Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)

11. Certainly not 1 fire per trigger pull.

Reply to X_Digger (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 11:18 PM

Oct 2017

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A device designed to kill massive amounts of humans in very short time is called ... [View all] uponit7771 Oct 2017 OP

Shameless kick and point that Maddow is reporting its 20 weapons now that was in his hotel room uponit7771 Oct 2017 #1

Muskets that take 2 minutes to reload, single shot pistols... Moostache Oct 2017 #2

Puckle gun. Pepper-box guns. Girandoni rifle. X_Digger Oct 2017 #3

Girandoni rifle. The gun nuts standard response... Thor_MN Oct 2017 #4

Actually, no, it was gravity fed from a magazine. You did have to turn it to the side at least. X_Digger Oct 2017 #8

Certainly not 1 fire per trigger pull. Thor_MN Oct 2017 #11

Google the video. See for yourself. About 5 seconds between shots. n/t X_Digger Oct 2017 #14

If you want to use something as an argument, it is on you to provide a link. Thor_MN Oct 2017 #17

You're joking Control-Z Oct 2017 #5

You forgot the Kalthoff repeater theoretically the best of them all, but never in production... TreasonousBastard Oct 2017 #6

Wow, you got the poster there Cosmocat Oct 2017 #16

They are really comparable. Weekend Warrior Oct 2017 #22

None of those were in wide use. Not even close. MineralMan Oct 2017 #31

The technology was widely understood. It's asinine to suppose the founders were ignorant.. X_Digger Oct 2017 #35

Enough. Please take this to the RKBA Group. MineralMan Oct 2017 #36

Take it wherever you like, I'm here, thanks. X_Digger Oct 2017 #37

The founders were most likely ignorant and MyNameGoesHere Oct 2017 #38

A musket rifle can fire a whopping 2-3 shots per minute.... Brother Buzz Oct 2017 #34

My take, a close second: The Repuke party platform UTUSN Oct 2017 #7

You beat me to it! TenHouseCats Oct 2017 #9

Great minds think alike!1 UTUSN Oct 2017 #10

If there is a right to own weapons designed specifically to kill people loyalsister Oct 2017 #12

+1 uponit7771 Oct 2017 #13

A very limited right hack89 Oct 2017 #19

A right readily interpreted as a sense of entitlement loyalsister Oct 2017 #20

No. Thinking more along the lines of self defense hack89 Oct 2017 #21

I understand that loyalsister Oct 2017 #23

But it is logically sound to restrict the rights of hundreds of millions hack89 Oct 2017 #24

It does lack a brutal individualistic disregard for other people loyalsister Oct 2017 #25

Except it appears a near majority of the "masses" are willing to take that risk hack89 Oct 2017 #30

That's true loyalsister Oct 2017 #33

In my old eyes madokie Oct 2017 #15

because the NRA, a non-profit terrorist organization, owns the republican party. spanone Oct 2017 #18

We know why white wingers are OK with gunz. Maybe you should ask our own gun support group how Hoyt Oct 2017 #26

Why in the hell is it legal to have guns to kill people in the masses Doreen Oct 2017 #27

+1 uponit7771 Oct 2017 #28

Hell, just calling it an assault rifle will send the gunfucks into an hysterical, spit-spraying fury Aristus Oct 2017 #29

And so it did. MineralMan Oct 2017 #32