Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Repeating rifle or gun

When was the first repeating rifle or gun made? The reason I ask is I hear folks say that the reason we need new gun laws is that guns were single shot muskets back when the 2nd amendment was written and not anything like we have today.

define repeater.

Well I would say a weapon that was capable of dispensing more then one round before having to reload but not sure if thats the technically correct definition.

RWE,

Intelligent reply there.!

Be interesting to see where this one goes.

Geno

That is flawed logic on their part because those weapons were state of the art at the time.

The 2nd was not written because the authors felt single shots weren't capable of fighting tyranny.




Dave

The right to keep and bear arms is the right to fight against tyrannical government excesses.

If all govt arms bearers will go back to a flintlock musket, then so will I.

Puckle gun, invented in 1718. Probably not the earliest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_Gun

But the 2nd Amendment and all early texts clearly state that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow every man to defend himself, and to allow the citizenry to fight tyranny both from foreign OR domestic sources. As such, military small arms should obviously be covered under the 2nd Amendment - up to and including TRUE assault rifles. Actually I'd say it covers machineguns as well.

The mechanics of the guns had nothing to do with the 2d Amendment. It was for the protection of the citizens from criminals and tyrannical government.

Citizens could own, store, and maintain cannon.

Doesn't get much plainer than that.




Dave

Hey, this is the "campfire"

Why ya'll bringin' logic and histry to the party?

Geno

PS, they mean nothing to politicians, remember that!

PSS, they might mean even less to the "general public".

Not only could, but did. Cannons owned by colonists were both destroyed by the redcoats at Concorde and successfully hidden from them.

The country's founding was kickstarted by gun confiscation attempts. Amazing the left doesn't know anything about history.

Our forefathers could never have imagined radio , television , cellphones or the internet either. Too much information (or misinformation) in the hands of the masses is way more dangerous than firearms.

Tell those "folks" that we need to repeal the 1st Amendment too.


Mike

Govt. treats armed citizens like chit. Imagine how govt.
would treat unarmed citizens.

Old Puckle would have been a good fit here at the fire,....in the second picture, his gun's fitted out with the barrel and cylinder for shooting the square bullets.

His design spec'd ROUND bullets for Christians,....square for dervishes and other Islamic targets.

GTC

The Japanese had strong sword control laws that went away with the invention of guns.
The ancient Romans had strong sword control laws that are gone now.

There were terrifying improvements made in swords between the short fat soft Roman Gladius and the long skinny springy hard sharp swords of Cortes 1500 years later. Imagine if Romans were sick of all those sword laws and dictators so they passed a 2nd amendment. 1500 years later many would argue it should not include that deadly mass murdering Cortes assault sword.

Guns have longer range. To an unarmed person range means nothing, but in a revolutionary war for political control, swords are now irrelevant, and so unregulated. Gun control has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with repressive control.

Leonardo Da Vinci came up with this one.



Crossbow with a hi-cap magazine.

The problem is not how many cartridges a gun holds. It's about being willing to kill somebody. Throughout the history of firearms, a single well placed (or lucky) shot has changed history. As far as defense, somehow they think it is like shooting a target, with only a single assailant who waits till you're ready... The assumption of the left, is that if you have a firearm you cannot be trusted to use it properly. The rest is just a bunch of leverage to incrementally take away ALL firearms.

Preaching to the choir, but yes, the whole point of "gun control" is to leave the citizens defenseless against the armed forces of the State..

The Founding Fathers knew all about the 100% likely abuse of power inherent in those who seek to govern others and therefore wrote into the Constitution every counter to that abuse of power they could think of. The ability to counter the armed might of despots was the very soul of the 2nd Amendment. Were they alive today and the questions of AR-15's or any other weapon equal to those owned by the State were put to them, their mutual replies would be some 18th century phrase akin to "f'ckin' A right we want the citizens to own those!".