1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Debating the new arguments: NRA blocking investigation, the Black Powder thing, etc.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by theriflespeaks1863, Apr 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. theriflespeaks1863

    theriflespeaks1863 Member

    Oct 9, 2011
    Appleton, WI
    Okay, I need some help here.

    A friend of mine who is a fence-sitting anti has been asking me about this, and I just need someone to explain the arguments for me...mainly because, like so many of us, I am so frustrated with all of the anti-gun slander and foolishness that I can hardly form a logical thought. Now, he willingly conceedes to my logic at times, but he is still very motivated by fear and the biased rantings of his folks. The point is, he is open to good arguments and I may be able to sway him, as he has already accepted an invite to go shooting with another friend of mine. :scrutiny:

    Now, I am a user of black powder- I shoot a M1855 rifle musket in N-SSA style matches. Our shooting team captain picks up black powder for us folks here and Wisconsin, and we all chip in for the cost while he picks up the powder. Our reenacting troupe does the same thing, parsing out membership dues to buy powder. I am assuming that this is similar in legality to private transfers of firearms, or am I wrong? :confused:

    Secondly, can someone explain to me the regulations already imposed on purchasing black powder? I hear that in order to buy it in person, you must sign for it or some such?

    Thirdly, seeing as the NRA/"the gun lobby" might catch heat for this because of the whole "taggants" shtick, I need to be able to defend myself (as a new NRA member) and the position of the NRA in this regard, both scientifically and legally.

    I hope I've made my questions clear. All thoughts, comments, etc. are much appreciated.


  2. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Dec 20, 2002
    Statesboro, GA
    I think you might be overthinking this.

    People have been able to purchase black powder in this country since before its founding. What's changed that we can no longer be trusted with it?

    If it went away, would that really accomplish anything? If you search for improvised explosive recipes on Google, how many recipes can you find in an hour that only use readily available ingredients? How many of these will be *better* than black powder for use in making bombs?

    Isn't the argument that the 2nd Amendment was only designed to protect muskets? Muskets *need* black powder!
  3. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Aug 11, 2010
    HAHA, glad I read your post first...I was about the post the same thing.

    Just proves that many antis are ignorant of what they are arguing against...and the rest of them are just talking out of the side of their mouth and would be perfectly happy to ban any and all guns, including black powder.
  4. Kim

    Kim Member

    Nov 19, 2003
    Do some research on google. It is my understanding that it was not only the NRA that was against taggants in black and smokeless powder but also the ammo makers cause there had been studies done that showed it caused problems that could be dangerous. The NRA supported taggants in other type explosive materials. They wanted more studies done. That is what I have read.
  5. velojym

    velojym Member

    Apr 9, 2006
    Besides, anything can be hacked, even taggants. Enterprising folks could easily derail any advantage of the technology, if only by increasing the "signal to noise" to the point that they become a useless, expensive boondoggle.
  6. basicblur

    basicblur Member

    Apr 2, 2003
    Probably this ˄ ˄ ˄

    Tom Gresham covered it briefly on his podcast last week - he didn't get into it that much, but did note that there appeared to be problems with taggants, some which is not yet fully known / understood (effects of long term storage), etc.

    If the NRA really did want to make a terrorist's life easier (like that bat crazy Lawrence O'Donnell sez), they would have opposed taggants in explosives other than gunpowder, etc.

    Old Lawrence appears to be a little too crazy even for Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and the rest of the slightly less kooky folks over on MSNBC.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page