A device designed to kill massive amounts of humans in very short time is called ...

[uponit7771]

... a WMD.


Why aren't these firearms that are designed to kill massive amounts of humans in a very short time called such and not put them into hands of every citizen who wants one?


Was jus listening to Rachael and she brought up the fact that these things are designed to kill a lot of people ... just doesn't make any sense why keep them available to everyone.


Your take?

tia

[uponit7771]

1. Shameless kick and point that Maddow is reporting its 20 weapons now that was in his hotel room

[Moostache]

2. Muskets that take 2 minutes to reload, single shot pistols...

Those were the most advanced fire arms available at the time of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I am willing to meet the NRA MORE than half-way...I would include single shot long rifles for hunting AND shot guns for hunting along with bows (compound and cross) as valid weapons for private ownership.

Unless we want to abolish the police, I would outlaw all hand guns and semi-automatic weapons of any kind.

And therein lies the peace...

[X_Digger]

3. Puckle gun. Pepper-box guns. Girandoni rifle.

The fact that you're not familiar with early guns available in 1790 does not lend credence to your argument.

[Thor_MN]

4. Girandoni rifle. The gun nuts standard response...

It was an air rifle that required raising the barrel to a vertical position to reload.

Not a practical weapon, or a semi-automatic, which many gun nuts would want one to believe.

[X_Digger]

8. Actually, no, it was gravity fed from a magazine. You did have to turn it to the side at least.

Google 'girandoni reproduction firing' for videos.

Certainly not '2 minutes to reload'.

[Thor_MN]

11. Certainly not 1 fire per trigger pull.

And every description I have read said that the barrel had to be raised vertical, which the soldiers that used it found they could do by rolling onto their backs to avoid exposing themselves. Not semi-automatic by any means, which is what the 2A advocates like to push.

[X_Digger]

14. Google the video. See for yourself. About 5 seconds between shots. n/t

[Thor_MN]

17. If you want to use something as an argument, it is on you to provide a link.

Something like this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

The rifle was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 lb (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 (.51cal)) 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".

Regardless of anything else, it is clearly not a semi-automatic, which fires with each trigger pull. A semi-automatic requires nothing other than a trigger pull to fire subsequent rounds. The authors of the Bill of Rights did not know of any weapons that could fire with just another trigger pull.

If you were talking about :

You defeat your own argument. The rifle has to be vertical to reload. Clearly, the design goes along with the concepts of the day, that muzzle loading guns need to be vertical to reload. They could. with a simple design change, allow the weapon to be reloaded without pointing it to the sky, but the concept DID NOT exist at the time. The authors of the Bill of Rights knew nothing of semi-automatic weapons.

[Control-Z]

5. You're joking

I hope.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. You forgot the Kalthoff repeater theoretically the best of them all, but never in production...

enough to know if it was any more reliable than the others.

[Cosmocat]

16. Wow, you got the poster there

Cause the jackass in Nevada would have killed or injured how many people with these instruments?

I can tell you for a fact, if I am in the room when someone comes in trying to take people out with a puckle gun, he gets one shot before I am stomping his guts out ...

[Weekend Warrior]

22. They are really comparable.

The depths some are going.....

[MineralMan]

31. None of those were in wide use. Not even close.

That's easy to research. We're talking about reality here, not odd inventions that weren't in the hands of people, for the most part.

This is probably a bad day to attempt to defend ownership of rapid-fire weapons, I think. You might want to think about that.

[X_Digger]

35. The technology was widely understood. It's asinine to suppose the founders were ignorant..

.. of firearms development- they had just fought a fucking war.

But that's okay, continue to pretend that the only guns they knew about were muskets.

Anyone who even watches the history channel for more than a couple hours will know different.

[MineralMan]

36. Enough. Please take this to the RKBA Group.

It's not needed in GD.

[X_Digger]

37. Take it wherever you like, I'm here, thanks.

Outright ignorance is never the solution. That's republican thinking.

[MyNameGoesHere]

38. The founders were most likely ignorant and

drunk. That's why I could never put them on lofty pedestals as some kind of god like figures. They got most of it wrong.

[Brother Buzz]

34. A musket rifle can fire a whopping 2-3 shots per minute....

in the hands of someone who really knew what they were doing. And anyone who relied on a musket to put food on his family knew what he was doing.

[UTUSN]

7. My take, a close second: The Repuke party platform

[TenHouseCats]

9. You beat me to it!

n/t.

[UTUSN]

10. Great minds think alike!1

[loyalsister]

12. If there is a right to own weapons designed specifically to kill people

the logical conclusion is that there exists a right to kill people. It's a mindset that is deeply embedded in US culture.

[uponit7771]

13. +1

[hack89]

19. A very limited right

as defined by law.

[loyalsister]

20. A right readily interpreted as a sense of entitlement

That provides a logical basis for a person with murderous impulses to feel comfortable with their actions. Particularly when every single step they took to make it happen is vigorously supported by the NRA, all three branches of government, as well as numerous citizens who believe their individual right to kill outweigh that of other citizens to be safe from those who take it to the extreme.

[hack89]

21. No. Thinking more along the lines of self defense

that is the only right one has to kill someone.

when 99.9% of all gun owners will never kill someone, I am not sure exactly what you are basing your logic on.

There are about 10,000 gun murders a year. There are about 100 million legal gun owners in America. Lets also not forget that many murders are by criminals that can't legally own guns. So do the math and then tell me how all those gun owners feel entitled to kill others.

[loyalsister]

23. I understand that

I said that enshrining a right to kill and to acquire an arsenal of weapons designed specifically to commit a mass murder can be logically interpreted as a sense of entitlement to kill when a person is mad or feels they have been wronged because some may see that as self defense.
It's not logically sound to defend the state of gun policies in this country without defending people who take the interpretation of a right of self defense a bit differently.

[hack89]

24. But it is logically sound to restrict the rights of hundreds of millions

based on the "bit differently" interpretation of a tiny minority? There doesn't seem to be much balance in your point of view.

[loyalsister]

25. It does lack a brutal individualistic disregard for other people

But the fact remains that if it is easy to acquire and own the weapons used, it is easy for would be killers to carry out their plans. Accepting the lives lost in the name of an individual right suggests a belief that their rights and lives are more important than the masses. To defend that sense of entitlement is to defend the "rights" of a single mass murderer along with the domestic abusers, and the irresponsible parents of toddlers who accidently kill and injure people with guns who contribute to what is apparently an acceptable number of deaths.

[hack89]

30. Except it appears a near majority of the "masses" are willing to take that risk

correct? So until we reach the point where they decide it is not worth risk then nothing will change. Because get to vote just like you do. That's the dilemma we are in. You can't force people to change.

[loyalsister]

33. That's true

We live in a culture that lacks empathy and most people don't give a damn. We can't seem to admit our own part in advancing the mindset that permits the narcissism that rejects even considering policy possibilities that could help if they might interfere with the self satisfaction of people who have the most power in US culture.

[madokie]

15. In my old eyes

they are weapons of war. Or war machines whichever you want to call them. Not needed in a polite society

[spanone]

18. because the NRA, a non-profit terrorist organization, owns the republican party.

[Hoyt]

26. We know why white wingers are OK with gunz. Maybe you should ask our own gun support group how

they rationalize this crud?

[Doreen]

27. Why in the hell is it legal to have guns to kill people in the masses

when it illegal to take them out to hunt game with? In most places if you take those to hunt with they are taken away, you are jailed, and fined.

[uponit7771]

28. +1

[Aristus]

29. Hell, just calling it an assault rifle will send the gunfucks into an hysterical, spit-spraying fury

Calling it a WMD will bring them out shooting...

[MineralMan]

32. And so it did.

We need to simply ignore those who are enamored of their firearms, I think. They're just noise right now.