What would you like to know ? A musket is any military rifle that was given the designation of musket in military service. A hold over from muzzle loader days. It was used commonly until world war one, with the 1903 Springfield rifle being classified as a musket. I don't know of any official m14 musket references ,but I'd assume they would be in the bayonet fighting instructions. similar to the M16 in Vietnam which followed the m14. That is officially the last I personally know of , but doesn't mean it is the last use of the term in military use. having an AR-15 platform rifle like an M4 carbine IS having a musket. Owning a sig mcx spear ,will also count. Rapid fire gun technology existed far before it was efficient and predates the USA itself in volley guns ,puckle guns , rotating barrel muzzle loaders and rotating barrel cannons had naval use. The first Gatling gun concepts had removable chambers to be landed with black powder and ball. By the 1880s , we had a propellant that could finally give efficient use of this old tech. Black powder stops mechanisms because it leaves thick residue . But the mechanisms have been with us for a very long time. The forefathers were aware that technology improves and at drastic paces occasionally. Can I say what people will have in 300 years? Nope ,but you can count on it being far more advanced than anything we know...the premise of many science fiction stories are based on that ,guessing what the future holds and knowing it will be beyond our current knowledge . If you have questions . Ask. If I don't have answers directly ,I can find source material .
"if im robbin a dude and he calls me a "ruffian." bro, im just walkin back out the door. i am dead serious, there is nothing in that house worth taking." -heavenly 2020
I’ve thought about this a lot. Some people who may still use the word “ruffian” might’ve fought in the Second World War or some other war. Wouldn’t this objectively mean they could have more valuable stuff since the Second World War taught them to be more careful. Eventually they could become a hoarder and with that collect more items. Said items will increase in value over the years so wouldn’t a robber want to rob a house like that. Note: this is only theoretical, many factors can change this I.e. being in America or Britain during Ww2 or not becoming a hoarder, so this is only if these specific standards are met
I can't tell if the joke is "people who use words like that are crazy and dangerous", or "people who use words like that are losers and don't have anything valuable"
do you know heavenly's other most legendary quote? Who will win the battle of the axis, Adolf dripler or Joseph Stuntin? or benito Swaggolini? Welp, i added to it: Franklin delano Phonkevelt.
Which would just stop the projectile in the target's body, not completing the hole through their torso. However the shockwave of a harder bullet would create a vacum hole in the body that could temporarily be 42.67 or more diameters wide.
objection, aside from the entry wound, bullets tend to leave wounds many times larger than the bullet itself, a musket ball would more likely leave a baseball sized hole
.75 caliber projectile, probably a little less gruesome than modern shotgun slug or at least the specialty loads I run with My tavor becomes a bolt action on anything less than 1200 fps, so I tend to run hot at 1300-1600 fps ...and then whatever the hell they used for charge in Luke's explosive slugs. Things are either overpreassured or overcharged for sure, but I don't have a chronograph
A lot of odd things were said in this video, but I feel like "according to Quora" is actually the one thing you never want a lawyer or prosecutor to utter.
@@firestorm165 Fox News isn't a News Outlet. (seriously, they actually were going to get sued, so they defined themselves as an "entertainment channel" and that anyone who takes anything seriously that they say is a complete idiot)
A golf ball sized hole could be refering to the exit wound. Since high velocities means a bigger exit wound. A musket at point blank range would be devastating
@@DynoSkrimisher Your premise is sound, but I think your conclusion is flawed. I don't think 1000 fps is enough to increase the exit wound that much - more like 3 times that much (the velocity of a round from a modern "small caliber, high velocity" round). Even then, spin speed and shape are really important - a (relatively) slow spin speed and a modern, needle-nosed shape (usually called a "Spitzer tip" among gun folks) is also necessary. An M-16 with a low rifle twist rate will cause that devastating exit wound, while one with a high twist rate will punch clean through (which is more suitable for dealing with armor). A musket ball is likely too slow and wrongly shaped to create that effect. That said, it's my understanding that the soft lead should "pancake" a little bit, so the wound would be a bit bigger (but not golf-ball sized) Take all that with a grain of salt, by the way, that is my current understanding, though I'm not a ballistics expert or anything like that. (BTW, I only know that much since I'm a military history buff, and I have no intention to ever own a firearm for self-defense - I don't even consider myself a "gun person.") EDIT: I've noticed some other people in the comments citing historical sources claiming "fist-sized wounds" at close ranges, such as during the Boston Massacre. My analysis might be off, but I must stress that - if it is - it's likely due to me underestimating the effects of what I called "pancaking."
Only from rifle speeds. Anything below 500 fps isn't likely to expand to terribly, especially not a ball. Musket speeds were as low as 340 fps and relied on Hardcast and mass to punch through 45 acp ball rounds are generally subsonic at 840 fps and will hardly deform on impact. Hollow points will expand to create a larger hole
Also, because of the way a bullet can tumble, break apart, and separate after hitting the target, while the target's internal organs can be ripped out of place due to the bullet fragments transferring a fraction of the original kinetic energy, the entry wound of a bullet can be larger or smaller than the exit wound (depending on the caliber of the bullet, the design of the bullet, the amount of kinetic energy lost entering the target, the way the bullet interacts with the internal components within the target, and the amount of kinetic energy required to exit the target). For example, just look at how shotgun cartridges work: the individual pieces of metal stored within a shotgun cartridge are often more than 10x smaller than even musket balls (depending on what kind of shot is being used and the caliber of the gun, with "grapeshot"/"birdshot" often being the smallest individual pellet size for the caliber, while "slug" rounds are usually large enough to completely fill the entire shotgun barrel on their own), but shotgun wounds almost universally have FAR BIGGER exit wounds than the entry wounds.
@@hsheheishje9649 objection, rifles and muskets are two different things, a musket has a smooth bore where a rifle has a rifled bore, this means there are a series of spiraling grooves inside a rifle bore which cause the projectile to spin, resulting in a stabilized projectile and much longer range. Therefore a musket is much more similar to a modern shotgun, even though muskets are typically loaded with a single, large projectile rather than several small pellets
@@deathskrieg5525 Ok, you're correct. I was under the assumption that rifles were guns with barrels greater than 16 inches in length. Technically, most muskets would be shotguns as they are long guns without rifling and not rifles.
If I recall correctly, your founding fathers used the word "arms" and not specifically the "muskets", so that tells me their intentions were that you the people had the right to bear arms up to date... Heck I guess they gave it a lot of thought, thinking like "Muskets and cannons made bows and catapults obsolete, we need to make this the most general possible", so that means you could own blasters and plasma rifles when the time comes.
@@JonathanLundkvist I find it hard to believe that any reasonably intelligent person wouldn't anticipate weapons technology evolving over time. That said, the Constitution does include the means to amend it if necessary
Cemetery guns were a popular thing since at least 1710, also could have had colonial rockets, pepper boxes, puckle gun, lorenzoni repeating flintlock (available in pistol and rifle), flintlock revolver (16th century) sword gun, axe gun, arming sword, dueling sword, saber, butcher sized Mediterranean style knife (what Jim Bowie would later put a clip point on), and of course a whole load of bombs in case they made it too far into your inner sanctum. Just as the founding fathers intended ... ...to be used against them or their successors if they ever became corrupt tyrants who refused to protect the other guaranteed rights of citizenship or threats from foreign governments...
The fact that he just admitted all of this in a public court session means that his actions will be considered premeditated rather than self-defense (especially the death threat against his neighbor's dog, the installation of a cannon at the top of his stairs, and his refusal to perform any first aid on any of the 4 intruders), so he'd go to prison like any other serial killer. It's basically the same reason why it's illegal to set up Home-Alone-style boobytraps in your house/property.
I thought the reason for Home Alone boobytraps being illegal was that they have no real way to tell friend from foe and are therefore more likely to kill your neighbor's overcurious kid than any burglar.
Oh yeah, I shoot an intruder after seeing that he's dangerous, And what do I do next? Give him first aid. Yeah, Why would I first SHOOT him in self defense, Then just patch his wound!? Just so that he could try to kill me again!?
You don't have any obligation to perform first aid, and there is nothing wrong with installing a cannon in your house provided it requires manual operation. (Using a cannon as part of a booby trap would be highly illegal.) The real issues with his statements are 1. It establishes clear premeditation for shooting the neighbor's dog. 2. A prosecutor could use them to argue he didn't actually fear death from home intruders, but was carrying out some sick fantasy. It wouldn't rule out self defense, but it would look really bad in front of a jury. Basically, same reason it is moronic to put punisher decals on a CCW. It doesn't technically disqualify you from self-defense, but a prosecutor will 100% use it to call you a vigilante.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. 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 nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Fun fact, any weapon designed before 1899 is no longer considered a firearm by federal law, so even if you are underage, a felon, mentally ill, or otherwise barred from.owning a gun, owning a musket is 100% legal.
actually kentucky long rifles do blow gold ball sized wholes due to the exit wound and also bayonets that are triangualar if used properly will be impossible to stitch due to the twist, push, and pull of it. which would make more than just a triangle wound it would butcher the persons insides as well as outer part of body which would require inner body stitching then burning the surface wound. oh and just fyi if it were a normal musket and not the kentucky rifle it would blow a 3 sized fist wound due to the calaber of the round being ether 50 60 or more.
@@jeffbenton6183 well yeah, if you're using 21st century medicine they're not, but to a field medic in the trenches of WW1 they are next to impossible to stitch
@@lukivanknobi5428 What I've heard is that it was actually quite easy for a Napoleonic-era medic to treat a triangular-shaped bayonet wound, and that it wasn't is a myth. 100 years later (in WWI) such bayonets were obsolete, being replaced by the modern knife-style bayonet (not to be confused with the earlier and impractical sword-type bayonet). In any case, I'm not sure how well my memory serves, I'll try to do more research on this and get back to you.
@@lukivanknobi5428 I found it: In this video, the presenter cites a primary source from an actual US Civil War surgeon detailing the treatment of two bayonet wounds, ua-cam.com/video/jszNi57T-Fg/v-deo.html Though the presenter is a reenactor, I don't argue from his authority (as he mentions *many* reenactors believe this myth and that's probably why so many of us non-reenactors also believe it). However, understanding the primary source is the part that's actually important. All history is done by studying the primary sources, analyzing them critically (as well as whatever knowledge that can be gleaned from archeology). As I mentioned, it's worth noting that this was the mid-19th century, not "the Napoleonic era" (i.e. early 19th century), however the techniques were mostly the same, and there was something interesting I noted from the doctor's account. He speaks of the effects of bayonet wounds being somewhat of a "mystery" for his profession, and I have two hypotheses for why that was the case: First, far fewer people in the "gunpower age" were stabbed by bayonets than shot. This is because bayonets weren't meant to kill people - obviously, they were *designed* to kill, but that wasn't their *purpose* on the battlefield. To win battles, you need to break up enemy formations. The most sure-fire way to do that is to terrify the men who compose them to the point that the scatter instead of conducting an orderly retreat. Prior to the invention of the rifle-musket, the purpose of the line infantry musket (and the skirmishers' rifle) was to weaken the enemy, but it was the bayonet charge that would actually break the enemy. Standing in place while a horde of screaming men with giant stabby-things are running at you is much more psychologically difficult to do than to stand in place while being shot at. Since bayonets were such an effective psychological weapon, it was rare for a soldier to ever get hit with one (this is mentioned in several primary sources and is also backed up by archeological evidence). The second reason is probably where people would get hit with bayonets. Soldiers were trained to aim near the middle of the chest while they were running into their target. Meanwhile, you know how inaccurate muskets could be. If you were hit by a bayonet, then you were much more likely to get hit in a vital spot than a person who was only hit with a musket ball. All this suggests to me that part of the origin of this myth is just how few bayonet wounds were treated, and people assuming that this was because it just wasn't possible, when in fact it wasn't. Then again, the real reason is probably that people see how weird a triangular bayonet looks to them (since we have no reason to make blades that look like that anymore) and we make assumptions about how lethal they were, rather than think about the mere practical advantages that a triangular spike would have over a "sword bayonet" or a cylindrically shaped spike.
This was actually a legit tactic back in the days of black powder firearms. Sometimes a warrior would carry an entire belt of pistols if he could afford it.
The fact that most times musketballs hit someone, they wouldn't even die. If anyone died, itd be the people behind the person who was initially shot as it will stay inside the person and infect them. That's what happened at the Boston massacre.
This is very untrue. Who would use a weapon that didn’t kill anyone up until the age of post World War II, when we figured that forcing them to deal with wounded was better. Also, muskets, hitting the chest, caused massive body cavity wounds due to air expansion and the tumbling effect of the musket ball, even barring hatred rounds like putting a nail in the round or carving a cross into it so it shatters inside the body.
Best part is that stitching up a wound isn't a part of first aid and therefore your aren't "allowed"/required to do so. Which means you cannot get in trouble for not stitching it, but you still have to provide basic first aid if you want to increase your chances of staying out of jail/prison.
Breaking into a house and seeing a guy pointing a musket at you and having a flintlock pistol to his side is already enough to get the fuck out of there
I swear I've heard or read Wright's plan somewhere before near verbatim (maybe it's a copypasta?), and the revision in this context was somehow just as, if not more, funny
I like to imagine that there is someone in court rn for the use of inconventional home defence weapons, and even tho he defended his house, he fuked them up so badly that ppl are concerned
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I need to update my knowledge of muskets lol.
What would you like to know ? A musket is any military rifle that was given the designation of musket in military service. A hold over from muzzle loader days. It was used commonly until world war one, with the 1903 Springfield rifle being classified as a musket.
I don't know of any official m14 musket references ,but I'd assume they would be in the bayonet fighting instructions. similar to the M16 in Vietnam which followed the m14. That is officially the last I personally know of , but doesn't mean it is the last use of the term in military use. having an AR-15 platform rifle like an M4 carbine IS having a musket. Owning a sig mcx spear ,will also count. Rapid fire gun technology existed far before it was efficient and predates the USA itself in volley guns ,puckle guns , rotating barrel muzzle loaders and rotating barrel cannons had naval use. The first Gatling gun concepts had removable chambers to be landed with black powder and ball. By the 1880s , we had a propellant that could finally give efficient use of this old tech. Black powder stops mechanisms because it leaves thick residue . But the mechanisms have been with us for a very long time. The forefathers were aware that technology improves and at drastic paces occasionally. Can I say what people will have in 300 years? Nope ,but you can count on it being far more advanced than anything we know...the premise of many science fiction stories are based on that ,guessing what the future holds and knowing it will be beyond our current knowledge .
If you have questions . Ask. If I don't have answers directly ,I can find source material .
@@coreymerrill3257 Holy cow, thanks for the knowledge.
@@magicalhead anytime
@@coreymerrill3257 Yet every definition I can find of "musket" is "a muzzle-loaded, smoothbore firearm"
@@atraxisdarkstar not really it can be rifled too but them 1903 is not a musket for sure
"if im robbin a dude and he calls me a "ruffian." bro, im just walkin back out the door. i am dead serious, there is nothing in that house worth taking."
-heavenly 2020
190 likes and no replies? Lemme fix that
I know he posted the comment but it would be funnier if you said sun zu probably instead.
I’ve thought about this a lot. Some people who may still use the word “ruffian” might’ve fought in the Second World War or some other war. Wouldn’t this objectively mean they could have more valuable stuff since the Second World War taught them to be more careful. Eventually they could become a hoarder and with that collect more items. Said items will increase in value over the years so wouldn’t a robber want to rob a house like that.
Note: this is only theoretical, many factors can change this I.e. being in America or Britain during Ww2 or not becoming a hoarder, so this is only if these specific standards are met
I can't tell if the joke is "people who use words like that are crazy and dangerous", or "people who use words like that are losers and don't have anything valuable"
do you know heavenly's other most legendary quote? Who will win the battle of the axis, Adolf dripler or Joseph Stuntin? or benito Swaggolini?
Welp, i added to it: Franklin delano Phonkevelt.
Miles Edgeworth worn a clothing style that looks like what the founding fathers intented us to wear.
Edgeworth OG outfit is literally a British redcoat uniform
@@alessiobenvenuto5159 Maybe that's why Edgeworth called Phoenix a psycho. He couldn't handle the independent American way of life.
You could say Edgeworth thought Phoenix was an American Psycho
This feels like Phoenix is trying to troll the trial by telling a meme but everyone is taking it seriously.
Or stalling a guilty verdict lmao
This is what happens while the bailiff is taking the convicted criminal away and they are left with a pause between this and the end of the trial.
That's actually exactly what was happening in this conversation, the plan Pheonix is typing out is a popular copypasta
@@Dgull617 I know, that's what I meant lol
Phoenix is bulletproof lawyer so he could troll everyone on the opposite team. He gladly stops if Judge doesnt want it
he forgor that soft lead can expand to a huge diameter, and musket calibers vary wildly
If only Wright knew that
I knew it
Also the exit wounds from musket balls will likely be bigger than a golf ball
Which would just stop the projectile in the target's body, not completing the hole through their torso.
However the shockwave of a harder bullet would create a vacum hole in the body that could temporarily be 42.67 or more diameters wide.
@@harlisviikmae6240 but the weight of the soft lead ball would still allow a exit wound. and a large one still.
I feel sorry for Phoenix. He was interrupted so many times.
And that’s how our founding fathers intended
Just like reloading a musket.
Ye the people on the other side were butts
objection, aside from the entry wound, bullets tend to leave wounds many times larger than the bullet itself, a musket ball would more likely leave a baseball sized hole
.75 caliber projectile, probably a little less gruesome than modern shotgun slug or at least the specialty loads I run with
My tavor becomes a bolt action on anything less than 1200 fps, so I tend to run hot at 1300-1600 fps ...and then whatever the hell they used for charge in Luke's explosive slugs. Things are either overpreassured or overcharged for sure, but I don't have a chronograph
If only it was propelled by something more volatile than black powder maybe...
Yea even at 100 yards my 54 caliber muzzleloader leaves a permeant wound cavity in deer at least 50 percent bigger than the projectile
Not sure about a basketball, but it would be much larger than the round itself
@@DaFrancc which is why I said baseball
A lot of odd things were said in this video, but I feel like "according to Quora" is actually the one thing you never want a lawyer or prosecutor to utter.
It's almost like saying "according to Facebook"
@@meisterproper8304Or according to FoxNews
@@Shy_002 or CNN... or any news outlet really
@@firestorm165 Fox News isn't a News Outlet. (seriously, they actually were going to get sued, so they defined themselves as an "entertainment channel" and that anyone who takes anything seriously that they say is a complete idiot)
@@michaelgreenwood3413 so exactly the same thing as "the project" gotcha
“Why. The. Heck. Do you own a powdered wig”
Lol-
Perfect, just like the founding fathers intended.
I feel a surprise witness should be called, The Russian Badger.
Bring in the shitposter!
“If I saw a musket and hear a Rapscallion, I am noping outta there.”
Name a more white man word than "loogie"
@@waynelow7401 Father… Father is a more white person word
@@burnoutgrt5790 skulker
A golf ball sized hole could be refering to the exit wound. Since high velocities means a bigger exit wound.
A musket at point blank range would be devastating
340 fps, that wound is likely the same diameter as the .75 cal ball. It's relying on mass to punch through
@@modakkagitplugga yeah, but the intruders aren't wearing armour, so the bullet only has to fight muscle and tendons.
@@modakkagitplugga bro a brown bess is at least 1000 fps get your facts straight
*laughs in dqnish repeater rifle*
@@DynoSkrimisher Your premise is sound, but I think your conclusion is flawed. I don't think 1000 fps is enough to increase the exit wound that much - more like 3 times that much (the velocity of a round from a modern "small caliber, high velocity" round). Even then, spin speed and shape are really important - a (relatively) slow spin speed and a modern, needle-nosed shape (usually called a "Spitzer tip" among gun folks) is also necessary. An M-16 with a low rifle twist rate will cause that devastating exit wound, while one with a high twist rate will punch clean through (which is more suitable for dealing with armor). A musket ball is likely too slow and wrongly shaped to create that effect. That said, it's my understanding that the soft lead should "pancake" a little bit, so the wound would be a bit bigger (but not golf-ball sized)
Take all that with a grain of salt, by the way, that is my current understanding, though I'm not a ballistics expert or anything like that. (BTW, I only know that much since I'm a military history buff, and I have no intention to ever own a firearm for self-defense - I don't even consider myself a "gun person.")
EDIT: I've noticed some other people in the comments citing historical sources claiming "fist-sized wounds" at close ranges, such as during the Boston Massacre. My analysis might be off, but I must stress that - if it is - it's likely due to me underestimating the effects of what I called "pancaking."
I’m still convinced that the government will find a way to make the second amendment about actual arms, not guns
The right to bear arms: *cue arms with bear heads instead of hands*
Just you wait, in the next 30 years you are going to see some wild stuff in the courts and in our gun laws.
Bullets can make a larger hole becuase of the air displacement or something. (I won't mention how the hole will close back up right after)
hydrostatic shock
The exit hole would be VERY big with a lead bullet, tho
Only from rifle speeds. Anything below 500 fps isn't likely to expand to terribly, especially not a ball. Musket speeds were as low as 340 fps and relied on Hardcast and mass to punch through
45 acp ball rounds are generally subsonic at 840 fps and will hardly deform on impact. Hollow points will expand to create a larger hole
@@thecoolnerdplaysvr5674 Thanks
Also, because of the way a bullet can tumble, break apart, and separate after hitting the target, while the target's internal organs can be ripped out of place due to the bullet fragments transferring a fraction of the original kinetic energy, the entry wound of a bullet can be larger or smaller than the exit wound (depending on the caliber of the bullet, the design of the bullet, the amount of kinetic energy lost entering the target, the way the bullet interacts with the internal components within the target, and the amount of kinetic energy required to exit the target).
For example, just look at how shotgun cartridges work: the individual pieces of metal stored within a shotgun cartridge are often more than 10x smaller than even musket balls (depending on what kind of shot is being used and the caliber of the gun, with "grapeshot"/"birdshot" often being the smallest individual pellet size for the caliber, while "slug" rounds are usually large enough to completely fill the entire shotgun barrel on their own), but shotgun wounds almost universally have FAR BIGGER exit wounds than the entry wounds.
As intended, fully. By the books.
“You belong in an insane asylum you know that?” Got me freaking DYING🤣
Objection! Kentucky Long Rifles take longer to reload than a musket! They're also not fitted for bayonets!
They're also, you know, rifles, not muskets.
@@leontrotsky7816 Bro a musket is a rifle though.
@@hsheheishje9649 objection, rifles and muskets are two different things, a musket has a smooth bore where a rifle has a rifled bore, this means there are a series of spiraling grooves inside a rifle bore which cause the projectile to spin, resulting in a stabilized projectile and much longer range. Therefore a musket is much more similar to a modern shotgun, even though muskets are typically loaded with a single, large projectile rather than several small pellets
@@deathskrieg5525 double objection! You can technically have a rifled musket, as the term musket is not technically bound to just the barrel type!
@@deathskrieg5525 Ok, you're correct. I was under the assumption that rifles were guns with barrels greater than 16 inches in length. Technically, most muskets would be shotguns as they are long guns without rifling and not rifles.
If I recall correctly, your founding fathers used the word "arms" and not specifically the "muskets", so that tells me their intentions were that you the people had the right to bear arms up to date... Heck I guess they gave it a lot of thought, thinking like "Muskets and cannons made bows and catapults obsolete, we need to make this the most general possible", so that means you could own blasters and plasma rifles when the time comes.
No, It mean bear arms as opposed to bear legs
@@barryallen2240 Grrrrr
Or they meant Pikes and Swords alongside Muskets. You could have that debate forever.
@@JonathanLundkvist I find it hard to believe that any reasonably intelligent person wouldn't anticipate weapons technology evolving over time. That said, the Constitution does include the means to amend it if necessary
ATF go brrr
I love how they just assume he'll resort to reloading the musket, rather than having a pistol and canon for backup
Cemetery guns were a popular thing since at least 1710, also could have had colonial rockets, pepper boxes, puckle gun, lorenzoni repeating flintlock (available in pistol and rifle), flintlock revolver (16th century) sword gun, axe gun, arming sword, dueling sword, saber, butcher sized Mediterranean style knife (what Jim Bowie would later put a clip point on), and of course a whole load of bombs in case they made it too far into your inner sanctum.
Just as the founding fathers intended ...
...to be used against them or their successors if they ever became corrupt tyrants who refused to protect the other guaranteed rights of citizenship or threats from foreign governments...
don't forget the chambers flintlock machinegun.
Dont forget the kalthoff repeater
If I’m Robbin a dude and he calls me a ruffian, I’m just walkin’ straight back out the door.
Because there ain't nothing in that house worth taking.
I love how they’re debating the more sensical chose of owning something more efficient (say something more like even a pistol)
It’s pretty grear
Oh yes, he is definitely not throwing away his shot. Just like founding fathers intended.
“I own a musket for home defense” that got me good
The fact that he just admitted all of this in a public court session means that his actions will be considered premeditated rather than self-defense (especially the death threat against his neighbor's dog, the installation of a cannon at the top of his stairs, and his refusal to perform any first aid on any of the 4 intruders), so he'd go to prison like any other serial killer.
It's basically the same reason why it's illegal to set up Home-Alone-style boobytraps in your house/property.
He can kiss his attorney badge goodbye
I thought the reason for Home Alone boobytraps being illegal was that they have no real way to tell friend from foe and are therefore more likely to kill your neighbor's overcurious kid than any burglar.
@@1337m4n Exactly correct! this video explains in greater detail why that law was passed ua-cam.com/video/bV9ppvY8Nx4/v-deo.html
Oh yeah, I shoot an intruder after seeing that he's dangerous, And what do I do next? Give him first aid. Yeah, Why would I first SHOOT him in self defense, Then just patch his wound!? Just so that he could try to kill me again!?
You don't have any obligation to perform first aid, and there is nothing wrong with installing a cannon in your house provided it requires manual operation. (Using a cannon as part of a booby trap would be highly illegal.)
The real issues with his statements are
1. It establishes clear premeditation for shooting the neighbor's dog.
2. A prosecutor could use them to argue he didn't actually fear death from home intruders, but was carrying out some sick fantasy. It wouldn't rule out self defense, but it would look really bad in front of a jury. Basically, same reason it is moronic to put punisher decals on a CCW. It doesn't technically disqualify you from self-defense, but a prosecutor will 100% use it to call you a vigilante.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. 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 nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
"why do you plan on missing the man?" (and hit the neighbors dog)...yeah my thoughts exactly
"Own a Musket for home defense"
-Eminen
Maya: asks a reasonable question
Von Karma: *assaults table*
Objection! some wall gun muskets had a diameter of a golf ball
and the exit wound is even bigger.
I'm smiling so hard right now
Just like our founding fathers intended
Incredible, you took an already hilarious meme and made it funnier.
“Why the hell do you own a powdered wig?!”
a musket barrel doesnt even have a diameter of 42.67 diameters
unless it's a blunderbuss hand cannon
objection! a blunderbuss is a way black powder firearm for home defense its the shotgun of muskets
Daily reminder that the founding fathers wanted the people to be armed with cannons and galleons if they could afford it.
I left a like and subscribed, just as the founding fathers intended.
Seeing this greentext ace attorney'd was great.
Fun fact, any weapon designed before 1899 is no longer considered a firearm by federal law, so even if you are underage, a felon, mentally ill, or otherwise barred from.owning a gun, owning a musket is 100% legal.
So I can own a Gewehr 1898?
I literally love how many different edits of this one joke there is.
“A musket barrel doesn’t even have a diameter of 42.67 diameters”
"A musket barrel doesn't even have a diameter of 42.67 diameters"
Good observation, von Karma
You can tell she was really using 100% of her brain when she figured that out.
Man it's like trying to make sense of Russian badger logic. XD
God bless these 13 colonies of Japanifornia.
This is good it really deserves more than just 680 views!
Holy shit man. My two favourite things.
actually kentucky long rifles do blow gold ball sized wholes due to the exit wound and also bayonets that are triangualar if used properly will be impossible to stitch due to the twist, push, and pull of it. which would make more than just a triangle wound it would butcher the persons insides as well as outer part of body which would require inner body stitching then burning the surface wound. oh and just fyi if it were a normal musket and not the kentucky rifle it would blow a 3 sized fist wound due to the calaber of the round being ether 50 60 or more.
Bullet exit wounds are larger on average, especially 45cal-65cal musket ammunition is equivalent to getting shot with a 12 gauge slug
For the people asking for what video it is, “ballin, but at what cost?”
You can thank me later.
Just use a railgun that has a 162mm diameter. Problem solved.
This was great, well done
Objection! Bayonets causing triangular wounds have been outlawed by the Geneva convention and using them is a war crime
Is that really true? I've heard that triangular wounds aren't actually that hard to treat.
@@jeffbenton6183 well yeah, if you're using 21st century medicine they're not, but to a field medic in the trenches of WW1 they are next to impossible to stitch
@@lukivanknobi5428 What I've heard is that it was actually quite easy for a Napoleonic-era medic to treat a triangular-shaped bayonet wound, and that it wasn't is a myth. 100 years later (in WWI) such bayonets were obsolete, being replaced by the modern knife-style bayonet (not to be confused with the earlier and impractical sword-type bayonet).
In any case, I'm not sure how well my memory serves, I'll try to do more research on this and get back to you.
@@lukivanknobi5428 I found it:
In this video, the presenter cites a primary source from an actual US Civil War surgeon detailing the treatment of two bayonet wounds,
ua-cam.com/video/jszNi57T-Fg/v-deo.html
Though the presenter is a reenactor, I don't argue from his authority (as he mentions *many* reenactors believe this myth and that's probably why so many of us non-reenactors also believe it). However, understanding the primary source is the part that's actually important. All history is done by studying the primary sources, analyzing them critically (as well as whatever knowledge that can be gleaned from archeology).
As I mentioned, it's worth noting that this was the mid-19th century, not "the Napoleonic era" (i.e. early 19th century), however the techniques were mostly the same, and there was something interesting I noted from the doctor's account. He speaks of the effects of bayonet wounds being somewhat of a "mystery" for his profession, and I have two hypotheses for why that was the case:
First, far fewer people in the "gunpower age" were stabbed by bayonets than shot. This is because bayonets weren't meant to kill people - obviously, they were *designed* to kill, but that wasn't their *purpose* on the battlefield. To win battles, you need to break up enemy formations. The most sure-fire way to do that is to terrify the men who compose them to the point that the scatter instead of conducting an orderly retreat. Prior to the invention of the rifle-musket, the purpose of the line infantry musket (and the skirmishers' rifle) was to weaken the enemy, but it was the bayonet charge that would actually break the enemy. Standing in place while a horde of screaming men with giant stabby-things are running at you is much more psychologically difficult to do than to stand in place while being shot at. Since bayonets were such an effective psychological weapon, it was rare for a soldier to ever get hit with one (this is mentioned in several primary sources and is also backed up by archeological evidence).
The second reason is probably where people would get hit with bayonets. Soldiers were trained to aim near the middle of the chest while they were running into their target. Meanwhile, you know how inaccurate muskets could be. If you were hit by a bayonet, then you were much more likely to get hit in a vital spot than a person who was only hit with a musket ball.
All this suggests to me that part of the origin of this myth is just how few bayonet wounds were treated, and people assuming that this was because it just wasn't possible, when in fact it wasn't. Then again, the real reason is probably that people see how weird a triangular bayonet looks to them (since we have no reason to make blades that look like that anymore) and we make assumptions about how lethal they were, rather than think about the mere practical advantages that a triangular spike would have over a "sword bayonet" or a cylindrically shaped spike.
His logic is flawless, his reasoning beyond reproach. I am with Phoenix on this one.
Firearm projectiles expand, thus bullet holes are often larger than the projectiles that cause them
Edgeworth calls Phoenix insane despite using fucking Quora.
Absolutely beautiful
This might be my favorite one. The objections were beautiful
See this is why I have 14 black powder pistols. Why reload when you can grab a new gun?
Switching to your sidearm is faster than reloading.
This was actually a legit tactic back in the days of black powder firearms. Sometimes a warrior would carry an entire belt of pistols if he could afford it.
@@1337m4n black beard the pirate had at least 6 pistols on him at a time
This might be the hardest I've laughed in quite a while 😂
according to qoura XD
I don't understand if the Ruffians were invading a house or a goddamn castle .
It’s a plan so crazy and unexpected that it might just work.
The fact that most times musketballs hit someone, they wouldn't even die. If anyone died, itd be the people behind the person who was initially shot as it will stay inside the person and infect them. That's what happened at the Boston massacre.
This is very untrue. Who would use a weapon that didn’t kill anyone up until the age of post World War II, when we figured that forcing them to deal with wounded was better. Also, muskets, hitting the chest, caused massive body cavity wounds due to air expansion and the tumbling effect of the musket ball, even barring hatred rounds like putting a nail in the round or carving a cross into it so it shatters inside the body.
A masterpiece
Phoenix is spiitng fax 🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
I love that this is just "wright takes the founding fathers literally."
"How big the hole is doesn't even matter anymore" is my favorite quote so far.
I told this to my brother as my home defense plan, and he's now scared of me.
He's 5 years older than me.
I thought he was gonna find a way to implement slavery lmao
"My 5 slaves, armed with daggers, will charge one of those ruffians and chop him to bits."
Just as the founding fathers intended
Buying a cannon for home defense is exactly what the founding fathers intended. Especially affixing bayonet.
Perfection
I love how so fucking confident Phoenix was when explaining the pistol part
Glad the ending talked about the “triangular bayonet wound” thing being a myth.
Best part is that stitching up a wound isn't a part of first aid and therefore your aren't "allowed"/required to do so. Which means you cannot get in trouble for not stitching it, but you still have to provide basic first aid if you want to increase your chances of staying out of jail/prison.
1:41 mm Yes a diameter of 42.67 diameters. i see nothing wrong
GarandThumb definitely showed that Muskets will blow softball size holes in targets 😂😂
Breaking into a house and seeing a guy pointing a musket at you and having a flintlock pistol to his side is already enough to get the fuck out of there
*Inserts footage of a flintlock rifle decapitating a ballistics gel dummy including synthetic bones*
3:18 Ah yes, my dear Edgeworth, that's truly the most trustworthy source for your informations there is......Quora.
“Part of your plan is to keep an already loaded musket, flintlock pistol and cannon?”
Now i need a musket just as the founding fathers intended
It feels so fkin weird seeing Faux Cares suddenly going full yankee when all I know Ace Attorney for are the French Baguette Inteligence videos
Imagine a rifled musket
He wouldn't have missed the ruffian and nailed the neighbors dog
Kentucky Long Rifle
@@themooseisloose111 Technically not a musket (but he did refer to "Kentucky musket", so maybe that's what he meant)
This feels like when you need more words on an essay
He forgot he’s not In America but japan
After watching Garand Thumb’s video on flintlock rifles, even the ruffians are gonna wish I would use a modern weapon.
Just as the founding fathers intended.
Laughed so hard I almost choked on my choccy milk I love this
I can relate to phoenix, but only in the fact that there’s a cannon on my stairs
I swear I've heard or read Wright's plan somewhere before near verbatim (maybe it's a copypasta?), and the revision in this context was somehow just as, if not more, funny
You could have read it from 4chan or Reddit, you might have also seen it from a RussianBadger video
I like to imagine that there is someone in court rn for the use of inconventional home defence weapons, and even tho he defended his house, he fuked them up so badly that ppl are concerned
Best copy pasta ever btw
But, the exit wound of a gun is always bigger than the entry wound
I was expecting Edgeworth to object with "What the Devil???"
I mean, it actually will leave a hole larger than a golf ball in the exit wound, especially the head, it'll just blow it to bits
Jokes on you I have a musket as a weapon to invade houses
Never have I laughed so much at a video with no audible dialogue in it.
Ahh yes, just as the founding fathers intended.
lads, I reckon it's destiny I acquire thy musket and thou cannon
It's Hegelian dialectics.
Phoenix: “Oh god! The ruffians are here!”