Antigun groups once again display ignorance

What do you mean are we now going to? They've been able to own muzzle loaders for some time now. Just because you've only recently noticed that fact, does not somehow make it a recent development.

We should be allowing them all the rights of any other citizen, equal protection, or they should still be incarcerated (or executed).
If you want to solve your problem see above sentence ^
What you want won't fix anything.

 

This reminds me of the time I bought my black powder revolver. I had a background check for my other firearms, but not that one. Part of me was confused and felt like I was getting away with something. But I doubt anyone is going to use one of these things for criminal purposes. I mean, it is a revolver that takes forever to reload . . . and often jams.

 

This is not true.
Until the current laws are enforced to their fullest extent, there is no reason to even consider new laws.

 

That's a trait you're born with

 

Or perhaps the suggestions we give you are common sense and you disregard them?

 

Very true, I'll grant you that! But if you're going to pick a firearm too use in a mass shooting scenario it really does take the comedic value out of it by not choosing the Muzzle loader and the center piece of the subject! I honestly busted out laughing at the councilman for two reasons, the firearm of choice and his ignorance of trying to spin it away from the absurdity or the choice

 

Fox did what it always does. Find a bumkin they can chew up an spit out rather than someone that can defend their position.

BINGO! Remember Alan Colmes? The guy was butt ugly which is why he was cast as Hannity's foil. Colmes was no dummy but the set-up was for him to get steamrolled every night, typically being the only one on any panel who represented the opposing point of view from the Faux orthodoxy. Which, of course, was well scripted baloney.

 

Well that may have been a long while ago, as with many things, technology as refined the muzzle loader to be quite accurate well out to 500 yards! The draw back is reloading time, and that certainly has changed today.

Knight Muzzle loaders..

 

So, take the opportunity to illustrate your point

 

So are air rifles, which can easily kill someone just as quietly.

 

Who is responsible for this lack of enforcement
And
Which steps are gun rights orgs taking to improve enforcement

 

I'll take a swing.

Common sense tells me that men who escape from mental institutions and crack their children's skulls should already be in NICS.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Getting rid of the gun show loophole would be a good start. Then, perhaps requiring trigger locks for guns stored in the home. Perhaps requiring people to carry insurance on their weapon(s) to reimburse potential victims of accidental shootings. Obviously outlaw bump stocks, extended clips, assault rifles. Enhance the background check system. Things that the majority of gun owners favor.

 

I thought I might mention ALREADY submit to

 

No such loophole exists. Federal law has never required private individuals to perform background checks when selling their own personal firearms. Only federally licensed dealers are required to do such, as they are engaged in the business of selling firearms.

The united state supreme court has already stated that such is unconstitutional.

For what purpose? Firearm-related accidents in the united states are rare and have been dropping. Those most often responsible for wounding others cannot legally possess firearms to begin with, and thus cannot be made to actually purchase or maintain insurance.

Beyond such, insurance providers have stated that liability insurance will not cover acts of either negligence, or deliberate actions. Even if such policies did exist, no claims would be paid out.

Which would amount to nothing beneficial.

Exactly what does this translate into? Precisely how would the existing system be enhanced?

A claim that cannot be proven as factual by yourself.

 

Fine. I'll do so. Again.

Common sense gun regulations, you ready?

Here we go:

1) Criminals do not follow the laws already in place. This is common sense. The laws in place serve only to inconvenience the law abiding. This is also common sense. The law abiding are not in fact the problem, it is in fact the criminals who are the problem. This is common sense.
Background checks: Don't stop crime. Any registration requirement: SCOTUS has ruled those in violation because they are felons cannot be charged under this statute. why? 5th amendment right against self incrimination. Drop the laws regulating firearms if they are not directly punishing criminal activity. For instance: using a firearm in crime is a proper aggravating factor and should stay. Multiple felonies for owning a machinegun should not. There should be no NFA. Basically if its not "its illegal to brandish a firearm at someone or reckless or negligent discharge or to shoot people without justification or use a gun in a crime" it needs to go.
2) Drop the drug war. Today. All of it. Same with gambling and prostitution. Legal, taxed and regulated. That will go a long way toward a) rebuilding trust and respect for police b) keeping fathers and mothers in homes c) add tax revenue d) create jobs e) legitimize otherwise illegitimate income which must complete further crimes to launder itself, (illegitimate income which grows smuggling cartels and their territories which causes further crime.) by the tax and regulation scheme. Punish for fraud, tax evasion, illegal possession of a controlled substance etc et alia those who violate this scheme. No pleas. **** them with the law book turned sideways.
3) If felons can't be trusted with a firearm and/or a vote after you release them from custody (off paper, parole would be ON paper) they should not have been released in the first place. This is common sense, if they are too dangerous to act as any other citizen, why are they walking around free endangering us all? If you're saying that means you can't let them out ever... well then nut up and execute them rather than torture them with confinement until death.
3a) Strictly enforce a regime in prisons in which prisoners are not allowed to bunch up by race or other criminal affiliation. If they must act as violent and unruly children, then treat them as same.
3b) entirely eliminate the for profit prison.
4) Wean down and then eliminate the great society program, paying particular attention to the provisions that provide incentive to a single parent home or to unmarried parents. I am accepting of the fact that you'll need some form of safety net: A permanent one which encourages you to not marry your kids father or cohabitate, is not a positive example of that. Any safety net should be a temporary measure intended to motivate you to get back on your own feet and off the titty. That means you can't buy steak and lobster with it, or soda, or chips. Beans, rice, flour, milk, eggs, bread, chicken, etc. Staples only. And not of any sort or brand. Particular sorts only, of known acceptable quality, quantity, and price for those people only.
O but that's embarrassing for them, you say. Good. That's part of the incentive. But that's no fun, you say. Again, good that's the point. Feature not bug.
5) Go back to forcible rape being a capital crime.
6) That's a pretty good start I'd say. I'm sure there are more things I could think of but let's see how you deal with my common sense before we get too stuck in, eh?

 

How about this: Why not allow ALL honest citizens to fulfill their 2nd Amendment rights, exactly the way they were allowed to 1789?

Don't you think that any such honest citizens should be allowed to carry a muzzle loading flintlock or wheel lock handgun on their belt as they did in NYC, Boston and Philly without any registrations?

Do you not also think that any such citizens should be able to have a Kentucky Rifle or Brown Bess musket in their private residences without infringement?

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/

 

Perfect. No rational person thinks the founders would not have been willing to support much stricter gun ownership/purchase laws if they could have seen how their original intent has been distorted.

 

Don't worry, the law says that too, its just not been complied with

 

See DC v Heller, triggerlocks in the home have already been addressed. The answer is not no but hell no..
Don't even get me started on the rest of this tripe

 

So you are saying that a modern muzzleloader is a weapon of choice for a modern army that intends to win? Or that a World class sniper prefers a muzzleloader?

Not likely as it is a toy by modern standards

 

So you'll start sending messages you penned with a quill, and you'll send them pony express?
And you'll not object when the 4th amendment doesn't apply to your emails or texts?

" Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html See DC v Heller.

 

Well actually more quietly until some one figures out how to completely undo the laws of basic physics.

The funniest thing here is that what silencing there is built in is almost entirely due to the fact that the bullet in question is subsonic and in fact despite its relatively large size no more dangerous than many smaller bullets.
Funnier still is the rediclous idea that anyone anyone interested in conducting a mass shooting is going place a black powder muzzle loader anywhere in his top fifty weapons of choice. I mean we are talking a weapon that in the hands of skilled user is good for about five rounds a minute. It's even slower with something like a Kentucky long rifle.

 

Buuuuut but but it's FIFTY CALIBER!