Muzzle-loader mass shooting

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Sling10mm

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 12, 2012
    1,117
    38
    What a moron, and I'm not talking about Tucker. We must demand at every turn, when these folks want to have a "conversation" about guns, that they must first educate themselves on the topic about which they want to converse. However, I understand that really isn't important to them.
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    Beyond comprehension. New York deserves this guy. Only wish Tucker would have asked him about the smoke a black powder gun would generate.
     

    Hop

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Jan 21, 2008
    5,084
    83
    Indy
    Laser guns could kill. Let's not wait until the DC sniper silently kills someone. Lets ban them NOW!
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,795
    150
    Avon
    Laser guns could kill. Let's not wait until the DC sniper silently kills someone. Lets ban them NOW!

    The Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40-watt range is on a list somewhere too. Not just my Christmas list either.
     

    Floivanus

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 6, 2016
    612
    28
    La crosse
    50 caliber? 50 caliber?!? 50 caliber!!!?!!!? The guy is trying to make it sound like a 50 bmg or some crap, a muzzle loader is lucky to get a good grouping at 200 yards. I think their biggest issue is that silencerco put a permanent suppressor on a non-firearm, oh no they're so deadly.

    as an aside I went to JP yesterday to check my grouping at 200 yards, quite a few shooters there, before I put in my ear pro my ears didn't get rung from gunshots, it wasn't deafening, aside from one loud AR15, everything just sounded like a pretty good pop, if I wasn't at a gun range I'd mistake what I heard if it was isolated. Gun shots aren't extremely loud when you're at any kind of distance, the sonic boom is most of the crack
     

    MCgrease08

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Mar 14, 2013
    14,374
    149
    Earth
    Oh dear lord. I don't even know what to say about that.

    I wish that segment would have been an hour long. There were so many ways to discredit that guy's nonsense it's almost overwhelming. Every comment he made prompted me to think of 3 or 4 different rebuttals.
     

    cbhausen

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Feb 17, 2010
    6,379
    113
    Indianapolis, IN
    For those who may not know Tucker Carlson was the interviewer who cornered the hapless and ignorant Carolyn McCarthy into making the famous “shoulder thing that goes up” comment.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2011
    1,229
    38
    Well the first amendment only applies to a 18 century megaphone.
    It does not cover radio, television, internet, telephone, it does not even cover Electronic amplified speech.
    They were not around as of the writing.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Old and busted: "The 2nd Amendment only applies to 18th century technology!"
    New hotness: "Muzzle-loaders COULD be dangerous, so we need to regulate them!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKPObRSU5w4

    Lesson to be learned: never compromise with the antis. They don't negotiate in good faith. It's all in service to moving the goalposts to their eventual goals.

    Your last sentence here is exactly the problem. We're trying to move the ball to our goal line. They're trying to redefine the field.

    The solution, or at least "A" solution, is at the outset of a discussion/debate, don't let them put you on the defensive.. Ask them: "So (whatever) aren't OK? Tell me: What guns and gun laws are OK and acceptable in your view?" Otherwise, they try to put us on the defensive, trying to justify "why do you need 30 bullets to kill a deer?" or even, "What are you going to possibly need more than a couple of shots for in your house?" and then pooh-poohing the idea that more than one person might be entering in a home invasion.

    When they start off having to define that *this* is OK and *that* is acceptable, other than the nebulous, "common sense gun laws" and "nobody is trying to take away your guns" or the juvenile "big gun, little penis" insults (though, I do admit, I love riposting that with, "If that's true, why do I carry a gun with only a 2 inch barrel?"") then they either have to say for example that a six-shooter is acceptable and can't later say it's not, or they have to start off with nothing being acceptable, which proves them both uncompromising and unreasonable, and denies them the ability to later say "no one is coming after your guns".

    If they start off that everyone should be trained, I agree! Let's put the education about gun safety back in the classroom where it used to be! Let's make sure that the kids KNOW Eddie Eagle's, "Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area. Tell an adult.", and I mean ALL kids! After all, if we have to have sex ed in schools and providing condoms doesn't encourage promiscuous sex, then having gun safety in schools and providing actual, hands-on experience with a rifle or pistol won't encourage criminal shootings. (and for the record, I agree with education on both of those, but don't agree with the premise of gov't schools at all, let alone those being on the curriculum... but if one is, so should be the other: Let them learn the proper meaning of "This is my rifle, this is my gun! This one for fighting, this one for fun!", or some analogous equivalent for the girls... I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge of that rhyme. :faint: :D :):)

    All this to say that redefining the field while the ball is in play... saying that you have to now dribble the football or that if it's caught, the quarterback is "out" or some such, must be prevented. The field is defined: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    ETA: I will concede that one point he was trying to raise is correct: We don't want to have "that conversation" after a shooting, so let's have it when one has not happened... Let's remove the emotion from the table and discuss it in terms of facts. Oh, that's not what you wanted? Hmm.)


    Blessings,
    Bill
     
    Last edited:

    DRob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Aug 2, 2008
    5,869
    83
    Southside of Indy
    I like to point this out to people who blabber about weapon technology: Correct. The founding fathers could not have known about today's weaponry but they were referring to exactly the same weapons used by the military.

    And, yes! This goof is the definition of why we can't have "common sense" talk about guns.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    e421a3919dcf3a8916f3b25faa3545a0.jpg
     

    throttletony

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jul 11, 2011
    3,630
    38
    nearby
    Lol, great interview.
    When they say that 2a only applies to muskets (not the point of this interview, granted), i like to respond with 1st ammendment only cover quill and ink - no internet, no computer
     

    longbarrel

    Expert
    Rating - 91.7%
    22   2   0
    Nov 1, 2008
    1,360
    38
    Central Indiana
    50 caliber? 50 caliber?!? 50 caliber!!!?!!!? The guy is trying to make it sound like a 50 bmg or some crap
    I hate to say it, but the gun lobby does the exact same thing. People running for a State elected position get questionnaires from the gun lobby with the same kind of questions: Do you support the use of 50 rifles for hunting? A common person would think hell no. not in Indiana, but someone that knows better (i.e. you or I or 99% of people on this board) realizes that a muzzle loader is more than likely a 50 calibre. They aren't saying **** about a 500 S & W rifle because you can't go to your local store and buy it off the rack, being 18 yrs of age. It is a really dumb argument used by both sides to feed off of our fears.
     

    rugertoter

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 9, 2011
    3,260
    63
    N.E. Corner
    Old and busted: "The 2nd Amendment only applies to 18th century technology!"
    New hotness: "Muzzle-loaders COULD be dangerous, so we need to regulate them!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKPObRSU5w4

    Lesson to be learned: never compromise with the antis. They don't negotiate in good faith. It's all in service to moving the goalposts to their eventual goals.

    You are 100% correct. Their goal is not to "regulate", it is to "take away". :xmad:
     
    Top Bottom