Cali leads the way once again

[PyRo]

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]

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]

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]

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, you have just lost the argument and the thread is no longer useful.

[xXHavokXx]

By tradition, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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.

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

dumb liberals

Nice knee-jerk reaction btw 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.