Assault Muskets And The Mentally Unstable

I don’t think this video was originally meant to be funny:

Prevent-Gun-Violence-Assault-MusketBut as you can see it’s hilarious.  Ban assault muskets.  I know some of you are going to say “It’s because the powder is black, isn’t it?”

OMG How did he miss that shot?!

The group that came out with this hilarious vid is called “States United To Prevent Gun Violence”… and if you didn’t think that name was shitty enough sounding check out the acronym it makes: “SUP GV”  Like… what up Gun Violence?  How you doin’?


Hat tip: Marco, Chris



SittingDown April 19, 2013 at 03:02 am

This guy couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.


thatturahguy April 19, 2013 at 04:05 am

A counter to this would be a commercial starting out the same way- a lunitic walking into a office with a musket- but every “victim” drawing a concealed, MULTI SHOT handgun and pulling down on him. “Guns have changed” all right. Maybe Gunny R. Lee Ermey and his pals?


Jim P. April 19, 2013 at 05:43 am


Someone needs to put that out — especially where that is on TV.


Tim April 19, 2013 at 07:52 am

Where’s Glock when you need them. They seem to love cheesy commercials.


DocN April 19, 2013 at 03:05 pm

How about the obvious: A photo of a computer, or a roomful of people using smartphones and iPads, with the caption “Information has changed. Shouldn’t our Free Speech laws change with it?”



Quint Young April 19, 2013 at 07:50 pm

I like it. BTW, they have CISPA just pasesd


Roman Scott April 20, 2013 at 12:39 pm

Noticed there is barely any coverage of it’s passage?

Noticed that they voted on it while the bombings and the “chase” was going down?

I have to go to UK based news agencies to get any information. Why is that? This is a hugely powerful bill.


dave w April 19, 2013 at 06:06 am

i thought the tagline read ‘’


Adam April 19, 2013 at 07:17 am

I’ve seen a lot of idiocy coming from people demonstrating they have absolutely no understanding of the issue and spewing insults at anyone who opposes even the tiniest advancement of gun control. I bet if the government proposed background checks to use the internet because that’s how terrorist coordinate attacks they’d shit a brick…but still wouldn’t make the connection and claim it’s not the same thing.


Antiquated Flatulence April 19, 2013 at 10:52 pm

If the laws we have now were enforced or really worked there wouldn’t have been any murders by guns. But you know what, CRIMINALS DON”T CARE!!! The law abiding people aren’t to blame for committing the crimes. Where’s your logic on that.


Keith April 19, 2013 at 09:10 am
DocN April 19, 2013 at 03:06 pm

Technically that wasn’t automatic- fully or otherwise. The barrels were rotated manually for rapid (for the time) repeat shots.



Tim April 19, 2013 at 03:52 pm

The ATF considers anything that fire more than one bullet with a single trigger pull full auto. IE, a double barreled shotgun that fires both barrels with one trigger pull.


MosinMango April 19, 2013 at 04:03 pm

Not on that particular one. You can see there’s no rotation involved by looking at the base of the barrels.


Chris April 19, 2013 at 09:18 am

I would love to see the counter commercial to that: a home invasion with more than one invader, and the home owner only has a musket and misses their first shot.

Better yet, the home owner is unarmed, which is significantly more realistic.


MosinMango April 19, 2013 at 10:44 am

This should have been bad guy with a modern gun…and then everyone stands up with a glock.

Then the tag-line: “Someone picked the wrong office suite”

Carry and conceal, every day.


BBJones April 19, 2013 at 12:10 pm

Over an ounce of lead into that guy would have left an awful mess. Booo for the lack of accuracy.


Saxon April 19, 2013 at 12:21 pm

Great! When all firearms are banned, except flintlock muskets, we can all look forward to being run through with a two foot bayonet whenever grandpa runs out of ammo!


Ross April 19, 2013 at 02:28 pm

Bayonet mounts are a feature included in the definition of Assault Weapons in a lot of this legislation, including those that only require 1 feature to be considered such. The flintlocks won’t be directly targeted, but they’ll be lumped in soon enough.

Flintlock and blackpowder currently aren’t firearms though, right? Time for someone to make a 50-shot full-auto flintlock with a pistol grip, detachable powder magazine, barrel shroud, collapsible stock, threaded barrel, flash hider, and bayonet lug.


Saxon April 20, 2013 at 11:56 am

True,the breech-loading Fergusson Rifle was about the closest thing to an Assault Musket at that time. Nifty weapon.


CrabKebab April 19, 2013 at 01:05 pm

I’ll just leave this here.


032125 April 19, 2013 at 01:34 pm

By this logic, these fools should be restricted to 18th century printing presses when spreading lies.


Harry Sucio April 19, 2013 at 02:44 pm

The “because black” thing just conjures up Ali G for me, the correct quote is “Is it cos I is black?”


fxhummel1 April 19, 2013 at 03:25 pm

Anti-gunners are way more interested in sound bytes and catch phrases than reality. This vid made me both cringe and laugh


dave w April 19, 2013 at 04:03 pm

How comes the shooter is a white mail? What happened to equality and diversification and all that shit?


dave w April 19, 2013 at 04:03 pm

doh, male


Matt April 19, 2013 at 08:36 pm

When the musket ruled the world there were no gun laws….


Michael Curtis April 20, 2013 at 08:09 pm
cliff May 2, 2013 at 11:28 am

some people will be retarded and say, ” Gun laws dont work because criminals dont follow gun laws they are criminals where is your common sense”. Like the morons they are they have no clue that their arguments bring shame to homo sapiens every where. We have murder laws correct? and criminals dont follow them correct? Yet we still have them. Just because some people dont follow the law does not mean we shouldn’t have any and when it comes to making our country safer we should be able to openly debate everything and look at all options on the table instead of clutching onto the ideals of the past out of fear.


Jim P. May 2, 2013 at 12:08 pm


Tell me how universal background checks would have stopped the Newtown shooter from killing his mother and stealing her guns and car? By the time the shooter arrived at the front door of the school he had already broken between 15 and 20 laws.

Most of us have no objection to laws that make everyone safer, but giving the left the universal background checks is a two week armistice agreement, not a peace treaty. What’s next, register every firearm. Will that stop the next person from killing his dad and shooting up a school, mall, or theater?


cliff May 2, 2013 at 03:00 pm

Show me some where in my post where i suggested universal background checks? You wont be able to find it not because your an idiot even though you clearly are its because i never mentioned it. The point is to look at all the laws and figure out how to better fit them to our time i wasnt making an argument for a change in background checks but a change in the mentality of how the american people view gun law overhaul. Your sacred cow is killing innocent people.


d0zer May 2, 2013 at 03:22 pm

Cliff, your ad hominem attacks aside, it seems rather clear from your verbiage, “…look at all the laws and figure out how to better fit them to our time….”, that you wish to change, if not outright remove, the 2nd Amendment. So, wtf is up with that? Or did you just tip more of your hand here than you meant to?

Aside from changing the law as it pertains to the National Firearms Act of 1934, specifically RE suppressors, (which not only is silly imho, but further doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the gist of your argument), what else could you have been referring to with regard to the quote above?


Jim P. May 2, 2013 at 04:12 pm

You’re right cliff, you didn’t mention Universal Background Checks.

What you did do is drop into the clearly labeled ENDO gun blog which probably has more than one Second Amendment supporter, and popped off with bad grammar and punctuation using your First Amendment rights with a vague statement:

” Gun laws dont work because criminals dont follow gun laws they are criminals where is your common sense”. Like the morons they are they have no clue that their arguments bring shame to homo sapiens every where

This statement is so vacuous and uninformed that it is hard to make sense of it. My interpretation of it was “We need to “Do something!” and any law will help no matter how badly formed.” You pretty much also insulted everyone by saying we’re morons for not supporting more laws.

Since my mind reading license expired a few years back, and I haven’t bothered renewing it, I took an example of recent bills that were thought of.

Now if you want to come up with something more than “pass a law” that won’t infringe on your or my civil rights, please feel free to let us know. Until then go back to playing with your Wang in the basement.


d0zer May 2, 2013 at 09:14 pm

Ahahaha…. “…Wang in the basement”…roflmfao

I c whut u did thar….



Older post:

Newer post: