Liberals Want to Ban Muzzleloaders

With liberals wanting to ban anything and everything under the sun, maybe the thing that should be banned is liberals themselves.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: projectvxn

I'd like to see this new muzzle he's talking about.....ugh

They people should stop watching the movies and go to the range and hear a silencer in action,

He's referring to SilencerCo's integrally suppressed muzzle loader which IS regulated by the ATF. But this idiot wouldn't know that because facts are just too troublesome.

The Maxim 50 from SilencerCo, a silencer manufacturer in Utah, is a .50-caliber muzzleloader, a modern version of the single-shot muskets used in the Revolutionary War. But unlike the muskets from hundreds of years ago, the Maxim 50 has a silencer that's permanently attached.


That makes the Maxim 50, which went on sale this week, exempt from federal restrictions on the sale and distribution of firearms. SilencerCo says it deliberately sidestepped federal laws with the design.

money.cnn.com...

Federal gun control laws prohibit felons from possessing firearms. But the lack of federal oversight and the absence of a federal background check means the Maxim 50 could be purchased by a felon, according to the ATF.

This means that the rifle is not a firearm because it is a true muzzleloader – an antique firearm. And the silencer isn’t really a “silencer” because it has been permanently attached to the muzzleloader – this means that it can’t be readily used to diminish the report of a true firearm.

www.recoilweb.com...

Just in case by some freak of nature you wanted to include details for discussion vs. the hyperbole and partisanship of your OP.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes that's what SilencerCo was hoping for. But the ATF said no way to that since suppressors in and of themselves are the regulated portion of that. SilencerCo has tried to do similar things in the past. Quite frankly I find the company to be filled to the brim with frat boy idiots who are a danger to themselves and others.

SilencerCo and the Maxim 50

The ATF didn't straight up tell them they couldn't do this. But they did inform them that they could be violating existing federal regulations and that states that regulate suppressors at the state level could end up sending their customers to jail.

It's not that I am against suppressors. They don't do anything to the firearm to increase its lethality and all they do is bring the noise to safer levels, the gun is still loud as hell.

But SilencerCo is an irresponsible company run by a bunch of idiotic frat boys who don't seem to mind doing dangerous things to promote their products. To include potentially putting their customers in jail.

They promoted their integrally suppressed 9mm handgun, the Maxim 9, by sky diving and shooting the gun at altitude. Live ammunition, at altitude...I've seen some dumbass things in my life involving guns, but I honestly think those assholes should have at least been fined for their actions.

My op is not hyperbole. It is fact. It's just not sugar coated. I'm not gonna be nice about ignorant people trying to erode away my rights because they haven't a clue what it is their trying to regulate or ban.

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
With liberals wanting to ban anything and everything under the sun, maybe the thing that should be banned is liberals themselves.

We shouldn't ban them, just have a two week waiting period before adopting an ideology.

We can call it "Common Sense Ideology Laws" and that would be a great compromise!

As a blasphemous and heretical liberal, it is blatantly obvious that plenty on the left do want to ban guns. Its absolutely bizarre to see someone claim "no one wants to ban guns," when sometimes that post will be preceded and followed by posts that explicitly are arguing for gun bans.

I also don't think it is too much to ask for anyone becoming involved in a topic to educate themselves on it. I'd even go so far as to say its beneficial to have real world experience on a subject if you are going to be passionate about it. I know that's heresy, but I already stated I'm blasphemous to the One True Religion.

And... muzzleloaders? Really?

I know some use the specious argument that the founding fathers never had the foresight that technology would ever, ever advance at all. So, maybe, this is the natural extension of that? They were not only completely ignorant of technology changing, but also were ignorant about the fact that muzzleloaders would turn into an unstoppable scourge upon the nation.

a reply to: soberbacchus

It’s not untrue. It just sucks to hear.

a reply to: projectvxn

Then the left claims they are fighting "the fascists" when the left has always been the "fascists"...

a reply to: projectvxn

A BEAUTIFUL Art. Too much Money in the Art, so I doubt they will be able to take it away.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Hey...that guy has a PINK COLORED beard, WE don't sell to terrorists (Nazis,Communists or Forneys)AND GET him out of the gun show before he cries too loud...

Muzzle loaders!

I can wait til they try this snip with air guns.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Santa Claus wears a red suit. He's a communist!

a reply to: Phage

No .HE'S GERMAN...WE track his movements when he gets out...

“If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very pro-gun; you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions.”

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: projectvxn

I think we should be allowed to have any type of weapon we chose but that's just me and yes I know that's crazy. But I like freedom. Even the freedom to hurt myself and others is important to me.

That being said the ,"I need a gun to protect my family from the government ." argument is just silly in our age.
An ak will do nothing to protect your family if the government sends in tanks and drone strikes your house.
We do not have the ability to fight the us military as a militia. We stopped being equal in firepower to them a long time ago.

I would argue that hunters need guns to feed themselves. I would argue that I need a gun to protect my family from citizen home invasions, not the government.

The purpose of the 2A is EXACTLY that, to keep the government in check. Not about a lone wolf taking on the government but a collective of citizens (militia) to prevent this from happening..



If you actually think "in this day and age" this couldn't happen again then you are woefully naïve.

originally posted by: VVV88

If you actually think "in this day and age" this couldn't happen again then you are woefully naïve.

You might want to do some more research before using that image as an argument. RKBA.Org, a pro-gun rights organization, lists it among the top gun control urban legends. You'll have to hunt through their long list (FAQ) but basically he just disarmed the Jews. And countries he conquered. And only after he'd been in power for awhile.

The Straight Dope also has a column on this that only answers the question at the very last (it's awfully rambly, though.)

a reply to: VVV88

I didn't say it couldn't happen. In fact I specifically stated that I believe that the US military could kill every man women and child in america if they choose to, and there would be little any of us could do to stop it.

I agree that the original reason for the 2ed amendment was to give citizens an equal footing during battle. But if you think we are still equal, then I would say you are the naive one.
Do you honestly believe a militia of 1 million men carrying fully automatic weapons is going to stand up to 100s of tanks?
How about missiles? You going to shot down fighter jets with your fully automatic? Can bullets reach a stealth bomber?

You are living in a dream world if you think that arming every last man women and child with an ak47 is going to stop the US government if the military sides with them.
The only chance we would have if the government attacked the US citizens would be if the military sided with us.

These facts are why the left laughs at the right when they try and hold up "defense against the government" as their main argument for owning fully automatic weapons.
There are much better and more intellectual arguments for owning weapons you could be using. For example, many americans hunt, many americans are collectors, guns are excellent home intruder (from citizens) defense tools. Only a foolish liberal can try and argue with those points.

My personal reason for owning guns is that I believe that sane humans don't use guns for violence except in defense , no mater how mad they get.
Crazy people will kill people no mater what we do. Yes it's a cliche but guns don't kill people, people do. And I truly believe that.

You obviously didn't read any of my other comments nor did you understand the one you quoted from if you think I want guns to be taken from anyone for any reason.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: VVV88

I didn't say it couldn't happen. In fact I specifically stated that I believe that the US military could kill every man women and child in america if they choose to, and there would be little any of us could do to stop it.

I agree that the original reason for the 2ed amendment was to give citizens an equal footing during battle. But if you think we are still equal, then I would say you are the naive one.
Do you honestly believe a militia of 1 million men carrying fully automatic weapons is going to stand up to 100s of tanks?
How about missiles? You going to shot down fighter jets with your fully automatic? Can bullets reach a stealth bomber?

You are living in a dream world if you think that arming every last man women and child with an ak47 is going to stop the US government if the military sides with them.
The only chance we would have if the government attacked the US citizens would be if the military sided with us.

These facts are why the left laughs at the right when they try and hold up "defense against the government" as their main argument for owning fully automatic weapons.
There are much better and more intellectual arguments for owning weapons you could be using. For example, many americans hunt, many americans are collectors, guns are excellent home intruder (from citizens) defense tools. Only a foolish liberal can try and argue with those points.

My personal reason for owning guns is that I believe that sane humans don't use guns for violence except in defense , no mater how mad they get.
Crazy people will kill people no mater what we do. Yes it's a cliche but guns don't kill people, people do. And I truly believe that.

You obviously didn't read any of my other comments nor did you understand the one you quoted from if you think I want guns to be taken from anyone for any reason.

If it gets to the point that the government “tries” to use the military or national guard at a massive scale against citizens then that means there are social and/or economic catastrophic events underway. The military will fragment and basically we end up in a second civil war and the playing field levels. Afghans have been very effective against two superpowers. You under estimate both the psychological and tactical advantages the 2A provides in keeping the government in check. Why do you think the left so desperately wants to ban guns if they pose no real threat?

Citing only hunting and self defense weakens the 2A’s justification and revelance. Both of those can be whittled away with the fact that a very small percenatge of people hunt, self defense in cities is unnecessary and guns in large population centers create more problems than they solve, etc, etc. I would rather argue the true purpose of the 2A, centuries of human history prove that governments become corrupt and ultimately become tyrannical in the hands of a very small group of elite and their puppets.

“...but basically he just disarmed the Jews”. Yeah, a group of people deemed to be “undesirable” by the government.

a reply to: projectvxn

All that I gotta say is: I can make my own muzzle loader.

Ban that

a reply to: Bluntone22

Yeah, and cannons ... I have some too ... self made.

Why cannot a person just have a loud hobby anymore without ban threats?