His later designs, like the one above, have oddly found little acceptance in Hollywood action films. Pity!
Posted on 08/12/2014 3:39:23 PM PDT by bamahead
The Second Amendment should have been the first. It is the only thing that has kept tyrants at bay, hence their extreme interest in destroying it. The Second Amendment, though, is only useful if one decides to exercise it, just like all other rights.
I wonder how much longer. It was time to water the Liberty Tree back around 1913; things have only gotten worse since. How much longer before people have well and truly had enough?
Do you realize that the average citizen of the USA was better armed than the average soldier up until 1956?
Nor could I. Also couldn't find where any inanimate object has Constitutional protection. I thought it was our rights that were protected...
Since ought-six corrected the overall error in your statement, I'll just observe that the above comment is a bit fuzzy as well. The militia as conceived in the era cited did the job with deer rifles loading only a single projectile which consisted of separate components carefully loaded one at a time to form the final product to be fired. Mess up any one of those components and you got a potentially fatal "click" instead of a casualty producing (hopefully) BANG!
Moreover on the three shell capacity you mentioned, each shot should be producing a kill with each squeeze of the trigger and that's three dead enemies in a matter of moments. I'm pretty certain the George Washington would have appreciated those odds.
It matters not what you start with. Practicing the doctrine of TRADE UP produces much more satisfactory results in the long term. In other words:
If you have a knife, you can GET a handgun.
If you have a handgun, you can GET a rifle.
If you have a rifle, you can GET belt fed weapons.
If you have belt fed weapons, you can GET artillery, tanks, antiaircraft missiles or whatever you need to advance the agenda of freedom.
I just have a minor disagreement with the “give me liberty or give me death” approach. That would mean that I lose. ‘Since I learned the difference half a century ago my attitude is “give me liberty, leave my ass alone, and expect death if you want to screw with me, my family, my stuff, or anything about my life.” I’m a two-eyes-for-one guy and stand ready to exercise the Code of the West. Semper Fi
That particular firearm is more unusual than most any other side-by-side. If you saw that movie, you might have noticed that when Doc Holliday first let loose with the two shot Street Howitzer he fired THREE shots in rapid succession.
LOL. . .yup . . but hey, hand-cranked ditto machines are unusual these days. . .
;-)
His later designs, like the one above, have oddly found little acceptance in Hollywood action films. Pity!
It makes me think things I don’t like thinking. Such as “I hope her home gets invaded by thugs with pistols and she only has a six shooter to defend herself.”
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
SMH ping
I saw her photo and thought...
I am glad I am not a liberal. All their women are ugly lesbians.
I cannot remember a good looking liberal woman, any suggestions?
Since the AR-15 is Dangerous and Unusual, I would be happy to exchange my CAR-15 for an MA Deuce, with a couple of extra barrels.
Let me know when I can make the switch!
Thanks for the ping!
if the founders were ok with private citizens owning CANNONS ... then they’d have no problem with a modern rifle
Millions, you say? Doesn't sound "unusual" to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.