Guns - a list

[Wry Catcher]

History of the Boston Police Department | City of Boston

In the fall of 1997, the Boston Police Department began a historic move from its former headquarters located at 154 Berkeley Street to its new headquarters located at the corner of Ruggles and Tremont streets in Lower Roxbury. The move marked both a new beginning and the closing of a significant chapter in the history of the Boston Police Department.

As the oldest police department in the country, the Boston Police Department (BPD) has a rich history and a well-established presence in the Boston community. The initiation of a formal department began in 1838, when the General Court passed a bill allowing the city of Boston to appoint police officers.

The Second Amendment made sense when ratified in 1791; then no police departments existed, no 911 telephone service existed and most citizens lived in rural communities. No one needs a high velocity weapon able to fire 30 or more rounds as quickly as they can pull the trigger and such a firearm was inconceivable to those in the 18th century.

 

[Spoonman]

History of the Boston Police Department | City of Boston

In the fall of 1997, the Boston Police Department began a historic move from its former headquarters located at 154 Berkeley Street to its new headquarters located at the corner of Ruggles and Tremont streets in Lower Roxbury. The move marked both a new beginning and the closing of a significant chapter in the history of the Boston Police Department.

As the oldest police department in the country, the Boston Police Department (BPD) has a rich history and a well-established presence in the Boston community. The initiation of a formal department began in 1838, when the General Court passed a bill allowing the city of Boston to appoint police officers.

The Second Amendment made sense when ratified in 1791; then no police departments existed, no 911 telephone service existed and most citizens lived in rural communities. No one needs a high velocity weapon able to fire 30 or more rounds as quickly as they can pull the trigger and such a firearm was inconceivable to those in the 18th century.

not true, the first machine gun was invented in england in 1718. lets keep the facts straight.

 

[Spoonman]

Maybe the left will wake up a realize there are many weapons to kill with. Focus on the mentally unstable with violent tendencies. You want to mandate smaller magazines, standard background checks and higher standards to own rapidfire guns? For me, that falls within the limits of reasonable.

in rwanda they took away the guns. so they used machettee's

 

[thanatos144]

It isnt really about guns or people dieing ....This is about progressives need to keep others in shackles...Hard to keep people on bondage if they can fucking shoot you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

History of the Boston Police Department | City of Boston

In the fall of 1997, the Boston Police Department began a historic move from its former headquarters located at 154 Berkeley Street to its new headquarters located at the corner of Ruggles and Tremont streets in Lower Roxbury. The move marked both a new beginning and the closing of a significant chapter in the history of the Boston Police Department.

As the oldest police department in the country, the Boston Police Department (BPD) has a rich history and a well-established presence in the Boston community. The initiation of a formal department began in 1838, when the General Court passed a bill allowing the city of Boston to appoint police officers.

The Second Amendment made sense when ratified in 1791; then no police departments existed, no 911 telephone service existed and most citizens lived in rural communities. No one needs a high velocity weapon able to fire 30 or more rounds as quickly as they can pull the trigger and such a firearm was inconceivable to those in the 18th century.

not true, the first machine gun was invented in england in 1718. lets keep the facts straight.

Yep, I didn't know that - The Puckle Gun. A little hard to carry though, don't you think?

"It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute"
Puckle gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems more like a weapon for war than one used by a person to defend his home or business.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It isnt really about guns or people dieing ....This is about progressives need to keep others in shackles...Hard to keep people on bondage if they can fucking shoot you.

After reading some of your posts I don't believe you need to worry about anyone putting you in shackles - it's much more likely someone will put you in a padded room.

 

[thanatos144]

It isnt really about guns or people dieing ....This is about progressives need to keep others in shackles...Hard to keep people on bondage if they can fucking shoot you.

After reading some of your posts I don't believe you need to worry about anyone putting you in shackles - it's much more likely someone will put you in a padded room.

I am pretty sure it isn't a mental illness speaking out against facism. Tell me when did you first realize you were a facist?

 

[saveliberty]

It isnt really about guns or people dieing ....This is about progressives need to keep others in shackles...Hard to keep people on bondage if they can fucking shoot you.

After reading some of your posts I don't believe you need to worry about anyone putting you in shackles - it's much more likely someone will put you in a padded room.

Unlikely, in fact, it is the sad state of the mental health system that allows killers out in society to do what we witnessed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wife tries to shoot husband over porn, police say

A lesson to all those gun huggers who have other fantasy's too.

 

[Spoonman]

History of the Boston Police Department | City of Boston

In the fall of 1997, the Boston Police Department began a historic move from its former headquarters located at 154 Berkeley Street to its new headquarters located at the corner of Ruggles and Tremont streets in Lower Roxbury. The move marked both a new beginning and the closing of a significant chapter in the history of the Boston Police Department.

As the oldest police department in the country, the Boston Police Department (BPD) has a rich history and a well-established presence in the Boston community. The initiation of a formal department began in 1838, when the General Court passed a bill allowing the city of Boston to appoint police officers.

The Second Amendment made sense when ratified in 1791; then no police departments existed, no 911 telephone service existed and most citizens lived in rural communities. No one needs a high velocity weapon able to fire 30 or more rounds as quickly as they can pull the trigger and such a firearm was inconceivable to those in the 18th century.

not true, the first machine gun was invented in england in 1718. lets keep the facts straight.

Yep, I didn't know that - The Puckle Gun. A little hard to carry though, don't you think?

"It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute"
Puckle gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems more like a weapon for war than one used by a person to defend his home or business.

but the fact is, they existed and the technology existed. infact modifications and improvements continued throughout the century prior to the bill of rights. a decade before the continental congress had been presented with a model that fired 20 shots in five seconds and was reloaded by cartridge. they asked the inventor to modify their existing flintlocks to utilize an 8 round cartridge, which he did. So they were fully aware of the technology and obviously had a real grasp on the direction of weapons when they wrote the Bill of rights

 

[Wry Catcher]

not true, the first machine gun was invented in england in 1718. lets keep the facts straight.

Yep, I didn't know that - The Puckle Gun. A little hard to carry though, don't you think?

"It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute"
Puckle gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems more like a weapon for war than one used by a person to defend his home or business.

but the fact is, they existed and the technology existed. infact modifications and improvements continued throughout the century prior to the bill of rights. a decade before the continental congress had been presented with a model that fired 20 shots in five seconds and was reloaded by cartridge. they asked the inventor to modify their existing flintlocks to utilize an 8 round cartridge, which he did. So they were fully aware of the technology and obviously had a real grasp on the direction of weapons when they wrote the Bill of rights

"Good to know, may I ask for a link to the info you've offered?

I'm a bit skeptical of the inference you make from the post you offer as proof the founders could have known the fire power of a modern weapon could be so easliy carried and operate by one man. Consiidering a decade after the continental congress had been presented with a model that fired 20 shots in five seconds and was reloaded by cartridge our forces and the British continued to use black powder muskets.

I suspect that the typical rural farmer of the time could barley afford the muzzle loaders of the day, I doubt the authors imagined a time when an average citizen could afford the weapons of war which have been offered as evidence in support of an unfettered Second Amendment Right.

I can imagine some day a lone shooter may set upon school children with weapons of war much greater than the AR 15; I can imagine people defending that future killers right to own and operate a Blackhawk Helicopter with an M60 Machine Gun. Hyperbole? Maybe a bit, but who could have imagined some asshole killing 168 men, women and children using a rented truck and fertilizer?

 

[Spoonman]

Yep, I didn't know that - The Puckle Gun. A little hard to carry though, don't you think?

"It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute"
Puckle gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems more like a weapon for war than one used by a person to defend his home or business.

but the fact is, they existed and the technology existed. infact modifications and improvements continued throughout the century prior to the bill of rights. a decade before the continental congress had been presented with a model that fired 20 shots in five seconds and was reloaded by cartridge. they asked the inventor to modify their existing flintlocks to utilize an 8 round cartridge, which he did. So they were fully aware of the technology and obviously had a real grasp on the direction of weapons when they wrote the Bill of rights

"Good to know, may I ask for a link to the info you've offered?

I'm a bit skeptical of the inference you make from the post you offer as proof the founders could have known the fire power of a modern weapon could be so easliy carried and operate by one man. Consiidering a decade after the continental congress had been presented with a model that fired 20 shots in five seconds and was reloaded by cartridge our forces and the British continued to use black powder muskets.

I suspect that the typical rural farmer of the time could barley afford the muzzle loaders of the day, I doubt the authors imagined a time when an average citizen could afford the weapons of war which have been offered as evidence in support of an unfettered Second Amendment Right.

I can imagine some day a lone shooter may set upon school children with weapons of war much greater than the AR 15; I can imagine people defending that future killers right to own and operate a Blackhawk Helicopter with an M60 Machine Gun. Hyperbole? Maybe a bit, but who could have imagined some asshole killing 168 men, women and children using a rented truck and fertilizer?

Will you be providing a link to validate your statement that the technology wasn't even conceivable in the 18th century when the bill of rights was written or will we be dealing with a double standard here.

You can find the information in either of these two publications

Harold L. Peterson (2000). Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Courier Dover Publications

United States Continental Congress (1907). Journals of the Continental Congress. USGPO


I can imagine a day when some fanatic will fly an airplane into a skyscraper or government office and kill thousands. without even possesing a gun. Guns don't do the killing, people do. ban guns and you will still have the fertilizer bombs, terrorist bombings and other sensless killings. I could walk into a school with a sword and kill 20 kids as fast as he did with an AR 15without being stopped. Dirty bombs are on the horizon too. no gun legislation will stop them either. The fact that the number of people who stop a crime with a personal weapon far outweighs the number of people who are killed with a gun is another side of the story the media will never print. besides suicides, intruders shot are a large part of those gun shooting statistics.

 

[Spoonman]

imagine how many more the oregon mall shooter would have killed had it not been for a legally armed citizen

Nick Meli, who had a concealed weapon, thought about shooting Oregon mall killer

 

[Wry Catcher]

but the fact is, they existed and the technology existed. infact modifications and improvements continued throughout the century prior to the bill of rights. a decade before the continental congress had been presented with a model that fired 20 shots in five seconds and was reloaded by cartridge. they asked the inventor to modify their existing flintlocks to utilize an 8 round cartridge, which he did. So they were fully aware of the technology and obviously had a real grasp on the direction of weapons when they wrote the Bill of rights

"Good to know, may I ask for a link to the info you've offered?

I'm a bit skeptical of the inference you make from the post you offer as proof the founders could have known the fire power of a modern weapon could be so easliy carried and operate by one man. Consiidering a decade after the continental congress had been presented with a model that fired 20 shots in five seconds and was reloaded by cartridge our forces and the British continued to use black powder muskets.

I suspect that the typical rural farmer of the time could barley afford the muzzle loaders of the day, I doubt the authors imagined a time when an average citizen could afford the weapons of war which have been offered as evidence in support of an unfettered Second Amendment Right.

I can imagine some day a lone shooter may set upon school children with weapons of war much greater than the AR 15; I can imagine people defending that future killers right to own and operate a Blackhawk Helicopter with an M60 Machine Gun. Hyperbole? Maybe a bit, but who could have imagined some asshole killing 168 men, women and children using a rented truck and fertilizer?

Will you be providing a link to validate your statement that the technology wasn't even conceivable in the 18th century when the bill of rights was written or will we be dealing with a double standard here.

You can find the information in either of these two publications

Harold L. Peterson (2000). Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Courier Dover Publications

United States Continental Congress (1907). Journals of the Continental Congress. USGPO


I can imagine a day when some fanatic will fly an airplane into a skyscraper or government office and kill thousands. without even possesing a gun. Guns don't do the killing, people do. ban guns and you will still have the fertilizer bombs, terrorist bombings and other sensless killings. I could walk into a school with a sword and kill 20 kids as fast as he did with an AR 15without being stopped. Dirty bombs are on the horizon too. no gun legislation will stop them either. The fact that the number of people who stop a crime with a personal weapon far outweighs the number of people who are killed with a gun is another side of the story the media will never print. besides suicides, intruders shot are a large part of those gun shooting statistics.

I don't recall the source of this quote or to what it referenced; I'll use it here for it seems to me to be an appropriate response to your most recent post:

"The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength"

I was simply curious as to the source of your information. That the technology existed in some form is not convincing to me that those who signed off on the Bill of Rights, and the Second in particular, had any great insight into how such language would be used in the Twenty-First Century.

We both know, I hope, that there are limits to the types of arms a citizen can own, have in their possession, custody and control. So the arguement might be better framed is not the absolute right of any citizen to own, possess ..., but what restriction should or can be imposed to mitigate the harm which we have witnessed time and again?

 

[Spoonman]

"Good to know, may I ask for a link to the info you've offered?

I'm a bit skeptical of the inference you make from the post you offer as proof the founders could have known the fire power of a modern weapon could be so easliy carried and operate by one man. Consiidering a decade after the continental congress had been presented with a model that fired 20 shots in five seconds and was reloaded by cartridge our forces and the British continued to use black powder muskets.

I suspect that the typical rural farmer of the time could barley afford the muzzle loaders of the day, I doubt the authors imagined a time when an average citizen could afford the weapons of war which have been offered as evidence in support of an unfettered Second Amendment Right.

I can imagine some day a lone shooter may set upon school children with weapons of war much greater than the AR 15; I can imagine people defending that future killers right to own and operate a Blackhawk Helicopter with an M60 Machine Gun. Hyperbole? Maybe a bit, but who could have imagined some asshole killing 168 men, women and children using a rented truck and fertilizer?

Will you be providing a link to validate your statement that the technology wasn't even conceivable in the 18th century when the bill of rights was written or will we be dealing with a double standard here.

You can find the information in either of these two publications

Harold L. Peterson (2000). Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Courier Dover Publications

United States Continental Congress (1907). Journals of the Continental Congress. USGPO


I can imagine a day when some fanatic will fly an airplane into a skyscraper or government office and kill thousands. without even possesing a gun. Guns don't do the killing, people do. ban guns and you will still have the fertilizer bombs, terrorist bombings and other sensless killings. I could walk into a school with a sword and kill 20 kids as fast as he did with an AR 15without being stopped. Dirty bombs are on the horizon too. no gun legislation will stop them either. The fact that the number of people who stop a crime with a personal weapon far outweighs the number of people who are killed with a gun is another side of the story the media will never print. besides suicides, intruders shot are a large part of those gun shooting statistics.

I don't recall the source of this quote or to what it referenced; I'll use it here for it seems to me to be an appropriate response to your most recent post:

"The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength"

I was simply curious as to the source of your information. That the technology existed in some form is not convincing to me that those who signed off on the Bill of Rights, and the Second in particular, had any great insight into how such language would be used in the Twenty-First Century.

We both know, I hope, that there are limits to the types of arms a citizen can own, have in their possession, custody and control. So the arguement might be better framed is not the absolute right of any citizen to own, possess ..., but what restriction should or can be imposed to mitigate the harm which we have witnessed time and again?

They surely knew becaus the majority of the authors were members of the continental congress that not only viewed the rapid fire weapon presented but also made the request to the modification of the existing technology. They knew what they wanted and they clearly knew where they saw the future of weapons technology. in fact, they specifially asked for it to be developed. their vision was on the future.

No, that is you point of view. The bill of rights does not put any restrictions on what type of weapons or technology can be owned. by your logic, the first amendment does not put any limits or restrictions of freedom of speech. it does not mention cell phones, the internet, emails. these must not be protected by the first amendment, because they were not mention specifically, right?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Will you be providing a link to validate your statement that the technology wasn't even conceivable in the 18th century when the bill of rights was written or will we be dealing with a double standard here.

You can find the information in either of these two publications

Harold L. Peterson (2000). Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Courier Dover Publications

United States Continental Congress (1907). Journals of the Continental Congress. USGPO


I can imagine a day when some fanatic will fly an airplane into a skyscraper or government office and kill thousands. without even possesing a gun. Guns don't do the killing, people do. ban guns and you will still have the fertilizer bombs, terrorist bombings and other sensless killings. I could walk into a school with a sword and kill 20 kids as fast as he did with an AR 15without being stopped. Dirty bombs are on the horizon too. no gun legislation will stop them either. The fact that the number of people who stop a crime with a personal weapon far outweighs the number of people who are killed with a gun is another side of the story the media will never print. besides suicides, intruders shot are a large part of those gun shooting statistics.

I don't recall the source of this quote or to what it referenced; I'll use it here for it seems to me to be an appropriate response to your most recent post:

"The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength"

I was simply curious as to the source of your information. That the technology existed in some form is not convincing to me that those who signed off on the Bill of Rights, and the Second in particular, had any great insight into how such language would be used in the Twenty-First Century.

We both know, I hope, that there are limits to the types of arms a citizen can own, have in their possession, custody and control. So the arguement might be better framed is not the absolute right of any citizen to own, possess ..., but what restriction should or can be imposed to mitigate the harm which we have witnessed time and again?

They surely knew becaus the majority of the authors were members of the continental congress that not only viewed the rapid fire weapon presented but also made the request to the modification of the existing technology. They knew what they wanted and they clearly knew where they saw the future of weapons technology. in fact, they specifially asked for it to be developed. their vision was on the future.

Those weapons were weapons of war, were they not? Militias existed and armory's were established and under the control/authority of officers such as John Marshall, later the Chief Justice of the United States. While canon and other weapons of war existed at the time of the writing of the Constitutional Convention I doubt very much your inference that anyone of the signers expected a Virginia Farmer to own one for for his protection.

No, that is you point of view. The bill of rights does not put any restrictions on what type of weapons or technology can be owned. by your logic, the first amendment does not put any limits or restrictions of freedom of speech. it does not mention cell phones, the internet, emails. these must not be protected by the first amendment, because they were not mention specifically, right?

First of all automatic firearms are restricted by law; as our other weapons of war such as a Fragmentation Grenade. My freedom of speech/expression is likewise restricted by laws of slander, libel and threats and my right to carry a legal firearm on a plane, into a federal building or on a train is also restricted.

 

[Spoonman]

I don't recall the source of this quote or to what it referenced; I'll use it here for it seems to me to be an appropriate response to your most recent post:

"The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength"

I was simply curious as to the source of your information. That the technology existed in some form is not convincing to me that those who signed off on the Bill of Rights, and the Second in particular, had any great insight into how such language would be used in the Twenty-First Century.

We both know, I hope, that there are limits to the types of arms a citizen can own, have in their possession, custody and control. So the arguement might be better framed is not the absolute right of any citizen to own, possess ..., but what restriction should or can be imposed to mitigate the harm which we have witnessed time and again?

They surely knew becaus the majority of the authors were members of the continental congress that not only viewed the rapid fire weapon presented but also made the request to the modification of the existing technology. They knew what they wanted and they clearly knew where they saw the future of weapons technology. in fact, they specifially asked for it to be developed. their vision was on the future.

Those weapons were weapons of war, were they not? Militias existed and armory's were established and under the control/authority of officers such as John Marshall, later the Chief Justice of the United States. While canon and other weapons of war existed at the time of the writing of the Constitutional Convention I doubt very much your inference that anyone of the signers expected a Virginia Farmer to own one for for his protection.

No, that is you point of view. The bill of rights does not put any restrictions on what type of weapons or technology can be owned. by your logic, the first amendment does not put any limits or restrictions of freedom of speech. it does not mention cell phones, the internet, emails. these must not be protected by the first amendment, because they were not mention specifically, right?

First of all automatic firearms are restricted by law; as our other weapons of war such as a Fragmentation Grenade. My freedom of speech/expression is likewise restricted by laws of slander, libel and threats and my right to carry a legal firearm on a plane, into a federal building or on a train is also restricted.

and all of those things you listed are restrictions that have been added in fairly recent years. and i agree with you, they are wrong too. just like any additional bans they try to pass through.

now libel and slander indicate that the spoken or written word were false. and spreading falsehoods is not freedom of speech.

 

[saveliberty]

Question: Were cannons banned from the public or merely not widely held by the public?

 

[Spoonman]

Question: Were cannons banned from the public or merely not widely held by the public?

hey remember that guy killed his wife when he accidentally put a cannon ball through their trailer?

 

[saveliberty]

Almost impossible to ban nuclear weapons successfully. How many illegal chemical warfare stockpiles? The desire to defend yourself is pretty universal.