Cali leads the way once again

[Blennidae]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Flown lately?

Enjoy your spork!

[1stdeadeye]

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

The owners manual doesn't state that does it?

[PyRo]

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]

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]

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.

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

[Albinonewt]

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]

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-]

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

[PyRo]

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.