Cali leads the way once again [Archive] - Automags.Org Online Forums

PyRo

01-07-2005, 07:31 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/national/04guns.html?ex=1262581200&en=ada4210b1d0bda5b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
They have banned the .50 cal BMG.
Why? Not for fear of it falling into criminal hands, the very people who banned the weapon admited it was unlikely to happen because of the price tag ($2k-$8k) and it had never been used in a felony. They are afraid a terrorist is going to take down a commercial airliner with the single shot weapon. The terrorist is going to train extensivly and get extreemly lucky if he hits the plane in order to place one shot which in all likelyhood would not cause the plane to go down. They are going to spend all this money and go to all kinds of trouble to potentially do some harm when their are hundreds of easier, cheaper, more destructive options open to them?
I really just don't get it, a terrorist might by an H1 and drive through a crowd of people, a terrorist might buy a bat and use it to hit someone, a terrorist might turn anything into a weapon. it seems that someone always wants us to give up this or that so that we can "keep the terrorists at bay". Where does it end? Does no one in California see that this is just the gun control nuts trying to chip away a little bit of the 2nd amendment at a time?

SCpoloRicker

01-07-2005, 07:40 PM

Does no one in California see that this is just the gun control nuts trying to chip away a little bit of the 2nd amendment at a time?

/raises hand

IIRC, I have heard that even the shoulder fired anti-helo missles most likely would not bring down a jetliner. I don't know about that one, though.

//Jersey copied us on the gay marriage thing.

RoadDawg

01-07-2005, 10:32 PM

Actually anything into the engine area can critically damage any aircraft. I've heard of ducks bringing down aircraft.

Seriously though... do you really need a .50 cal anything?

I can see it a few years down the line someone will be saying the following:

Darn that congress... they just banned my nuclear warhead, they are infringing on my right to bear arms.

Destructo6

01-07-2005, 10:58 PM

Seriously though... do you really need a .50 cal anything?
One of the hallmarks of a free society is not having to justify the acquisition of one's possessions.

Does anybody need more than 2 pairs of shoes?

As a side note, .50bmg wasn't much more than a curiosity to gunowners until the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" prohibited the weak little guns that fired fast. Same thing happened with pistols: if you can only carry 10, why carry 9mm in a big pistol? Better to carry 10 big cartridges in a small package. Lo and behold, those large caliber compact pistols were then demonized as "pocket rockets" by the very people who created them: Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, et al.

Remember, the slippery slope is a fallacy, until it happens.

HoppysMag

01-07-2005, 11:22 PM

its ok, barret refuses to fix the LA SWATS 50 cal. :p

they got owned by thier own support of the ban.
http://www.barrettrifles.com/news/AmericanRiflemanJan-2005BrattonLetter.pdf

Blennidae

01-07-2005, 11:35 PM

RoadDawg:

I am a gun owner in CA. I have no personal desire to own a .50BMG but feel someone who does should be able to. It doesn't matter that a .50BMG isn't a particularly practical caliber. I don't know if you have priced a .50BMG rifle, but every aspect is expensive. The bad guys can find a cheaper, less conspicuous method if they want to do a terrorist act.

California banning what have become to be know as "evil black rifles" based on appearance alone makes little sense.

Its the same as if they said Corvettes are banned because no one needs to be able to do 0-60 in less than 5 seconds.

Steelrat

01-08-2005, 12:17 AM

I love it. They are afraid the .50 can pierce the skin of an aircraft. A 9mm can pierce the skin of an aircraft. And try hitting an aircraft in flight with one. Good luck!

PyRo

01-08-2005, 12:47 AM

I love it. They are afraid the .50 can pierce the skin of an aircraft. A 9mm can pierce the skin of an aircraft. And try hitting an aircraft in flight with one. Good luck!
Especially when it would be much easier to sneak a bomb or somthing onto the plane. Are they going to provide the years of training it would take to train someone to hit a plane like that with a single shot, especially in a critical area. The plane is moving hundreds of mph making it not the easiest target, then take into account winds at differant altitudes, turbulance caused by the plane and the engines, good luck hitting it.

Steelrat

01-08-2005, 12:51 AM

If someone wants to really kill a lot of people, then they will do it. Why do people honestly think that making something illegal will deter a terrorist? I mean, shooting down an airliner seems somewhat illegal, so you'd have to think that violating a california gun law wouldn't really trouble their conscience at all.

CoolHand

01-08-2005, 01:04 AM

If it can be done easily with a single shot, why did the US military use four (4) fully automatic ones in their AA mounts? Granted, it was WWII, but you need to go back that far to find the wide spread use of rifle caliber weapons in AA roles.

They don't use them anymore, because missles and AAA mounts are much better at getting the job done.

The land of fruits and nuts strikes again. And this, with the "Govinator" at the helm. Tisk Tisk.

I like living in the middle of the country, where people at least try force their elected officials to use common sense . . . . .

drg

01-08-2005, 09:48 AM

I'll play devil's advocate and say that it's a lot easier to hit a target that doesn't know it's being targeted. In a military context, attacking planes know they're going to be shot at and fly accordingly, hence the desire for greater rate of fire/more barrels. Civilian jetliners pretty much fly the same way every time, particularly at takeoff and landing.

I would figure that if a terrorist was really aiming to do this, he would hit the plane either as the plane was taking off or shortly after. Given the right angle, the plane's x/y axis movement in the sight can be minimized.

By the by .50 BMG is available in a few "flavors" including incendiary and reputedly explosive, but I have no knowledge about how powerful any of these are and whether a single such round would be any more of a danger to an aircraft than ball.

But I do know THIS would be more dangerous ... .50 BMG nuclear! http://www.birdman.org/products/Nuke50.htm

:rofl: the videos are hilarious!

RoadDawg

01-08-2005, 05:51 PM

Don't get me wrong. I love guns. Hell I grew up shooting them. I lived in a very gun loving community (Utah). I've shot several types of rifles and pistols and my favorite is an Israeli SKS (assault weapon, semi only). I think there needs to be a line though. Something that can shoot through multiple walls with ease seems like a good start to me. Especially since I live in a community that if someone was to "accidently" discharge their weapon it'd go through 3 houses in seconds. In the country side I'd be fine with it, but since I've moved to a part of the country were yards are a myth, it's not so easy to swallow.

Steelrat- I don't think it's the violating the gun law part of it. It's the fact that they shouldn't be sold in Cali in the first place. Which means the terrorists would have to go across the border to get one. It's a somewhat deterant but it's not going to stop a well motivated individual or group.

By the way. I love how the gov't can tell me what I find decent or not and hardly anyone says anything, but take away a high caliber rifle and people go nuts. Somethings wrong with this and it disturbs me terribly. Best example. They can show murder, death, and various other similar items, but they can't show nudity, or curse (unless on cable). :confused:

CoolHand

01-08-2005, 06:13 PM

. . . . . By the way. I love how the gov't can tell me what I find decent or not and hardly anyone says anything, but take away a high caliber rifle and people go nuts. Somethings wrong with this and it disturbs me terribly. Best example. They can show murder, death, and various other similar items, but they can't show nudity, or curse (unless on cable). :confused:

I've got to agree with you on this one (I know, will wonders never cease.).

Its not so much that I think people should accept the gun law as willingly, but rather that they should be equally outraged at censorship in the name of other people's children.

Folks who are so willing to force their views of decency on others kinda frighten me. Just like radical religious folks, or the super moral nazis who make it their business to go about doing nothing but minding other people's business.

I've always been a minimalist when it comes to gov. involvment in out day to day lives. I am quite able to keep myself out of trouble, without four hundred laws telling me what not to do (don't run out in front of traffic, don't drive 150 mph on a curvy *** road, don't light other folks houses on fire, etc).

And just like I don't want the gov. bean counters to tell me what to do, I don't want some random hypersensitive zelot telling me that I shouldn't read some books, or that I shouldn't watch this TV show because it will make me want to kill people.

Its all BS, used by unimportant people to try to exhert control over the lives of others, to whatever end.

That's all.

desslock

01-08-2005, 07:07 PM

Im not trying to rub salt into old wounds but the last act of terroism against US planes was done with box cutters. So then according to CA theory are box cutters going to be banned as well? I own and enjoy firearms hell my parents used to shoot competivetly through the 70's and 80's. But I dont see a practical reason to own a .50cal rifle. Are you going to hunt with it?, target practice...damn a box of .45 are expensive enough! Home security!?!?! explain that one to the cops! While I honestly believe that American citizens should have the right to own and bear arms I can NOT believe EVERY citizen should have the right or be able to own ANY type of rifle/pistol. Come on what do you really need with a .50 sniper rifle or full auto assult rifle? Another disturbing trend I discovered is that not all states do background checks for people with mental and or emotional handicaps aka crazies. I dont know about you but I dont care how many meds crazy Bob is taking if he sees imaginary people on his property I dont want him blind firing out his window. My apologies if I offened crazy Bob.

B.A.M.

01-08-2005, 08:16 PM

NExt thing they will do is ban forks on air planes.

Blennidae

01-08-2005, 08:24 PM

How many of you get upset when they start talking about banning paintball. The reasons they try is because some group of idiots starts using their markers to do random acts of stupidity.

.50bmg is not for everyone. That isn't the issue. Banning the .50bmg is a starting point. Everyone thinks sure, no one needs a .50bmg, next will be some other caliber. There are some that feel no one should be able to own a gun, why give them something to work with.

A year from now, people will say, that .50bmg ban was a good idea. No one shot down any airliners since the ban was in effect. They will not bother to mention how many were shot down previously to the ban.

I don't want to own a .50bmg, and if there was a huge rash of people bringing down airliners with them, I could see a case for stronger regulations. No one has. They were able to ban it because even some people who say they are pro-gun feel as some of you do. Since you dont want one, it doesn't matter to you if they ban it.

What happens when they decide to ban something you do want? There will surely be someone who feels you dont "need" to own whatever it is you want.

drg

01-08-2005, 08:43 PM

How many of you get upset when they start talking about banning paintball. The reasons they try is because some group of idiots starts using their markers to do random acts of stupidity.

To be fair, vandalism or hurting people not wearing protective gear with a paintball gun is explicitly outside of its intended use. Killing people and destroying materiel IS the intended use of .50 BMG rifles.

.50bmg is not for everyone. That isn't the issue. Banning the .50bmg is a starting point. Everyone thinks sure, no one needs a .50bmg, next will be some other caliber. There are some that feel no one should be able to own a gun, why give them something to work with.

This is the exact same slippery-slope argument used often on the other side of the political spectrum, for example in the pro-choice angle and the protection of social security from privatization. These arguments are often rejected out of hand by proponents, who basically say "Trust us" to know when to stop.

Firearms, however, are a different story. A basic right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, so there is literally no chance any group will be able to get guns banned completely. The Constitution explicitly allows gun ownership. So the slippery-slope argument doesn't apply nearly as clearly here.

A year from now, people will say, that .50bmg ban was a good idea. No one shot down any airliners since the ban was in effect. They will not bother to mention how many were shot down previously to the ban.

Gosh that sounds a lot like what I've heard about foreign terror attacks in America in general.

I don't want to own a .50bmg, and if there was a huge rash of people bringing down airliners with them, I could see a case for stronger regulations. No one has. They were able to ban it because even some people who say they are pro-gun feel as some of you do. Since you dont want one, it doesn't matter to you if they ban it.

What happens when they decide to ban something you do want? There will surely be someone who feels you dont "need" to own whatever it is you want.

What of the idea of pre-emption? Does it only apply in limited circumstances that fit certain agendas?

Blennidae

01-09-2005, 02:04 AM

I'm not posting to champion the ownership of .50bmg rifles or gun rights in general. Its easy to say its in the constituion and no one will ever be able to completely ban gun ownership, but if no one says anything certain groups will try. I think its the mayor of SF who is trying to outlaw handgun ownership unless you are law enforcement.

If my memory serves me right, paintballs were originally used to mark trees in the forestry industry. Their use in a sporting activity is now accepted. Just because something was designed for one use, doesn't mean it can't be used safely in another.

PyRo

01-09-2005, 03:33 AM

You know what I’m starting to hate? People who don’t have or don’t use their brains. Please, wake up an open up your pea sized minds. The fact that I don’t absolutely need something is not a reason to tell me I cannot have it. There are plenty of things you don’t need that I’m sure you wouldn’t be happy about me taking away. Your paintball guns, you don’t need those, your left nut (you only need one), your right lung (who needs two anyway), cars, alcohol, the list goes on and on. You have no right to tell me I cannot have a .50 caliber gun because some terrorist might use it? That sounds like a joke to me.

AND YES PEOPLE USE IT FOR TARGET SHOOTING!

We have a right to bear arms? Anti gun groups claim this should be limited to muzzle loaders because that is what existed at the time of the amendment. I would be pretty pissed off if you told me I couldn't have anything other than a muzzle loader. The slippery slope argument does exist and you have to be an idiot not to see it.

Yes, let them shoot down a plane with a BMG. I would much rather them waste time trying to shoot down a plane with that gun then executing ten other easeir, cheaper, and more effective plans in the same amount of time it took them for that one.

drg

01-09-2005, 07:31 AM

Well as left as I lean, I would just as soon .50 BMG weren't banned. Although who knows, maybe it was a political maneuver to chip at the Governator's power base. But either way, it's within a state's rights to do so if they so choose until the scotus says otherwise.

I think the overriding point is that this is not a black-and-white issue. 90% or more of all pubic policies are "grey." Clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere. That some states choose to draw it nearer or further is rightly an issue for debate. But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's in such debate.

Albinonewt

01-09-2005, 08:28 AM

To be fair, vandalism or hurting people not wearing protective gear with a paintball gun is explicitly outside of its intended use. Killing people and destroying materiel IS the intended use of .50 BMG rifles.

And there are laws against killing people and destroying equipment. The reason the second Amendment is in the Constitution is so that the everyday citizen can be armed to resist tyranny. In other words, the person is supposed to be allowed to be armed appropriately for killing people (in very rare situations). We're no longer really in any danger of being invaded by British regulars, but that's still why the amendment exists. Some people just want to be armed more effectivly then other.

This is the exact same slippery-slope argument used often on the other side of the political spectrum, for example in the pro-choice angle and the protection of social security from privatization. These arguments are often rejected out of hand by proponents, who basically say "Trust us" to know when to stop.

And the claim that a ban against partial birth abortion is an attempt to chip away at the newly invented right of abortion isn't false. It absolutly is. But banning partial birth abortion, in addition to being a political tactic is also the right thing to do. The vast majority of the country supports it and wants that ban, and so polticians responded.

Firearms, however, are a different story. A basic right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, so there is literally no chance any group will be able to get guns banned completely. The Constitution explicitly allows gun ownership. So the slippery-slope argument doesn't apply nearly as clearly here.

If you've ever listened to anti-gun liberal law makers (my hometown Bill Bradley for one) you'd know that it is not as simple as that. They are constantly trying to take that right away and they keep getting closer. The "Assault" weapons ban was a good try at chipping away at that freedom. Washing DC's no handgun ban is a big chip away at that freedom. Anti-gun legislators won't rest until they destroy the right to bear arms, which is why those of us that value that right have to constantly fight for it.

But that being said, as a gun owner I can understand why some laws need to be passed to restrict my right to bear arms. For instance, old vietnam era 120mm howitzers probably aren't that expensive to acquire and restore. What If I decided to get a bunch of them and shell the local school one afternoon? I do understand that some resonable restrictions need to be in place for safety.

On a seperate note, I own a 50 cal rifle, and it doesn't need to be banned. I know hunters that use them when they hunt big game. Is the 50 more dangerous then a smaller caliber rifle? Yes. For instance I could shoot down a helicopter if I was so inclined (and when a news chopper was overhead all night long because of a fire in a plant down the road it was tempting...) Also, the thought that a 50 cal could be used to shoot down a plane isn't entirely unresonable. There's a small airport near me and I'm willing to bet I could knock down a small passeger plane on take off without having to fire a second shot. I'm also probably one of only a handful of people in the area with a registered 50, so I'd expect to have the police at my doorstep pretty quickly. Also, I'm a pretty damn good shot with my 50, and I'm not so sure someone that just bought one at K-Mart would be able to do it so easily.

1stdeadeye

01-09-2005, 10:09 AM

NExt thing they will do is ban forks on air planes.

Flown lately?

Enjoy your spork! :p

1stdeadeye

01-09-2005, 10:11 AM

. Killing people and destroying materiel IS the intended use of .50 BMG rifles.

The owners manual doesn't state that does it? :rolleyes:

PyRo

01-09-2005, 10:50 AM

Also, the thought that a 50 cal could be used to shoot down a plane isn't entirely unresonable. There's a small airport near me and I'm willing to bet I could knock down a small passeger plane on take off without having to fire a second shot. I'm also probably one of only a handful of people in the area with a registered 50, so I'd expect to have the police at my doorstep pretty quickly. Also, I'm a pretty damn good shot with my 50, and I'm not so sure someone that just bought one at K-Mart would be able to do it so easily.
Osama doesn't care about shooting down a cessna, though. Try taking out a 737 in mid flight. You're probably going to be atleast a mile out so I hope you can make full use of that 3200 yard rage on a taget moving well over 100mph. On another note, I think it was a Canadian who actually got a kill at 3000 yards in Iraq using the .50 BMG, but i'm sure the guy didn't learn to do that overnight.

BeaverEater

01-09-2005, 05:34 PM

I believe the longest kill shot from a .50 cal is 1.4 miles in vietnam. But that was at something that was barely moving. A passenger plane would be almost impossible to hit in flight. It would be like trying to shoot an ant from a mile away. Granted it can be done, but you have to be highly trained to do so. I have shot a .50 cal and unless you are in the middle of no-where, it is easily heard. An besides they and really heavy, so to aim at a plane for an extended amout of time would be hard.

HoppysMag

01-09-2005, 06:55 PM

Albinonewt

01-10-2005, 12:01 AM

Osama doesn't care about shooting down a cessna, though. Try taking out a 737 in mid flight. You're probably going to be atleast a mile out so I hope you can make full use of that 3200 yard rage on a taget moving well over 100mph. On another note, I think it was a Canadian who actually got a kill at 3000 yards in Iraq using the .50 BMG, but i'm sure the guy didn't learn to do that overnight.

I'm not just talking about a cessna though, although I'm not talking about 737's either. I'm fairly confident I could knock down a 15 person prop plane or maybe even a gulf stream jet on take off from the local small field. The field isn't very large, meaning I can get pretty close to the run way and be able to get off a few rounds while the plane is still well within range and still moving relatively slowly.

My point is, that the fear of a plane being shot down isn't totally crazy, but I still don't think it warrants a ban.

skife

01-10-2005, 12:05 AM

all americans have the right to own guns and should own them.

the reason for having a .50 cal is because its uniquie and has a "wow" or "cool" factor, also there are high caliber shooting clubs out there.

If i owned a Fully automatic gun, i would have it just so i could have equil equipment as the armed forces.

the goverment is banning this stuff because they are scared of it, they should be scared of the people of this country, they work for us.

-Carnifex-

01-10-2005, 12:40 AM

The argument is that if someone trained with this they could attack a taxiing airplane.

PyRo

01-10-2005, 01:08 AM

I'm not just talking about a cessna though, although I'm not talking about 737's either. I'm fairly confident I could knock down a 15 person prop plane or maybe even a gulf stream jet on take off from the local small field. The field isn't very large, meaning I can get pretty close to the run way and be able to get off a few rounds while the plane is still well within range and still moving relatively slowly.

My point is, that the fear of a plane being shot down isn't totally crazy, but I still don't think it warrants a ban.
It's rediculous to think that someone would put forth all the effort in learning to shoot like that to knock out a 15 person plane. Terrorists arn't interested in such small targets. Remember their is a differance between disabling the plane and shooting it down. If you knock out the motor or cause a small fire on take off or landiing their is a good chance of everyone getting off the plane.

PyRo

01-10-2005, 01:09 AM

The argument is that if someone trained with this they could attack a taxiing airplane.
I can attack a taxiing airplane with a million differant guns...

Steelrat

01-10-2005, 02:04 AM

The argument is that if someone trained with this they could attack a taxiing airplane.

And do what? Kill a person or two? Or, they could take a car and drive into a crowded intersection, killing lots of people at the same time. Shooting at an airplane on the ground isnt much of a threat.

xXHavokXx

01-10-2005, 02:12 AM

And do what? Kill a person or two? Or, they could take a car and drive into a crowded intersection, killing lots of people at the same time. Shooting at an airplane on the ground isnt much of a threat.

Well you could punch a hole clean through an air plane forcing those cool oxygen masks to come down and get everyone high off oxygen?

In all seriousness this sounds like another Democrat sponsored plan to slowly erode second amendment rights. I'm not a republican but I do recognize the left's desire to disarm America much like hitler did Germany.

Personally I would rather see everyone armed, rather than just criminals.

drg

01-10-2005, 02:36 AM

In all seriousness this sounds like another Democrat sponsored plan to slowly erode second amendment rights. I'm not a republican but I do recognize the left's desire to disarm America much like hitler did Germany.

By tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), you have just lost the argument and the thread is no longer useful.

xXHavokXx

01-10-2005, 03:16 AM

By tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), you have just lost the argument and the thread is no longer useful.

Whoa. I did not know that.

For once this was a serious nazi reference. No just like a soup -nazi, or psuedo fascist statement. Hitler did infact disarm the civilians, he said to make Germany safer it was actually to avoid resitance from within.

My democrat senators including Barbara Boxer have expressed a want to disarm the nation fully, so the comparison is valid.

drg

01-10-2005, 04:00 AM

My democrat senators including Barbara Boxer have expressed a want to disarm the nation fully, so the comparison is valid.

Not unless you're willing to argue that the motives are the same. Trying to equate anything a US politician does to what Hitler did is, in fact, preposterous and logically bankrupt.

In the end, this is all done because they believe it will benefit of the citizenry, not the government.

Albinonewt

01-10-2005, 08:08 AM

It's rediculous to think that someone would put forth all the effort in learning to shoot like that to knock out a 15 person plane. Terrorists arn't interested in such small targets. Remember their is a differance between disabling the plane and shooting it down. If you knock out the motor or cause a small fire on take off or landiing their is a good chance of everyone getting off the plane.

Pyro.

Shut up. I'm aginst the ban. I very plainly stated the real life possibilities of what could happen in the extreme and then said it wasn't worth the ban. Go argue with someone that's disagreeing with you.

PyRo

01-10-2005, 09:13 AM

Pyro.

Shut up. I'm aginst the ban. I very plainly stated the real life possibilities of what could happen in the extreme and then said it wasn't worth the ban. Go argue with someone that's disagreeing with you.
But I want to argue with someone who can argue back :(

xXHavokXx

01-10-2005, 10:42 AM

In the end, this is all done because they believe it will benefit of the citizenry, not the government.

Or is it? Dun dun dun ( creepy music thing) :cool:

I find it to be counter productive, if no one can have guns then only criminals will have them and then they have nothing to fear. The police? No offense but if no one calls, and they hear the news second hand when the shots are fired( assuming they are heard) a whole family could be dead. So to further protect the citizenry we remove peoples right to privacy so we can monitor their houses for signs of distress or gunshots. People would speak out against this as it is unconsitiutional, but they don't know what is good for them so we remove their rights to free speech and assembly. No more first and second amendments, people may not like this but to ensure calm we garrison major cits witht he army and quarter them in peoples houses to save money, while there the soldiers can search houses and hold military tribunals on the sport. Judge juries and executioners int he cases of treason , since we're getting rid of amendments, who really needs to be immune from cruel and unusual punishment and black people voting? Psh.

Far fetched? Incredibly, but as soon as you start taking away rights you can't stop.

Much like republican efforts to write intolerance into the constitution with the Gay Marriage Ban......once you start segregating it opens the door for others. We'd soon see the Black Marriage Ban, The Puerto Rican Marriage Ban, the Non- Aryan Marriage Ban. :eek:

While I offer a very bleak view on this it's something I see leading to a more self serving act. More people die in cars, by cigarettes, and by doctors in this country than by guns.

skife

01-10-2005, 11:42 AM

Or is it? Dun dun dun ( creepy music thing) :cool:

I find it to be counter productive, if no one can have guns then only criminals will have them and then they have nothing to fear. The police? No offense but if no one calls, and they hear the news second hand when the shots are fired( assuming they are heard) a whole family could be dead. So to further protect the citizenry we remove peoples right to privacy so we can monitor their houses for signs of distress or gunshots. People would speak out against this as it is unconsitiutional, but they don't know what is good for them so we remove their rights to free speech and assembly. No more first and second amendments, people may not like this but to ensure calm we garrison major cits witht he army and quarter them in peoples houses to save money, while there the soldiers can search houses and hold military tribunals on the sport. Judge juries and executioners int he cases of treason , since we're getting rid of amendments, who really needs to be immune from cruel and unusual punishment and black people voting? Psh.

Far fetched? Incredibly, but as soon as you start taking away rights you can't stop.

Much like republican efforts to write intolerance into the constitution with the Gay Marriage Ban......once you start segregating it opens the door for others. We'd soon see the Black Marriage Ban, The Puerto Rican Marriage Ban, the Non- Aryan Marriage Ban. :eek:

While I offer a very bleak view on this it's something I see leading to a more self serving act. More people die in cars, by cigarettes, and by doctors in this country than by guns.

somehow, i feel thats exactly how its going to happen, they'll have to pry my guns from my cold dead fingers if they want them though.

lew

01-10-2005, 01:20 PM

the canadian made a 2420 meter shot, hatcocks shot was 2500 but fore some reason they give it to the canadian. hathcocks shot was still better. he had to make his own rifle outta a M2 machine gun and a side mounted scope

You've got your measurements mixed up. The shot made by the Canadian was 2430 meters (~2600 yds), while Hathcock's shot was 2250 meters (2500 yards).

Well, I guess the next question is "what's next?". They've already declared that the .50 BMG cannot possibly be useful to law-abiding citizens and can be used by terrorists, so what's to keep them from saying a .30-06 cannot be useful, for example?

Lohman446

01-10-2005, 01:29 PM

You've got your measurements mixed up. The shot made by the Canadian was 2430 meters (~2600 yds), while Hathcock's shot was 2250 meters (2500 yards).

Well, I guess the next question is "what's next?". They've already declared that the .50 BMG cannot possibly be useful to law-abiding citizens and can be used by terrorists, so what's to keep them from saying a .30-06 cannot be useful, for example?

But Hathcock did it with a machine gun jerry-rigged to fire single shots, with a scope mounted on it... not a gun designed to do it with. Thats what makes it so remarkable.

Besides, we need these... maybe I want to hunt Moose a mile away or something

I do NOT support the ban, let me make that clear. My concern with this weapon would be the ability to put a hole in a tanker - like a train - carrying industrial waste or some other harmful gas from a range.

Buff

01-10-2005, 01:38 PM

I do NOT support the ban, let me make that clear. My concern with this weapon would be the ability to put a hole in a tanker - like a train - carrying industrial waste or some other harmful gas from a range.

any number of calibers can do that.

So are we too the point that we must ban effective rifles, because you can put holes in things?

argh, dumb liberals

Lohman446

01-10-2005, 01:44 PM

any number of calibers can do that.

So are we too the point that we must ban effective rifles, because you can put holes in things?

argh, dumb liberals

:eek: No... I am not a liberal - at all. In fact my own gun collection contains several "assault" weapons.

If I had to pick on this weapon for one reason though it would be the incinderary tipped bullets capable of piercing a tanker. If some terrorist found what tanker car was carrying hydrochloric acid? - (don't know, but you get the idea, some dangerous, flamable substance), wait until it was in Chicago or some major city, and pop it from a distance it could cause a problem. There are other ways to do this of course, and other more dangerous things. But this would concern me more than the "ability" to take down a commercial airliner. Should they be banned because of it - no...

Lohman446

01-10-2005, 01:46 PM

dumb liberals

Nice knee-jerk reaction btw :rolleyes: to someone who might bring up any point you don't like. I may not be too smart but I'm not a liberal, look at a lot of my posts in the past and you will find that. I do try to see both sides of an issue though, and there are view points that have some valid points outside of my own - even though I do not agree with the conclusion I can agree with someo f hte points.

-Carnifex-

01-10-2005, 11:19 PM

I can attack a taxiing airplane with a million differant guns...

Are you joking? A 50 Caliber bullet will do a hell of a lot more damage than most others.

-Carnifex-

01-10-2005, 11:21 PM

Buff

01-10-2005, 11:27 PM

Funny thing about guns, they actually have the ability to shoot more than one round.

Most affordable .50 cals are bolt action, and most mags are 5 rounders......not to mention that the ammo is expensive............better "sniper" guns are around.............

Nice knee-jerk reaction btw

My comment "dumb liberals" was not meant towards you, as you had already previously stated you were against the ban........more towards the female california senator(forget the name) who is anti gun but has a CCW.........dont tell me they think they are trying to help if they themselves dont believe it.........

CoolHand

01-10-2005, 11:50 PM

OK, I've got a question for all the gun ban proponents out there:

If the person in question is going to use said banninated gun to kill people and break things (which is illegal BTW), what makes you think that they are going to care if the gun they kill people and break things with is also illegal?

I have never understood this.

By definition, the only people a gun ban (of any sort) disarms are the law abiding citizens (AKA - The folks who wouldn't be killing people and breaking things).

If terrorists can come up with missles to shoot down airliners with, and ANFO or similar explosives to blow up buildings with, what makes you all so sure that they won't be able to get a hold of a .50 BMG, simply because its illegal. Silencers are illegal too, but they turn up every so often. Guess who has them. Right. The criminals (AKA - The folks who don't care if what they do is illegal).

I just think its a little naive to set back and say "See? We banned it. It can't hurt us now."

Unless, of course, taking them from the criminals is not the real motivation here . . . . . . .

nastymag

01-10-2005, 11:51 PM

well it was signed into law by our republican Governor

same reason why i dont support this ban is the same reason i dont support Anti Gay Marriage amendment. both open the doors to a slippery slope

HoppysMag

01-10-2005, 11:52 PM

drg

01-11-2005, 12:43 AM

If the person in question is going to use said banninated gun to kill people and break things (which is illegal BTW), what makes you think that they are going to care if the gun they kill people and break things with is also illegal?

I have never understood this.

Although I am not a very strong ban proponent, I can answer this. The idea behind banning the sale of certain weapons in certain jurisdictions is to reduce their supply in the population in general. This is forward-looking fix. In the short term, the supply will be the same as the day the ban went into effect. But in the long term, with no new weapons entering the supply chain and older ones going out of service for various reasons, the supply does indeed reduce.

I will make no comment on what effects this has, I have seen statistics supporting just about any position.

Steelrat

01-11-2005, 01:15 AM

Although I am not a very strong ban proponent, I can answer this. The idea behind banning the sale of certain weapons in certain jurisdictions is to reduce their supply in the population in general. This is forward-looking fix. In the short term, the supply will be the same as the day the ban went into effect. But in the long term, with no new weapons entering the supply chain and older ones going out of service for various reasons, the supply does indeed reduce.

I will make no comment on what effects this has, I have seen statistics supporting just about any position.

You should see the statistics on how many handguns and MP5s the FBI has "lost." Maybe we should take away their guns? ;)

oldsoldier

01-11-2005, 07:44 AM

$200 gets you a Stinger missile in Fallujah...liberals seriously outdo themselves sometimes...wonder how long they contemplated this one?

drg

01-11-2005, 08:27 AM

$200 gets you a Stinger missile in Fallujah...liberals seriously outdo themselves sometimes...wonder how long they contemplated this one?

How do you propose someone 1) go to Fallujah and 2) return to the US with a Stinger missile?

oldsoldier

01-11-2005, 08:29 AM

Its called sarcasm. Sorry, next time I'll post that. :tard:

drg

01-11-2005, 09:02 AM

Except it made no sense.

Buff

01-11-2005, 10:00 AM

Although I am not a very strong ban proponent, I can answer this. The idea behind banning the sale of certain weapons in certain jurisdictions is to reduce their supply in the population in general. This is forward-looking fix. In the short term, the supply will be the same as the day the ban went into effect. But in the long term, with no new weapons entering the supply chain and older ones going out of service for various reasons, the supply does indeed reduce.

uhm........so what if the supply is reduced? They can still be bought in the rest of the country.
The thing is, they are to expensive for criminals, and the demand for them in criminal activity is, guess what? ZILCH!
a .50 cal has never been used in crime!

Blennidae

01-11-2005, 11:19 AM

xXHavokXx

01-11-2005, 11:33 AM

It might not be as easy to bring down an airliner as it seems. I remember hearing about a cargo plane hit by a shoulder launched SAM and surviving. I did a quick google search and found the story.

http://www.talkingproud.us/International051504.html

If a sam fired by a trained user can score a hit and not bring one down, it might not be as easy to do the same with a .50bmg rifle. Can we all agree its easier to hit a moving plane with a guided missile as opposed to a scoped rifle?

Depends on relative motion. If it is coming towards you then it might be easier than say if it's flying over you or going away.

Still, you would need several very very well placed shots to have a slight chance at crippling a plane.

As far as lowering supply goes, I know plenty of illegal things that seem to be readily availible. If someone really wants something I'm sure they can get it.

oldsoldier

01-11-2005, 04:00 PM

Drg seriously, lighten up. Gun bans make no sense. This ban on high powered rifles makes no sense. If someone could SERIOUSLY hit a plane at 32,000 feet travelling in excess of several hundred miles an hour, they'd be the best shot...ever. Cali is just too liberal a state, they ban guns using the whole "terrorism" thing as a blanket excuse. IIRC, the last several terrorist attacks on US soil didnt use fierarms. At all. Besides, they already took down planes...why would they do it again? They KNOW we expect it now. Our next target are the shipping lanes...mark my words.
I am done discussing this topic. I made a lighthearted joke, and you took it WAY too seriously. AO has gone down the drain, it really sucks when you post something nowadays, in a lightheatred manner, and people start spouting their political crap. Cuz, of course, I shall spout mine then. Anyway, everyone enjoy your false sense of security by vanning firearms, yet repealing laws which make us safer. Such as, no more pat downs at airports. Good job on that one :rolleyes: