Firepower...


From wikipedia
A Ribauldequin, also known as a rabauld, ribault, ribaudkin, infernal machine or organ gun, was a late medieval volley gun with many small-caliber iron barrels set up parallel on a platform, in use during the 14th and 15th centuries. When the gun was fired in a volley, it created a shower of iron shot. They were employed, specifically, during the early fifteenth century, and continued serving, mostly, as an anti-personnel gun. The name organ gun comes from the multiple barrels with the likeness of pipe organ.


16th century volley gun...


Polish 20 barrel...


Nock Gun

The Nock gun was a seven-barrelled flintlock smoothbore firearm used by the Royal Navy during the early stages of the Napoleonic Wars. A volley gun originally designed for ship-to-ship fighting, its use was limited and eventually discontinued because the powerful recoil limited its use.

Since then, it has gained some historical fame for its bizarre appearance, notably in The Alamo and the Richard Sharpe series of novels by Bernard Cornwell.
Contents

History and design

The weapon was invented by British engineer James Wilson in 1779, and named after Henry Nock, the London-based armaments manufacturer contracted to build the gun. It was intended to be fired from the rigging of Royal Navy warships onto the deck in the event that the ship was boarded by enemy sailors. Theoretically, the simultaneous discharge of seven barrels would have devastating effect on the tightly packed groups of enemy sailors.



Not to mention these were legal...



Now please put this lie to rest.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 11-13-2012).]

Isn't a shame that the government won't declare open season on those so called "liberals?'
Then you could shoot them at will.
If you have the cojones.
And if they don't surprise you and shoot back.


Shame on you for taking a cool thread about bizarre firearms of the past and turning it into a political "I hate 47% of Americans" screed.
------------------

Drive safely!

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 11-13-2012).]

We also have repeating air guns from that period, that fired a round about the equiv of .45 ACP, a known man stopper...


Lets also not forget "the rockets red glare"...

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: No, deportation would be fine. Mexico has mighty fine gun control, so you should feel plenty safe there. No, shame on the liberal media for lying about the type of firepower available during the founding fathers time. Gun control is based upon lies, and nothing but lies.

Cough!Cough!Cough! Douchebag.Cough!
Now I remember why me and my shotgun left this snakepit.


------------------

Drive safely!

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 11-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Cough!Cough!Cough! Douchebag.Cough! Now I remember why me and my shotgun left this snakepit.

Remember, that shotgun is more likely to kill you, than anyone else. The liberal media told me so.

yes, I should be able to own chemical & biological arms.

a fine thing would be the mighty AIDS dart gun.
a great morale buster that would be....

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes, I should be able to own chemical & biological arms. a fine thing would be the mighty AIDS dart gun. a great morale buster that would be....

Exactly what use are chemical and biological arms in a revolutionary war? None.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Exactly what use are chemical and biological arms in a revolutionary war? None.

lol

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Exactly what use are chemical and biological arms in a revolutionary war? None.

Your kidding right? What use are they in ANY war? It's simply another means of devistating your enemy so I don't see why they wouldn't be useful in a revolutionary war, or are we so whipped that we wouldn't want to except the cost in lives such a thing would intell?

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: Your kidding right? What use are they in ANY war? It's simply another means of devistating your enemy so I don't see why they wouldn't be useful in a revolutionary war, or are we so whipped that we wouldn't want to except the cost in lives such a thing would intell?

Pray tell how they could be employed, without harming those on your side of the line? Also remember, the country would be put back together at some point, and the use of such weapons, would bring war crime charges.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 11-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Shame on you for taking a cool thread about bizarre firearms of the past and turning it into a political "I hate 47% of Americans" screed.

Sheeeesh, of course it is political. Try reading the post header before replying next time! Still attempting to push the 47% lie I see or is that just the usual deflection.

Gotta love people who still think they are on the high road when they are waste deep in water.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Pray tell how they could be employed, without harming those on your side of the line? Also remember, the country would be put back together at some point, and the use of such weapons, would bring war crime charges.

War crime charges in a revolutionary war? Only if you lose. Chemical weapons could easily be used without harming your "own". Mustard gas only has a certain area of effect after which it becomes to diluted. Tear gas is the same way along with many other chemicals. Biological? That might be harder to employ but not impossible depending on what your deploying, how long it stays viable for delivery and how it is transmitted (if it is transmitable) to others. If you have a line of agression and are confident you can keep that line without infiltration, why wouldn't you lob something over that will cause your enemy to die off?

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-13-2012).]

Oooooo.. Bigger guns, with more barrels.. Yeah man, your right, they definatly had a full understanding of our current tech.. Espeically Nukes, fighter planes, air craft carriers.. Anti tank rifles ect... Your right man, you got us good with that one!

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: Oooooo.. Bigger guns, with more barrels.. Yeah man, your right, they definatly had a full understanding of our current tech.. Espeically Nukes, fighter planes, air craft carriers.. Anti tank rifles ect... Your right man, you got us good with that one!

Look again, and compare to the AK-47, that your side continues to scream about. Now tell me honestly, the founding fathers would have banned it. You do understand, if you make a gun that fires 7 barrels with one trigger pull, you have just made a illegal firearm, right?

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 11-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Look again, and compare to the AK-47, that your side continues to scream about. Now tell me honestly, the founding fathers would have banned it. You do understand, if you make a gun that fires 7 barrels with one trigger pull, you have just made a illegal firearm, right?

Keep in mind your talking about people, and weapons from a time where our country was at war, on its own soil, and citizens where expected at the drop of a hat to be able to pick up their weapon and run out into battle too defend the country..

My side? lmao... thats too funny..

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: Keep in mind your talking about people, and weapons from a time where our country was at war, on its own soil, and citizens where expected at the drop of a hat to be able to pick up their weapon and run out into battle too defend the country.. My side? lmao... thats too funny..

So I guess we had no canons then, I mean you could not carry one out to the battle, at a drop of the hat. BTW, we are still supposed to be at that state of readiness, that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment, not the BS sporting clause.

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: Oooooo.. Bigger guns, with more barrels.. Yeah man, your right, they definatly had a full understanding of our current tech.. Espeically Nukes, fighter planes, air craft carriers.. Anti tank rifles ect... Your right man, you got us good with that one!

So you're saying I need to pay a $200 tax stamp to buy a nuclear warhead or F-15?

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: So I guess we had no canons then, I mean you could not carry one out to the battle, at a drop of the hat. BTW, we are still supposed to be at that state of readiness, that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment, not the BS sporting clause.

would you trade in your handguns

for the right to own full auto military rifles and other military style heavy arms

I see little to no use for a concealed hand gun in a militia roll
but can see a militia needing full auto, RPG's, mortar, LAW ECT

and a large roll for handguns in crime
but no constitutional right to be armed to protect individuals against crime

just a right to be armed [hopefully with appropriate military arms] against national threats

SO PICK ONE AND STATE WHY

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 11-14-2012).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: and a large roll for handguns in crime but no constitutional right to be armed to protect individuals against crime

Starting out by saying I am NOT asking this with a debating, argumentative, or critical attitude; so hoping you don't take it that way when responding.


Don't you think the constitutional writers viewed guns as individual protection against crime in those days? Think of the time they wrote it.
I would have assumed they didn't write anything about individual protection since they just considered that normal and usual for that day.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Isn't a shame that the government won't declare open season on those so called "liberals?' Then you could shoot them at will. If you have the cojones. And if they don't surprise you and shoot back. Shame on you for taking a cool thread about bizarre firearms of the past and turning it into a political "I hate 47% of Americans" screed.

I think the OP is referring to the founding fathers and technology advancing It has nothing to do with shooting liberals.

just some dummy finally seeing a spark that most folk have seen long ago.....

and even more so thinking that pathetic display of cannons comes anywhere near the arms of today. but, then again, these are the same folk who think todays Navy is worse off today than 50-60 years ago......

and the dumbest part - wtf is the point of this display of ignorance? why not raise your hand and cry "I'm a dummy! I'm a dummy!"

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Starting out by saying I am NOT asking this with a debating, argumentative, or critical attitude; so hoping you don't take it that way when responding. Don't you think the constitutional writers viewed guns as individual protection against crime in those days? Think of the time they wrote it. I would have assumed they didn't write anything about individual protection since they just considered that normal and usual for that day.

as may be but
not a constitutional right to protect an individual
so a matter for state law

but a need for national defense
so a constitutional right to own military arms

normal and usual laws are under the 10th amendment and state or local control there by

quote Originally posted by ray b: would you trade in your handguns for the right to own full auto military rifles and other military style heavy arms I see little to no use for a concealed hand gun in a militia roll but can see a militia needing full auto, RPG's, mortar, LAW ECT and a large roll for handguns in crime but no constitutional right to be armed to protect individuals against crime just a right to be armed [hopefully with appropriate military arms] against national threats SO PICK ONE AND STATE WHY

Impressed by the logic, and I would have to agree, the founding fathers were probably not talking about anything the military does not have a use for. Note, the military does use full size pistols.
I would rather have the legal right to own military level rifles, than the right to own a micro pistol.

Gotta love the "conservative belief" that people who vote Democratic want all guns outlawed. It's a convenient lie come election time when its time to "rally the troops". Nothing could be further from the truth..arm yourself to the teeth if you want, its good for the economy. I do not try to make excuses about the founding fathers either way, but it seems like everyone nowadays know all about how the founding fathers would have wanted things. Call it a hunch, but something tells me most people are wrong in their beliefs about the intentions of the founding fathers (You know, since they are not around to ask..) but they spew it anyhow.

Anyone who quietly exercises their 2nd ammendment is all right with me, but I am just a little concerned about those who cannot talk about anything else... that kind of mania and paranoia seem pretty disturbing to me.

You're horrible at arguing for the conservative side Dennis.

edit: What part of your OP indicated that our Founding Fathers completely understood the region-destroying power of a nuclear bomb?

[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 11-14-2012).]

quote Originally posted by 1988holleyformula: You're horrible at arguing for the conservative side Dennis. edit: What part of your OP indicated that our Founding Fathers completely understood the region-destroying power of a nuclear bomb?

I think "horrible" is a bit extreme. I think the word is "inadequate."

quote Originally posted by 1988holleyformula: You're horrible at arguing for the conservative side Dennis. edit: What part of your OP indicated that our Founding Fathers completely understood the region-destroying power of a nuclear bomb?

That is because I am really a liberal with a nuke fetish. I just want my love to be legal.

Another left wing lie... Bonus points if you are a lib, and you can tell me what is wrong with this picture.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 11-15-2012).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Another left wing lie... Bonus points if you are a lib, and you can tell me what is wrong with this picture.

Looks to me like a 30 round mag, but I could be wrong. My AR holds both 10 round and 30 round mags. I have yet to get my hands on a 100 round mag.

damn....so I guess since I own guns, I am not a lefty, eh?

gotta love the (R) belief that everyone who isnt one of them is the same person......

or is that just they couldn't comprehend?.....

bah...doesnt really matter....if they think we are all the same person...well..does that mean they are all the same person?.....
and, if this dummy is one of them, they all must be dummies?

so....damn...I own guns....so I must be a (R)....damn...and since all (R)s are the same, I must be a dummy?

^ fine bait for quote editting, BTW. enjoy your fav game of out of context quoting.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Isn't a shame that the government won't declare open season on those so called "liberals?'

Yes, it is a shame.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: damn....so I guess since I own guns, I am not a lefty, eh? gotta love the (R) belief that everyone who isnt one of them is the same person...... or is that just they couldn't comprehend?..... bah...doesnt really matter....if they think we are all the same person...well..does that mean they are all the same person?..... and, if this dummy is one of them, they all must be dummies? so....damn...I own guns....so I must be a (R)....damn...and since all (R)s are the same, I must be a dummy? ^ fine bait for quote editting, BTW. enjoy your fav game of out of context quoting.

Because republicans and constitutionalist are all for banning guns, right? Historically the DNC and the left are for the destruction of the 2nd amendment. Now go show me where I said all leftys hate guns. That is right I didn't. Plenty of Democrats hunt, and some actually like guns. However the left is the group that is after our gun rights. Now stop trying to side track the debate.

Heres one business that letting his voice be heard. He wont sell guns or ammo to anyone who voted for obama.
http://radio.foxnews.com/to...ers-not-welcome.html

quote Originally posted by normsf: Heres one business that letting his voice be heard. He wont sell guns or ammo to anyone who voted for obama. http://radio.foxnews.com/to...ers-not-welcome.html

If I lived in AZ, he would get my money.

quote Originally posted by normsf: Heres one business that letting his voice be heard. He wont sell guns or ammo to anyone who voted for obama. http://radio.foxnews.com/to...ers-not-welcome.html

Too bad he will just be called a racist.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Pray tell how they could be employed, without harming those on your side of the line? Also remember, the country would be put back together at some point, and the use of such weapons, would bring war crime charges.

If your side had the smallpox virus and the supply of inoculations. It would be of great use. Ask the Native Americans how it all worked out when the "white man" handed over the infected blankets.