The Political Party

[GTRMAN]

---

Graeca wrote:

GTRMAN, nobody is seriously making an argument to only allow muskets, but just to humor you, let me correct a few of your fallacies:

(1) In the hands of someone well-practiced, a black-powder rifle is extremely accurate...in the hands of someone who doesn't practice enough, ANY gun, from a BB gun to a Howitzer, is extremely innaccurate.

(2) Nobody will ever use a couple of blunderbusses to pull off a crowd slaughter.

If you want to attempt to start an intelligent conversation about the issue, please start w/o such ridiculous red-herrings and strawmen.

---

1. If they aree not making the argument seriously, then perhaps you should address them and ask them to stop.

2. If it's not a serious statement, then why do they keep saying it?

3. I'm not talking about modern powder rifles in the op. I specifically mentioned muvskets which were available in the 1700's and 1800's. Seems you are the one who built a strawman.

[trainset]

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

Graeca wrote:

GTRMAN, nobody is seriously making an argument to only allow muskets, but just to humor you, let me correct a few of your fallacies:

(1) In the hands of someone well-practiced, a black-powder rifle is extremely accurate...in the hands of someone who doesn't practice enough, ANY gun, from a BB gun to a Howitzer, is extremely innaccurate.

(2) Nobody will ever use a couple of blunderbusses to pull off a crowd slaughter.

If you want to attempt to start an intelligent conversation about the issue, please start w/o such ridiculous red-herrings and strawmen.

---

1. If they aree not making the argument seriously, then perhaps you should address them and ask them to stop.

2. Ifit's not a serious statement, then why do they keep saying it?

3. I'm not talking about modern powder rifles in the op. I specifically mentioned muvskets which were available in the 1700's and 1800's. Seems you are the one who built a strawman.

2 If they'r

---

lol @ english being a weapon against you

[GTRMAN]

---

willhaven wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

trainset wrote:

guntards

---

That wasn't very productive. Do you have anything sensible to add?

---

Do you?

---

And this is why the gun control debate never goes anywhere. You accuse gun rights supporters of not being willing to engage is meaningful discussions, but your reply is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Now can we please discuss the points I brought up in the OP?

---

What kind of fuckin' moron thinks limiting firearms to muzzle loaders is an actual solution worthy of discussion by either side?

Not me.

---

I never accused you of making that argument. But it pops up rather frequently in gun control threads. 

[moonlightin]

---

GTRMAN wrote:

I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?

---

I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.

[GTRMAN]

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

trainset wrote:

guntards

---

That wasn't very productive. Do you have anything sensible to add?

---

Do you?

---

And this is why the gun control debate never goes anywhere. You accuse gun rights supporters of not being willing to engage is meaningful discussions, but your reply is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Now can we please discuss the points I brought up in the OP?

---

The OP supports the accusation that gun rights supporters are unwilling to engage in meaningful discussions.

---

Hey. I'm not the one who claimed that only 1700-1800 era muskets should be legal.

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

---

I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.

---

Accuracy is a function of the shooter, precision is a function of the weapon. 

[moonlightin]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

---

I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.

---

Accuracy is a function of the shooter, precision is a function of the weapon. 

---

Which is why I said learn to shoot... that whole accuracy thing.

[trainset]

markohs on the ball lol

[GTRMAN]

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?

---

I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.

---

Then those people should make their point more clear IF that's what they really mean.

Muskets of that era are inherently inaccurate even in the hands of the most experienced marksmen.

[Kreatorkind]

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

Kreatorkind wrote:
I want a war elephant with rocket launchers mounted on it's back!

---

armoured combat bears!

---

I want one of those too!

[moonlightin]

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?

---

I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.

---

Then those people should make their point more clear IF that's what they really mean.

Muskets of that era are inherently inaccurate even in the hands of the most experienced marksmen.

---

Yes people make an attempt to make themselves clear on that point. However, I have not seen anyone making any other type of musket argument. Oh and the second amendment doesn't say anything about accuracy either.

[mdwagner73]

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

trainset wrote:

guntards

---

That wasn't very productive. Do you have anything sensible to add?

---

Do you?

---

And this is why the gun control debate never goes anywhere. You accuse gun rights supporters of not being willing to engage is meaningful discussions, but your reply is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Now can we please discuss the points I brought up in the OP?

---

The OP supports the accusation that gun rights supporters are unwilling to engage in meaningful discussions.

---

Hey. I'm not the one who claimed that only 1700-1800 era muskets should be legal.

---

No, you're the one that eschews meaningful discussion on the topic in favor of troll threads about arguments that noone has ever seriously made. 

[GTRMAN]

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?

---

I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.

---

Then those people should make their point more clear IF that's what they really mean.

Muskets of that era are inherently inaccurate even in the hands of the most experienced marksmen.

---

Yes people make an attempt to make themselves clear on that point. However, I have not seen anyone making any other type of musket argument. Oh and the second amendment doesn't say anything about accuracy either.

---

Check out Pink Freud's comment about muskets on the Hi Cap magazine thread.

And I never said Amendment II made any reference to accuracy. Where did that statement come from?

[GTRMAN]

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

trainset wrote:

guntards

---

That wasn't very productive. Do you have anything sensible to add?

---

Do you?

---

And this is why the gun control debate never goes anywhere. You accuse gun rights supporters of not being willing to engage is meaningful discussions, but your reply is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Now can we please discuss the points I brought up in the OP?

---

The OP supports the accusation that gun rights supporters are unwilling to engage in meaningful discussions.

---

Hey. I'm not the one who claimed that only 1700-1800 era muskets should be legal.

---

No, you're the one that eschews meaningful discussion on the topic in favor of troll threads about arguments that noone has ever seriously made. 

---

I'm not the one trying to impugn individuals or makin ad hominem arguments. How do you know none of those people never seriously meant it when they made the argument I addressed in the OP? Can you read their minds?

[mdwagner73]

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

trainset wrote:

guntards

---

That wasn't very productive. Do you have anything sensible to add?

---

Do you?

---

And this is why the gun control debate never goes anywhere. You accuse gun rights supporters of not being willing to engage is meaningful discussions, but your reply is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Now can we please discuss the points I brought up in the OP?

---

The OP supports the accusation that gun rights supporters are unwilling to engage in meaningful discussions.

---

Hey. I'm not the one who claimed that only 1700-1800 era muskets should be legal.

---

No, you're the one that eschews meaningful discussion on the topic in favor of troll threads about arguments that noone has ever seriously made. 

---

I'm not the one trying to impugn individuals or makin ad hominem arguments. How do you know none of those people never seriously meant it when they made the argument I addressed in the OP? Can you read their minds?

---

No, you're the one that eschews meaningful discussion on the topic in favor of troll threads about arguments that noone has ever seriously made. 

[Caulk Rocket]

Put the musket in the busket!

[Tom Hicks]

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?

---

I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.

---

Then those people should make their point more clear IF that's what they really mean.

Muskets of that era are inherently inaccurate even in the hands of the most experienced marksmen.

---

you are not apreciating the historical context of the use of muskets by a militia of the day as a volley weapon. groups of men firing muskets delivered a volley of shot down-range to an advancing group of men.

their officers didn't know when they gave the order to fire which individual men would be hit by the volley of musket shot, but they did know the volume of shot would have its impact, much like a volley or flight of arrows from multiple archers in prior generations of battles.

i used to have an enfield rifle with a 1500 yard range. it was not designed for a man to to make a shot on a target a mile away however. it was intended for a group of men to fire a volley of shots at advancing cavelry at that distance, with the undertanding that the volley of fire would have its intended result, even if the accuracy of any individual round could not be predicted.

[GTRMAN]

I'm not the one trying to impugn individuals or makin ad hominem arguments. How do you know none of those people never seriously meant it when they made the argument I addressed in the OP? Can you read their minds?

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

mdwagner73 wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

trainset wrote:

guntards

---

That wasn't very productive. Do you have anything sensible to add?

---

Do you?

---

And this is why the gun control debate never goes anywhere. You accuse gun rights supporters of not being willing to engage is meaningful discussions, but your reply is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Now can we please discuss the points I brought up in the OP?

---

The OP supports the accusation that gun rights supporters are unwilling to engage in meaningful discussions.

---

Hey. I'm not the one who claimed that only 1700-1800 era muskets should be legal.

---

No, you're the one that eschews meaningful discussion on the topic in favor of troll threads about arguments that noone has ever seriously made. 

---

I'm not the one trying to impugn individuals or makin ad hominem arguments. How do you know none of those people never seriously meant it when they made the argument I addressed in the OP? Can you read their minds?

---

No, you're the one that eschews meaningful discussion on the topic in favor of troll threads about arguments that noone has ever seriously made. 

---

[GTRMAN]

That is the point I'm trying to make in my OP.

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

moonlightin wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

I've seen it argued that people who suport gun control want us to only allow weapons which were available in the late 1700's or 1800's. 

Is that really what you want? Do you not realize how terriblyinaccurate those weapons were? You think we have a problem with stray bullets hitting innocent people now.... And the caliber of those weapons was also generally much higher...

And one more thing.... How much damage do you think could be done in a crowd by a person carrying a couple concealed blunderbusses in a large crowd?

---

I'm thinking you might be missing the point about the muskets. The point is: the second amendment does not say what you can and can not have. Ergo... the govco CAN limit you to a musket and they would still be following the second amendment. As to accuracy.... learn to shoot.

---

Then those people should make their point more clear IF that's what they really mean.

Muskets of that era are inherently inaccurate even in the hands of the most experienced marksmen.

---

you are not apreciating the historical context of the use of muskets by a militia of the day as a volley weapon. groups of men firing muskets delivered a volley of shot down-range to an advancing group of men.

their officers didn't know when they gave the order to fire which individual men would be hit by the volley of musket shot, but they did know the volume of shot would have its impact, much like a volley or flight of arrows from multiple archers in prior generations of battles.

i used to have an enfield rifle with a 1500 yard range. it was not designed for a man to to make a shot on a target a mile away however. it was intended for a group of men to fire a volley of shots at advancing cavelry at that distance, with the undertanding that the volley of fire would have its intended result, even if the accuracy of any individual round could not be predicted.

---

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

GTRMAN wrote:

---

Muskets of that era are inherently inaccurate even in the hands of the most experienced marksmen.

---

Imprecise would be the accurate term.  "precision" would refer to how tight your cluster is, accuracy is your ability to center the cluster over the bullseye.

I helped a friend build a muzzle-loader once.  I forget exactly what we did wrong, but when we first tried it, the powder would take up to about a second to ignite the charge.  So pull the trigger, wait a while, BLAM!  It was the most fun ever, we kind of hated to fix it.