Much has been made of the change in weapons since theAlmost certainly so. The Americans in OTL already had better guns (rifled barrels) and better marksmanship than the British forces. Now in an ATL, giving them guns with a higher rate of fire and designed to inflict casualties (wounded and killed vs killed) would doubly reinforce the original idea of a "Citizen's Army".
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:47:01?PM UTC-4, Louis Epstein wrote:
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Almost certainly so. The Americans in OTL already had better guns (rifled barrels)
and better marksmanship than the British forces.
Now in an ATL, giving them guns with a higher rate of fire and designed to inflict casualties (wounded and killed vs killed) would doubly reinforce the original idea of a "Citizen's Army".--
Dean
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
Same issue exists in earlier armies.
A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
another can of worms).
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
Same issue exists in earlier armies.
A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
another can of worms).
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
Same issue exists in earlier armies.
A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the
mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
another can of worms).
But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
would make them rethink?
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
they'd see the consequences in person.
Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
Same issue exists in earlier armies.
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
Because that's not entirely accurate. >https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-no-less-than-alexander-hamilton-defined-it-for-us/ar-AA19hoem?ocid=winpstoreapp&cvid=2321bd92810342dea937d32103bc6903&ei=8
via TinyURL: https://tinyurl.com/ydth6hbp
Louis Epstein
pyotr filipivich
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be perfectly acceptable, why not?
Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
they'd see the consequences in person.
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Tue, 4 Apr 2023 22:58:04 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
Same issue exists in earlier armies.
A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the >>> mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
another can of worms).
But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
would make them rethink?
So ship back AK-47's.
Same effectiveness, but a more robust firearm.
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens >>> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
they'd see the consequences in person.
Now explain to me how having a standing army would be much
more palatable in the 1780's? Especially under the Articles of Confederation. One of the reasons for the amendment of the subsequent Constitution was to address concerns about Government overreach.
Disarming the populace, especially as there were still "wild indians"
living close-by, was not a salable idea.
Granted, as long as this timeline's equivalent to the "Rivington
Men" are willing to supply ammunition, the government will only have
to worry about "inventory shrinkage" from Government Armories.
As long as no vet "forgets" to turn in his rifle.
Louis Epstein
pyotr filipivich
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
they'd see the consequences in person.
All the more reason to insure that the government doesn't have
a monopoly on weapons.
edstas...@gmail.com <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein
pyotr filipivich
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
they'd see the consequences in person.
All the more reason to insure that the government doesn't have
a monopoly on weapons.
Or to insure that it **DOES**.
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Tue, 4 Apr 2023 22:58:04 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they >>>> were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
Same issue exists in earlier armies.
A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the >>>> mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
another can of worms).
But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
would make them rethink?
So ship back AK-47's.
Turtledove had South Africans provide Russian weapons
to Confederates...I'm all about Americans providing
American weapons to Americans.
Same effectiveness, but a more robust firearm.
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens >>>> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
they'd see the consequences in person.
Now explain to me how having a standing army would be much
more palatable in the 1780's? Especially under the Articles of
Confederation. One of the reasons for the amendment of the subsequent
Constitution was to address concerns about Government overreach.
Disarming the populace, especially as there were still "wild indians"
living close-by, was not a salable idea.
An orders-of-magnitude increase in carnage when things come
to armed conflict may make armed conflict significantly less palatable.
Granted, as long as this timeline's equivalent to the "Rivington
Men" are willing to supply ammunition, the government will only have
to worry about "inventory shrinkage" from Government Armories.
As long as no vet "forgets" to turn in his rifle.
Letting ammunition walk from the armories would be the determinant of
how dangerous it was for a militiaman to hold onto his rifle.
Louis Epstein
Ed Stasiak
All the more reason to insure that the government doesn't have
a monopoly on weapons.
Or to insure that it **DOES**.
Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular
firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up >government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
3000 miles closer."
Louis Epstein
Ed Stasiak
All the more reason to insure that the government doesn't have
a monopoly on weapons.
Or to insure that it **DOES**.
In that case, welcome to the People's Gulag of North Dakota, comrade...
On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 08:14:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the >>veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,It's probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular >>firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up >>government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
3000 miles closer."
single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has the
right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get
approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a blanket
ban on weapons for felons.
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Thu, 6 Apr 2023 22:23:24 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Tue, 4 Apr 2023 22:58:04 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they >>>>> were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
Same issue exists in earlier armies.
A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the >>>>> mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
another can of worms).
But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
would make them rethink?
So ship back AK-47's.
Turtledove had South Africans provide Russian weapons
to Confederates...I'm all about Americans providing
American weapons to Americans.
Same effectiveness, but a more robust firearm.
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens >>>>> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
they'd see the consequences in person.
Now explain to me how having a standing army would be much
more palatable in the 1780's? Especially under the Articles of
Confederation. One of the reasons for the amendment of the subsequent
Constitution was to address concerns about Government overreach.
Disarming the populace, especially as there were still "wild indians"
living close-by, was not a salable idea.
An orders-of-magnitude increase in carnage when things come
to armed conflict may make armed conflict significantly less palatable.
That was what was thought about the introduction of the Gatling
Gun, the Maxim Gun, Aeroplanes, Gas, assault rifles, and nukes.
Granted, as long as this timeline's equivalent to the "Rivington >>> Men" are willing to supply ammunition, the government will only have
to worry about "inventory shrinkage" from Government Armories.
As long as no vet "forgets" to turn in his rifle.
Letting ammunition walk from the armories would be the determinant of
how dangerous it was for a militiaman to hold onto his rifle.
And how do you intend to keep the armories secure? It is a
problem in these modern times with all the modern tech.
On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 08:14:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the >>veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,It's probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular >>firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up >>government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
3000 miles closer."
single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has the
right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get
approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a blanket
ban on weapons for felons.
The Horny Goat
pyotr filipivich
Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular >firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up >government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
3000 miles closer."
It's probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has
the right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a
blanket ban on weapons for felons.
pyotr filipivich
Ed Stasiak
In that case, welcome to the People's Gulag of North Dakota, comrade...
In 1793, much of what is now the Dakotas was nominally under
Spanish Control, with balance nominally under The Crown.
Louis Epstein
pyotr filipivich
That was what was thought about the introduction of the Gatling
Gun, the Maxim Gun, Aeroplanes, Gas, assault rifles, and nukes.
So you don't think there's any stage at which
the magnitude of an increase would make people care?
Granted, as long as this timeline's equivalent to the "Rivington >>>> Men" are willing to supply ammunition, the government will only have
to worry about "inventory shrinkage" from Government Armories.
As long as no vet "forgets" to turn in his rifle.
Letting ammunition walk from the armories would be the determinant of
how dangerous it was for a militiaman to hold onto his rifle.
And how do you intend to keep the armories secure? It is a
problem in these modern times with all the modern tech.
How seriously would it be taken by enough people?
That's what would decide if it worked.--
An orders-of-magnitude increase in carnage when things come
to armed conflict may make armed conflict significantly less palatable.
That was what was thought about the introduction of the Gatling
Gun, the Maxim Gun, Aeroplanes, Gas, assault rifles, and nukes.
So you don't think there's any stage at which
the magnitude of an increase would make people care?
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Thu, 6 Apr 2023 22:23:24 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Tue, 4 Apr 2023 22:58:04 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000 >>>>>> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they >>>>>> were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
Same issue exists in earlier armies.
A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the
mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is >>>>>> another can of worms).
But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
would make them rethink?
So ship back AK-47's.
Turtledove had South Africans provide Russian weapons
to Confederates...I'm all about Americans providing
American weapons to Americans.
Same effectiveness, but a more robust firearm.
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
they'd see the consequences in person.
Now explain to me how having a standing army would be much
more palatable in the 1780's? Especially under the Articles of
Confederation. One of the reasons for the amendment of the subsequent >>>> Constitution was to address concerns about Government overreach.
Disarming the populace, especially as there were still "wild indians"
living close-by, was not a salable idea.
An orders-of-magnitude increase in carnage when things come
to armed conflict may make armed conflict significantly less palatable.
That was what was thought about the introduction of the Gatling
Gun, the Maxim Gun, Aeroplanes, Gas, assault rifles, and nukes.
So you don't think there's any stage at which
the magnitude of an increase would make people care?
pyotr filipivich
Ed Stasiak
In that case, welcome to the People's Gulag of North Dakota, comrade...
In 1793, much of what is now the Dakotas was nominally under
Spanish Control, with balance nominally under The Crown.
You've just added another 10 years on your sentence, comrade.
They would care. For a while, then it just becomes the new normal.An orders-of-magnitude increase in carnage when things comeThat was what was thought about the introduction of the Gatling >>> Gun, the Maxim Gun, Aeroplanes, Gas, assault rifles, and nukes.
to armed conflict may make armed conflict significantly less palatable. >>>
So you don't think there's any stage at which
the magnitude of an increase would make people care?
----
The Horny Goat
pyotr filipivich
Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular
firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up
government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
3000 miles closer."
It's probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has
the right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get
approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a
blanket ban on weapons for felons.
There is no point where gun control advocates will ever say;
"That's enough gun control."
pyotr filipivich
Ed Stasiak
You've just added another 10 years on your sentence, comrade.
And you're not paying attention to A) the first post, B) the
newsgroup {alt.history.what-if} unless you are postulating
Marxist-Leninism existing in the 1790's.
Louis Epstein
Ed Stasiak
There is no point where gun control advocates will ever say;
"That's enough gun control."
Arms races are better levelled down than up.
edstas...@gmail.com <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat
pyotr filipivich
Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular
firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up
government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
3000 miles closer."
It's probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has
the right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get
approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a
blanket ban on weapons for felons.
There is no point where gun control advocates will ever say;
"That's enough gun control."
Arms races are better levelled down than up.
Louis Epstein
Ed Stasiak
There is no point where gun control advocates will ever say;
"That's enough gun control."
Arms races are better levelled down than up.
Gun control only affects the already law abiding and we don't live
in a magical world of pacifists.
edstas...@gmail.com <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein
Ed Stasiak
There is no point where gun control advocates will ever say;
"That's enough gun control."
Arms races are better levelled down than up.
Gun control only affects the already law abiding and we don't live
in a magical world of pacifists.
Countries with stricter gun laws have fewer gun crimes.
That gun control reduces gun use is proven beyond the doubt
of anyone reasonable enough to not be a gun nut.
Louis EpsteinNot BECAUSE of gun control. The Czech Rep. actually has more concealed
Ed Stasiak
Gun control only affects the already law abiding and we don't live
in a magical world of pacifists.
Countries with stricter gun laws have fewer gun crimes.
That gun control reduces gun use is proven beyond the doubtAh, you're going to go there, then...
of anyone reasonable enough to not be a gun nut.
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
On 3/30/23 18:46, Louis Epstein wrote:
Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.
Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.
What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?
Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
The weapons would not be common or lethal if there
is no ammunition left over afterward, and they do
not find out how to make more ammunition or mass
produce the weapons either.
I think you would need mass production with interchangeable
parts
Smokeless powder
Percussion caps
I remember how Lewis and Clarke on their expedition took air guns
with them with the idea that they would trade them with the Native >Americans.
The idea was that air guns did not need ammunition. They may
have some ways of making black powder there, but that would not
be needed with an air gun.
This would be something like a similar problem in reverse. Of
course everywhere in Europe is eventually going to come up with
something similar once the US figures out how to reverse engineer
the ammunition. Without doing that however the guns are pretty
much useless once the ammunition is depleted.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 11:49:41 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (10,064K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,285 |
