The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

Yet you have yet to come up with something other than "More Guns" which is a Sales Gimmick from the NRA.

Yeah....uh...the NRA doesn’t sell firearms sweetie.

They may not sell - but they sure as hell facilitate.

Well no shit! That’s why the organization was formed and why people are members. Their entire purpose is protect the 2nd Amendment, educate people on firearms, and “facilitate”.

 

[Lakhota]

Yet you have yet to come up with something other than "More Guns" which is a Sales Gimmick from the NRA.

Yeah....uh...the NRA doesn’t sell firearms sweetie.

They may not sell - but they sure as hell facilitate.

Well no shit! That’s why the organization was formed and why people are members. Their entire purpose is protect the 2nd Amendment, educate people on firearms, and “facilitate”.

Yeah, but the NRA wasn't always a gun pimp. It was once a good outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.

 

[Rustic]

Yet you have yet to come up with something other than "More Guns" which is a Sales Gimmick from the NRA.

Yeah....uh...the NRA doesn’t sell firearms sweetie.

They may not sell - but they sure as hell facilitate.

Well no shit! That’s why the organization was formed and why people are members. Their entire purpose is protect the 2nd Amendment, educate people on firearms, and “facilitate”.

Yeah, but the NRA wasn't always a gun pimp. It was once a good outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.

 

[jillian]

The "gun show loophole" is an imprecise term, I'll give you that.

But the FACT that people can purchase a gun through various "legal" means without a background is undeniable.

By legal, I just mean that the seller is criminally liable no matter what the buyer does with the gun. Obviously, a felon purchasing a gun is committing a crime… but the seller is not .

What about bad apple gun dealers -- stores that are know to regularly sell guns out the back door to straw purchasers. Tiahrt Amendments limit ATF and state police ability to investigate and monitor this practice. (among others)

Facts to backup my statements -

PolitiFact Sheet: 3 things to know about the 'gun show loophole'

Politifact.....wow....that is a stupid source...

no. it isn't... unlike yours.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet you use the 2nd amendment as you read it as a way to suppress other people's 1st amendment rights.

Uh...what? I love the U.S. Constitution and all amendments in it. I’ve never once used my firearms to prevent someone from exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Why do you feel the need to resort to such immature lies?

Yet you support others that do. Allowing others to purchase their ARs in less than a half hour or even without going through gun list, allowing those on the no fly list to purchase weapons, and the list is endless. Don't you feel even a little remorse for that?

 

[Rustic]

Yet you use the 2nd amendment as you read it as a way to suppress other people's 1st amendment rights.

Uh...what? I love the U.S. Constitution and all amendments in it. I’ve never once used my firearms to prevent someone from exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Why do you feel the need to resort to such immature lies?

Yet you support others that do. Allowing others to purchase their ARs in less than a half hour or even without going through gun list, allowing those on the no fly list to purchase weapons, and the list is endless. Don't you feel even a little remorse for that?

 

[P@triot]

Yet you support others that do. Allowing others to purchase their ARs in less than a half hour or even without going through gun list, allowing those on the no fly list to purchase weapons, and the list is endless. Don't you feel even a little remorse for that?

What does any of that have to do with stopping someone else from their 1st Amendment rights?

Don't I feel even a little remorse for defending and supporting the 2nd Amendment? No. Not at all. Not even a little.

 

[P@triot]

Yet you have yet to come up with something other than "More Guns" which is a Sales Gimmick from the NRA.

Yeah....uh...the NRA doesn’t sell firearms sweetie.

They may not sell - but they sure as hell facilitate.

Well no shit! That’s why the organization was formed and why people are members. Their entire purpose is protect the 2nd Amendment, educate people on firearms, and “facilitate”.

Yeah, but the NRA wasn't always a gun pimp. It was once a good outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.

A. That's the exact same thing they were doing in 1977. Nothing has changed.

B. That's what they said about the founders. They were "radicals". If protecting liberty and upholding the U.S. Constitution is "radical" in your mind...what does that say about you?

 

[P@triot]

There were in fact fully automatic firearms at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The Puckle gun (1718) and the Belton flintlock (1777) are just two of many automatic weapons of that era.



These Guns Dispel The Notion The Founding Fathers Could Never Have Imagined Modern Assault Rifles

 

[P@triot]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There were in fact fully automatic firearms at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The Puckle gun (1718) and the Belton flintlock (1777) are just two of many automatic weapons of that era.

View attachment 178446 View attachment 178447

These Guns Dispel The Notion The Founding Fathers Could Never Have Imagined Modern Assault Rifles

The Puckle wasn't received very well. It ended up being used against small boats (pirates) that were attacking ships in shipping lanes. And it was clearly not an automatic weapon. Here is what it really was. It was as a very cumbersome gun at best and very large caliber of at least an inch. Only one person actually bought 2 of them and that was a Dutch Trading Company that installed them on one ship. As the media suggest, it was better than a single shot but it was cumbersome at best. It was way ahead of it's time but still not an automatic firing weapon. Just to fire it one at a time, it took considerable effort on the part of the shooter. Still, it was an engineering marvel for it's day even if the technique was poor. What was used in it's stead was a single fire small cannon on a swivel. If you had more than a couple, you could load them up, fire them, take them out of the mount and replace it with another one much faster than the Puckle gun could fire.



The belton flintlock only had two made they believe but there are no known examples that exist today. It was also a repeater and NOT an Automatic Gun. It worked by stacking shots in one barrel with multiple charges and projectiles. I can understand how it was supposed to work but there was a greater chance that it would fire all of them at the same time or just blow up the breech. It would take a very brave and foolish person to fire such a weapon. And that type of person just wouldn't be in the Military like the inventor wished.

Both of these were evolutionary dead ends in fire arms.

 

[P@triot]

Both of these were evolutionary dead ends in fire arms.

But they absolutely existed and prove once again the false narrative of the left about “muskets”.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Both of these were evolutionary dead ends in fire arms.

But they absolutely existed and prove once again the false narrative of the left about “muskets”.

Do you really want to get into Military History with me? I am recognized as a Military Historian in many circles.

Both were evolutionary dead ends and neither was an Automatic Weapon of any sorts. One was actually built and purchased by one person (the Puckle Gun) but was quickly replaced by the Swivel gun that was much more devastating to other ships and small boats. The other had about as much dependability to fire projectiles as setting a grenade off in your hand and there is still a question if it was ever made or not since there are not existing original copies of it.

Neither had any relevance to history. The only thing the Pickle gun might be given any credit for was it resemble what was going to be the colt revolver decades later. The only thing the other contributes is that it made a prime example of how not to make a suicide vest.

 

[P@triot]

Both were evolutionary dead ends and neither was an Automatic Weapon of any sorts.

They were fully “automatic” weapons and far more sophisticated than the muskets the idiot progressives always love to mention.

 

[P@triot]

Do you really want to get into Military History with me? I am recognized as a Military Historian in many circles

And yet you had never heard of the Puckle gun or the Belton flintlock before I mentioned them yesterday.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Both were evolutionary dead ends and neither was an Automatic Weapon of any sorts.

They were fully “automatic” weapons and far more sophisticated than the muskets the idiot progressives always love to mention.

One had more chance of blowing your hand off than firing the first shot. And each and every shot after that. The other was such a complicated process of firing each and every shot that it lost out to even the single shots.

Now explain the firing methods used on each one. Automatic means every time you pull the trigger it fires.

The Puckle gun had to be fired, one projectile would exit. Then you had to crank the cylinder back, turn it by hand and then crank it back in and then you could fire again. No way it could have remotely been called an Automatic Firearm at all. And it was an evolutionary firearms dead end. Hence the single buyer.

The Belton was so unstable that it would have a better chance at firing everything at the same time and taking at least your hand and arm off with it. As far as anyone (other than Belton) knew, it was done on paper only. At least done on paper it didn't take off your entire right arm when it exploded. Not a single completed one has ever been seen and it not a single example can be seen today.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do you really want to get into Military History with me? I am recognized as a Military Historian in many circles

And yet you had never heard of the Puckle gun or the Belton flintlock before I mentioned them yesterday.

No, I hadn't. But you made me look. It's called Fact Checking. You should try it sometime. Fact Checking gets in the way of your story every time.

 

[P@triot]

Fact Checking gets in the way of your story every time.

That perfectly sums up the left’s view. They understand that “fact checking gets in the way of their story every time”. I love it when the left has a moment of inadvertent honesty.

 

[P@triot]

Do you really want to get into Military History with me? I am recognized as a Military Historian in many circles

And yet you had never heard of the Puckle gun or the Belton flintlock before I mentioned them yesterday.

No, I hadn't.

So you’re not actually the “historian” you’d like to believe.

 

[P@triot]

The Puckle gun had to be fired, one projectile would exit. Then you had to crank the cylinder back, turn it by hand and then crank it back in and then you could fire again. No way it could have remotely been called an Automatic Firearm at all.

The Gatling gun had to be cranked as well - but it was still pumping out endless rounds as you did (unlike the musket with the one shot, reload the gun powder, reload the musket ball). You’re trying to apply today’s automatic technology to the 1700’s because (like all lefties) you can’t bring yourself to admit you were ignorant of the facts,

Oh....by the way Mr. “Military Historian”....almost every farm had a canon in that era. Which was the heaviest artillery of the time.