Cali leads the way once again

[PyRo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/na...er=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]

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]

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]

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]

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

they got owned by thier own support of the ban.

http://www.barrettrifles.com/news/AmericanRiflemanJan-2005BrattonLetter.pdf

[Blennidae]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

the videos are hilarious!

[RoadDawg]

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).

[CoolHand]

. . . . . 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).

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]

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.]

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