What's the deal with carrying antique weapons? they're all less dangerous than modern ones

Guy was carrying a ball and cap revolver which by the definition of the firearm law governing what they can carry publicly, is legal as it does not use a center-fire or rim-fire cartridge and lacks any characteristic that would make it outright illegal such as a folding knife blade.

Guy then gets arrested (and detained) by the police, police are shown law specifically stating that it is legal for him to carry it. Police are asked if he regrets arresting the man, he says he doesn't. Even though this was by all definitions an illegal arrest.

but does anyone actually know why you can't carry antique firearms or replicas that use cartridges?

> don’t waste the polices time with arresting you for perfectly legal acts when they could be arresting real criminals

Yeah uh huh....

Attached: image.jpg (680x523, 330K)

that's why cops set speed traps, because their time is precious and they really do care about being a public servant.

>implying these faggots aren't white dindu nuffins who want monies riding the 2A wave

Attached: 1523281410187.jpg (720x720, 60K)

not defending cops you faggot, also see above

Except they literally dindu nuffin you stupid faggot. How is exercising 2a rights the same as being a nigger you nigger.

> white dindus walk around with legal tool, not threatening anyone
> black dindus steal TVs, rape women and give them aids, and shoot at cops

Yeah totally same thing you fucking nigger

Attached: image.jpg (520x300, 83K)

again read or kill yourself i dont give a fuck

they are constantly looking for donations instead of helping laws get passed

stop feeding the kikes riding the 2A wave trying to get more sheckles

Attached: 1525574444576.jpg (1024x992, 163K)

They would only be doing that if it was commonly known that police are abusing their powers against perceived criminals and that they were under-aware of the precise laws regarding firearms creating opportunities to create lawsuits.

Or simply put, who gives a fuck it punishes bad cops and will make them stop abusing their power.

>b-but muh based pro-gun cops

>implying cops get punished for shit
>implying cops dont pay these faggots with our tax money
>implying these parasites give a fuck about anyone else but themselves
>implying you arent a fucking retard
go back to pol you retard summerfag
the rest of us know better than to get played for our money

Attached: scheckles.jpg (552x408, 84K)

It is and it's fucking annoying. Cops should stop being dumb and costing tax payers money via settlements.

hah. hahahahahah.

*dies*

so felons, who are proscribed from carrying modern arms, don't have a workaround that lets them "legally" carry.

>implying cops get punished for shit
If it happens frequently enough, costs enough and catches the public's eye enough? Then the government must respond if nothing else to save their own hides.

>implying cops dont pay these faggots with our tax money
And? You think that that tax money was ever going anywhere near anything actually useful? That it wasn't going to end up funding some overly bloated budget doing fuck all anyway. This money is going into the police either way and it ain't getting spent on training or on more officers: it is going into maintaining their military surplus Swat gear and other dumb bullshit.

>implying these parasites give a fuck about anyone else but themselves
They don't but that doesn't matter.

>go back to pol you retard summerfag
Says the man using a fucking Jow Forums image in his response to me.

>If it happens frequently enough, costs enough and catches the public's eye enough? Then the government must respond if nothing else to save their own hides.

doubt.jpeg

>And? You think that that tax money was ever going anywhere near anything actually useful? That it wasn't going to end up funding some overly bloated budget doing fuck all anyway. This money is going into the police either way and it ain't getting spent on training or on more officers: it is going into maintaining their military surplus Swat gear and other dumb bullshit.

yeah you are dumb as fuck and assume the cops are being militarized because they get personal carriers or other shit

the same shit they use when the snowflakes and dindus try to burn the cities down when trump wins again

>They don't but that doesn't matter.
of course it doesnt to you since you are some dumb faggot who apparent thinks what they are doing is going to lead to more training instead of another number one the "number of gun related crimes"

your brain must be offfffffffffffly rotten

>Says the man using a fucking Jow Forums image in his response to me.

that shits been around for years and was started on a differnt board, nice job showing you are a summerfag

Spot the bootlicking soon to be traitor in our midst.

>doubt.jpeg
Not my fault you have a government with little accountability although I suppose mine is a fuck tonne worse.

>yeah you are dumb as fuck and assume the cops are being militarized because they get personal carriers or other shit
Well they are militarised, by the very definition of the word, if they are getting military equipment like that.

>the same shit they use when the snowflakes and dindus try to burn the cities down when trump wins again
You mean the same shit they stand around watching them burn down the cities with. You think the police are actually going to try and stop a riot by those groups? Hell no, that'd just spread the outrage given the media would make it into a police brutality thing and their superiors don't want that.

Fact is that the APC's aren't useful when you aren't willing to use them. Having another 50 riot officers to act as a barrier when that is all they are allowed to do? That'd be far better.

>of course it doesn't to you since you are some dumb faggot who apparent thinks what they are doing is going to lead to more training instead of another number one the "number of gun related crimes"
I don't think it will lead to more training or anything of the sort. I think it will lead to the government trying to stop the police making an ass of themselves (and the government) and wasting money. What I said was that the money spent prosecuting them and paying the prosecutor isn't going to be spent productively so there is no loss to the public if shit like this happens.

>that shits been around for years and was started on a differnt board, nice job showing you are a summerfag
When someone here blames gun control on the Jews, where do people say they came from? When someone here blames blacks for all of societies problems, where do people say they came from? When people here say the Nazi's were right, where do people say they came from? Fucking Jow Forums you dumb cunt.

kek thats not what bootlicker means you dumb fuck, and you apparently cant read either since i did not once defend the pigs

>all these buttmad whitebois
Dont know why you guys get all up in arms the moment someone compares you to niggers.

nigga fuck you, since the beginning you have ignored everything ive said
so again, 1. op is a retard because he thinks black powder guns arent as lethal as any modern gun 2. those money hungry faggots arent going to make shit better for gun owners, they will just be added to the amount of gun crime which will lead to more anti gun laws. 3 good job on being a fucking idiot and thinking the goverment is ganna do shit but use this as an excuse to grab our guns 4. kys

huuurrr dont compare our gibz whites to gibs blacks

dey dindu niffin

Attached: 4b0437a1688f19918f54b1da4a36994c9e15d27a6669ee2b527efb6f992ece41.png (511x415, 326K)

>sure the pigs are wrong but why are you wasting their time
The pigs are wasting their own time.

would you rather have someone shoot a blunderbuss at you or an ar15 at you?
obviously the bullets themselves are of relatively the same lethality,
but to say that modern guns don't pump out more is absurd.
they are more lethal because of their volume of fire.

never said modern guns didnt have better ballistics, i said hes retarded for saying they are less dangerous

also i wanna see what someone willl look like after getting shot by a blunderbust desu

that's why they're less dangerous.
because they can't shoot as often.
what do you consider to be dangerous, if not volume of fire?

>black powder guns aren't semi-auto
user...

youtube.com/watch?v=KfzQ4uKvE7c

check

i actually just watched that video today a little earlier.
do you actually consider this to be an argument?
that isn't designed to be a black powder gun.
we're talking about pre-1899 antiques, remember?

its a revolver you dumb fuck
have you ever shot anything in your life? its not a single shot musket that must be loaded every time

>nigga fuck you, since the beginning you have ignored everything ive said
Nope, I understand what you are saying I just fundamentally disagree with you and your perception.

>1. op is a retard because he thinks black powder guns arent as lethal as any modern gun
They are just as lethal but they are in many cases less effective. Given this man was using a ball and cap revolver, it is far slower to reload, has a less penetration but is just as deadly true.

>2. those money hungry faggots arent going to make shit better for gun owners, they will just be added to the amount of gun crime which will lead to more anti gun laws.
How can they lead to more gun crime if the convictions against them don't stick?

>good job on being a fucking idiot and thinking the government is gonna do shit but use this as an excuse to grab our guns
You think your government needs a reason to try and grab your guns? That this'd actually change anything in their plans?

>4. kys
Ladies first.

and after his 6 shot are up, that's it.
the best you can do with black powder is a revolver or lever action.
the average you can do with smokeless is a semi-auto with 30 rounds.
not a hard choice.

>Nope, I understand what you are saying I just fundamentally disagree with you and your perception.

fair enough

>Nope, I understand what you are saying I just fundamentally disagree with you and your perception.

he had 6 shots before reload desu

>How can they lead to more gun crime if the convictions against them don't stick?

crime statistics dont separate convictions from incidents, retard politicians lump them together

>You think your government needs a reason to try and grab your guns? That this'd actually change anything in their plans?

sorta disagree, but like criminals will do as they will reguardless is they are law makers or not

>Ladies first.

kek hold my hand and well do it together

Attached: 1528259791139.jpg (738x752, 53K)

wait... are you saying people carry semi auto rifles or ar/ak pistol??? never go full retard user

also
>ignoring actual carry handguns dont always have double digit rounds, like 1911 and literally any other handgun

Eh, it's just a standard issue retardfest more or less. The usual.

Literally so retarded they wear helmets.

They literally exercising their rights though. By your reasoning
>white dindu
>literally doesn't break the law
>is at fault when the cops break the law

>black dindu
>commits a crime
>claims they didnt do it

Wow sure is the same thing

so now we're comparing the worse case smokeless to the best case black powder?
and yes, people open carry ar15s.
and they conceal carry pistols with way more rounds than any black powder of the same size.
i'd rather trust my life to a glock than a black powder revolver, as would anyone else.
as previously stated, smokeless powder allows for an increased volume of fire.
it's objectively better, which makes it objectively more dangerous.

>comply with social norms or the cops should be able to arrest you!

can see you are a dumb fuck since those weren't committing crime either, they were drinking Arizona ice tea in a brown bag and got cops called on them and go arrested for traspassing after the cops saw what they were drinking.

imagine putting that much effort and still looking like a retard

wat? is you retarded, i am literally going by op showed as an example

That officer wasted his own time arresting someone for drinking tea. They obviously have nothing better to do and have to justify their jobs by arresting innocent people.

the video showed a guy open carrying a revolver that couldn't be reloaded amongst other people open carrying ar15s.

Wow nigger lets follow the reply chain up and see what video was mentioned.
I replied to
Huh look at that no fucking video you stupid nigger.

social norms? going with a camera crew in front of the state capital building to prove a point is dumb as fuck, going to white neighborhoods in san antonio with your beaner homies and walking around with an ar on your back at midnight is retarded

at least learn about the group and their retarded shenanigans , they are literally westboro basptist church tier

feast your eyes you dumb faggot

So pretty much your response is breaking social norms is retarded shenanigans. They aren't breaking the law fuck off.

Which is a random fucking post in the thread and not related to the replys.

there's a video in the OP

I think what they do is dumb too, but it's perfectly legal. They shouldn't be harassed or arrested for it.

they clearly werent even in the same place as the other you blind fuck, the dudes with ARs were near a parking lot and the white dude was in front of the state capitol

and in case you dont know texas law you can carry a rifle without a license but not a handgun, which was the point of this whole thing. hes like "hurr huur you cant arest me dis isnt a part of da law no sir masta sir"

protip dont be a retard

Which is completely unrelated to what the other guy is bitching about.

all 4 of them are talking about the video in the OP. just watch it.

>arguing retarded semantics

thats like me saying wearing a coat in the summer is breaking social norm

you are really getting upset by this, aren't you?
you said go by OP's example, and that was his example.
smokeless guns are more dangerous because they have a higher volume of fire.

they waited till after he was in the squad car to show he was innocent, thats weak ass bait to intentionally get falsely arrested

He shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. The police should know the law but unfortunately they don't.

his example was smokeless guns,
user was saying what would i rather get shot by, a blunderbuss or a semi auto rifle.
which was neither part of my or ops argument

what i said op is retarded because they are not less dangerous than a modern gun, which is retarded because the abundant amount of different guns and calibers which he should have specified instead of making a very poorly formulated question.

then other user said "but he only had six shots then he had to reload"
to which i said he was retarded because "moderns guns" include modern revolvers and semi autos that dont take more than double digit rounds

to sum it up

retards are making their own arguments and setting dumb examples and not taking into considerations what op originally asked

No u

No the guy is talking about the couple of black guys in a parking lot getting arrested over nothing. Not the op video.

everyone has been telling you volume of fire, it's not hard to comprehend.
just because smokeless revolvers exist doesn't mean they're the go-to.
with black powder all you have is revolvers.
black powder is obsolete. just admit defeat.

be cop
see nigga in front of state capital and see he is carrying some sort of weapon in a holster
>you have a permit to carry that
nah i dont
> well you are under arrest for carrying a weapon in public

few minutes later after you put nigga in car his friends bring out booklet

>hey the law says this specific firearm is not illegal to carry because the year it was manufactured and technicalities

come on nigger you are like you rabid niggers who watch a highly edited video of some nigger getting beat and dont bother looking up the back story

>implying any of you autist would be able to tell what he was carrying and know it was legal if it wasnt because the video told you, there was already one idiot who compared legal permitless rifle carry to carrying a handgun which requires a permit

yall niggas are disappointing
you act just like niggers

no u, that was his example desu

his example has multiple ar15s dude you lose just move on.
black powder will never be relevant.

kek we really need id stamps like on the other boards, way too many reponses getting mixed up

ney you autist dont have reading comprehension amazingly enough, i never claimed black powder was better than anything else. ive repeatedly stated why he was carrying that specific gun (for bait) second i said he was retarded for claiming they are less dangerous than modern guns.

its like im arguing with children, everyone is throwing different arguments and taking my answers to other people as failures and my actual responses to them are being ignored

they are less dangerous because they can't fire as many rounds as often as the average smokeless gun this isn't complicated

>they're all less dangerous than modern ones,
simply not true.
>so why is it illegal, but only for some particular antique weapons?
You seem to think that firearms can be placed in a strict order from least dangerous to most dangerous, and the law could simply say "all weapons less dangerous than [some firearm] may be carried with no permit, while weapons more dangerous may only be carried with a permit" or some such.
But that sort of rule is not practical, because gun nerds can't even agree on a uniform metric of ballistic potency -- some people would argue you should use momentum, some would say energy, and that's even before you consider things like accuracy, capacity, and average rate of fire (including reloading).

So to have a law that can reasonably be enforced, you need to keep it simple, with facts like
>date of manufacture
>ignition system
>cartridge type, if any
that don't depend on what ammo you have in the gun, whether you have Miculekian skills, and so on.
No shit the resulting law doesn't make particularly much sense. But it's considered better to have a law that's irrational, but neatly enforceable, than one that's rational, but impractical to enforce.

So you're saying the law should be rationalized to allow permitless open carry of a glock, so long as you have no more than 6 rounds on your person? Or that open-carrying one cap-and-ball revolver should be fine, but carrying three should be forbidden, because that lets you shoot as many rounds as a full-size glock?

>they're all less dangerous than modern ones,

No they are not. An antique knife will kill you as dead as a new made one. A 11851 colt will kill yu as dead as 9mm semi, a percussion 00 shotgun will kill you as dead as a modern semi and a .577 minie ball will kill you deader than an AR, similarly a swiss veterrli will remove your head at 200 yards wilth 12 follow up shots, a snider will remove a serious portion of your torso and a 45 LC SAA will kill you as dead as a 1911. A martini will be more lethal at 800 yards than an AR

Your entire conception of lethality is wrong. Millions died in the US civil war, Napoleonic war, franco Prussian war and British colonial conflicts etc. Modern arms are not broadly speaking more lethal, particularly the intermediate cartridges like 7.62x39 or 5.56 than 'antique' transitional bp/smokless cartridge guns, which if anything are more lethal at the 300 yard rage.

no, i don't think there should be any laws regulating guns.
that doesn't mean that smokeless powder isn't more capable than black powder.
the average smokeless gun is still better than the best black powder gun.
it's like saying that old super computers are more powerful than some $200 craptop,
therefore they are just as effective. they aren't.
it doesn't mean that the can't get the job done, but they aren't as good.

colt walkers exist and are more powerful than a 9mm. More in the 357 range

thats fucking dumb, not all modern guns shoot more than 15 rounds per mag, there are smokeless revolvers/ 1911s/glock 42

fucking nogunz

the best a blackpowder can do as a pistol is a revolver.
the best a smokeless can do as a pistol is a 30 round glock.
smokeless wins.

>but they aren't as good.

Actually many antique BP rifles are better than 5.56 or 7.62x39 if your aim is an immediate kill. In fact some like the swiss 1881 can legally hold 12 rounds even in places like California. Did you know that a single action revolver tuned for fanning will get off six shots faster than a 9mm semi?

>smokeless

There are quite a few smokeless revolvers from 1890 user

that's why soldiers and cops use black powder,
so they can fan hammers and use old ass bolt actions.
they're called antiques for a reason.

>it's like saying that old super computers are more powerful than some $200 craptop,

dead is dead. There is no 'more dead' just dead.

irrelevant if they arent as "good" thats not the arguement, its them being less dangerous which they arent

>that's why soldiers and cops use black powder,so they can fan hammers and use old ass bolt actions.they're called antiques for a reason.

Tell me the difference between 00 from a BP shotgun and 00 from a smokeless one?

that's why they're less dangerous, because they can't hold as many rounds.
why is this so hard to comprehend?
smokeless powder lets you shoot more rounds faster.
that's why it's more deadly.

>they're called antiques for a reason

Ye, they are over 99 years old but not because they are not equally lethal

you are going in circles, that logic is flawed because black powder isnt limited to 6 shots and modern guns dont always have more rounds ie glock 42's, beretta picos and springfiel milspcs

its only hard to comprehend when you dont know the first thing about guns user other than they go pew pew

>smokeless powder lets you shoot more rounds faster.that's why it's more deadly.

Look gatling guns ran at up to 600 RPM. That being said a martini will beat the shit out of a modern AR in 5.56 in lethality at 700 yards and probably be more accurate if there is any wind. May be hard for you to understand but its true.

logic has no place here, nogunz summerfags are everywhere

miniguns fire at 4000 rpm, and a cheytac will smoke a martini.
please, show me a 30 round black powder pistol,
or even a 14 round one that you can easily conceal.
your logic is flawed, you're comparing the best black powder guns to the worst smokeless powder guns.
nobody is gonna carry a henry rifle into battle, black powder is obsolete.

worst smokeless? you already lost the argument

Attached: 1527538728070.jpg (390x352, 12K)

user when did i ever mention a specific black powder where you can get the idea i was talking about "the best " black powder?????

>black powder isnt limited to 6 shots and modern guns dont always have more rounds ie glock 42's, beretta picos and springfiel milspcs
you are referencing higher capacity black powder pistols in general, as opposed to specific models,
and comparing them to low capacity smokeless powder guns.
as fas as capacity is concerned, you were talking about the best black powder pistols.
it's just not a fair comparison to make.
the average smokeless powder pistol is much more lethal than the average blackpowder pistol,
because it will have a higher capacity and will shoot faster.
a glock is more of a threat than a colt navy,
because the person shooting at you will have more chances to hit,
will fire faster, and will reload faster.
these are two average guns in their respective groups.

You had to go look that up, my comparisons are fair, a martini was a mass issued standard infantry arm, not a marksmans/sniper rifle, similarly there is no modern comparable weapon to a LeMat Revolver, which encompassed both a 20 gague shotun and 9 round of .42. It could deli ver more lead than any modern hangun in a single trigger pul. Of course hangguns like it and the colt walker/dragoon etc were just as lethal as large cal modern guns (they were designed to be effective killers of charging horses). They could deliver a lot of lead very quickly (a flintlock musket loaded with buck and ball delivers more lead faster than an Ak at 50 yards). You seem resistent to this and inclined to believe that oern guns deliver a superior form of dead. They don't. Modern guns are easier to support logistically, the ammunition is safer to manufacture transport and store etc. But in terms of making holes in flesh via that first aimed shot they are broadly speaking the same and in some cases better (in terms of range and potential lethality). You see there was an obsession with killing horses at long distance in the late 19th century because of cavalry. These days your average AR or AK is really only at its best under 400 yards, Martini etc will shit all over them at 700. That's because once it was realised people can't really see each other by eye in terms of infantry combat past 300 yards, the lethal aspects of the older guns at that range was abandoned, as were the very large very immediately lethal massive bullets, so as soldiers could carry more ammunition, but its not more lethal. Sorry.