|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 19, 2017, 01:37 PM | #1 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Giffords Seeks Restrictions/Ban on Muzzleloaders
I know we have more than our fair share of folks who believe i “reasonable gun control.” This is what the other side considers “reasonable.” Goldilocks gun control.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...hibition-lobby |
November 19, 2017, 01:42 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Reasonable:
It is “reasonable" that all employees of any government organization to be required to be truthful, regardless of the issue. I consider it "reasonable" that appropriate punishment be afforded to any bureaucrat who materially lies or misleads, as solely determined by a jury of randomly selected peers. Doubly for those who are elected. If it's a misdemeanor to lie to the cops, and a felony to lie to a grand jury, shouldn't it be up to a capital offense to lie to the American people, depending on the severity of the lie?
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes Last edited by TXAZ; November 19, 2017 at 01:49 PM. |
November 19, 2017, 03:52 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
Sorry TXAZ, all our congress critters are immune from prosecution while they serve themselves in office or in any official capacity and during transportation to or from their job.
We have allowed them to become royalty. Now we either put up with it or change it within the legal system or begin a process of doing away with it. (or them) |
November 19, 2017, 04:22 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Yea I know Shootist, I worked for the Chairman of the House Appropriations committee a long time ago.
Not all, but from what I’ve seen the majority of Congress persons are crooks by definitions you and I have to live by.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
November 19, 2017, 06:45 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
|
If we could ban Congress the U S would be a much better place. A bunch of grandstanding, do nothing, egotistical liars. They are interested solely in their own betterment.
|
November 19, 2017, 07:10 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,254
|
|
November 20, 2017, 12:28 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
If it shoots too big, ban it!
If it shoots too small, ban it! If it shoots too fast, ban it! If it shoots too slow (muzzleloaders), ban it! Do note the common theme... If it shoots, ... ban it!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
November 20, 2017, 12:37 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
|
November 20, 2017, 04:28 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
If they DID NOTHING, we wouldn't have the mess we have today. And while politician bashing is a time honored tradition and often true, it adds nothing substantial to the discussion. back on the topic of muzzle loaders, I read the article and watched the video, and a couple of interesting points arose. One of the big ones (from the video) is how clearly the people proposing the laws do not understand the things they are seeking to ban. Two points in particular seemed to be the reason that NOW they want to ban muzzleloaders, first, it seems someone wants to, or is making a "silencer" for muzzle loaders, taking advantage of a "loophole" in the law, and second, that being .50 caliber somehow makes them a terrible weapon of mass destruction. Now, there have been .50 caliber, and LARGER muzzle loaders since the invention of muzzle loaders, and here we are talking about those modern weapons of mass muzzle loading destruction that have only been around for about the last 600 years! Boggles my mind that only NOW have they discovered a danger... Apparently they think everything .50 caliber is equal to the .50BMG round, at the least. I do hope no one tells them that the 12ga (yes, that's right, the very one duckhunters and POLICE use every day) is actually over .70 caliber!!! They'll probably wet themselves is they knew that... now, back to the silencer "loophole". I got to thinking about this, and realized, the amazing thing is, that no one had ever tried it before. Consider, under current Federal law, muzzleloaders are NOT firearms. State laws are different, but the Fed decided, decades ago, muzzle loaders were too antique, and therefore are exempt from modern firearms law. Legally, to the Fed, they are not firearms. SO, a "silencer" on a muzzle loader is not a device designed to alter the sound of a firearm. Because its not ON a "firearm" under Fed law. I, personally would not want to be the test case, but it is curious to me why no one explored this before... it seems like it would be a regulated item, after all, all one would have to do is show how the muzzle loader silencer could be mounted on a firearm, and therefore, falls under the NFA 1934. HOWEVER, I can also see the counter argument, as the silencer law is based on intent, not actual function. And since the intent is not to use the device on a firearm (under the Fed definition of such) the case can be argued. Of course, it is a battle of semantics and definition of terms, but then, that's what most of our law is, now isn't it??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
November 21, 2017, 08:45 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
44AMP, it is fairly simple. Make the suppressor integral to a muzzle loading rifle (federally not a firearm), and it is not possible for it to be used on a (federally defined) firearm. Car mufflers are not banned by the NFA either, since they are not attached to firearms.
|
November 22, 2017, 07:31 AM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Michael Bloomberg's pet group Moms Demand Action is currently hemorrhaging leadership due to infighting, so he's thrown his money behind Giffords' latest rebranding. There's a chilling quote on their strategy here:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 22, 2017, 09:28 AM | #12 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
I find it . . . . perhaps ironic, most certainly hypocritial, that the antigun groups have spent decades arguing that muzzleloaders are the ONLY firearm protected by the 2A and, suddenly, that's a "loophole."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
November 22, 2017, 09:52 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
They might be shocked to learn that most of the muzzle loaders used in the revolution were about .75 caliber. The home grown rifles averaged around .36 but don't tell them that. A lot of the arms used by the regular army were captured Brown Bess from the British or supplied by the French. Big bore.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
November 22, 2017, 03:26 PM | #14 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 9, 2017
Posts: 59
|
I always found it amusing, that in NC black powder firearms aren't considered to be... firearms.
It's not like we fought a bunch of wars with them or anything. |
November 22, 2017, 04:52 PM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Then, before the ink was dry on the President's signature, Schumer started calling the exemption of prior transfers a loophole. The simple rule of thumb is this: as soon as the word "loophole" crawls past their lips, try are utterly lying. |
|
November 22, 2017, 10:19 PM | #16 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Oh, I get that. I just see the word "loophole" a little differently. To me, it means "legal."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
November 22, 2017, 10:53 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 1, 1999
Location: IL
Posts: 309
|
I guess all of those Amish gangbangers are doing drive-by shootings with their horse drawn carriages using black powder guns.
It's for the children!! |
November 23, 2017, 09:29 AM | #18 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Federal law explicitly exempts muzzleloaders at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3): Quote:
It just makes a better soundbite to say "we're removing a loophole" than to say "we're reversing a longstanding exemption that we originally agreed to."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
November 23, 2017, 11:00 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
This certainly should be banned:
https://www.traditionsfirearms.com/p...on-.50-caliber NO one needs a 50 cal cannon.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 23, 2017, 12:25 PM | #20 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
No one needs people who want to ban things based on their idea of what someone else needs!
I've always thought that the very concept that things "no one needs" should be illegal is the very opposite of Liberty and Freedom.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
November 23, 2017, 01:03 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
True. Only the very short sighted try to ban something because, "no one needs it." Those people will find out soon enough that something they like is now banned because, "no one needs it." Who wants to live is a dystopian society like Equilibrium or Minority Report?
|
November 24, 2017, 07:46 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
You will be hard-pressed to find a more deceitful, lying, dishonest, misleading group of people than the gun control lobby.
|
November 29, 2017, 03:53 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,292
|
Quote:
"No one needs an ASSAULT WEAPON to hunt deer." That the pro-gun folk would start softly chanting "no one needs, no one needs" and then one after another folk would stand up and name stuff off like, "Red Meat! It clogs arteries!" "Private Planes! They're playtoys of the rich!" "Private Swimming Pools! They're death traps!" "Motorcycles! They're two-wheeled death traps!" "Bicycles that cost more than $200!" "Sailboats! They're playtoys of the rich!" "Alcohol! Oh, yeah, we tried that but ban it anyway, except for wine!" "Children! The planet's over crowded!" I'd like to see the same thing happen when the anti folk get on their 'Just One Life' kick. |
|
November 30, 2017, 12:41 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
Spats_McGee
Quote:
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
November 30, 2017, 05:34 PM | #25 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
"No one needs..."
forget playtoys of the rich, when someone brings up "no one needs" and therefor it should be banned, hit them where they live. Ask them how much money they make. (ok, yes, one can shot holes in this argument, but once it's out there, people will think about it...) Ask them how much money they make, and are they willing to surrender everything over minimum wage?? Since the state has seen fit to set minimum wages, then it follows that the state recognizes the set minimum as the minimum amount a person NEEDS. OR, calculate the value of all state "minimum assistance" such as welfare and food stamps, etc. That is another "minimum needs" level set by the state. SO, if "no one needs" something, and therefore it should be banned, ALL the money that they make ABOVE minimum wage should be banned, and therefore surrendered to the govt, right???? Anything else is a double standard, right?? SO, if they object to giving up their money (above what is "needed") then, at the very least, you can accuse them of supporting an double standard!!! Basic human needs are very small, enough calories to prevent starvation and enough shelter (including clothing) to prevent death from exposure. Over and above that, its ALL a matter of wants. When some idiot brings it up, and thinks it is ok to ban something because he thinks I don't "need" it, remind them that if they can do that, then I can ban something I don't think they "need", after all, its only fair, right?? Or, if you don't want to use minimum wage, use something else. ANYTHING that they like, and enjoy, because, after all no one needs...xxxxxx... I can use my personal income. It's less than $25K a year. I manage to live on it, (though not as well as I might wish, but I do manage) THEREFORE, NO ONE needs more money than that. Right? And by their own argument, things no one "needs" should be taken away by the government. So, when they give up their cash, I'll consider giving up my "assault weapon". Consider.... Yes, it is a flawed and sarcastic argument, but since they don't seem to feel they are constrained to follow the rules of logic, why shouldn't we, on occasion feed them back the same level of argument they use?? And yes, expect them to counter with the claim that "my money doesn't kill anyone!!!" well, NEITHER DOES MY GUN!!!!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|