Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Stephan55

Dissappearing Posts and Threads

Recommended Posts

Why does no one ever point out that the "arms" the Constitution was written about were single-shot muskets, which required about 1 full minute to re-load.

 

Normal rate of fire for muskets was three shots per minute. Trained troops consistently fired four times per minute. My ancestors on my father's side would have lost their position if they could not fire six times per minute.

 

It is in contrast that knife or cleaver requires no reload time. That is one reason they are preferred weapon for mass murders in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanping_school_massacre

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to kill a class room of five years olds with those!

Touche, Fred.

 

Yeah, good point, Bogie.

 

(...yep, I'll bet even most of the slow little fat ones could probably make it through the door if given a whole minute between shots, huh!)

 

...edit to follow...

 

Correction, and now after reading Sans' expertise on the subject of rate of fire that a good musketeer could achieve, allow me to change the word "most" to just "some" of the slow little fat ones in my above sick attempt at humor up there!!!

 

LOL

Edited by Dargo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tempted to come up with posts just for the sake of coming up with posts, but I won't.

 

This is an astonishing statement. Hard to tell whether there is irony intended or not. If yes, a touch of humor and a welcome admission. If no, out-and-out hilarious.

 

;)

...because it does seem that you do just that

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, good point, Bogie.

 

(...yep, I'll bet even most of the slow little fat ones could probably make it through the door if given a whole minute between shots, huh!)

 

...edit to follow...

 

Correction, and now after reading Sans' expertise on the subject of rate of fire that a good musketeer could achieve, allow me to change the word "most" to just "some" of the slow little fat ones in my above sick attempt at humor up there!!!

 

LOL

 

The Warren report concluded that Oswald could have used a musket.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...yep, I'll bet even most of the slow little fat ones could probably make it through the door if given a whole minute between shots, huh!)

 

 

I find it doubtful that they could find a door. Musketfire within closed room is much like use of flash-bang grenade. Second shot would mean so much smoke in room that it would not be possible to see more than a few feet. Brilliant plumes of fire and short, deep bursts of sound would stun and confuse any person.

 

Smoke from muskets meant that it was typical in lines on battlefield that first shot was aimed well. Second shot was aimed. Third shot was hopeful. All successive shots were in general direction of where enemy was last seen. Best position was to be upwind of enemy so that smoke would roll towards enemy and this would hide your advance.

 

It was typical of time that persons carried two, four or even six pistols when action was to be in close proximity such as within cities or on board ships. This allowed them early volley to take down targets most significant and then to reload while hidden in cloud of smoke. Typical rate of fire with typical pistols was nine shots per minute.

 

I thank you for your kind words. I am Cossack on my father's side and so have heard and read much concerning their use of firearms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it doubtful that they could find a door. Musketfire within closed room is much like use of flash-bang grenade. Second shot would mean so much smoke in room that it would not be possible to see more than a few feet. Brilliant plumes of fire and short, deep bursts of sound would stun and confuse any person.

 

Smoke from muskets meant that it was typical in lines on battlefield that first shot was aimed well. Second shot was aimed. Third shot was hopeful. All successive shots were in general direction of where enemy was last seen. Best position was to be upwind of enemy so that smoke would roll towards enemy and this would hide your advance.

 

It was typical of time that persons carried two, four or even six pistols when action was to be in close proximity such as within cities or on board ships. This allowed them early volley to take down targets most significant and then to reload while hidden in cloud of smoke. Typical rate of fire with typical pistols was nine shots per minute.

 

I thank you for your kind words. I am Cossack on my father's side and so have heard and read much concerning their use of firearms.

 

Hmmmmm...makes ya wonder what the Surgeon General might've thought about all that smoke, huh! ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it doubtful that they could find a door. Musketfire within closed room is much like use of flash-bang grenade. Second shot would mean so much smoke in room that it would not be possible to see more than a few feet. Brilliant plumes of fire and short, deep bursts of sound would stun and confuse any person.

 

One-shot guns would allow anyone in the room to grab the gun after the first shot.

 

Back when I was a kid, and in most old movies, all 20th Century guns held only 6 shots. Even cop guns held only 6 shots and so did crook's guns.

 

The Thompson machine gun was a brief exception in the 1920s and early 30s, but it was made illegal for a citizen to own or possess one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One-shot guns would allow anyone in the room to grab the gun after the first shot.

 

Back when I was a kid, and in most old movies, all 20th Century guns held only 6 shots. Even cop guns held only 6 shots and so did crook's guns.

 

The Thompson machine gun was a brief exception in the 1920s and early 30s, but it was made illegal for a citizen to own or possess one.

 

Let us not forget that the BAR was also in vogue at that time.

A fav of Clyde Barrow, and others. Along with his sawed off Remington pump shotgun, assorted Colt 1911 semi auto pistols, and 6 shooter revolvers....

clyde.jpg

 

09df7985f6c7c9e31c12eec29e0774fe.jpg

 

 

Why does no one ever point out that the "arms" the Constitution was written about were single-shot muskets, which required about 1 full minute to re-load.

 

Two guys with their Constitutionally legal "arms":

 

revwarmilitiareenactors.jpg

 

I thought that I had with this post....   and the point was not that they were just single shot weapons, but that they were on a parity with (if not superior to) their military grade counterparts at that time, and remained so until the end of the 19th century.

 

 

This is a very touchy subject, especially these days.

Dare I share a taste of this open can of worms? :unsure: Okay, I dare.

 

 

.... In that day, civilian weaponry was on a par, and in the case of small arms was frequently superior to that of the military. .....

 

My inference was, that the primary firearm of the "greatest" military on earth at the time was the smoothbore .75 calibre Brown Bess flintlock musket.

 

In addition to everything that SansFin has already said about this period weaponry, the "Bessie" could be loaded so quickly because the lead ball was frequently of a smaller calibre than the internal barrel diameter, allowing the ball or projectile/s to simply be dropped inside the muzzle, atop a charge of powder (though paper cartridges were in use at the time as well), allowing a single forceful push of the ramrod.

These muskets would fire practically anything that went down the barrel, and could also fire multiple small pellets, like a shotgun.

The trade-off for their (then) rapid rate of fire was range and accuracy.

They were only reasonably accurate out to the first 50 or 60 yards, and even that diminished with each successful round as the barrel fouled. As already mentioned, black powder is very messy.

They were also flintlocks, meaning that wet or damp weather also affected their ability to fire at all, which is one of the reasons why the pike or bayonet was so essential for close quarter combat. (The all-weather percussion cap, was not introduced until the early 19th century).

None-the-less, line upon line of well drilled men in red, marching to the fife and drum, firing volley after volley, with pikes shimmering, was a very intimidating sight, especially to anyone not equally trained.

 

The colonials who opposed them during the revolution were most often armed with the same "military grade" weapons, as most male citizens of the American Colonies were required by law to own arms and ammunition for militia duty. But some were even "better" armed with Pennsylvania long rifles.

As the name implies these were not smoothbore, but rifled muskets, frequently of lighter .40-.50 calibre (allowing each man to carry more loads of ammunition per pound). They were slower to load, and much more sensitive to fouling, but the trade-off was their incredibly accurate range, for that day.

A long rifle was accurate out to 200 yards, four times that of the Bess, making them a "great" sniping weapon for lesser trained militia riflemen. That, along with the "unorthodox" guerilla tactics frequently employed by the colonials, made these civilian firearms particularly hated and feared by the British regulars.

 

So everything is relative for its time and place.

 

If we were like the Swiss today, every able bodied male up to the age of 50, would be a member of the national militia (regulars aside), and every such household would have at least one or more military grade assault rifle along with persons well trained in it is use.

Per capita Switzerland has one of the best armed (and trained) citizenrys of any nation, and also one of the very lowest per capita crime rates (including violent crime) of any nation on earth.

 

Could we only live in a world where there were no weapons, of any kind, or, as long as I am dreaming here, a world where there was no need for any kind of weapon.

But until that fantasy becomes a reality, as some have said, "The best defense for an armed "bad" guy, is an equally armed (and better trained) "good" guy."

 

I wish that it were not so, but it is.

I didn't 'invent' this world, I only live in it.

 

IMO, if every "able bodied" (and sane) adult American male (and female) were conscripted, and were well trained in the use of small arms, and after strict qualification were not just allowed, but required to maintain their weapon at home (when not on duty), not only would we dramatically decrease our governments involvement in capricious, special interest "wars," but our national crime rate would also steeply drop.

 

Anyone with a "sane" mind contemplating mayhem would be seriously deterred, knowing that practically every household was well-trained and armed, and those insane enough to still try would be quickly put down for their trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warren report concluded that Oswald could have used a musket.   

Well, maybe for the first shot.... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in re: that very topic

 

I'm at the point where I've got one foot out the door of this place. If it keeps up, I'm gone.

(much to the delight of any number of you, I am sure.)

Oh don't leave us Lorna... You'd break Hibi's heart!

And I'm sure there are many of us that would miss your "wit and widom" too!   I know that I would...

That is if I don't beat you out the door first! :)

seriously  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One-shot guns would allow anyone in the room to grab the gun after the first shot.

 

 

It is obvious that you have no experience or training for such situations and have been watching an excessive number of inane action movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "Bessie" could be loaded so quickly because the lead ball was frequently of a smaller calibre than the internal barrel diameter, allowing the ball or projectile/s to simply be dropped inside the muzzle, atop a charge of powder (though paper cartridges were in use at the time as well), allowing a single forceful push of the ramrod.

 

 

I do not know of that particular weapon but having ball smaller than barrel diameter came to be used widely. A patch had to be used to seal space between ball and barrel. Some wrapped patch around ball and rammed it through similar-sized tube prior to battle to assure that it would enter with minimum effort. Added benefit was that patch would wipe some fouling back to powder charge so it would have second chance to burn. 

 

I do not use: 'Like' button as matter of principle but I would 'Like' several of your posts in this thread if I did use it. It is obvious that you have clear understanding of the chaos.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do not know of that particular weapon but having ball smaller than barrel diameter came to be used widely. A patch had to be used to seal space between ball and barrel. Some wrapped patch around ball and rammed it through similar-sized tube prior to battle to assure that it would enter with minimum effort. Added benefit was that patch would wipe some fouling back to powder charge so it would have second chance to burn. 

 

I do not use: 'Like' button as matter of principle but I would 'Like' several of your posts in this thread if I did use it. It is obvious that you have clear understanding of the chaos.

 

Ya know Sans my dear, I've found that the occasional use of the 'Like' button that you for some odd reason seem leery of ever using(yeah, okay, 'a matter of principle') will occasionally relieve those nagging and mild little paranoiac thoughts that this country is in such a constant state of utter "chaos" that one must arm themselves to the teeth in order to prepare for all eventualities.

 

Well, this seems to work for me anyway, and especially after I 'Like' all those cute and funny little cat images and gifs you post in another forum around here and when after I 'Like' them I then get that warm and fuzzy little feeling that all is right with the world.

 

(...ah, but then again I'm sure you'll just think of me as being that "typical naive American" here, huh!) ;)

 

LOL

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know of that particular weapon but having ball smaller than barrel diameter came to be used widely. A patch had to be used to seal space between ball and barrel. Some wrapped patch around ball and rammed it through similar-sized tube prior to battle to assure that it would enter with minimum effort. Added benefit was that patch would wipe some fouling back to powder charge so it would have second chance to burn. 

 

I do not use: 'Like' button as matter of principle but I would 'Like' several of your posts in this thread if I did use it. It is obvious that you have clear understanding of the chaos.

The British Brown Bess musket was their standard issue firearm throughout the empire, for both their land and sea forces, and existed in various models from 1722-1838, and even beyond as many were refitted as percussion firearms. Many were purchased by other countries during their prominance, and afterward as surplus.  

I'd have to research what the weapons from your country would have been at that time.  

You are quite correct again, regarding the cloth patching of the ball to seal the round and create a snug fit, and the prepared paper or cloth "cartridges" of the day (that contained a lead round, cloth wad, and charge of powder, within a preloaded tube or sleeve), but what I am referring is a little more extreme than that. The round would be so small that it would literally bounce against the side of the barrel during firing. (i.e. a .69 calibre ball fired through a .75 calibre barrel).

There was of course no accuracy, but by this time with such close ranges it didn't matter much, as you described, there was no aiming at that point, just pointing and shooting. Somebody in the opposing line was bound to be hit.

The troops entered the battle with clean weapons, and tight balls (no pun intended) in the barrel, after the first couple of volleys they drew the smaller and even quicker to load rounds or "cartridges" from a separate pouch.

 

Thank you SansFin, knowing a little bit about your background I appreciate and respect those comments.

I think perhaps I am too liberal with my "likes"  these days, but if something makes me smile or think, I like it.

 

Have you heard the expression of one "being too close to the forest to be able see the trees"?, or perhaps it is "being too close to a tree to see the forest"?  :unsure:

Anyway, I think that may be a factor with many of us.

If one can't see the forest for the trees, then they are unable to see the whole situation clearly because they're looking too closely at small details, or because they're too closely involved. Sometimes when one is too close to a situation it pays to step back and gain a little broader perspective.

People coming from somewhere else, are often able to notice things that those within a situation cannot.

Just caught the first episode of a PBS series called The Brain with David Eagleman, very thought provoking regarding our individual perceptions of reality. Somehow I think you may enjoy watching it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know Sans my dear, I've found that the occasional use of the 'Like' button that you for some odd reason seem leery of ever using(yeah, okay, 'a matter of principle') will occasionally relieve those nagging and mild little paranoiac thoughts that this country is in such a constant state of utter "chaos" that one must arm themselves to the teeth in order to prepare for all eventualities.

 

Well, this seems to work for me anyway, and especially after I 'Like' all those cute and funny little cat images and gifs you post in another forum around here and when after I 'Like' them I then get that warm and fuzzy little feeling that all is right with the world.

 

(...ah, but then again I'm sure you'll just think of me as being that "typical naive American" here, huh!) ;)

 

LOL

I know that your post was directed to SansFin, but hopefully you will not mind my injecting here.

 

Perhaps it was the result of military training, or maybe that just brought it out of me, not sure, but I used to be a staunch "survivalist."

So I can relate to what you said.

I am not so much anymore, but I still retain a pragmatic attitude.

I know that even with unlimited resources that it is impossible to "prepare for all eventualities," and being "armed to the teeth" is just not practical, even were that the simple solution to all the worlds problems.

But I still see value in the "Five P's" the army taught me: Prior Preparation Prevents Poor Performance. And within reason, I do attempt to practice that.

 

In a way it seems strange that we/I am discussing such heavy subject matter to which this thread has recently strayed. Because for the most part I watch TCM to gain those "warm fuzzy's" that you spoke of.  Most of those old movies can take me back to the simpler times of my youth, when I knew much less than I do today, and it is a form of escapism for me.

And I generally come to these boards to share with those who can relate to that.

 

Unfortunetly, I am a highly opinionated person, and am easily side-tracked when someone opens up a subject to which I can relate and think I may know a little bit about. 

This thread was originated to be a place to for me to personally vent about the censorship here, and hear what others had to say about it.

In the back of my head it was also an experiment to see how long we could discuss that subject before the thread was either locked or "disappeared."

I figured that it would stray off center, as most threads do, but discussing the politics of gun control, with all of the implications was not really a direction I would have taken it. Pretty depressing stuff.

Still, if others want to discuss it, I will not be shy about tossing my two cents in. But, as said, it does hinder my escaping the reality that "all is Not right within this otherwise very beautiful, yet delicate and ever more fragile world" in which we all share.

 

Edit:

Thanks Dargo for mentioning that Cat thread, probably never would have seen it otherwise.

I am a biophilic and have a special connection with canines, but as others have commented have found those cat videos and photos adorable. 39 pages, can spend hours and hours looking and smiling over there.

Great place to go to take your mind off things...

Thanks again for mentioning it and thanks to SansFin for starting it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed at times when I am typing that the little red Moderator will be on the list as "reading the same topic" to which I am addressing at that moment.

I had an aquaintance that once hosted a board, and he had the ability to observe whoever was accessing his server, and what they were looking at.

With the spyware technolgy today allowing every keystroke to be observed. I would not be surprized if the moderator here had that same capability. Perhaps a little bell dings or a computer flag pops up whenever the autocensor does it's thing, directing the Mod to that post.

 

When we sign on to these boards we are giving our permission to be closely monitored.

Kinda strange that I am just now thinking about it in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed at times when I am typing that the little red Moderator will be on the list as "reading the same topic" to which I am addressing at that moment.

 

+1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...Unfortunately, I am a highly opinionated person, and am easily side-tracked when someone opens up a subject to which I can relate and think I may know a little bit about. 

 

 

Yeah, I suppose you might be a little opinionated, Stephan. However, because I've noticed whenever you DO state some opinion of yours around here, you ALSO almost always add to your posts what I feel are very evenhanded and articulately written words as to why you HAVE those opinions, and which is something I wish more people were capable of in this world.

 

(...and so be proud of this particular personality trait of yours and those abilities you possess...it seems a rarer and rarer commodity among the populace each passing day) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know Sans my dear, I've found that the occasional use of the 'Like' button that you for some odd reason seem leery of ever using(yeah, okay, 'a matter of principle') will occasionally relieve those nagging and mild little paranoiac thoughts

 

 

I am sorry to say that I must disagree with your concept. I believe that this may be due to my being disagreeable person. 

 

I feel that use of: 'Like' button increases paranoia. It may cause people to wonder why a post which they made did not receive: 'Like' when post by some other user expressing same general opinion received several. It may lead them to wonder if others find that user to be nicer or more intelligent than them. They will know that this can not be true and so they will assign reason for: 'Like' disparity to formation of secret clique which excludes them. They may then feel that they must watch with care for early signs that members of that clique feel insulted that outsider dares to post opinions similar to theirs and that members of said clique will begin to feel need to conspire against them. It will then be necessary for them to stalk user and those who: 'Liked' his posts in preparation for day when that user and his clique begin concerted attack. I believe that such a situation might then become worrisome.

 

I explained my position on: 'Like' feature here:

http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/48565-two-new-features-which-i-will-not-be-using/page-2

I must state that I feel slightly offended that you do not have all of my posts bookmarked for easy referral so that you may research my position on any matter.

 

 

(...ah, but then again I'm sure you'll just think of me as being that "typical naive American" here, huh!) 

 

 

It is basic part of my hope for mankind that you are not 'typical' anything! I greatly enjoy and am often heartened by your attitudes, humour and opiniouns but I shudder to think that there may be others much like you. ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry to say that I must disagree with your concept. I believe that this may be due to my being disagreeable person. 

 

I feel that use of: 'Like' button increases paranoia. It may cause people to wonder why a post which they made did not receive: 'Like' when post by some other user expressing same general opinion received several. It may lead them to wonder if others find that user to be nicer or more intelligent than them. They will know that this can not be true and so they will assign reason for: 'Like' disparity to formation of secret clique which excludes them. They may then feel that they must watch with care for early signs that members of that clique feel insulted that outsider dares to post opinions similar to theirs and that members of said clique will begin to feel need to conspire against them. It will then be necessary for them to stalk user and those who: 'Liked' his posts in preparation for day when that user and his clique begin concerted attack. I believe that such a situation might then become worrisome.

 

I explained my position on: 'Like' feature here:

http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/48565-two-new-features-which-i-will-not-be-using/page-2

I must state that I feel slightly offended that you do not have all of my posts bookmarked for easy referral so that you may research my position on any matter.

 

 

It is basic part of my hope for mankind that you are not 'typical' anything! I greatly enjoy and am often heartened by your attitudes, humour and opiniouns but I shudder to think that there may be others much like you. ;)

 

Cute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to research what the weapons from your country would have been at that time.  

 

 

The weapons which my ancestors carried were made for them locally. They felt it very important that they be able to find person who made their weapon if it failed in any respect during battle. It was point of pride also that several generations were all men who fought or made weapons for fighting. There were no accountants, chicken farmers or telephone sanitizers!

 

Others of the area might have carried foreign weapons. I do not know particulars of those. I am sure that there was feeling that they needed best weapons available and so some may have carried: Brown Bess.

 

 

Have you heard the expression of one "being too close to the forest to be able see the trees"?, or perhaps it is "being too close to a tree to see the forest"? 

 

 

lIk64Jh.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be surprized if the moderator here had that same capability. Perhaps a little bell dings or a computer flag pops up whenever the autocensor does it's thing, directing the Mod to that post.

 

 

My insignificant one-quarter is occasional moderator of forum for group to which he belongs. It is mostly flipping through posts to find lapses of civility and users edging towards improper material. Software does alert him when there is unusual activity within one thread. I believe this may be due to thought that rapid-fire exchanges have greater likelihood of becoming heated. 

 

 

When we sign on to these boards we are giving our permission to be closely monitored.

 

 

I find it odd that people do not realize that that might be situation at all times. I grew up with strong belief in God and strong suspicion of state. It is part of my mind at all times that I might be judged by what I say and that I might have to defend my words and actions.

 

This calls to my mind uncle who was of attitude that he should commit many sins each day so that when he was called to answer for them before God that it would take nearly eternity for him to speak of them all. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...It is basic part of my hope for mankind that you are not 'typical' anything! I greatly enjoy and am often heartened by your attitudes, humour and opiniouns but I shudder to think that there may be others much like you. ;)

 

Thanks Sans...I think!

 

(...although I must admit your use of those superfluous-u's didn't go unnoticed) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...