Jeff Stahler for June 14, 2016

Not hardly that slow, but 700 rounds a minute would freak them out, let alone a mini-gun at 4,000 rounds a minute. Of course not to mention that today’s rifles can reach out 2,000 meters, when 100 meters was tough with a musket.

A practiced rifleman took about 60 seconds (if the weapon wasn’t too fouled) to load and fire each round.

The Founding Fathers were NOT CAPABLE of conceiving of any weapon ever fire any quicker!

It was YEARS after they were all DEAD that repeating-fire technology became practical.

Or personal flamethrower https://throwflame.com/

I feel a lot of people keep missing the point on this issueIts radicalized Islam that teaches hate of all Western values.They are taught that its their obligation that wrong doers are to be killed. Not all Muslims (thank god) follow this belief. But the cancer of this movement has infected the Eastern world. It will spread and ignite the world one day

Don’t worry. Radical Christianity will soon be caught up with them, and you’ll be free to be murdered by people of any religion.

So the take is that we should only do what the framers of Constitution understood to be correct at that time.No welfare – people worked for a livingStill have slavery – it was what people didNo votes for women or people without property – just wasn’t doneNo online voting (or any other government business) – the technology didn’t exist and they couldn’t foresee itSome of you will get the picture.

The cartoonist’s point is valid but the “10 minutes” dilutes the impact. I can get off two shots in a minute with my flintlock -not in a crowded bar however.

Isn’t it about the right to protect and defend oneself? Not what type of arms.

Prohibition didn’t work to stop alcohol, or marijuana, and criminals don’t obey gun laws anyway. So taking guns from the people isn’t going to reduce terrorism. Better would be every citizen to be trained and armed so they can stop this insanity in its tracks with less loss of life, like the do in Israel.

The North Carolina State Legislature and Governor McCrory are divided over the issue. They don’t know whether to condemn the terrorist for his act of violence or to applaud him for ridding the world of some gay people.

I don’t like either of the candidates, but I do have to give the devil her due. Hillary (Clinton) challenged Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAR and other Muslim states to step up to the plate and get in the game on anti-terrorism. They have been condoning and harboring them too long so as not to have terrorist attacks on their soil.

Trump, on the other hand, responded with his usual hate-mongering and offers to build another wall. This is the same kind of “America First” isolationism that was rampant in the 1930’s. Now that policy really turned out well.

Northern Redman said, about 3 hours ago@dtroutma“Try and buy a weapon that does any of those things. Let us know what you are able to purchase.”If you have the money and connections, you can purchase anything another is willing to sell. Legally or not. If it is marketed anywhere it can be obtained

Suppose you have a large group of people. A small percentage of that group commits violent acts. If the group in question is Muslims, the conservative reaction is “ban them all!” If the group is gun owners, the reaction is “I see no problem.”

They said well a regulated militia in defense of the state.

You just don’t get it. The comma is there for a reason. But more importantly….“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776