Liberals go after Single Shot Black Powder guns now....

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Liberal Anti-Gun Media said:
(New York - WABC, Oct. 18, 2007) - An Eyewitness News undercover investigation reveals just how easy it is, and perfectly legal, for anyone to get their hands on a deadly firearm -- no background check needed, no drivers license even needs to be shown.

The Investigators Jim Hoffer has more on this exclusive story.
New York state has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. But after the gun scare at St. John's University in Queens, we decided to take a closer look at the law as it applies to a specific type of rifle
-- one that panicked a campus and nearly killed a state police trooper.

Hoffer: "You get a whole kit? .. do you sell a lot of these?
Gun clerk: "Yes"

In the time that it takes to purchase a pair of socks, one can buy a deadly rifle.

Eyewitness News went undercover at Dicks Sporting Goods store in Upstate New York and with less information than is needed to borrow a library book, we bought a 50-caliber black powder hunting rifle. We just counted out the cash, about $200 and walked away with a brand new, highly powerful weapon.

So, 10 minutes inside this store, I was able to get a gun identical to the one the St. John's student had. I got this with no questions asked, no background check, no identification needed -- all perfectly legal.
Let's make no mistake, this isn't a toy, it's a very lethal weapon.

A weapon's expert with the Harrison police department demonstrated for us its power.

Sgt. Michael Olsey: "Highly accurate, really very powerful able to take down large North American game.
Hoffer: "Even a bear?
Sgt. Olsey: "Bear, grizzly, black bear ... you name it."

"I didn't really see him, all I saw was the barrel of a gun and he shot me," said state trooper Amanda Reif.

State police trooper Amanda Reif has felt the power of the black powder rifle when she was shot by one last summer while responding to a domestic call.

"This one hit my vest and it mushroomed, it was the first shot. The second shot just hit a little higher," she said.

She has battled back from near death spending hours each week in rehab.
The gunman whom she was able to shoot and kill was a convicted rapist -- a felon who obtained the rifle because of a gaping loophole in New York state's gun laws.

That is, blackpowder firearms are considered "antiques" because they are muzzle loaded. State and federal gun laws do not include antique firearms, so they are exempt from any permits or background checks.

"I'm not anti-gun by any means, I grew up with weapons and I believe everyone should be able to carry one if they're legal to possess one but you shouldn't be able to have ready access to them like that," Reif said.

Just a few weeks ago, a St. John's student with a history of psychological problems had ready access to a black powder rifle, buying one with no questions asked and then creating a panic when he walked onto campus with the gun loaded.

But to expose the enormity of this loophole, The Investigators purchased another black powder rifle, this time on the Internet. In just four days, it was delivered directly to my house all for under $200 dollars.

"Any convicted felon can just walk into a store, purchase this weapon and be on the street in 10 minutes ready to ... kill," Olsey said.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly is not happy about the antique gun loophole. He says it should be done away with immediately.

We have a call into the governor's office to see what can be done about it.

If you have a tip about this or any other investigative story, give our tip-line a call at 877-TIP-NEWS.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...cal&id=5714222
<http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5714222>

smiley_freak.gif
 
Its simple.

New Yorkers do not want guns within their city. That is the overwhelming opinion of people living there. The reason for this that New York has a growing population of 12 Million, and if anybody who has lived in a bustling city will tell you guns inside a major metropolis is not a very smart idea, in fact its a really bad one. I speak from experience having lived in NYC for 28 of my 35 years.

Do you really want uptight, cranky, nervous people that are packed in like sardines to be carrying guns? Especially when you consider that by some miracle NYC has one of the lowest crime statistics in the country of major cities. NYer's made that decision when they elected Rudy Guliani.

You are not going to hunt Bear or Deer in NYC. Hunting in general, is not very popular there. The few hunters from NYC go to lodges or have country homes upstate and keep their guns there.

If you want to own a gun and hunt, go to Long Island, New Jersey, or Westchester County. As there are much more wide-open spaces, There is no problem there. They are all just over the City Limits you can be in downtown within 20 minutes from the Holland+Lincoln Tunnels.

If you don't like the fact you cannot carry a gun within the city, well nobody is forcing you to live in NYC.
 
Last edited:
Its simple.

Especially when you consider that by some miracle NYC has one of the lowest crime statistics in the country of major cities. NYer's made that decision when they elected Rudy Guliani. quote.



MM - don't you think that your quoted sentence speaks volumes. Here, we have gun wars on our streets, in a situation were only criminals carry guns, and in great amounts, and the statistics mount fast.

Furthermore, it is clever to reflect that power and democracy is not easily snatched from a population that owns guns.
 
Its simple.

Especially when you consider that by some miracle NYC has one of the lowest crime statistics in the country of major cities. NYer's made that decision when they elected Rudy Guliani. quote.


MM - don't you think that your quoted sentence speaks volumes. Here, we have gun wars on our streets, in a situation were only criminals carry guns, and in great amounts, and the statistics mount fast.

Furthermore, it is clever to reflect that power and democracy is not easily snatched from a population that owns guns.
------------------------------------------------------------
Its not about power and democracy, its about criminality and how to deal with it. London is not the same as NYC, but it could be. But that requires several necessary changes, changes some people (minorities) won't like.

First of all you have a PD that lacks legal authority. The laws are very retrictive about how and when a police officer can interrogate a suspect. In France its exactly the opposite, the PD can demand ID without ANY justification and they are legally allowed to detain you for questioning without charge.

This, and the fact that your PD is not at all armed (except for specifically armed units) means that the criminal element has almost nothing to fear. The problem with armed units is that they are too slow to respond and there are not enough of them to cover a city as large as London. Also the training for deadly confrontations could be better from what I have read. The Brazilian on the Tube that was mistaken for a terrorist and killed is a prime example. That wasn't some rookie cop panicking, as happened in the Diallo case in NYC. Those were experienced officers who were unaccostomed to such a situation and who made a very bad decision, which cost an innocent his life.

Secondly the best way to remove big Criminals is by going after the little ones. Sounds crazy, but it works. The reason being is that if little criminals allowed to fester unchecked eventually become big criminals. This is exactly what Guliani did in NYC during the 1990s. He hired more cops, reorganized them, and let them loose on the petty criminals. (The petty pushers, pimps, thieves, etc). He also made the punishments severe for minor crimes. 3-5 years later there was a huge drop in the number of violent crimes. Its still going down even after he left office.

Another problem more unique to the UK is that your points of entry are very porous. It isn't difficult to smuggle things (like guns and undesirable people from other countries) into the UK, which is unbelievable considering that you are a small Island with fewer points of entry. I have a tougher time getting into France than getting into the UK.

The one thing you don't want to do is legalize guns in big cities. I lived in NYC went it was legal to own a gun, and that was when crime was skyrocketing. I personally had to duck for cover in two different occasions to avoid getting hit.

You remember that incident on the Tube in 2005? That was when the professionals screwed up. Imagine what would happen when the amateurs get their hands on guns. I assure you, you'll have many more dead citizens on English streets than dead criminals. The criminals know how to use their guns.
 
mmarsh, banning guns in NYC is well and good, I lived there for 5 years and I know the people are crazy. But I hate this goddamn anti-gun legislation meant for the city that affects me up here in Pawling!

Ban guns in the city, not for those of us who see far more trees than people.
 
MM - Nice one -your post on the English situation is spot on -my views entirely, and I was not talking of adding guns to the scene here. We are all aware of and admire Guiliano's stand.

I was simply making the point that when you take away guns from the population you do not necessarily take them from the bad boys.
 
That's a good point as well Del Boy, in fact I was reading about some guy who got caught with a select-fire Bundeswehr G36 in New York. That's certainly not legal, yet it gets in.
 
That's a good point as well Del Boy, in fact I was reading about some guy who got caught with a select-fire Bundeswehr G36 in New York. That's certainly not legal, yet it gets in.


What we have ,here, are teenage ,and younger, street gangs, particularly, as it happens, black kids, killing each other and bystanders with a flood of weapons cheaply available from eastern Europe etc.


In centuries passed, at the back of our village churches, were displays of pikes etc., especially for use if invaded etc. America has made sure, over the years, to carry the theme on with protective weapons in their own homes. Amongst other things, this means that they will never be left in the position of unarmed populations like, for example, The Jews in the 1930's. That is the answer to the old question -'why did they not resist'?
 
You wonder why so many gun owners are hesitant to register their firearms... That's OK - I have my bus buried in the back yard!
The way I see it - should Hillary come to power buisness will be good on the storage side of my little enterprise! :cheers:
--
One more thing - if you havn't hunted w/ a black powder gun, well your missing a treat... It works wonders when hunting liberals, I mean big game.
:angel:
 
You wonder why so many gun owners are hesitant to register their firearms... That's OK - I have my bus buried in the back yard!
The way I see it - should Hillary come to power buisness will be good on the storage side of my little enterprise! :cheers:
--
One more thing - if you havn't hunted w/ a black powder gun, well your missing a treat... It works wonders when hunting liberals, I mean big game.
:angel:

Hesitant is not the word, it is not fun giving up your weapons you have own and used for years.
 
keep your guns. regulations, not bans is my policy. weapons should be registered but you should still be allowed to have them, with the exception of long range artillery, machine guns, and elephant guns. And I'm fine with those as display pieces.
 
keep your guns. regulations, not bans is my policy. weapons should be registered but you should still be allowed to have them, with the exception of long range artillery, machine guns, and elephant guns. And I'm fine with those as display pieces.

Thats the problem they even want display pieces.

I agree to a point about gun bans, but if have the correct training and level of experience I see no problem with own repeating weapons or any weapon.

The old BP weapons are a work of art and our culture. Just another thing to right off now.
 
What's wrong with automatics? A semi-auto is just as lethal really, the only difference is a fully automatic firearm is better suited to provide suppressing fire... and fun!
 
What's wrong with automatics? A semi-auto is just as lethal really, the only difference is a fully automatic firearm is better suited to provide suppressing fire... and fun!

Nothing wrong with them but the government banned them here
 
keep your guns. regulations, not bans is my policy. weapons should be registered but you should still be allowed to have them, with the exception of long range artillery, machine guns, and elephant guns. And I'm fine with those as display pieces.

Sorry chief but registration leads to confiscation. Happened in the UK and in Australia.

As for the "elephant gun", BATFE (Which I hate by the way) says that as long as a firearm has a sporting purpose it is legal to make, sell, and import for civilian ownership. Hunting big game is a sport and the "elephant gun" is one of the tools used to hunt big game. The same rifle that is sued to hunt elephant is the same that is used to hunt Kodiak Bear and Caribou in Alaska.

For the the rest... long range artillery & machine guns. They are covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act (Which I am against). It states that if someone wants to own a Machine Gun, he/she must have a clean criminal history, pay a $200 tax stamp to BATFE and go through a lengthy background check and get approval for the firearm. The BATFE Form 3 must be signed off by the local chief of police or judge. by having a NFA firearm, you give BATFE the right to enter your home without a warrant anytime that they please to inspect your NFA firearm. That covers Machine Guns, Suppressors, and Short Barreled Shotguns/Rifles.

Long range artillery or anything over the caliber of .50 (few exceptions and most shotguns are excluded) is a destructive device. This ruling was made by the 1968 Gun Control Act. It states that any Machine Gun not registered by 1968 can never be registered and owned by civilians. Destructive Devices are a whole different matter. Same deal with registration by 1968 but also the D&D is a different tax stamp and also a higher background check and sign off. Use must make a report to BATFE when ever you fire your D&D and you must get approval o do so from BATFE before you fire it.

Transporting any NFA firearm interstate is a pain. You must inform and request permission from BATFE to do so. You cannot lend a NFA firearm out to someone one less you are there. If you die, your family cannot inherit it and the government destroys it. Also any machine gun made after 1986 cannot be sold to civilians. This is due to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. So every machine gun in civilian ownership was made prior to 1986 and replacement parts cannot be purchased due to the law. So the number of machine guns every year is getting lower because of their owners wearing them out through use.

The Clinton Crime Bill (Assault Weapons Ban) was another attempted to outlaw and strip citizens of firearms. The only reason why that didn't happen is because of the 10 year sunset clause. But the liberals are currently trying to push a far worse version of the bill through congress and this one does not have sunset clause.

The current liberal/anti-gun tactic is the same one that has been done for years. An outright ban does not work. the people will fight back. But slowly banning certain types works far better.

Reason why.... If you ban machine guns, the majority of firearm owners will not care. If you ban "assault weapons", the majority of gun owners will not care because they're either hunters or people that simply own a pistol or shotgun for home defense. Then if you go after pistols, the majority left will not care because they're hunters and the majority of hunters don't use pistols to hunt. So the last group standing with firearms are hunters. When hunting firearms are banned, hunters will ask what happened to all of their support and they will realize that the 2nd amendment was chipped away slowly and steadily.

Going after black powder is the same thing. It's a small surgical strike at the 2nd Amendment. The and amendment doesn't mention a restriction of arms or that it's only about hunting. It's about the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It was designed so that every single American Citizen can own and carry a firearm that is of equal caliber and usefulness as what those in a standing army carry. It's not about duck hunting or target shooting. It's about the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Sorry chief but registration leads to confiscation. Happened in the UK and in Australia.

As for the "elephant gun", BATFE (Which I hate by the way) says that as long as a firearm has a sporting purpose it is legal to make, sell, and import for civilian ownership. Hunting big game is a sport and the "elephant gun" is one of the tools used to hunt big game. The same rifle that is sued to hunt elephant is the same that is used to hunt Kodiak Bear and Caribou in Alaska.

For the the rest... long range artillery & machine guns. They are covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act (Which I am against). It states that if someone wants to own a Machine Gun, he/she must have a clean criminal history, pay a $200 tax stamp to BATFE and go through a lengthy background check and get approval for the firearm. The BATFE Form 3 must be signed off by the local chief of police or judge. by having a NFA firearm, you give BATFE the right to enter your home without a warrant anytime that they please to inspect your NFA firearm. That covers Machine Guns, Suppressors, and Short Barreled Shotguns/Rifles.

Long range artillery or anything over the caliber of .50 (few exceptions and most shotguns are excluded) is a destructive device. This ruling was made by the 1968 Gun Control Act. It states that any Machine Gun not registered by 1968 can never be registered and owned by civilians. Destructive Devices are a whole different matter. Same deal with registration by 1968 but also the D&D is a different tax stamp and also a higher background check and sign off. Use must make a report to BATFE when ever you fire your D&D and you must get approval o do so from BATFE before you fire it.

Transporting any NFA firearm interstate is a pain. You must inform and request permission from BATFE to do so. You cannot lend a NFA firearm out to someone one less you are there. If you die, your family cannot inherit it and the government destroys it. Also any machine gun made after 1986 cannot be sold to civilians. This is due to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. So every machine gun in civilian ownership was made prior to 1986 and replacement parts cannot be purchased due to the law. So the number of machine guns every year is getting lower because of their owners wearing them out through use.

The Clinton Crime Bill (Assault Weapons Ban) was another attempted to outlaw and strip citizens of firearms. The only reason why that didn't happen is because of the 10 year sunset clause. But the liberals are currently trying to push a far worse version of the bill through congress and this one does not have sunset clause.

The current liberal/anti-gun tactic is the same one that has been done for years. An outright ban does not work. the people will fight back. But slowly banning certain types works far better.

Reason why.... If you ban machine guns, the majority of firearm owners will not care. If you ban "assault weapons", the majority of gun owners will not care because they're either hunters or people that simply own a pistol or shotgun for home defense. Then if you go after pistols, the majority left will not care because they're hunters and the majority of hunters don't use pistols to hunt. So the last group standing with firearms are hunters. When hunting firearms are banned, hunters will ask what happened to all of their support and they will realize that the 2nd amendment was chipped away slowly and steadily.

Going after black powder is the same thing. It's a small surgical strike at the 2nd Amendment. The and amendment doesn't mention a restriction of arms or that it's only about hunting. It's about the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It was designed so that every single American Citizen can own and carry a firearm that is of equal caliber and usefulness as what those in a standing army carry. It's not about duck hunting or target shooting. It's about the right to keep and bear arms.

That one's good enough to save to disk. :biggun:
 
What people fail to understand is that there is no -one strategy fits all campaign.

There are those who have never lived in a city with 10-15 Million people and who assume being armed to the teeth is the answer for all problems.

Similarly if you live the countryside the PD might be 10-15 minutes away. Plus guns are not nearly as dangerous in large open spaces as they are in compact ones. Plus there are those sport hunters to consider

I support gun control; thats the CONTROL of Guns, not the abolishment. If you want to own a gun thats fine, but there are certain rules (most of which are common sense) that need to be followed. Don't live in a city, don't bring it to any high stress environment (school, work, etc) keep it out of places likely to serve alcohol, preform complete background checks, force manufacturers to install safety devices, Restrict clip sizes.

You dont need a Black powder musket in NYC, thats just dumb.

I also support the right of the government to permanently suspend gun rights for individuals convicted of violent offenses. You get sent to jail for armed robbery, you'll never own a gun again, period. The right is lost forever. And if you are caught with one anyway, you'll go back to jail immediately.

Oh and I used to shoot too, in upstate NY. Only .22s nothing fancy. I'd like to do so again if I move back.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top