Started By
Message
locked post

Gun control lobby going after muzzleloaders now?

Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:23 pm
Posted by Rougarou13
Brookhaven MS
Member since Feb 2015
6839 posts
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:23 pm
I thought they said muzzleloaders were the ONLY weapon protected by the 2nd amendment. Get your shite together Dems.

Apparently someone is working on a suppressor for a muzzleloader and that means that gangs will start roaming the streets looking like 1776 around here.

I did find it funny that he mentions that if the D.C. sniper had a silenced muzzleloader there would be no telling what kind of carnage they would have caused. I just get a mental picture of the kid in the trunk, trying to reload a fricking MUZZLELOADER.

Tucker
Posted by GooseSix
Member since Jun 2012
19530 posts
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:36 pm to
Posted by texag7
College Station
Member since Apr 2014
37539 posts
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:42 pm to
SilencerCo came out with a regulator for a muzzleloader. It's not called a silencer because a muzzleloader is not considered firearm by the ATF.

Someone did an accuracy video a few weeks ago with it on YouTube and it was pretty poor.

Just at the DC sniper statement
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134865 posts
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:43 pm to
these people have reached a new level of retardation
Posted by Eli Goldfinger
Member since Sep 2016
32785 posts
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:48 pm to
As someone who is really into traditional weapons (sidelock muzzleloaders & longbows), this really sucks.
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
16590 posts
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:52 pm to
Supressors are bad enough to clean with modern propellants. Black powder crud? Nah.
Posted by Codythetiger
Arkansas
Member since Nov 2006
27592 posts
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:52 pm to
quote:

longbows)


what range was Paddock shooting from?

how much damage could one do shooting arrows down on people at night before somebody realized shite was going down?

time to ban longbows
Posted by autauga
Member since Sep 2015
3655 posts
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:56 pm to
Someone called a local radio talk show about this. I thought they were drunk and had it all screwed up. Especially after the said about the silencer.
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 12:09 am to
the 2nd amendment doesn't imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms or form private armies.
it was intended as a right guaranteed to a state. not for you as an individual.

just an example of the plutocracy at work.. large campaign donations do wonders to shift policy in a corporations favor
This post was edited on 11/18/17 at 12:16 am
Posted by cave canem
pullarius dominus
Member since Oct 2012
12186 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 12:16 am to
quote:

Apparently someone is working on a suppressor for a muzzleloader and that means that gangs will start roaming the streets looking like 1776 around here.


Preorder is avalable now but very expensive, innacurate, and a bitch to maintain (clean). LINK

Black powder revolvers have always been cheap and avaliable online without any sort of background check, wonder why they never caught on with the crips?

Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
99109 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 12:21 am to
They think silencers are the danger, Mel Gibson and his sons didn't need silencers against the Red Coats. LINK
Posted by Captain Rumbeard
Member since Jan 2014
4134 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 12:25 am to
You probably need to bone up on your Supreme Court baw... Because you're looking pretty uneducated right now.
Posted by Tiger4Liberty
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2015
2423 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 12:27 am to
quote:

the 2nd amendment doesn't imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms or form private armies.
it was intended as a right guaranteed to a state. not for you as an individual.


The Supreme Court begs to differ.
Posted by rooster108bm
Member since Nov 2010
2890 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 1:08 am to
quote:

was intended as a right guaranteed to a state.


2nd= right of the PEOPLE
10th= are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Notice the founders thought those words were two different things?

You know we have these wonderful pages written of the minutes during the Constitutional convention. People should read them. It explains exactly what and why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
76505 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 1:24 am to
quote:

the 2nd amendment doesn't imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms
about that
quote:


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
76505 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 1:27 am to
District of Columbia v. Heller2008

Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right
Posted by chickenpotpie
Member since Aug 2013
1161 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 2:20 am to
quote:

it was intended as a right guaranteed to a state. not for you as an individual.


Wrong. It's OK, though. I know words are hard to understand.
Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 2:29 am to
The entire bill of rights are rights to individuals
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
67985 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 4:21 am to
quote:

the 2nd amendment doesn't imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms or form private armies.
it was intended as a right guaranteed to a state. not for you as an individual.



Exhibit A of how stupidity is the true enemy of freedom.
Posted by mofungoo
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2012
4583 posts
Posted on 11/18/17 at 4:46 am to
Stupid gonna stupe.

MAGA
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram