NRA Has Worked for Decades to Block Efforts to Regulate Type of Explosive in Pipe Bombs

This is an example of moving the goal posts.

 

Look it up. Be sure to look up the number of injuries too.

 

it is important because the Vile Propaganda Center is a well known source of lies and hysteria. How many people have actually been harmed by smokeless powder pipe bombs? The Vile Propaganda center isn't about saving lives-its about harassing gun owners and trying to impede lawful shooting activity. They want to make reloading illegal or too expensive

 

The number doesn't exist it's so small.

 

You dont know, Mr. Dangerous?

 

his posts demonstrate his goal is trying to impede lawful gun owners from engaging in shooting sports.

 

We should probably ban diesel fuel and fertilizer before we ban gun powder. That mixture has been used in far more bombs (like OKC) than gunpowder, because its far more energetic and requires far less engineering to make it deadly.

...but that doesn't satisfy the 'we gotta do something right now even if its stupid' crowd

 

I have a much better idea than you. I think that 100 deaths, 1,000 injuries, and 10 million in property damage is definitely concerning. Of course, there are other victims such as grieving family members and many in the general public who may experience extreme anxiety when they witness or hear about bombings involving black or smokeless powder. It's hard to quantify all the harm.

 

You need to be able to buy up to 50 pounds of black powder or an unlimited amount of smokeless powder without passing a background check in order to engage in shooting sports? Get real.

 

Americans of the Founding Era did not oppose the regulation of gun powder. They understood the importance of gun safety.

"A cursory look at the history of the Second Amendment shows that regulation was a central part of its rationale—putting 'well regulated' at the very start of the amendment was no accident. For instance, starting in the colonial period, states enacted a variety of 'safe-storage' measures to deal with the danger posed by stored gunpowder. A 1786 law went as far as prohibiting the storage of a loaded gun in any building in Boston."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gun-rights-advocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment

 

Well, like with many thing firearms related they base their opinions on a foundation of total ignorance and those that see equivalence in powder products have never worked with them. Most are graduates of Hollywood U, but then, real knowledge doesn’t matter to their true objectives.
Funny, had me thinking of the cigarette zip guns that were made in my neighborhood when I was young that used shaved match heads for propellant. Made for good propellant for CO2 cartridge rockets as well. How I made it to my age is a mysterious thing.

 

Then according to the citation of yourself, propellant powders are already subject to significant regulations and restrictions.

 

Ten people in the united states. That is the overall number during the referenced time period.

 

While such restrictions may have existed at the time, the purpose for their being was in response to what were becoming the urban areas at the large, where large groups of individuals were housed, where the risk of fire was significant. These urban areas had no irrigation systems, no indoor plumbing, no fire department, no method of fire suppression systems whatsoever. If a building caught on fire, that was ultimately the end of it. The same circumstances are not at play in the modern world, however, thus meaning such storage requirements are now both moot and irrelevant to the conversation.

 

Please cite the source for those figures. Compare them to arson deaths, injuries and property damage so we can tell which is the greater threat, gunpowder or gasoline.

 

A safe storage law would not nor was it intended to prevent criminal use of gunpowder.

 

Why should I have to have a background check just to keep gun banners happy.

 

God forbid we use some common sense here and force people to fill out a form

 

Fifty pounds is nothing, I guess you never been to a Civil War reenactment?

And please explain why a background check is needed to engage in shooting sports?

 

Because BC’s, like many liberal driven gun laws, have little to do with controlling violence, but more with the myriad of tactics in a broader political strategy.

 

Given how liberals use the words ‘common sense’, what they really mean is a combination of ‘mindlessly agreeing with their point of view’ and ‘mythical sense’.
‘Common sense’ used to mean knowledge commonly held that was obtained through common experience. Meaningless among most liberals when it comes to anything fire arm related because the closest they get to experience is Hollywood U and the liberal media pontificators and purveyors of myth.

 

Thank you for your opinion

 

It’s common sense among the experienced.

 

I'm sure it is

 

And widely accepted by the naiveté.