Send download link to your phone:
- OR -
Google Play to download.
January 18, 2013 |
In: Interesting, Mind Blowing
Follow Bob on Tapiture
Remington Model 1859 revolver manufactured by Polish Ryszard Tobys of Czempin. It’s the largest revolver ever made.
Category: Interesting, Mind Blowing
Wheres the photo of him laying flat on his ass from the recoil?
Thats not a revolver thats a cannon.
That's no moon…it's a space station
Seriously. I believe they call that "light artillery."
That's what she said.
and the next day he bought this gun
#2 Do you think he's compensating for something?
maybe the person he wants to kill is the size of an Elephant
Hey now, comically oversized guns don't kill elephant people, men with comically undersized penises kill elephant people.
he'd have sore arms for a month from the recoil, good luck with that
you spelled broken wrong
i agree sstan cause it is a big gun and being a big gun is will have months of recoil and that would make his arms sore cause of the big gun recoil. But guns with big recoil make your arms sore so good luck with the sore arms from the recoil
haaha yeah stan…and don't forget that his arms would be sore from the recoil a month from now and good luck with that cuz the arms will be sore from the recoil.
Why you americans have this big obsession with weapons?
I'm not being sarcastic, really, just curious.
Ummm…back in 1776 somebody didn't want us to be independent and we decided to stay that way??
And you haven't changed since?
Just in case our government tries something stupid… Oh, wait…
But in all seriousness they are supposed to be "the last form of defense against tyranny."
and hey guys, Anjin-San was asking an important question, no need to neg-bomb now.
Simply put, the revolution started over gun control. Not taxation, not the arrest of key figures as "popular" history would want you to believe… When the Brittish came and the war started with Lexington and Concord, they were coming to disarm the colonists, in an attempt to prevent the very revolution they started.
Secondly, the US government is based on Checks and Balances with the three branches of government. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial… but that is at the level of governance. The Forefathers of America wrote a fourth check & balance into the bill of rights with the Second Amendment. To be used as The_Dood mentioned, as "the last form of defense against tyranny."
I'm sorry. I consider myself a republican, I grew up with guns in my house, but people who use "to protect myself against my government" as a reason to own a gun are morons. Having them to fend of the zombie apocalypse makes equal or more sense. I'm not saying that is what you were doing but there are plenty of comments on this board that are.
Not needing to protect yourself from the government is a fair point. However, your choice of the word moron is perhaps a bit brash.
Will Americans need to protect themselves from government gone wrong? Hopefully, probably not. Along one train of thought, I posit that since the citizens are armed helps to prevent it from getting that bad… Being armed and knowing we are armed prevents the need for uprising, not being armed for an uprising.
I agree with you on the second count though. Being armed for a potential collapse of civilization (regardless of cause) does make equal or more sense. Frankly, not enough people realize how delicate the balance of maintaining civilization is. We have been lucky, but it actually doesn't take much to tip it over.
Of course not! Don't be foolish.
Things like a government oppressing its citizens never happens. And if they ever did start leaning in that direction, we could just ask for our guns back, and they would give them back right?
Something about forgetting history and something.. I forget.
Keep your guns, I'll bet on the side with the tanks and jets.
Thought the same thing about Iraq didn't we….
Was going to say the same thing.
Spoke to an American friend of mine about this very thing. What exactly are a bunch of civilians (mostly untrained) going to do against a trained army with the most advanced weapons known to man?
His comment, well maybe the army will be on our side. Well then you don't need the guns then do you.
ever heard of gorilla warfare and how is working in the middle east? Though I'm not advocating civil war, I do believe that thousands and thousands of armed citizens would be very difficult to control even with "tanks and missiles". Not only difficult to control but you'd really end up destroying your infrastructure as well as having a huge blood bath.
That single threat may be enough to make the government behave civilly towards their employers, or that's the theory. Besides those points: Why do I own guns? Because I like them, I enjoy shooting them regularly and last but really first in the list "Because I CAN and WANT."
I'd like to add on to that. One of the reasons, amongst many, that our constitution (thus our country) is so successful is because it accounts for human error and corruption. Throughout human history, our founders saw that governments have a tendancy to become corrupt and often tyrannical. In fact, this is the case more often than not. The second ammendment is the last defense by the people against an oppressive government. The reason people think it is absurd that our government would fall into despotism is because we have not seen this, on a large enough scale, in 70 years or so (Hitler, Stalin, etc). However, we do see it now in North Korea, Venezuela, and quite frequently in the Middle East and Africa. But the genocide and human rights violations are not quite comparable to what happened 70 years ago, yet.
well, it does say it was a polish man who made it… damn you americans for being polish, or something…
If you look at the name inscribed on the barrel, I'm going to say that this fellow probably resides outside the US.
Why you have this big obsession with not reading?
"Remington Model 1859 revolver manufactured by Polish Ryszard Tobys of Czempin. It’s the largest revolver ever made."
Czempin, a town in Poland.
Because we can.
… for now …
You will as long as you don't let your politicians change it.
You know, the same politicians that have armed security and have their kids in private schools that have armed guards. The ones that think armed protection is only for the elite.
You just eat up the NRA talking points hook, line and sinker, don't you? So much easier to let someone else think for you, isn't it?
What part of his statement is untrue? They do have armed guards, that we pay for BTW, they do send their kids to schools with armed guards and they do think WE should not be trusted with our own brand of armed security. The armed security that WE can afford: self supplied. They want themselves and their kids safe but they balk at the idea of US doing the same thing.
And those are NOT NRA talking points, they are the unvarnished truth…BTW how's that national media koolaid? Tasty?
Because we can, and will use them when the need arises. It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have one.
and i quote…..Every year, 1.5 million crimes are thwarted by law abiding citizens with legally owned firearms. Average response time for a 9-11 call is 19 minutes. If the criminals coming into our homes have assault guns (courtesy of the Fast and Furious gun-walk program), then We The People have every right to match them in firepower.
I don't live in the US, but I have always wondered the flip side of why Americans want citizens to be free to buy guns.
Why do most other countries think its such a good idea to give up their freedom to defend themselves, and only arm those in power who make the rules?
Oh, and criminals of course. Criminals still have guns in the countries where they are banned.
I think you will find that's not so true
I think you have your head in the sand.
Find a country that has banned guns that does not have any gun crime in the country.
No shit? You mean some criminals in those countries don't respect the law and manage to have illegal guns? What a fucking surprise…
Because this is America, and we can, so we do. K?
No we don't forget the first part. People like you are ignorant of what the Founding Father meant by "Militia". George Mason the co-author of the 2nd Amendment made that clear in the following quote.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
In 2008, the Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller officially rejected the militia clause, upholding the individual-right interpretation.
Also, did Mr. Mason offer a definition of "well-regulated"?
Well regulated militia belonged to the "states" (not the federal government who was not supposed to keep a standing army) to be drilled and practice and to have their weapons in working order. The people, as in every case in the Declaration and the Constitution, is the individual. The "militia" and "the people" are separate entities in the 2nd, this was done on purpose, specifically mentioning the state and the individual to make it very clear that they both had this right and that the individual, specifically mentioned, would have that right without infringement.
They didn't write junk in the Constitution, every single word was put there for a specific reason in EVERY amendment. They were clear as day and anyone trying to find different meanings to the words need only read their discussions on the federalist papers and the documentation on the discussions about the bill of rights in the different States to understand that the INDIVIDUAL was meant to have the same kind of weapon a soldier could carry and operate on his/her own. No founding father EVER argued against that right. Ever. Period.
thats it .. i want one !
It'll be funny!
Yeah….I wanna see it go BOOM!
The title of this post was a lie! This is all stick and no boom.
Stupid.. guns… ze maken meer kapot dan je lief is..
Kdenk dat de meeste mensen u hier niet gaan verstaan, Rutger… Maar ben het met u eens
Ek kan nie regtig julle mense verstaan nie, maar ek kan amper julle verstaan want ek praat Afrikaans
hahaha Baie mooi Clayton. Dit het my nou moer baie laat lag. Very funny, lol
fuck off. speak american motherfucker
Please tell me your joking, because if not, your an idiot.
Ich sprechen nicht gut deutsch.
"Listen, Sammy, I'm not a very good shot, but the Samaritan here uses really big bullets."
Chuck Norris can shoot that thing from the hip, twirl it around his finger, and reholster in less time it takes to throw a roundhouse kick.
I dont think anyone is going near his daughter anytime soon
And imagine the priceless look on a burglers face after seeing it. ^_^
Should not be promoting firearms period!!!Of any kind!!!
Guns are not needed in this day and age.
With regard to the 2nd Amendment, the issue is not about a "need" it is about a "right". This right is not qualified with hunting, self defense or sporting uses, etc. It is a right and a freedom that Americans should cherish, whether they choose to exercise that right or not.
I'm all for the theories behind the 2nd amendment but I also believe that they should be reviewed and reconsidered. People who refer to the 2nd amendment as the reason we should be able to own guns need to take a step back. How long do we let a group of men 100s of years ago dictate the rules that we are based on? I'm not saying it's now but seriously asking. 500 years? 1000 years? 5000 years? At what point do we say, hey maybe things are a little different now and we should reconsider a few things. I'm for gun ownership. I grew up in a house with guns but I also believe that some people are really ignorant when defending this so blindly.
So as a soldier, you are saying I'm a dumbass for choosing to defend it. Thank you.
No, not at all. Re-read what I wrote. Defending our nation is not only respectable, it's necessary. I'm just saying that just because something was a rule once, doesn't mean it always should be.
So since we should't allow someone from 100 years dictate the rules we are based on… Then the first amendment should be out so ppl can learn to shut the fuck up!!!
The Second Ammendment is based on principle. Principle doesn't change. It's based on human nature. Human nature does not change.
So then do you also support looking at the 1st Amendment and it's right to "Free Press". Clearly the Founding Fathers could not have imagined something like the internet, radio, or television, and obviously the word "press" was meant to apply to printed news only. Not things like the Internet, TV, or Radio.
The argument that we've evolved beyond the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous. You may feel like you've evolved past it but as for me I prefer to keep all my rights.
I'm not saying that we have evolved past it but things have certainly changed. There are already restrictions on it that weren't there before because we have determined them necessary. When the 2nd amendment was put forth you could possess any kind of firearm the government could. Now there are plenty you are not allowed to have. You certainly can't go out and buy a rocket launcher, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would want people to be able to do that. Again, I'm not for taking guns away but I am all for re-evaluating things that were put in place 300+years ago to determine what has changed and to see if WE need to change because of it.
Are you a well-regulated militia?
The purpose of having a well-regulated militia was to resist a tyrannical government. A federally regulated militia would be the antithesis of defense of a free state. A state regulated militia would make more sense, although in modern times the differentiation between state and federal governments has blurred. In the late 1700s, people still recognized that the states created the federal government and recognized the country was a collection of independent states, referring to it as these United States.
It can be assumed that those who believe the second amendment applies only to members of well-regulated militias mean government regulated militias. In the current age, this type of militia would be completely useless against that for which it was created, and would be contrary to the intent of the second amendment.
I have a few tools of the trade!
Do you also post this kind of thing on military forums? Anyways, until evil-doing is bred out of the human condition completely, there will be a need for whatever weapon does the best job of taking away the physical advantage from those who would murder, rape, and steal from others. Put an average man in the ring to duke it out with granny, no weapons. who will win 99 times out of a 100? Now put a gun in each of their hands: those odds go WAY up in favor of granny.
Well until laser guns are invented we are stuck with firearms.
Well, unfortunately a lot of people have them and want to do bad things with them. I'm sure you could talk them out of whatever they were doing as you look down the barrel of one though…
if we take the guns away from the law abiding citizen then they cant defend themselves from the lawbreaker that can get the guns anyway. Even if the police are called it would take them longer to get there than it would take for someone to be killed. In a mass shooting incident the difference can be huge. if you have a trained concealed gun carrying citizen there, the death/ injury rate goes down considerably. maybe a few people killed or none compared to i don't know how many if you wait for the police. Look at the gun related crime statistics in a country like Finland that has mandatory military service, and almost all citizens own guns. The gun crime is almost non-existent.
take a look at these stats:
Clearly you have never had to stop a coyote from killing the chickens or put down a rabid raccoon. Might want to get to know the world in which some of us live before you make such a blanket assertion.
Yeah, those stupid counties in the middle east trying to fight and overthrow corrupt leaders and dictatorships. How dare those dicks use guns.
Come on RogHam.
In this day and age (Where I live, as a result of millions of lives lost and bloodshed), I am so content and sheltered that I do not need a gun, and can live in ignorant bliss of the real world.
So no one needs one.
Well we can have guns and proud to be an American. I can have as many as I want!
Don't you know that Redcoats are waiting just over the Canadian border to invade the second US citizens arms are taken away?
Canada invade the U.S. funny guy, you seen our military?Or better yet our citizens?
I could write out a well thought out dissertation as I have in other places on this thread, but for you I won't.
I will simply say that with a blithe comment like that, I can tell you are a Liberal coward that is afraid of guns. Despite the fact you have NO knowledge whatsoever of firearms, you have allowed yourself to be told to be afraid of guns by the media like the rest of the Sheeple.
If you are going to make such a brazen statement like that, about a subject that is SO charged, especially these days, You had DAMN well better come with an intelligent argument to back up your claims, not Liberal diarrhea mouth.
Well you sure are a swell fellow judging me like that,maybe we can go shooting sometime , you wanna use the 338 LM or maybe the 7WSM or you more traditional and want to use the .270 or 308?
#6 Look at the bullets that thing fires! #7 Have fun putting that back together.
Bullets? More like musket balls!
yep you have to load that thing with black powder first. does it come with a tamping rod?. I wonder if anyone ever actually tried to use one for anything besides demonstration and just for the hell of it.
Hate to break it to ya, but that's a Model 1858. I have an original one passed down through my family.
I watch Pawn Stars, and almost every episode someone brings in a gun that was passed down through the family, and they often turn out to be something other than what they thought it was, or a fake. Just sayin'.
Well, that clearly makes you an expert on appraising antiques, especially if you watch that show while staying at a Holiday Inn Express!
Yeah… not sure referencing "Pawn Stars" is helpful… My guess is that the people working in the pawn show tell people that the stuff they bring in is fake so they don't have to pay a premium to get it into their inventory. Then they sell it as an authentic piece and charge 5x more lol.
Actually, if you watch the show at all, the Pawn Stars owner has the majority of the merchandise authenticated and/or appraised. Not really great business sense to screw your customers while being filmed
Look out, zombies!
damn when did they start filming "the gunslinger and the dark tower"?
"Did you see the size of that gun he fired at us? It was bigger than him"
I want one
People with mustache's kill people. Not guns
I feel like this should be in my front and fired every morning to ward off evil spirits and annoying neighbors.
Gun laws, schmun laws come take THIS gun…if you dare….
Until it actually fires a projectile, it is not a gun, it is a piece of artwork. Show that it actually launched something out of the barrel.
made in Poland
Take that, Obama
Sorry bout your penis brp
Sorry about for jealousy. Don't worry maybe someday you can live somewhere they have freedoms too.
Untill them, keep being a good puppet. That a boy.
Is that an "assault revolver"? It looks scary and I don't quite understand it, so I'd better surround myself with children, read some fake letters, and ban it…just in case.
Welcome to Canadian firearms laws.
theCHIVE.com on Facebook