Muzzleloader BAN ?!

The reasoning? A black powder silencer. I know little to nothing about silencers, but isn't it impossible to pour black powder or pyrodex down the muzzle with a silencer in place? Aren't there baffles that would / could trap most of the powder? That would create a bomb on the end of the barrel. Maybe it's a quick detach unit of some kind?
 
They focus on the silencer/suppressor for part of it in the interview, but one of the major motivations in the text is that they're unregulated, no FFL needed, etc..
 
Wouldn’t the suppresser be regulated still? I didn’t think they gave them a free pass just cause the hole is bigger.
 
The silencer for these muzzleloaders is integral; in other words, it is a part of the rifle. It can't be removed. At least in the one I saw online not long ago. Also, they have a pic of the offensive muzzleloader on the Giffords website. it's a pretty funny read, actually.
 
"Once this new muzzle is created, ..."

Poster child for what Tucker was talking about as the segment began: People who know nothing about firearms trying to regulate ban them.
 
Yep. Basically a funnel.

The rifle ships with a "loading tube" that slips inside the suppressor and allows loading without fouling the baffles.
It is also required that no wadding, patching, sabots, or loose powder be used. Only "solid" powders (pellets) and bullets with affixed gas seals (such as "Power Belt" bullets) are to be loaded.
 
The criminals are not going to rush out and start using a black powder muzzle loaders in their drive by shootings or armed robberies, silencer or not ....there is just not enough firepower. When's the last time the good guys had to shoot it out with a gang armed with muzzle loaders..... early 1800's maybe...Right !
That's just plain stupid.
 
The obvious counter-argument is the First Amendment, and freedom of the press. The authors of the Bill of Rights didn't foresee ball point pens, gel pens, computer word processors, laser printers and computer typesetting, radio, television, tablet computers, smart phones, Twitter, Facebook, digital cameras...

So, members of the media -- GIVE THEM ALL UP. Go back to writing your stories on parchment with quill pens. Images must be hand-etched on copper plates. Newspapers then have to be set in linotype by type monkeys, to be printed by manually-powered printing presses. The newspapers must then be distributed in horse-drawn wagons.

No other media forms are protected by the First Amendment, since the authors of the Bill of Rights didn't have them in mind when they wrote it.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
 
The argument that the gentlemen kept trying to make about "if the DC sniper had been using this..."

I'm trying to imagine a guy with 4 feet of weapon hiding in the trunk of a car waiting to take a shot. Followed by the same guy passing out from smoke inhalation after pulling the trigger.
 
The argument that the gentlemen kept trying to make about "if the DC sniper had been using this..."
Click to expand...

Wow, what a complete moron.

How is he going to reload a four foot long black powder rifle in the trunk of a car?

Not only that but I seem to recall pretty clearly that the police were absolutely clueless about the suspects (supposed to be a white middle aged man), the vehicle (looking for a white van), the weapon (a sniper rifle) even though the suspects were calling them constantly trying to get them to pay a blackmail. The noise of the weapon had a sum total of zero effect on the case.
 
The car was the suppressor in that situation. Time to put $200 tax stamps and year long waits on vehicles.
 
I think I'd seen this clip before. Points that I find interesting and completely unsurprising are that the antigun guy:
1. Weems to think that calibers smaller than .50 won't kill people. He keeps saying "with a .50 caliber bullet, it only takes one shot."
2. Does not want to talk about the ban proposal in specifics. He keeps spouting his supporting statistics ("4% of the population, but half of the guns . . . "), but will not acknowledge any specifics about "muzzle-loader violence" in years past.
 
4% of the population with 50% of the guns sounds a lot better than 1% of the population with 90% of the wealth. Gun owners are downright egalitarian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top