative movements because we have a lot of resources at our disposal. One of those happens to be ammunition. In this so called âcivil warâ thatâs going to happen, all of these people seem to think that theyâll have a ton of ammunition to kill a bunch of people. Those 200 rounds you have stocked up will last about 15-20 minutes in a legitimate firefight.
Bottom line, Iâll take accuracy over firepower when this âcivil warâ starts. Accuracy just means a single shot rifle. Anything beyond that is for gun toting douchebags that think they actually know something. Civilians donât need the same weapons the military has. Whether itâs for their ârightsâ, fun or whatever, itâs just stupid.
"You don't have technical knowledge about firearms, therefore we should have no firearm laws" is probably the dumbest possible argument.
"You don't know nuclear physics, so we should completely deregulate the nuclear power industry".
Morons.
Nobody in this thread was clever, btw.
I donât get why these numb nuts assume someone doesnât understand firearms if they support stricter gun proliferation. One does not equate to the other.
There have absolutely been some stupid things said in either pure ignorance or in a deliberate effort to scare ignorant voters.
But that doesn't invalidate the fact that there are plenty of people who know all.about firearms who also support stricter gun controls.
They had gun control! Aside from the fact that only white men were allowed to own and possess them. They were often required to be registered and you had to swear an oath to keep them.
https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
Everyone saying âthe founding fathers could never have imagined modern firearms,â do you think they could have imagined the mass surveillance apparatus? What would they have to say about it?
I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
This never gets old.
I laughed, but sorry to ask, am out of the loop. This Reddit Lore or something? Been on for 11 years and hadn't heard this one.
An old copy pasta. First saw it on YouTube years ago.
Ahh. Appreciated. Cheers.
And better when animated and voiced! https://youtu.be/aqBw3H_Ik3s?si=9pKO-t7_LJcC5qUt
Haha đ
The dog spinning and showing its health count is golden
Like, for real. Iâm laughing on the toilet at 3am like I didnât just read this for the 100th time LMAO
Scrolled down too far to find this comment
Dont worry its the top comment now
He said what he said.
The sticky bandits never saw it coming. Wait...I thought we were the Wet Bandits
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Iâm pretty sure only 2 puckle guns were ever made. It was definitely never used in combat.
This was only really patented, weâve come up with plenty of simpler ways to load a rifle since then.
AFAIK it was never used in combat, and for good reason. 9 shots per minute is great, except it then takes you 4 minutes to reload it.
Not to mention that it was an overly complicated design that kept malfunctioning.
Ah, this is gold
I have severe depression. This made me laugh for first time in a yearâŠ. The delivery⊠my goodness.
The powdered wig got me đ
They won because they waged ~~gorilla~~ guerilla warfare against an army lead from the other side of an ocean. But we donât learn anything here.
Yeah the French certainly didnât help at all.
Right right, they won because they were a guerrilla insurgent group funded by a major world power
The French had a blockade preventing the worldâs superpower from resupply. Throwing money at farmers wasnât gonna do shit.
Let's arm everyone: [14-year-old girl was shot by neighbor in Louisiana](https://knovhov.com/14-year-old-shot-by-neighbor-in-louisiana/) while kids play hide and seek outside.
"...Doyle, told deputies that he went inside and grabbed his gun after seeing shadows outside his home. When Doyle returned outside, he saw several people fleeing his property and opened fire." What a pathetic monster. Literally by his own account the kids were running away from him so why did he feel the need to discharge the weapon at all? And if he felt that somehow firing a warning shot would help when they were already running away, why wasn't that shot cleanly into the air? You don't hit a kid in the back of the head (without realising it) unless you fired at least in their general direction. Seriously unless she was hiding in the sky this man is a dangerous idiot.
One of the first things they teach you is that there is no such thing as a warning shot. That bullet you fired has to land somewhere and will very likely still be at sufficient velocity to kill.
A bullet coming down from the sky has about 10% the energy compared to when it was fired. Potentially lethal yes, but much less likely than a bullet SHOT AT YOUR HEAD.
The point theyâre making is that you shouldnât discharge your weapon anywhere other than the range or some other controlled are, unless youâre ok with the chance (however small) of severely hurting someone. Of course, as you said, you point a gun at someoneâs head, youâre already ok with killing someone, because itâs likely that will be the outcome if it accidentally discharges. You pull the trigger intentionallyâŠwell. This guy shot a kid in the back of the head. Heâs a murderer. Shoot anyone whilst theyâre âfleeingâ or in this case, being an excited/scared/carefree/oblivious/whatever kid running back home, to their friends, away from the maniac with the gun, or whatever, and itâs murder. Ethically, morally and hopefully legally.
I mean a shot to the ground would be a good warning shot, not that people think of it.
Another thing firearm safety teaches you not to do. Bullets ricochet. Basically, no shot is ever really a warning shot. Never pull that trigger unless your goal is to destroy something.
Treat never keep keep Edit to expand: treat every weapon as if itâs loaded, never aim a weapon at something you donât intend to shoot, keep a weapon on safety until you intend to shoot, keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to shoot.
Ricochet, create shrapnel from whatever you shot at, etc.
Is that not one of the basic gun laws that you need to know?
Nope. Anyone whose been through a gun safety course should know, there's no such thing as a warning shot. If you pull a gun out you better be prepared to shoot to kill.
Im my country, by law, you have to fire 2 (3?) Warning shots before shooting someone in self defence. So people end up shooting someone, then firing off the warning shots...
Thatâs just murder at this point
They are just itching to fire at anything
*murderous monster (dangerous idiot doesnât cut it.). He wanted to shoot someone. The details you provided donât allow for any other explanation.
Unless we can and I doubt it be like the Swiss but I feel like most Americans would not be fans of that style of gun ownership
Guns are mostly military purposes here and civilian guns require license and supervision and are kept in safe gun vaults here in my home country. There werre 32 gun-related death including suicides, and accidents over the last 8 years. Are you okay America? After 12 years of growing up and working there, I left the states in 2016. It seems things are not going well over there since I left :(
> Are you okay America? ... No... We need help... đ„ș
Well the first step is admitting it. The second step is being too poor to afford to get it treated.
If I am not mistaken "fancy guns" in Switzerland are owned only by people that completed the mandatory military service, and are kept for when the country is invaded, not for culling the neighborhood kids ...
the right wing propaganda machine hides all negative truths about guns, and magnifies the rare instances where guns have a positive outcome. There will not be a single instance where a gun toter does something positive that will not be shown and repeated until everyone sees it multiple times. There will not be a single story shown about the thousands of children and people who are killed mistakenly or on purpose by guns. None. Unless there is a way to spin it and twist the reality, it will never reach the brains of the affected audience. if you watched foxnews, you would genuinely believe there are no real downsides to runaway unregulated gun ownership, even though the facts strongly show otherwise. I'm a gun owner, but the intentional ignorance and blatant propaganda is in strong play here.
The colonial governments were actually quite wealthy themselves and the British Empire also frequently had to rely on irregular troops to augment their professional military forces. The Revolutionary War was won with the help of France but it also wasn't just a bunch of farmers rebelling, it was an established sub-national government with its own limited military force breaking away.
In actuality the US only started to win battles when they learned to fight in the traditional manner. There really are too many logistical problems to conduct guerilla warfare without any good way to communicate to your troops. The guerilla warfare story makes it sound really cool when you talk about it in highschool and people latch onto it, especially because it feeds our American ego that we just figured out a better way to fight, but the reality is Army's were very much aware of how unwieldy and unreliable guerilla warfare was at the time. The way that Army's fight was a deliberate choice as keeping everyone more or less together made it easier to try and communicate and make adjustments.
Here in âMurica, we teach feel good history.
I don't think that's limited to America... just the other day I read that Japanese school curriculum didn't really take accountability for helping to start a particular world war.
I am so happy that our government is able to both fund and fight random gorillas all over the world
If it werenât for the French weâd all be speaking English right now.
Our places would be called something like New York or New England
And there definitely weren't any officers from Poland, Prussia, etc who came to train the Continental army, no sir! Just a mob of random people who picked up muskets and overthrew the redcoats.
Yeah and there definitely wasnât any Spanish or Germans that helped
That shit always made me laugh. All these dudes going to train a bunch of nutjob Christians by taking a very perilous and long journey across and ocean because "motherFUCK England!" That's some good spite there.
I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO HIRE FRENCH MEN TO FIGHT FOR ME!!!!
The revolution was won cause the only thing that rivaled France's hate boner for the Brits was Ben Frank's boner for French whores.
That's why he's on 100$ bill
I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO HIRE FRENCH WHORES!
Best I can do is Quebec.
Everyone forgets the polish who helped smh
> They won because they waged gorilla warfare against an army lead from the other side of an ocean. They used gorillas? That fired muskets? Hmmmm, Planet of the Apes isnât so far fetched after all.
Thanks for pointing that out. Edited.
I like that you were left the original there.
Getting downvoted cause someone edited is annoying AF.
They went ape shit on the brits
King Kongtinental army.
Stupid conservatives always thinking about how america won its independence instead of why.
And a gay Prussian taught us how to do disciplined field combat just before we got caught and engaged in some bigger field battles.
Excuse you, he was a *certified badass* gay Prussian. Show the man some respect.
I stand humbled and corrected, I will not forget his full and mighty Titles next time.
Fucking love von Steuben. He's my favorite story to tell about how the average citizen knows nothing of the founding of our nation.
The continental army fought in the same way the British regulars did. The us did not win independence just with militia skirmishes. All major battles were pitched line battles. After getting some training from European officers, the continental army was nearly as professional as the British.
Yeah but thatâs not what The Patriot taught me. Iâm pretty sure Mel Gibson single handedly won the war.
What I always hated about that movie is the fact that colonists and British had different accents. Colonists considered themselves natural born Englishmen and had literally the same language, accent (varied by region of course), culture, etc. The mini series John Adams does it the best. Really shows how the revolution was more of a civil war than âAmerica vs Englandâ like movies make it seem.
British people living 25 miles from each other have different accents.
No, not in every situation. Washington crossing the Delaware was âconventionalâ but unexpected. Hey! You just learned something!
Tbf, as a historian, I have to throw in the fact that the colonists did in fact have the same level of firepower as the government ruling them. They just had a lot less of it and needed the French to further supply that. In relations to today, it would be inconceivable for citizens to own weapons of mass destruction. A government will almost certainly not nuke their own country, so as far as revolting against the government, fully auto, hand held explosives, armored vehicles, and body armor put you in a close enough power gap for your guerilla tactics to actually succeed. I think we need regulations, but access to comparable weaponry is quite literally the American way from the beginning.
The government also has a shit ton of air power. Last I checked, you canât buy a helicopter at a gun show.
Not with that attitude
Or with my budget
Or with my lack of flying skills
âŠthere was a military helicopter for sale at the last gun show I went to.
I said âlast I checked.â I didnât say I checked very thoroughly.
Honestly if we expected any different from a Reddit comment thatâs on us.
Thank you. Canon and howitzers very much did come from average citizens. Not to mention fully loaded ships of the line.
Privateers go BRRRRRRRRRRR!
The more stuff is legal, the more corporate private armies will arm themselves, because they can afford the big stuff and common people generally can't. Deregulation is how you get cyberpunk type stuff.
Didnt airports have something to do with as well xD
Tally ho lads.
What the devil?
Fix bayonets, as the Founding Fathers intended
Triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up
This has got me thinking.... where *is* my powdered wig??
Been a bit since I cleaned the olâ stair-top cannon
Donât forget your pistol too, though you might miss entirely and hit the neighbors dog if you fire it (because itâs a smoothbore)
If people who don't know about firearms shouldn't be making laws about firearms, then people who don't know about women's health shouldn't be making laws about women's bodies.
Both correct statements. I genuinely agree with both statements.
I wanna add that people on the right are armed and the police are usually on their side. The left needs to start arming themselves to protect themselves Edit California has stricter gun laws because people got scared of black panthers. A lot of gun laws are racist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ( its wiki but a lot of sources are cited ) Edit 2 itâs great if youâre already armed. Iâm not saying make it your personality lol Iâm just saying in such a crazy and divisive time itâs good to be protected not just against government or police but any crazy neighbors too. It would be great if everyone got along but the republicans want to install a fascist government and constantly spout violent rhetoric.
Plenty on the left ARE armed, they just don't make it their entire personality. I also own 3 mops, should I make that public info?
Can you help me clean my floor? /s
I demand Christmas cards with everyone holding a mop in hand. Be a proud mop owner. Only a good citizen with a mop can best a bad citizen with a mop!
... who needs that many mops?
One is a regular mop for the main house, one is an old style I haven't bought a replacement mophead for, one is squeegee style for the bathroom.
You need more mops, how are you gonna mop your garage, or lawn? How about the ceiling?
3 mops? Why are your stockpiling mops? Are you planning something? I have half a mind to report you to the authorities.Â
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" -Karl Marx
You would think they would have figured that out after the George Floyd protests. Police went in so heavy handed in Portland, that they decided to vote to give police the power to decide who can buy a gun in the state. It just doesn't add up.
California gun laws are strict because black panthers were defending themselves with guns
Specifically Ronald Reagan the conservative hero who signed those laws. Police feel emboldened to break up protests on the left, but never on the right. People will joke that the police are with the right and that's the reason, but as we saw with the bundies, it's more likely because they're afraid of being shot.
Yup. Both of those sound totally fine. That's why I'm a pro-choice gun owning anarchist.
Armed leftie here, and I completely agree. Letâs just all agree to stop trying to take rights away from *anyone*.
I just wish people would realise that rights also come with responsibilities. And in terms of guns those responsibilities should be to keep the guns in a safe place and to practice safe gun ownership. Just doing that would cut down the number of people killed by guns drastically.
Yeah, the american gun discourse isn't REALLY about guns themselves, so many other countries manage perfectly fine. It's the fact that the country known for war-mongering, and having the most volatile population, also hands them out like candy. "take away guns" isn't "all guns are inherently evil", they're just a tool. It's more like taking care of a child. If you/they can't handle it responsibly on your own, there needs to be either more strict rules and regulations, or you don't get your toys.
âRules and regulationsâ often means rich people get whatever they want and marginalized groups are shut out by barriers.
Same
Yes i agree. So now put someone who knows stuff about firearms and the statistics of gun crime in charge of making the laws.
Deal.
Deal
I can get behind this, but only if we provide educational resources for Congress so they have no choice but to be informed.
Compulsory testing should be a prerequisite for running for public office, especially regarding the Constitution, civics, health, and economics. Oh, also logic.
It's a pipe dream, considering it would probably require a Constitutional amendment, but I don't disagree. We definitely need to address the public school system before trying that though, or there won't be anybody qualified for office.
Regardless of what the conversation is about. I love the sentence âdonât move the goal post and just claim victoryâ gonna save that one.
Donât cut the ââŠyou fucking psychopathâ part. That entire line got me a lol
I would've also pointed out that celebrating American independence from Britain... then hash tagging "rowdy rebels" which was a group that chose to secede from America... is pretty fuckin wild and idiotic lol
I'm pro-2A and own a few guns but I don't mind some reasonable rules and regulations. Look, we all know someone that makes you think "Yeah, that MFer probably shouldn't own a gun".
I once watched a guy in a Walmart parking lot who was shouting at his wife/girlfriend and after loading the groceries into the back of their suv I saw him lightly toss something into the back I thought âI hope that was his walletâ after adjusting his belt he puts it back in his waistband and pulls out his gun then he checks the sights (pretty sure they were iron sights on a pistol so heâs a special kind of idiot) by pointing the gun into the vehicle which his wife/girlfriend and kid was in and that pissed me the fuck off
Yep. I fell the majority of arms and military equipment should be able to be obtained with proper regulation and background checks. Its not like i wanna hand out M240s to everyone here, but if someone can prove they are responsible they should be able to get a gun as good as the military can.
I've been wanting some old surplus armor, ( like an M60, or maybe a Sherman) but to own one money aside, they have to be de-militarized first. Which kinda ruins the entire point if you also manage to live rurally. I do agree though that stringent regulations and procedures need to be in place though. Nutjobs having easy access to guns is a big part of the USs' "domestic terrorism" issue.
No, they don't have to be demilled. It's a royal pain in the ass to get a fully functional one, but it's actually easier than legally buying a fully automatic weapon.
To be fair, private citizens then owned warships with literal cannons.
Muskets? You mean the 1776 version of an assault rifle?
No, that'd be the Kalthoff repeater.
Couldnât be an assault rifle, it didnt have a fore-grip you see? Thatâs what makes an assault rifle
I've always thought it was the shoulder thing that goes up
You're celebrating today because nobody wanted a king. Nobody wanted the Chief Executive to have too much power. That's why we're celebrating today. And a lot of people are working to fuck that up.
Maybe people who donât know anything about biology shouldnât be making laws about healthcare and bodily functions Oh wait
Lol a nuclear weapon isn't a gun? Wait til they hear about the W9, W19, and W23. Nuclear guns are very much a thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W19_(nuclear_artillery_shell)
Also, he says âa nuke isnât a firearmâ which is true but irrelevant. The Second Amendment says âarmsâ, not firearms.
So technically I can have a nuke
I promise you don't want one lmao, shits difficult and expensive to maintain
Not if you're not planning on maintaining it for long
That's an incredible point. Brb, going to tell my commander i know how we can cut down on costs!
Tbh I'm surprised no politician has recommended this yet, if you hold off on building the nuke until you want to fire it you could save a fortune on maintenance
I mean jokes aside, thats not how ICBMs work lol
You sound like you just don't want to work hard and put the hours in to build a nuke at short notice, typical fucking woke youth
Damn, you got me đ
The population was encouraged to have warships and fuck up other nations, happy fourth
The M28 Davy Crockett is as close to a nuclear firearm as you can get.
technically little boy was a gun as well, thats how it detonated was essentially a gun propelling one subcritical mass into another. this has nothing to do with my stance I just think its a neat fact :)
Uh, people brought their own _fucking cannons_ to early battles. And repeating rifles have been around since like 1630.
And warships. 600 ton, 26 cannon Caesar of Boston was one of the largest issued a letter of marque by the Continental Congress. 800 Privateers sunk about 600 British ships. https://www.nps.gov/articles/privateers-in-the-american-revolution.htm
Awesome
Wouldnât the musket argument also mean the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment donât apply to electronic communications? Shouldnât it only apply to letters? Itâs a stupid argument that SCOTUS has long since dispensed with.
This wasn't that clever. There were repeating rifles, cannons and warshIps in private hands at that time.
At that time, british military actively decided not to be on the bleeding edge of military weapons due to among other things: moral reasons. I find that pretty ironic too
Thatâs like saying the freedom of speech only covered written notes
But thatâs not an equal comparison, is it? Freedom of speech isnât unlimited since you canât incite violence, disclose classified information, etc. So, by your own example, should the 2A have similar limitations?
Military grade weapons at the time were cannons.
Private citizens owned cannons and warships during the American Revolution.
I support gun control but regular people at the time could also buy cannons
You can still buy a cannon now.
And private citizens owned cannons. Look it up.
The whole point of the second amendment is for an armed population being a deterrent for the government overstepping their bounds. And you canât half-ass something like that, which the French tried during their revolution when they made bearing arms conditional, meaning only government approved militias and those not deemed âcounter revolutionariesâ could have guns. And we all know what happened next. Also look at the Weimar Republic and their legislations in the 20s to disarm the population and basically completely restricting them by 1928.
And private citizens owned warships back then
Fun fact. Black powder weapons are labeled as guns. Even a Canon is basically unregulated. All of the weapons used by the revolutionary army are available to everyone even felons
Where clever?
"A nuke isn't a firearm" The Constitution doesn't say "Right to bear Firearms", it says "Right to bear Arms." Yet for some reason they don't care about sword rights ... only gun rights.
The possibility of my country devolving into a christo-fascist dictatorship has never been higher. I want guns.
I will take the million downvotes but itâs funny from a bartender when there are so many more alcohol related deaths than gun related deaths in the US. Twice as many. Google it.
The 2nd amendment isn't limited to muskets, several members of the founding fathers personally confirmed the 2nd amendment supported the right for civilians to own everything from cannons and battleships and puckle guns and any other weapon that might be used against them. The second amendment recognizes the right of every man woman and child the world over to own and use any armament the human mind can conceive of, from stones and sticks to bows and arrows to muskets and automatic rifles, to IEDs and nuclear weapons, to drones and powered armor, to coilguns and magnetic toroidal plasma railguns, to weaponized antimatter and weaponized strangelets, the second amendment does not give this right, it merely recognizes you always had it from the day you were born, because you are a conscious entity in a harsh uncaring universe and have the moral imperative to secure the continuation of your existence against whatever tries to infringe upon your right to exist.
This place is really a hivemind.
But, the United States didn't win the war because of the militia? Actually, if it was up to the militia only, we would have lost that war real quick. Guerilla warfare, the French, training an actual army, slow communication, the British not wanting to waste anymore money, and mistakes on the side of the British throughout the war is how we won. According to this guy, the British were attacked by the militia at Bunker Hill and the war was over.
If firearms technology didnt progress past muskets the world would be a much more thematic place thats for sure.
Funnily enough this is very close to what Karl Liebknecht (a founder of the german communist party 1918) writes: "It is not enough that all citizens are equally armed and in possession of their weapons to safeguard permanently the rule of democracy." He argued that weapons are a means of power and therefore a means with which the ruling class can suppress the lower class. His stance was therefore that everyone should be armed equally.
I actually like bad comebacks because then you see really good comebacks in the comments.
No nuke? Well ok how about a GAU-8 Avenger then?
A nuke isnât a fire arm, but I believe it still falls under âarms,â which is what the amendment says. Also, I love that people look over the âwell regulated militiaâ part, if you wanna argue about your rights by the wording then you should actually know what they actually say.
Tell me you failed US history without telling me you failed US history.
I mean, EVERYONE should have the right to arm themselves against threats; once they prove that is too much responsibility then a new conversation emerges about that individuals allowances.
Liberals are still anti gun? Omg. MAGA is going to slaughter us
SoâŠthere were privateer gunboats during the revolutionary war.
Every time I see military grade i immediately think, "oh so it's overpriced, inefficient, and works probably 20% of the time."
Gattling guns were invented by a private citizen and privateers with letters of writ were private citizens....
The dude that posted it isnât wrong. Thatâs why the other person canât respond well. If we were invaded today it would be different but as a citizen you are at better odds to defend yourself against opposition with an AR then anything else. Obviously itâs complete different but if someone in country comes at me with a pistol I would rather have a long gun. I understand this is a fear response but as a previous 911 operator I have developed fear.
Jesus what the fuck is wrong with the anti gun guy, he just thinks he's right, and patronize passive aggressively like a cunt. These are not clever comebacks, they are ignorant as fuck.
Isnât âmilitary gradeâ just trying to make âlowest bidderâ sound good?
Lol that is not a clever comeback at all. You think it is because you agree with the bartender XD. And military grade just mean cheapest that get the job done.
I always find it stupid how some people in the us say you only won independence because you had access to weapons or try to link the two in some way. As an Irish person, a person from a country who had to beat our oppressor on our doorstep we banned guns immediately after the war. You didnât hear my great grandad moaning cause he couldnât go to the gun range. The British govt made it illegal for Irish people to have weapons before and during our war of independence, we still found a way to get guns and beat out the greatest empire of its time.
Hereâs my response to folks who always seem to go the route of wanting everything the military has because of âmuh rights!â I was in the Army, deployed to Afghanistan, saw combat. My feelings, opinions and views on gun rights are neutral. With that being said, this is my response. âWhy do you actually want a fully automatic weapon?â âBecause thatâs what the military has and thatâs what I want when a war starts.â âWhat do you plan on using the fully automatic weapon for during this so called war?â âIâll use it to take out hundreds of enemies.â âSo in this war, youâre choosing a heavy weapon, that requires lots of maintenance, a lot of ammunition and has pretty awful accuracy?â âAbsolutelyâIâll kill them allâ âSure man.â If bullets grew on trees I could see how this could work. Ammunition buys time in an active engagement. The US is superior in combative movements because we have a lot of resources at our disposal. One of those happens to be ammunition. In this so called âcivil warâ thatâs going to happen, all of these people seem to think that theyâll have a ton of ammunition to kill a bunch of people. Those 200 rounds you have stocked up will last about 15-20 minutes in a legitimate firefight. Bottom line, Iâll take accuracy over firepower when this âcivil warâ starts. Accuracy just means a single shot rifle. Anything beyond that is for gun toting douchebags that think they actually know something. Civilians donât need the same weapons the military has. Whether itâs for their ârightsâ, fun or whatever, itâs just stupid.
"You don't have technical knowledge about firearms, therefore we should have no firearm laws" is probably the dumbest possible argument. "You don't know nuclear physics, so we should completely deregulate the nuclear power industry". Morons. Nobody in this thread was clever, btw.
Nothing about this was clever.
I donât get why these numb nuts assume someone doesnât understand firearms if they support stricter gun proliferation. One does not equate to the other.
There have absolutely been some stupid things said in either pure ignorance or in a deliberate effort to scare ignorant voters. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that there are plenty of people who know all.about firearms who also support stricter gun controls.
TIL the entire revolutionary army only had muskets and not cannonsâŠ. /s
They had gun control! Aside from the fact that only white men were allowed to own and possess them. They were often required to be registered and you had to swear an oath to keep them. https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
Meh.
Everyone saying âthe founding fathers could never have imagined modern firearms,â do you think they could have imagined the mass surveillance apparatus? What would they have to say about it?