On 3/30/23 18:46, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
> Second Amendment was adopted.
>
> Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
> Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
> racist time-travellers.
>
> What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
> and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
> with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
> more quickly resolved?
>
> Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
> Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
> Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
> weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?

The weapons would not be common or lethal if there
is no ammunition left over afterward, and they do
not find out how to make more ammunition or mass
produce the weapons either.

I think you would need mass production with interchangeable
parts

Smokeless powder

Percussion caps

I remember how Lewis and Clarke on their expedition took air guns
with them with the idea that they would trade them with the Native
Americans.

The idea was that air guns did not need ammunition. They may
have some ways of making black powder there, but that would not
be needed with an air gun.

This would be something like a similar problem in reverse. Of
course everywhere in Europe is eventually going to come up with
something similar once the US figures out how to reverse engineer
the ammunition. Without doing that however the guns are pretty
much useless once the ammunition is depleted.

On Wed, 17 May 2023 02:01:58 -0700, Trolidan7 <trolidous@noname.net>
wrote:

>On 3/30/23 18:46, Louis Epstein wrote:
> > Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
> > Second Amendment was adopted.
> >
> > Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
> > Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
> > racist time-travellers.
> >
> > What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
> > and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
> > with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
> > more quickly resolved?
> >
> > Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
> > Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
> > Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
> > weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
>
>The weapons would not be common or lethal if there
>is no ammunition left over afterward, and they do
>not find out how to make more ammunition or mass
>produce the weapons either.
>
>I think you would need mass production with interchangeable
>parts
>
>Smokeless powder
>
>Percussion caps
>
>I remember how Lewis and Clarke on their expedition took air guns
>with them with the idea that they would trade them with the Native
>Americans.
>
>The idea was that air guns did not need ammunition. They may
>have some ways of making black powder there, but that would not
>be needed with an air gun.
>
>This would be something like a similar problem in reverse. Of
>course everywhere in Europe is eventually going to come up with
>something similar once the US figures out how to reverse engineer
>the ammunition. Without doing that however the guns are pretty
>much useless once the ammunition is depleted.

While I agree with pretty much everything you say, let me point out
that the AWB in Guns of the South were an actual South African
organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_Weerstandsbeweging

They were led by Eugene Terreblanche (not sure if that's his real name
or a pseudonym) who died in 2010.

Based on some of their writings (and talk with an Afrikaner employer
who told me - unfortunately she was one of my COVID layoffs who had
other employment 3 months later when we tried to recall) - her
reaction when I asked about them was "Holy shit Lyle why are you
asking about them? They're exactly the sort of people I left South
Africa to get away from!" and was much happier with me when I gave her
the two sentence synopsis of GoTS "yup - that's exactly the sort of
sh** they'd try if they had the power to go back in time!" since she
otherwise wasn't happy with me showing an interest in extreme
Apartheid supporters.

One thing I especially liked about GoTS was that Turtledove DIDN'T
immediately say who they were and that I was able to correctly figure
it out some 50-75 pages before Turtledove told us.

Probably one of the best of his books.

Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
Second Amendment was adopted.

Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
racist time-travellers.

What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
more quickly resolved?

Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:47:01 PM UTC-4, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
> Second Amendment was adopted.
>
> Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
> Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
> racist time-travellers.
>
> What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
> and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
> with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
> more quickly resolved?
>
> Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
> Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
> Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
> weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
>
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Almost certainly so. The Americans in OTL already had better guns (rifled barrels) and better marksmanship than the British forces. Now in an ATL, giving them guns with a higher rate of fire and designed to inflict casualties (wounded and killed vs killed) would doubly reinforce the original idea of a "Citizen's Army".

Dean

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>
>Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
>Second Amendment was adopted.
>
>Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
>Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
>racist time-travellers.
>
>What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
>and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
>with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
>more quickly resolved?

Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
Same issue exists in earlier armies.

A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the
mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
another can of worms).
>
>Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
>Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
>Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
>weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?

Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
perfectly acceptable, why not?
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

"dama...@gmail.com" <damarkley@gmail.com> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:24:05
-0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:47:01?PM UTC-4, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
>> Second Amendment was adopted.
>>
>> Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
>> Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
>> racist time-travellers.
>>
>> What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
>> and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
>> with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
>> more quickly resolved?
>>
>> Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
>> Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
>> Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
>> weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
>>
>> -=-=-
>> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
>> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
>
>Almost certainly so. The Americans in OTL already had better guns (rifled barrels)

The Brits did have unit armed with Ferguson's Rifles - a
breechloader flintlock. But it was damned expensive, and "fragile"
for an issue weapon.

>and better marksmanship than the British forces.

Which is still not saying much.

> Now in an ATL, giving them guns with a higher rate of fire and designed to inflict casualties (wounded and killed vs killed) would doubly reinforce the original idea of a "Citizen's Army".
>
>Dean
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>
>>Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
>>Second Amendment was adopted.
>>
>>Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
>>Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
>>racist time-travellers.
>>
>>What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
>>and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
>>with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
>>more quickly resolved?
>
> Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
> were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
> familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
> Same issue exists in earlier armies.
>
> A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the
> mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
> another can of worms).

But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
would make them rethink?

>>
>>Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
>>Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
>>Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
>>weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
>
> Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
> perfectly acceptable, why not?

Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
they'd see the consequences in person.

(The XM7 is touted for accuracy at 600 meters...a long way
from the whites-of-their-eyes considerations even allowing
for hyperbole...and Brown Besses and Minie Balls are not
in the SIG .277 Fury class in ammunition either).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 4/4/2023 3:26 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>
>> Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
>> Second Amendment was adopted.
>>
>> Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
>> Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
>> racist time-travellers.
>>
>> What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
>> and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
>> with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
>> more quickly resolved?
>
> Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
> were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
> familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
> Same issue exists in earlier armies.
>
> A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the
> mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
> another can of worms).
>>
>> Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
>> Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
>> Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
>> weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
>
> Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
> perfectly acceptable, why not?

Because that's not entirely accurate.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-no-less-than-alexander-hamilton-defined-it-for-us/ar-AA19hoem?ocid=winpstoreapp&cvid=2321bd92810342dea937d32103bc6903&ei=8

via TinyURL: https://tinyurl.com/ydth6hbp

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Tue, 4 Apr 2023 22:58:04 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
>> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>
>>>Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
>>>Second Amendment was adopted.
>>>
>>>Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
>>>Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
>>>racist time-travellers.
>>>
>>>What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
>>>and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
>>>with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
>>>more quickly resolved?
>>
>> Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
>> were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
>> familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
>> Same issue exists in earlier armies.
>>
>> A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the
>> mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
>> another can of worms).
>
>But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
>incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
>that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
>would make them rethink?

So ship back AK-47's.

Same effectiveness, but a more robust firearm.
>>>Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
>>>Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
>>>Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
>>>weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
>>
>> Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
>> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
>> perfectly acceptable, why not?
>
>Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
>they'd see the consequences in person.

Now explain to me how having a standing army would be much more
palatable in the 1780's? Especially under the Articles of
Confederation. One of the reasons for the amendment of the subsequent
Constitution was to address concerns about Government overreach.
Disarming the populace, especially as there were still "wild indians"
living close-by, was not a salable idea.

Granted, as long as this timeline's equivalent to the "Rivington
Men" are willing to supply ammunition, the government will only have
to worry about "inventory shrinkage" from Government Armories.
As long as no vet "forgets" to turn in his rifle.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 15:26:24 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
>were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
>familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
> Same issue exists in earlier armies.
>
I >really< liked Guns of the South due to the references to AWB with
me trying to figure out who they were and in the end finding I was
right.

But yes, if you're postulating 1865-1900 conditions to "insert" a
machine gun type weapon into, the AK47 is one of the better choices
you could make both in terms of weapons training for those unfamiliar
with them and in terms of maintenance.

Plus of course the wooden stocks helps convince the Confederates that
the weapon is not witchcraft :) and something they could learn to make
themselves given enough time.

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:18:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>> Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
>> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
>> perfectly acceptable, why not?
>
>Because that's not entirely accurate.
>https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-no-less-than-alexander-hamilton-defined-it-for-us/ar-AA19hoem?ocid=winpstoreapp&cvid=2321bd92810342dea937d32103bc6903&ei=8
>
>via TinyURL: https://tinyurl.com/ydth6hbp
>
True - a privateer without a charter from a national government was
considered a pirate and depending on circumstances, the victims of the
privateer might well consider them pirates anyhow - the classic
example being how the Spaniards felt about Drake.

> Louis Epstein
> > pyotr filipivich
> >
> > Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
> > own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
> > perfectly acceptable, why not?
>
> Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
> they'd see the consequences in person.

All the more reason to insure that the government doesn't have
a monopoly on weapons.

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Tue, 4 Apr 2023 22:58:04 -0000
> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
>>> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>
>>>>Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
>>>>Second Amendment was adopted.
>>>>
>>>>Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
>>>>Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
>>>>racist time-travellers.
>>>>
>>>>What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
>>>>and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
>>>>with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
>>>>more quickly resolved?
>>>
>>> Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
>>> were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
>>> familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
>>> Same issue exists in earlier armies.
>>>
>>> A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the
>>> mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
>>> another can of worms).
>>
>>But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
>>incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
>>that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
>>would make them rethink?
>
> So ship back AK-47's.

Turtledove had South Africans provide Russian weapons
to Confederates...I'm all about Americans providing
American weapons to Americans.
> Same effectiveness, but a more robust firearm.
>>>>Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
>>>>Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
>>>>Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
>>>>weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
>>>
>>> Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
>>> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
>>> perfectly acceptable, why not?
>>
>>Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
>>they'd see the consequences in person.
>
> Now explain to me how having a standing army would be much
> more palatable in the 1780's? Especially under the Articles of
> Confederation. One of the reasons for the amendment of the subsequent
> Constitution was to address concerns about Government overreach.
> Disarming the populace, especially as there were still "wild indians"
> living close-by, was not a salable idea.

An orders-of-magnitude increase in carnage when things come
to armed conflict may make armed conflict significantly less palatable.

> Granted, as long as this timeline's equivalent to the "Rivington
> Men" are willing to supply ammunition, the government will only have
> to worry about "inventory shrinkage" from Government Armories.
> As long as no vet "forgets" to turn in his rifle.

Letting ammunition walk from the armories would be the determinant of
how dangerous it was for a militiaman to hold onto his rifle.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

edstas...@gmail.com <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Louis Epstein
>> > pyotr filipivich
>> >
>> > Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
>> > own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
>> > perfectly acceptable, why not?
>>
>> Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
>> they'd see the consequences in person.
>
> All the more reason to insure that the government doesn't have
> a monopoly on weapons.

Or to insure that it **DOES**.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Thu, 6 Apr 2023 22:23:53 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>edstas...@gmail.com <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Louis Epstein
>>> > pyotr filipivich
>>> >
>>> > Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
>>> > own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
>>> > perfectly acceptable, why not?
>>>
>>> Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
>>> they'd see the consequences in person.
>>
>> All the more reason to insure that the government doesn't have
>> a monopoly on weapons.
>
>Or to insure that it **DOES**.

Our Time line: Revolution "ends" 1783, the Continental Army
disbands. {I suspect a number of troops take their issued weapon home.
Because where are they going to turn them in?} Articles of
Confederation are "revised" 1787. The Bill of Rights are added in
1791.

You can pick your POD when the introduction of whatever battle
rifle system you desire, and from then on the Colonial Armies do not
lose. E.G., The Brits lose at Bunker Hill and the siege of Boston is
not lifted, Washington does not lose New York City in Dec 1776,
General Burgoyne does not take Fort Ticonderoga, Lord Cornwallis loses
at Guilford Courthouse (North Carolina), the British don't take
Charleston. Etc.
The War ends, possibly sooner, but one of the causes for it
remains: the government must respect the rights of individuals,
particularly in regards to arming the ordinary person.

Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular
firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up
government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
3000 miles closer."

--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Thu, 6 Apr 2023 22:23:24 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Tue, 4 Apr 2023 22:58:04 -0000
>> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
>>>> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
>>>>>Second Amendment was adopted.
>>>>>
>>>>>Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
>>>>>Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
>>>>>racist time-travellers.
>>>>>
>>>>>What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
>>>>>and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
>>>>>with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
>>>>>more quickly resolved?
>>>>
>>>> Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
>>>> were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
>>>> familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
>>>> Same issue exists in earlier armies.
>>>>
>>>> A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the
>>>> mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
>>>> another can of worms).
>>>
>>>But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
>>>incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
>>>that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
>>>would make them rethink?
>>
>> So ship back AK-47's.
>
>Turtledove had South Africans provide Russian weapons
>to Confederates...I'm all about Americans providing
>American weapons to Americans.
>
>> Same effectiveness, but a more robust firearm.
>>>>>Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
>>>>>Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
>>>>>Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
>>>>>weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
>>>>
>>>> Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
>>>> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
>>>> perfectly acceptable, why not?
>>>
>>>Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
>>>they'd see the consequences in person.
>>
>> Now explain to me how having a standing army would be much
>> more palatable in the 1780's? Especially under the Articles of
>> Confederation. One of the reasons for the amendment of the subsequent
>> Constitution was to address concerns about Government overreach.
>> Disarming the populace, especially as there were still "wild indians"
>> living close-by, was not a salable idea.
>
>An orders-of-magnitude increase in carnage when things come
>to armed conflict may make armed conflict significantly less palatable.

That was what was thought about the introduction of the Gatling
Gun, the Maxim Gun, Aeroplanes, Gas, assault rifles, and nukes.
>
>> Granted, as long as this timeline's equivalent to the "Rivington
>> Men" are willing to supply ammunition, the government will only have
>> to worry about "inventory shrinkage" from Government Armories.
>> As long as no vet "forgets" to turn in his rifle.
>
>Letting ammunition walk from the armories would be the determinant of
>how dangerous it was for a militiaman to hold onto his rifle.

And how do you intend to keep the armories secure? It is a
problem in these modern times with all the modern tech.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

> Louis Epstein
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > All the more reason to insure that the government doesn't have
> > a monopoly on weapons.
>
> Or to insure that it **DOES**.

In that case, welcome to the People's Gulag of North Dakota, comrade...

On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 08:14:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
>veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
>American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular
>firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
>will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up
>government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
>3000 miles closer."
>
>
It's probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has the
right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get
approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a blanket
ban on weapons for felons.

"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> on Fri, 7 Apr 2023
10:22:44 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> Louis Epstein
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > All the more reason to insure that the government doesn't have
>> > a monopoly on weapons.
>>
>> Or to insure that it **DOES**.
>
>In that case, welcome to the People's Gulag of North Dakota, comrade...

In 1793, much of what is now the Dakotas was nominally under
Spanish Control, with balance nominally under The Crown.

--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> on Fri, 07 Apr 2023 12:49:51 -0700
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 08:14:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
><phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
>>veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
>>American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular
>>firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
>>will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up
>>government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
>>3000 miles closer."
>>
>>
>It's probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
>single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has the
>right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get
>approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a blanket
>ban on weapons for felons.

Good luck enforcing that out west in Ohio.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Thu, 6 Apr 2023 22:23:24 -0000
> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Tue, 4 Apr 2023 22:58:04 -0000
>>> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Fri, 31 Mar 2023 01:46:59 -0000
>>>>> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Much has been made of the change in weapons since the
>>>>>>Second Amendment was adopted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Harry Turtledove had his "Guns of the South" where
>>>>>>Confederates were supplied with AK-47s in 1864 by
>>>>>>racist time-travellers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What about time-travellers heading back to the 1776-7 period
>>>>>>and giving George Washington modern XM7 and XM250 weapons
>>>>>>with ammunition so as to make the War of Independence much
>>>>>>more quickly resolved?
>>>>>
>>>>> Turtledove's _Guns of the South_ chose AKs in part because they
>>>>> were designed to be used by Russian peasants who lacked the
>>>>> familiarity with machinery to take care of "high tech" weapons.
>>>>> Same issue exists in earlier armies.
>>>>>
>>>>> A "Better" idea would be to have introduce Rifled Muskets and the
>>>>> mini-ball. (And eventually the machinery to make them, but that is
>>>>> another can of worms).
>>>>
>>>>But is the motive of the travellers to give them something
>>>>incremental and useful,or to deliver a "shock to the system"
>>>>that would be effective,but also give them a scare that
>>>>would make them rethink?
>>>
>>> So ship back AK-47's.
>>
>>Turtledove had South Africans provide Russian weapons
>>to Confederates...I'm all about Americans providing
>>American weapons to Americans.
>>
>>> Same effectiveness, but a more robust firearm.
>>>>>>Beyond the effect on the battlefield,would the
>>>>>>Americans still feel comfortable writing the Second
>>>>>>Amendment into the Constitution if it meant making
>>>>>>weapons of such lethality a citizen commonplace?
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering that the founders already considered having citizens
>>>>> own "military grade" firearm, cannons, and private warships to be
>>>>> perfectly acceptable, why not?
>>>>
>>>>Because "military grade" would be suddenly redefined and
>>>>they'd see the consequences in person.
>>>
>>> Now explain to me how having a standing army would be much
>>> more palatable in the 1780's? Especially under the Articles of
>>> Confederation. One of the reasons for the amendment of the subsequent
>>> Constitution was to address concerns about Government overreach.
>>> Disarming the populace, especially as there were still "wild indians"
>>> living close-by, was not a salable idea.
>>
>>An orders-of-magnitude increase in carnage when things come
>>to armed conflict may make armed conflict significantly less palatable.
>
> That was what was thought about the introduction of the Gatling
> Gun, the Maxim Gun, Aeroplanes, Gas, assault rifles, and nukes.

So you don't think there's any stage at which
the magnitude of an increase would make people care?

>>
>>> Granted, as long as this timeline's equivalent to the "Rivington
>>> Men" are willing to supply ammunition, the government will only have
>>> to worry about "inventory shrinkage" from Government Armories.
>>> As long as no vet "forgets" to turn in his rifle.
>>
>>Letting ammunition walk from the armories would be the determinant of
>>how dangerous it was for a militiaman to hold onto his rifle.
>
> And how do you intend to keep the armories secure? It is a
> problem in these modern times with all the modern tech.

How seriously would it be taken by enough people?
That's what would decide if it worked.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 08:14:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
>>veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
>>American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular
>>firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
>>will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up
>>government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
>>3000 miles closer."
>>
>>
> It's probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
> single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has the
> right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get
> approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a blanket
> ban on weapons for felons.

In my concept the Continentals would have the (X)M7 rifles and these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM250
https://defensereview.com/sig-sauer-xm250-m250-6-8x51mm-machine-gun-how-good-is-it-really-well-garand-thumb-certainly-likes-it/

Not something Joe Minuteman should be entitled to keep in his barn.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

> The Horny Goat
> > pyotr filipivich
> >
> > Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
> >veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
> >American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular
> >firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
> >will result in civil war as people say "I didn't have family suck up
> >government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
> >3000 miles closer."
>
> It's probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
> single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has
> the right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get
> approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a
> blanket ban on weapons for felons.

There is no point where gun control advocates will ever say;
"That's enough gun control."

> pyotr filipivich
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > In that case, welcome to the People's Gulag of North Dakota, comrade...
>
> In 1793, much of what is now the Dakotas was nominally under
> Spanish Control, with balance nominally under The Crown.

You've just added another 10 years on your sentence, comrade.

> Louis Epstein
> > pyotr filipivich
> >
> > That was what was thought about the introduction of the Gatling
> > Gun, the Maxim Gun, Aeroplanes, Gas, assault rifles, and nukes.
>
> So you don't think there's any stage at which
> the magnitude of an increase would make people care?

Our human right to keep and bear arms means everything short of WMDs.

If you want a machine gun, fine but if you want a nuke, then no.