(02-23-2017, 12:50 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: About 4 shots per minute would be sustainable.





As you can see from the video, you had to do a lot to prep those things to fire. Particularly pulling out the ramrod, ramming the charge and ball round into the chamber, and then replacing the ramrod to its place. Perhaps someone could shave a handful of seconds off of each shot time by just having the ramrod out already. That might get you to 5 shots per minute. But that wasn't prescribed by the manual of arms at the time as it was thought (rightfully so) that more troops would damage or lose the ramrods over time, especially if the troops had to advance or retreat (which they usually did at some point).

But increasing the individual rate of fire wasn't the name of the game at the time. It was more important to produce a volley, or wall of fire, due to the inaccuracy of the weapons. Rate of fire was was increased by having multiple ranks alternate between firing and reloading. This was a system the West had already been using for hundreds of years before with crossbowmen, and it was effective.

BTW - If you've ever gone to see an orchestra concert, you may notice that there are like 40 violin players but only a handful of each wind instrument. That is because stringed instruments like violins, acoustic guitars, etc. generally only play at one volume level. Therefore, if you want the to play something louder, you increase the number of violins playing that line. And vice versa if you want them to play something softer.

(02-22-2017, 04:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As someone that has expressed my desire for a new constitution, I hate to say that I agree with him on the broad idea. We have the oldest written constitution still in use, today. I get that we have pride in this but this document was written when global trade took months, not seconds. It was written when 6-8 shots in a minute was the fastest you were going to to see someone pull of, when news took hours, days, or even weeks to reach the common person. The industrial revolution hadn't happened and we had an agrarian society. All of these have changed our society in ways the framers of our government could not have dreamed.

My point is, why do we debate the original intent of laws written by politicians that had no concept of the world we live in today to apply them to the world today? It just seems to me like a new constitution would better serve the people, and with it we need to set up a more representative government. I think a parliamentary system would be better, but there is also just the number of representatives as well.

There are 630 members of the Bundestag in Germany. Almost 200 more representatives in their lower house than we have. A country that has 3% of our land mass, about 25% of our population, and 18% of our nominal GDP has a representative body that is 144% the size of what we have. When I see things like this, not just in Germany, it makes me feel like we are grossly underrepresented in our federal government. This isn't even getting into how we hold elections, which is a whole other story.

Anyway, I feel like we hold onto the system we have and glorify it because our history isn't centuries old as it is in Europe. Jefferson said that a constitution naturally expires at the end of 19 years, so why are we holding onto a 228 year old constitution with such fervor?

(02-23-2017, 12:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's the beauty of the Consitution. The framers made it possible to "update" the Constitution to keep up with the times. It's not their fault that the country has come to be run by a bunch of idiots and golddiggers bent on doing only what benefits them with a populace that has become increasingly more and more uninformed.

(02-22-2017, 06:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, maybe this is the time to do it. Hopefully not in as violent a manner as before. I have heard constitutional scholars say that the reconstruction amendments essentially created a new constitution as it made the states also liable to uphold the rights and liberties of the people. We are as divided now as we were leading up to that. I don't want it to be a war fought over the idea, but maybe division is a good time to look at these sorts of things? Hard to say, really.

(02-23-2017, 12:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What was up with that last shot?  

And yes the archer was the real machine of death.  You get 1000 of those, and you could be facing 25,000 arrows over a 2 minute span.

(02-23-2017, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, those of you commenting, what do you think about our representation in Congress? Our electoral process? Our system of government in general? I am just curious if people have thought about those sorts of things.

I often think about the parliamentary system because the framers intended very little power to go to the Executive. They didn't envision the average citizen engaging with the federal executive branch in their lives, let alone daily. But now, we interact with them every day of our lives whether we know it or not. I feel like the expansion of the authority of the executive needs to be checked as it has been usurping more and more from the branch of the people, the legislature.

(02-23-2017, 12:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's the beauty of the Consitution. The framers made it possible to "update" the Constitution to keep up with the times. It's not their fault that the country has come to be run by a bunch of idiots and golddiggers bent on doing only what benefits them with a populace that has become increasingly more and more uninformed.

(02-23-2017, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, those of you commenting, what do you think about our representation in Congress? Our electoral process? Our system of government in general? I am just curious if people have thought about those sorts of things.

I often think about the parliamentary system because the framers intended very little power to go to the Executive. They didn't envision the average citizen engaging with the federal executive branch in their lives, let alone daily. But now, we interact with them every day of our lives whether we know it or not. I feel like the expansion of the authority of the executive needs to be checked as it has been usurping more and more from the branch of the people, the legislature.

(02-23-2017, 07:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I am ok with the current idea of a bicameral legislature, with the Senate being equal. We need an independent body creating districts, however, if we are to continue to have the system we intended to have. With gerrymandering, we have essentially lost the idea of districts being communities. In Maryland, the rural Western parts of Maryland have been gerrymandered to include southern suburbs, creating two D districts from what was 1 R and 1 D. Maybe we need all at large representatives elected using a run off system that will allow minority groups to get representation (so if there are 30% Republicans, ideally 30% of reps will be Republicans). 

Obviously get rid of the electoral college. 

Our system of government is fine. The Republic works well.

I am ok with how the executive branch has grown since the start of the 20th century. It balances the legislative. I do not believe a parliamentary system is the right route. I prefer three balancing branches. 

(02-23-2017, 09:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What do you think of the number of representatives?

(02-23-2017, 11:20 AM)wildcats forever Wrote: I believe it is time to start thinking about how to do it at least. Trump very well may be the culmination of all that's wrong with our system, as he does seem to exhibit major traits that show us how not to be. One (of many) question is who do we entrust to make such major changes? Certainly not those who perpetuate the problems we have now. It seems this intervention needs to be led by outsiders who have no vested interest beyond the betterment for all. Such an effort requires flawless organization and complete transparency.

(02-24-2017, 09:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm ok with that. I don't have a legitimate argument to change it.

(02-23-2017, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, those of you commenting, what do you think about our representation in Congress? Our electoral process? Our system of government in general? I am just curious if people have thought about those sorts of things.

I often think about the parliamentary system because the framers intended very little power to go to the Executive. They didn't envision the average citizen engaging with the federal executive branch in their lives, let alone daily. But now, we interact with them every day of our lives whether we know it or not. I feel like the expansion of the authority of the executive needs to be checked as it has been usurping more and more from the branch of the people, the legislature.

(02-24-2017, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just don't think a cap set in 1911 when we had 29% of our population is a very good thing for our representatives. We've fought two world wars since then, the federal government and our economy has exploded in size, and we've added 4 states and 216,517,042 people (difference between 1910 and 2010 census figures).

This was a topic that made more of a splash 15-17 years ago, I'm really surprised it hasn't been brought up more since then as our continued growth makes us underrepresented even more.