« First « Previous Comments 536 - 575 of 1,449 Next » Last » Search these comments
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/904393619
CIVIL WAR US NAVY 8" DAHLGREN CANNON ON CARRIAGE
Buyer pays actual shipping costs
CIVIL WAR US NAVY 8" DAHLGREN CANNON ON CARRIAGEBuyer pays actual shipping costs
Could cost quite a lot to ship a cannon, lol.
Cannon will be my next purchase, thanks Patrick! I'll add some accecories to it and make it an assult cannon.f
http://steencannons.com/cannons/
Rb6d says
CIVIL WAR US NAVY 8" DAHLGREN CANNON ON CARRIAGE
When I used to live at an Oakland Marina, I had a neighbor, Gene, who was 93 years old and still lived aboard his 45 foot ketch. I always tried to help him with little electrical and mechanical issues. He rewarded me with an old Model 1913 Cavalry Sword, aka the "Patton Saber" after the famous WW2 general who designed it. He was quite the pirate as well as collector, "If I get anymore swords or cannons my boat is going to sink."
U.S. Sees Ongoing Spike in Gun, Ammo Sales: 'I've Never Seen Anything Like It'
Because the communists have dossiers on everyone.
Onvacation saysBecause the communists have dossiers on everyone.
they are making lists of people. just like nazis had lists.
KABUL, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Taliban fighters in the Afghan capital, Kabul, started collecting weapons from civilians on Monday because people no longer need them for personal protection, a Taliban official said.
"We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe. We are not here to harm innocent civilians," the official told Reuters.
City resident Saad Mohseni, director of the MOBY group media company, said on Twitter that Taliban soldiers had come to his company compound to enquire about the weapons kept by his security team.
Taliban Demand Afghans Hand Over Guns, Ammo Within a Week
BY JACK PHILLIPS August 27, 2021
A spokesman for the Taliban said that Afghans who have government-issued weapons, ammunition, or vehicles need to hand them over or face punishment.
Guns can be scary. I get it. They are loud, and, with even a little power, capable of much destruction. They are not unlike elected officials in these ways.
What will we do when batteries make handheld lasers possible?
rocketjoe79 saysWhat will we do when batteries make handheld lasers possible?
I doubt it's possible. The amount of energy you need to kill somebody using just energy is enormous. It CAN be done, but I doubt with a battery. What would probably work is a tight beam of microwave energy. The problem with this is you can shield relatively easily. I think weapons will always be projectile in nature. No phasers for you!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
He says that a standing army will generally defeat any militia because they are better trained and more experienced, unless the militia itself gains experience due to a war. He also points out that the militia of the "colonies" might well defeat the British army if they gain enough experience in warfare.
« First « Previous Comments 536 - 575 of 1,449 Next » Last » Search these comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.