Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Jopie to All on Thu Sep 11 2025 05:04 am

I think it's completely wrong that he was murdered. Freedom of speech
is a great asset. He used and abused that freedom, and that's okay.
He shouldn't have been murdered. That's truly wrong.

But that he died by a firearm... Well, that's the price of the Second

there's the but. he died and you have a huge hardon because of it.

i have news for you. criminals can get ahold of guns even if they outlawed. there is nothing ironic about him being for gun rights and dying of a gun.

shame on you. there's 2 children that have to go without a father now.

there is no karma here. he did not deserve to be murdered.

just remember this, even a worm will turn. do you want it to get to the point where we murder eachother because of ideas? if no, you should stop your ugly celebrating.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Mickey on Fri Sep 12 2025 07:01 am

Mickey wrote to Jopie <=-

An entertainer that used tricks to fool his debatees? I watched
him daily and was very intriqued with his conversations
and come-backs. I will miss him. If you feel it was errrr ok that
he was shot, you are the problem with this world.

Most of the comments I've seen call the violence deplorable
(especially with his family watching) but for someone who recently
said that some people will need to die to preserve the second
amendment, the irony seems overwhelming.

it's funny how you liberals consider it ironic. as if gun control could
stop an assassination.

you people showed your true selves during covid and you're doing it now. fucking sick.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

just remember this, even a worm will turn. do you want it to get to the point where we murder eachother because of ideas? if no, you should stop your ugly celebrating.

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future
consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.


* SLMR 2.1a * My wife made me join a bridge club...I jump next week.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Fri Sep 12 2025 10:07 am

just remember this, even a worm will turn. do you want it
to get to the point where we murder eachother because of ideas?
if no, you should stop your ugly celebrating.

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

it's sad. i see on fb some old friends are shooting videos laughing about
it. these are people who claim to love god and think we should all love eachother.

of course you see everywhere the morons are saying 'ironic' all the time.
it's not ironic.

we really have no hope as a people. we basically need a civil war at this point. at work i don't talk politics and personally i dont claim any political party. I want out of all of it.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Most of the comments I've seen call the violence deplorable (especially with his family watching) but for someone who recently said that some people
will need to die to preserve the second amendment, the irony seems overwhelming.

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which, to
me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.


* SLMR 2.1a * I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.

There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.

I don't see the conservatives taking part in this. Regardless of how insane the left has become, I don't think we'll play ball... we didn't riot in the streets, we didn't burn down our cities and we'll never use violence towards those we don't agree with - for me, it shows me more and more why I'm on the right side.

I was center-left for the longest time. I voted for Obama. These last 9 years have pushed me farther and farther right of center...

It was nice hearing from Erika tonight; I hope she becomes the lioness and grows Turning Point into something larger than Charlie - I think she will.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2024/05/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbs>>>20ForBeers.com:1337

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Fri Sep 12 2025 06:36 pm

Most of the comments I've seen call the violence
deplorable (especially with his family watching) but for someone
who recently said that some people will need to die to preserve
the second amendment, the irony seems overwhelming.

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally
which, to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment
since the dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin
with.

i'm sure poindexter finds it funny and ironic that those kids in minnesota were killed in a church by a trans. why didn't god save them, right?
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: paulie420 to hollowone on Fri Sep 12 2025 07:43 pm

There are a lot of people who seem to be
"celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its
disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE
of their party towards the center... or further.

i just see more deaths and more people at each other's throats in the future.

no republicans were cheering when those state reps in minnesota were
attacked.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/vance-boelter-indicted-murders-melissa-and- mark-hortman-shootings-john-and-yvette-0

liberals are off the rails deranged. they are not the good guys, they are not the people for the everyday man. they are blood thirsty and deranged.

this kirk guy gets murdered and people are laughing and calling him a nazi
and saying there should be more killings.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to paulie420 on Fri Sep 12 2025 10:08 pm

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: paulie420 to hollowone on Fri Sep 12 2025 07:43 pm

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating,"
or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others f their ideas.

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its
disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE
of their party towards the center... or further.

i just see more deaths and more people at each other's throats
in the future.

no republicans were cheering when those state reps in minnesota
were attacked.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/vance-boelter-indicted-mu rders-melissa-and- mark-hortman-shootings-john-and-yvette-0

here's my reddit post.
i expect to have like 100 downvotes.
they were calling kirk a nazi,etc

https://i.imgur.com/obfxJoi.png
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to all on Fri Sep 12 2025 11:34 pm

here's my reddit post.
i expect to have like 100 downvotes.
they were calling kirk a nazi,etc

https://i.imgur.com/obfxJoi.png

"Reddit is a most wretched hive of scum and villainy." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

i'm sure poindexter finds it funny and ironic that those kids in minnesota were killed in a church by a trans. why didn't god save them, right?

I hadn't heard about that one yet. ;(


* SLMR 2.1a * "I'm sick! I ought to be home in bed with a nurse."
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.

I suspect that the people "celebrating" or poking fun at recent events are
not "liberals" but are outright far-leftists. "Classic" liberals, IMHO,
are center-left... they want more social reforms but some might also be 2A and/or pro-law enforcement and/or other things that would upset someone to
the left of them.

There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.

I don't see the conservatives taking part in this. Regardless of how insane th
left has become, I don't think we'll play ball... we didn't riot in the streets,
we didn't burn down our cities and we'll never use violence towards
those we don't agree with - for me, it shows me more and more why I'm on the right side.

See 1/6/2021. If you get too many together in a group when they are upset, they will become violent and riot. Before that date, you could say the
above and be correct. Now you cannot, at least not about the die-hard
MAGAs who are invested enough that they'd attend a losers rally in DC on
the same day the Election results are being made official.

Those of us who are center-right, I agree with your statement. We will defend ourselves, but we are not going to do dumbass things unprovoked.


* SLMR 2.1a * Yes, you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really care.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Sat Sep 13 2025 10:21 am

i'm sure poindexter finds it funny and ironic that those
kids in minnesota were killed in a church by a trans. why didn't
god save them, right?

I hadn't heard about that one yet. ;(

it's tragic. kids were killed on their first day of school.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0lyny7ydo

I'm surprised you didnt hear about it. a trans man attacked a church, killed 2 kids and injured 17.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to PAULIE420 on Sat Sep 13 2025 10:21 am

I suspect that the people "celebrating" or poking fun at recent
events are not "liberals" but are outright far-leftists.
"Classic" liberals, IMHO, are center-left... they want more social
reforms but some might also be 2A and/or pro-law enforcement
and/or other things that would upset someone to the left of them.

There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.

those 'center left' ones might not be talking but they are
happy it happened. i know a lot that claim to be moderate or progressive or whatever but they are happy he was murdered.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Dumas Walker wrote to MRO <=-

just remember this, even a worm will turn. do you want it to get to the

point

where we murder eachother because of ideas? if no, you should stop your ugly celebrating.

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

Yeah - that's one of the good things I think he did - promote
discussion. There are videos showing him defending the right
of someone that disagrees to speak, becasue that's the point -
not the shouting, but the communication.



... Direct from the Ministry of Silly Walks
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

Does it make a material difference to his stance?

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which,
to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the
dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.

The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns. It was
also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.


--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

paulie420 wrote to hollowone <=-

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years.
Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social
networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

Like a bell curve, most of the population lies under the center with 1
standard deviation to the right or the left. They both generally think
murder is wrong, both have similar views, more or less, regarding
government reach, taxation and rights - but lean to the left or the
right.

The internet gives the extreme view an amplified platform - the bell
curve has become a W shape.

But, the reality is that most people don't want violence in their
streets, want health care to be affordable, want fair taxation,
representation in government, working roads and infrastructure, and to
be able to pass on a better way of life to their kids. That seems
pretty reasonable to the center of either side.

There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.

I don't see the conservatives taking part in this. Regardless of how insane the left has become, I don't think we'll play ball... we didn't riot in the streets, we didn't burn down our cities and we'll never use violence towards those we don't agree with - for me, it shows me more
and more why I'm on the right side.

I was center-left for the longest time. I voted for Obama. These last 9 years have pushed me farther and farther right of center...

It was nice hearing from Erika tonight; I hope she becomes the lioness
and grows Turning Point into something larger than Charlie - I think
she will.

|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2024/05/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbs>>>20ForBeers.com:1337

--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Dumas Walker on Sun Sep 14 2025 09:10 am

The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns. It was
also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.

there you are parroting typical liberal bullshit.

https://tinyurl.com/automatic1776

One common gun control argument is that America's Founding Fathers could not have imagined the repeating "assault weapons" of today. But when the Second Amendment was written in 1791, numerous guns already existed that were
capable of far faster firing rates than the typical muzzle-loading flintlocks of the era.


Single shot muskets were far from the only guns in 1791 available to the public.
America's Founding Fathers saw natural rights as timeless and viewed the rights of a free people as existing regardless of the medium in which they were exercised. This included the right to bear arms as a means to prevent a government monopoly of force, so advancements in firearms technology do not change the intention of the Second Amendment.

threebarrel-hand-cannonhandgonne
Likely originating from China or nearby in East Asia, this type of
"handgonne" is an example of early multi-shot portable firearms design.

Still, the question of which assault weapons the Founding Fathers knew about is a fascinating and often misrepresented topic, so let's take a look at some of the repeating rifles, volley guns, and fast loading firearms that were available during their lifetimes.


Matchlock and wheelock revolvers date to the 16th century, and flintlock revolvers were well-known repeating gun designs when the 2nd Amendment was written.
The Chelembrom Repeating Flintlock
While it's true that the average flintlock in 1776 had to be reloaded after every shot, the concept of repeating guns predates both the Second Amendment and the American Revolution by several centuries. A variety of multi-shot firearms were available well before the United States declared independence. Among the most notable assault weapon designs that the Founding Fathers may have known about were the Kalthoff breech-loading mechanisms and the
Lorenzoni family of repeating flintlocks.

Chelembrom-Magazine-Repeating-Flintlock-1
A Chelembrom magazine repeating flintlock from 1781, a decade before the 2nd amendment was written.

Variants of the Lorenzoni repeating system, an invention from 1688, were one of several types of rapid-fire guns being produced in 1791. One of the finest and rarest examples is the Chelembrom magazine repeating flintlock. Thought
to be the creation of a French gunmaker working in India, few of these innovative and complex Chelembrom guns survive to the present day.

Though employed primarily as hunting weapons, at least one of these repeaters may have been used on the battlefield. As noted by the Royal Collection Trust in the United Kingdom, at least one of these flintlock magazine guns was acquired by the nemesis of Colonial America, King George III himself.

Chelembrom-Magazine-Repeating-Flintlock-1781
The Chelembrom magazine repeating flintlock, the 18th Century's AR-15.

Carrying 20 rounds, the Chelembron magazine-fed repeaters are flintlock predecessors to the famous Henry repeating rifle but predates the Henry by nearly 200 years. In Royal Sporting Guns at Windsor, the complicated
operation of this system is described.

With the muzzle pointing upwards the barrel and its magazines are turned in a clockwise direction. This movement leads to the following chain of events. A charge of powder is measured into the dropping tube and a small portion is deposited in the priming pan which is then closed and the lock cocked. The rest of the powder falls into a chamber in the brass receiver. At the same time a bullet is released and drops into a covered trough. The barrel is
moved further round until it is opposite the bullet, which is thrust upwards into the barrel by a plunger or spring. The gun is then reversed and the barrel assembly turned back to its original position. The mouth of the barrel with its seated bullet then lies opposite a chamber full of powder.
Because the powder magazine is away from the point of ignition, the system is fairly safe compared to other repeating flintlock designs. Though far more complicated to manufacture than the typical guns of the 18th century, Chelembron repeating flintlocks offered a significantly higher firing rate when they were properly maintained and operated.

The Lorenzoni Repeating Flintlock
Designed in 1688 by Michele Lorenzoni, an Italian gunmaker in Florence, the Lorenzoni repeating flintlock was leagues ahead of its time. Among the most well-known multi-shot guns that existed when the 2nd Amendment was written, the Lorenzoni system, like the Chelembrom style featured above, was offered
in both pistol and long gun variants that could be cocked and primed in a single operation.

pair-of-silvermounted-lorenzoniberselli-system-flintlock-pistols
A pair of Lorenzoni flintlocks, another rapid-fire "assault weapon" of the era.

The first Lorenzoni-style repeater that appeared in the American Colonies was manufactured by London gunsmith John Cookston. A later smith, John Shaw, relocated to Boston in 1750 and began producing and selling several repeating flintlock variations for the American market that ranged from seven to twelve shot magazines. Billed as John Shaw's Cookson Volitional Repeaters, Shaw advertised his guns in the Boston Gazette, the most widely read newspaper in 18th Century America, making many early Americans very much aware of high capacity repeating firearms.

Lorenzoni-Type-Lever-Action-Repeating-Flintlock-Rifle
A rare Lorenzoni type lever action repeating flintlock rifle, another well-known repeating gun in 1791.

The Girandoni Repeating Air Rifle
Also predating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the 1779 Girandoni repeating air rifle used air reservoirs instead of gunpowder to fire up to 22 rounds per minute. A smokeless, breech-loaded, magazine-fed, comparatively quiet gun that was lethal up to 150 yards, it's no wonder that Thomas Jefferson later had one sent along with Lewis and Clark on their historic
1803 expedition to explore the American West.

lewis-and-clark-air-gun-model
The Girandoni air rifle, the "scary black rifle" of its day. Numerous styles of airguns existed when the 2nd amendment was written. This extremely rare Austrian military Girardoni repeating air rifle example is of the exact kind believed to have been carried on the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

The Girandoni repeating air rifle had already been in service with the Austrian army for over a decade when the Second Amendment was written. Numerous sporting variations were also manufactured, including this lightweight example that was almost certainly intended for civilian use.

If the iron air reservoirs weren't so difficult to produce with the
technology of the period, and Bartolomeo Girandoni and his competitors hadn't kept the details of their inventions so guarded, the air rifle may have had a more dramatic impact on the evolution of firearms.


Air guns are but a single example of repeating guns that existed when the 2nd amendment was written.
The Belton Fusil and Superposed Flintlocks
The Belton "Roman candle" fusil is the first known repeating firearm invented in American. Joseph Belton's repeating fusil design employed superimposed loads that fired in succession after a single pull of the trigger using a chained charge much like a Roman candle. Joseph Belton, an inventor and gunsmith from Benjamin Franklin's hometown of Philadelphia, not only produced his innovative firearm for the public, he petitioned the Continental Congress during the American Revolution in hopes of a largescale military contract.

Belton-Style-Repeating-Four-Shot-Flintlock-Pistol
The Belton repeater, a high capacity assault flintlock studied by the Continental Army.

In 1776, Belton wrote to Congress claiming he'd designed a way to make a musket discharge up to eight rounds in three seconds. Benjamin Franklin wrote to George Washington in support of the idea, and Washington initially commissioned 100 of Belton's rapid-fire muskets for the Continental Army.

A disagreement over money ultimately canceled the proposal, as Belton was convinced his invention was worth a far higher sum than the fledging American government could afford. Belton continued to sell his guns to the public, and his inquires with the Continental Congress have left a detailed written account of how America's founders not only knew about repeating weapon technology but debated financing its mass production.

Ellis-Jennings-Repeating-Flintlock-Rifle
The Ellis-Jennings repeating rifle, a successor to the Belton style "Roman candle" repeater.

Belton's design was promising, and three decades after the ratification of
the Bill of Rights, during the administration of Founding Father James
Monroe, a wealthier United States government gave the technology a second look. The Ellis-Jennings repeating rifle was created in variations that could fire up to ten shots before reloading. Over 500 Ellis-Jennings four-shot sliding lock repeaters were manufactured under contract with the U.S. government at the cost of $13,090, a substantial purchase for the period that demonstrated confidence in the technology.

The Chambers Swivel Gun: An Early American Flintlock Machine Gun
In late 1812, Revolutionary War veteran Joseph G. Chambers approached the Department of War in Washington D.C. in regard to his repeating flintlock rifle and pistol technology, referring to his inventions as "machine guns." Like the Belton, the Chambers' design was based on a single trigger pull setting off a succession of chained charges in sequence. War Secretary John Armstrong was skeptical.

Chambers-flintlock-machine-gun
Only two examples of U.S. Navy Repeating Swivels remain today. The Chambers gun could fire over 200 rounds in minutes. The image above is a reproduction.

Secretary of the Navy William Jones proved more receptive to the Chambers flintlock machine gun and manufactured and ordered 10 swivel guns using the design, as well as 100 muskets converted into Chambers repeaters. Many additional orders soon followed.

On May 27th of 1814, Secretary Jones wrote to Commodore Isaac Chauncey, informing him that he'd forwarded "a number of the repeating Swivels Muskets and Pistols, with prepared ammunition and persons acquainted with the art of preparing the ammunition and of loading the arms. . . . Two of those swivels in each Top, to be fired in succession upon the decks of your adversary,
would not fail to clear it entirely in five minutes."

Chambers-Flintlock-diagram
A Chambers flintlock diagram displayed at the Belgium Arms Museum at LiŠge.

The Puckle Gun
A unique flintlock machine gun prototype was concieved over 70 years prior to the Second Amendment. Invented by James Puckle in 1718 as an anti-boarding weapon for the British navy, the Puckle Gun used a pre-loaded revolving cylinder that could fire nine shots per minute, more than three times faster than the average period musket.

Puckle-Gun-1
A recreation of the Puckle gun. Photo courtesy of the Institute of Military Technology.

Though in truth it was more of a repeating swivel gun than the early machine gun sometimes portrayed, the Puckle Gun, or "Defense Gun" was designed with both round and square-shaped bullets in mind. The later rounds were intended for Ottoman Turks and their relentless raids along the Mediterranean coastline. Though rejected by the British Navy and never produced beyond a
few prototype pieces, the Puckle Gun was a clever piece of engineering for
the time, and later attempts at tripod mounted repeating guns employed some
of the same concepts.

Nock Volley Guns and the Duckfoot Pistol
Designed by James Wilson in 1779 and mass-produced by British gunsmith Henry Nock, over 650 Nock seven-shot volley guns were shipped to the British Royal Navy during the Revolutionary War.

These distinctive multi-barrel firearms were designed to deliver a tight cluster of shots on a target at greater range and velocity than a shotgun or blunderbuss. Even at a distance, such as firing at the deck of a passing
enemy ship, Nock guns could still hit a small area and do more damage than a single musket shot.

Seven-bore-Nock-Volley-Gun
"Talley ho, lads!" The Nock gun was the ultimate in 18th century home (and naval) defense.

Nock Volley guns were used against the French fleet during the Battle of the Saintes in 1782, a major British victory. They went on to enjoy a brief
period of popularity as sporting guns in the early 19th Century as well, including goose rifles that employed Joseph Manton's patented tubelock firing mechanism.

The Nock gun's menacing look and ability to deliver a more accurate cluster shot has earned them roles in movie and television history including The Alamo, Sharpe, Turn: Washington's Spies, Master & Commander, and more.


The Nock Volley gun. More range than a blunderbuss, more lethal than a
musket.
Based on multi-barrel volley cannons that have existed since the renaissance, the Duckfoot pistol was about riot control and close-quarters combat. The multiple barrels radiated from the single lock resembled a duck's foot,
giving this early "assault weapon" its popular name. Why fire one shot when you can unload four, five, or six simultaneously?

An-Organ-gun-compared-to-a-Duckfoot-pistol
A sketch of the Organ gun (top) and a duck foot pistol (bottom), a miniaturized flintlock version of the same concept with similarly splayed barrels.

The Ferguson Rifle and Early Breechloaders
British Captain Patrick Ferguson loved guns and military strategy, and the breech loading rifle he invented in 1774 was produced just in time to unleash his new weapon on the rebellious American colonists. Breech-loading guns were faster than muzzle-loaders, offered the ability to reload from the prone position without breaking cover, and could be reloaded on the move.

Ferguson's rifle was also more effective in damp conditions compared to other flintlocks of the era, and the bold Scottsman was eager to test his new
weapon on the battlefield in an effort to "counteract the superiority as marksmen of the American backwoodsmen."


Innovative for its time, the Ferguson rifle is considered by many to be the king of early breechloaders.
Ferguson was granted a patent in 1776, and the following year the captain was placed in command of a rifle corps equipped with his secret weapons. 200 Ferguson rifles saw action in the Revolutionary War, including at the Battle of Brandywine and later at the Battle of Kings Mountain, where Ferguson was surrounded and killed. Though four times more costly to produce than a muzzle-loader, Ferguson's rifle demonstrated the clear advantages of the breech-loading design.

Ferguson-patent-breechloading-flintlock-rifle-2
The Ferguson went head-to-head with the American Long Rifle during the Revolution.

In the following decades, other gunmakers experimented with the
breech-loading flintlock, but it wasn't until 1816 that the United States government purchased them in large numbers. President James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", saw the importance of equipping the American military with the latest innovations.

Maine gunmaker John H. Hall furnished 100 of his patented breechloaders, and two years later the Hall Model 1819 became the first breech loader to be regularly adopted by a military, as well as the world's first military rifle designed with completely interchangeable parts. The industrial revolution had arrived, and firearms technology would never look back.


Highly-rare-documented-Hall-Model-1817-breech-loading-flintlock-rifle-with-bay onet-one-of-the-original-100
Highly rare, documented Hall Model 1817 breech-loading flintlock rifle with bayonet, one of the original 100.

Swivel Breech Guns
While one of the more common solutions to getting multiple shots out of a muzzleloading firearm was to simply add another barrel, that generally required also fitting a second lock and getting everything installed in such
a manner that the locks could work independently of one another to fire the appropriate barrels and triggers setup to fire each lock.

LAZARI-COMINAZ-Marked-Italian-Over-Under-Wheellock-Pistol
This "LAZARI COMINAZ" marked Italian over/under Wheellock pistol is an extremely rare and unusual way to get multiple shots of a single firearm. Instead of revolving, this pistol is built essentially like one pistol with a second pistol installed upside down on top.

Good locks weren't cheap, so one popular solution, especially in the
flintlock and percussion eras, was to use two barrels that could be rotated
to switch for a second shot and then one lock. These guns still needed to
have two sets of the priming portions of the mechanisms fitted to the
barrels. Such firearms are called swivel breeches or "wenders" (meaning "turner" in German). They were commonly sporting guns and pistols rather than standard military issue firearms, but some may have been used by military officers.

Engraved-Philippe-De-Sellier-Wender-Flintlock-Sporting-Gun
An early 18th-century "wender" by Philippe De Sellier of Liege (active c. 1676-1740). Note that each barrel has flashpan, frizzen, and frizzen spring.

Matchlock and Flintlock Revolvers
Firearms employing revolving cylinder systems were known since at least the seventieth century and likely well before, as indicated by multiple surviving examples. Matchlock and Flintlock revolvers were an established technology when the 2nd Amendment was written, though metallurgy hadn't caught up with the ambitious design enough to allow wide scale production.

Matchlock-revolver
A four-shot revolving matchlock musket sold by Rock Island Auction back in 2013.

There were also multi-shot flintlocks with revolving chambers. Many of the examples we see today came from the gunmakers of Carlsbad, Bohemia, in the 18th century. The Carlsbad gunsmiths produced some very fine examples of
three and four-shot revolving flintlock pistols and sporting guns, but the system remained rarely used and limited to the armories of the nobility
rather than a weapon adopted widely for the military or common people. The revolving flintlock design is similar to swivel breech guns, but with only
the breech sections of each barrel and then a single barrel they line up with instead.

Three-Shot-Flintlock-Revolving-Sporting-Gun
This 18th-century three-shot revolving flintlock sporting gun uses a similar design as the matchlock before it. Because it is a flintlock, it's more complicated to make than the matchlock but would also be more reliable. To solve the issue of priming for multiple shots, this design has a separate pan and frizzen for each chamber. They are all fired by a single lock.

English inventor Elisha Collier developed one of the most famous designs for
a flintlock revolver in 1814, and thousands were produced for the British Empire in the following years. His business partner, Artemas Wheeler of Concord, Massachusetts, patented the design in America, and Collier began marketing rifle and shotgun versions of his cylinder system to sportsmen and pitching the revolving pistols variants as an option for self-defense. Though Collier's improved design came to market after the Second Amendment, the revolver concept had been produced for centuries prior.

Revolving-rifles-and-shotguns-this-August
The Collier was one of many revolving rifle models invented in the early decades of the 19th century.

Own a Musket for Home Defense: The Second Amendment Meme
Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered
wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball-sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nail the neighbor's dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grapeshot. "Talley ho lads!"

Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. Should've used a Nock Volley gun!
We've all heard a variant of the 2nd Amendment musket meme. It's a fun bit of humor, and certainly a clever way to illustrate how different guns were in 1776 compared to today, but one need only study examples of repeating
firearms available when the American Constitution was written, such as the Girandoni air rifle, the Cookston repeater, and the Belton flintlock to understand the reality was far more complex.

America's Founding Fathers knew of repeating guns, hoped to produce them for Washington's Army, and saw them improve and evolve during their lifetimes.
And yet the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not written with
any exclusion, or mention of single-shot muskets, repeaters, cannons, war ships, or "assault weapons."

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.
No asterisks, no limitations. Seems pretty clear.

m240-Bravo-Machine-Gun-for-sale
A Fabrique Nationale U.S. M240B "Bravo" belt-fed machine gun, just as the Founding Fathers intended.

Firearms Evolution
Rock Island Auction Company's Premier Auctions are packed with a wealth of scarce historical firearms, rarely seen prototypes, and unusual gun variants that demonstrate just how innovative our forefathers were when it came to new weapon designs. So while the guns of 1776 vs today are clearly not
comparable, and America's Founders probably couldn't envision a Colt AR-15/XM16E1 machine gun, they also wouldn't have been surprised at the continuing evolution of firearms technology that they witnessed numerous
times firsthand.


When it came to producing more firepower in the 16th - 19th centuries, all ideas were on the table. Two notions that appeared in numerous forms were superposed loads and the use of multiple barrels.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: poindexter FORTRAN to paulie420 on Sun Sep 14 2025 09:1

of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years.
Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social
networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

bullshit.

But, the reality is that most people don't want violence in their
streets, want health care to be affordable, want fair taxation, representation in government, working roads and infrastructure, and
to be able to pass on a better way of life to their kids. That seems
pretty reasonable to the center of either side.

you called violent riots "protests" in the past.

im sure you celebrated the murder of charlie kirk and it brought a smile to your face. you probably told your kids about it too.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Dumas Walker <=-

Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

Does it make a material difference to his stance?

Absolutely. It makes a 100% difference.

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which,
to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the
dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.

The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns.

Very true.

It was also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.

Very irrelevant.



... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

poindexter FORTRAN wrote to paulie420 <=-

paulie420 wrote to hollowone <=-

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years.
Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social
networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

Agreed.

Like a bell curve, most of the population lies under the center with 1
standard deviation to the right or the left. They both generally think
murder is wrong, both have similar views, more or less, regarding
government reach, taxation and rights - but lean to the left or the
right.

Agreed, mostly.

The internet gives the extreme view an amplified platform - the bell
curve has become a W shape.

Absolutely.

But, the reality is that most people don't want violence in their
streets, want health care to be affordable, want fair taxation,
representation in government, working roads and infrastructure, and to
be able to pass on a better way of life to their kids. That seems
pretty reasonable to the center of either side.

I don't think ANY of these statements are true, in regards to the Left.
I mean... the violence, for example. Nearly ALWAYS a product of the
Left. Taxation? The Left ALWAYS wants more taxes, to pay for their pet projects that only benefit those who will vote Left in return. I could
go on, but you already know the rest.



... All the easy problems have been solved.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Yeah - that's one of the good things I think he did - promote
discussion. There are videos showing him defending the right
of someone that disagrees to speak, becasue that's the point -
not the shouting, but the communication.

Agree with your point. Too many prefer the shouting, vs. listening, these days.


* SLMR 2.1a * Never check for an error you don't know how to handle.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

I hadn't heard about that one yet. ;(

it's tragic. kids were killed on their first day of school.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0lyny7ydo

I'm surprised you didnt hear about it. a trans man attacked a church, killed 2 kids and injured 17.

I have not been watching the news for a few days. Only heard about Kirk getting shot because it showed up on YouTube on the "line" of videos where current events show up. I am guessing with it being a church and with it
not being a white supremacist shooter, it may not stay in the US news long.


* SLMR 2.1a * !edis gnorw eht morf siht ta gnikool era uoY
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Sun Sep 14 2025 10:45 am

I have not been watching the news for a few days. Only heard about
Kirk getting shot because it showed up on YouTube on the "line"
of videos where current events show up. I am guessing with it being
a church and with it not being a white supremacist shooter, it may
not stay in the US news long.

i'm not a big fan of watching the news but i saw it on the internet when it happened. it was late august.

it was a trans guy, had his name changed when
he was a minor. it appears he was fascinated with the other mass shooters.
he said he had a past of making violent threats.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to paulie420 on Fri Sep 12 2025 22:08:45

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered

this kirk guy gets murdered and people are laughing and calling him a nazi and saying there should be more killings.

And there will be. The heat is'a risen.

Mick Manning
https://centralontarioremote.net
centralontarioremote.net:2300
-----

---
þ Synchronet þ Transgender Airlines

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: poindexter FORTRAN to paulie420 on Sun Sep 14 2025 09:10 am

But, the reality is that most people don't want violence in their
streets, want health care to be affordable, want fair taxation,
representation in government, working roads and infrastructure, and to
be able to pass on a better way of life to their kids. That seems
pretty reasonable to the center of either side.

I understand what you are going for, but I think you are missing the mark.

Ideologies are a combination of two things: A set of goals and a plan to achieve those goals.

If your goal is to make healthcare affordable and your plan is to achieve this by giving my money to the government do do it, that enters in conflict with my plan (which does not include giving money to the government for plans I disagree with).

So goals might be the same in the broad sense but the plans are irreconciliable.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

Does it make a material difference to his stance?

"Need" sure sounds a lot more evil. I guess if I was anti-2A, any talk of people having guns would sound evil but, since I am not, I can see a difference.

I can also understand that...

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which, to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.

The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns. It was
also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.

...apparently the interpretation of the courts has for a long time been that illegally obtained guns *are* excluded. Otherwise, there would be no laws against certain persons, like felons, the underaged, etc., obtaining guns because all of those would be unconstitutional.

IMHO, there should be some stringent "tack on" charges that always kick in whenever someone uses a stolen or otherwise illegally obtained gun during the commission of a crime. Should apply to any other weapons, too.


* SLMR 2.1a * "Heh, heh, 2400 baud connects suck!" -- V.bis & Baudhead
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

it was a trans guy, had his name changed when
he was a minor. it appears he was fascinated with the other mass shooters.
he said he had a past of making violent threats.

Regardless of how we got away from doing so, we need to get back to the
point where people can be put into psychiatric facilities for showing clear signs of a potential for violence. With many of these crimes, the person
is known to law enforcement because they have a past that includes making
such threats, yet there is not much they can do to them until they make
good on one.

That shouldn't be how that works.


* SLMR 2.1a * I don't have a solution, but I do admire the problem.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years. Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

bullshit.

What part of that is BS? I cannot help but agree that social media have amplified the voices of persons at both extremes. Just about anyone can broadcast now.


* SLMR 2.1a * alnal nathrak uth vaas bethud dothiel dienve
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP