Dano33

Lifting Tom Clancy plotlines now are we?

knuckleball: You make my head hurt.

Glad I'm not the only one.

Alright, pussy liberal time here, but I don't think .50 calibre rifles should be legal. What can you kill with a .50 calibre rifle that you can't kill with a 30.06 or the like? Why do we need a bigger rifle?

I would bet that over 99% of the 50 BMG rifles in existence are used for target practice and not for hunting. The rifle is simply too big to be carried around on a hunt and overkill on everything in North America. A friend of mine who's a gunsmith makes them, and they are big, roughly 30 pounds. Anything less and the recoil would really hurt.

/pussy liberal who likes and owns guns

For the "gee, it's cool" factor, I'd like one to play with just to be able to shoot one. But c'mon, I can do far better and be far more capable as a sniper with my .30-06 or .270. A .50 is kinda big to lug around and too conspicuous to use without suspicion.

/tired
//likes big guns

NYCNative: What might be the citation for that information, erewhon?


Hi, NYC. I picked up the first one that was easy to copy. This particular link was here. I used a google search term of "well-regulated trained disciplined" and hit about 25000 references. You should also be able to get the federalist papers online, I've found them before but was too lazy to save a bookmark. FP#29 and a "find in page" should net you Hamilton's comment. I don't know if old versions of OED are online. I'll peek later this afternoon.

Befuddled:

I would bet that over 99% of the 50 BMG rifles in existence are used for target practice and not for hunting. The rifle is simply too big to be carried around on a hunt and overkill on everything in North America. A friend of mine who's a gunsmith makes them, and they are big, roughly 30 pounds. Anything less and the recoil would really hurt.

Not only that, but with all the time I have been in gunstores, I have only seen one (1) .50BMG firearm for sale.

fark it

Again, it's a toy, much like a Ferarri or Hummer. Not practical, but people use them for fun/show or just because they can.

agreed, did i imply otherwise? you brought up the violent crime stuff not me

And when I said And I think everyone that is anti-gun should be the victim of a violent crime, like home invasion, assault, or rape I was referring to 2005-01-09 03:36:22 PM Elvis Nixon

yah guess his post tickled my sarcasm meter a little harder than yours did is all. cheers

I dont know if your gonna believe me or not, I do know who Tom Clancy is but I pulled that our of my a$$.

"While you cannot attain the SteelTip AP rounds the BMG can certianly pierce Armor at 1000 feet. The Steeltip AP rounds are for military only and even owning them is illegal I believe."

It depends on how you define "armor". If your definition of "armor" includes single sheets of tin foil, then yes, the .50 BMG can pierce armor at 1 mile. Of course, so will a .22 LR if it hits. If you define "armor" as an M1A1 tank, a .50 BMG is ineffective even point blank. All .50 BMG ammo is civilian-legal. In order for ammo to be illegal, it must either contain a powder charge (not the propellant, but something that goes "boom" on impact) greater than 1/4 of an ounce, or it must be in a caliber which has commercially manufactured pistols available. The .50 BMG does not fall into either of these categories.

Fark It:

And when I said And I think everyone that is anti-gun should be the victim of a violent crime, like home invasion, assault, or rape I was referring to 2005-01-09 03:36:22 PM Elvis Nixon

Uh... this argument is so old and tired its begging for Kervorkian to come and visit.

You have a better chance of getting in a fatal car accident than you do of having someone "invade" your home.

PS: I own a gun, but evidently not for the same paranoid dellusional reasons as half the farkers here.

PPS: Anyone else think the "I need to protect my family crowd" is really spewing out coded messages that say, "Oh noes! Darkie is gunna get me!"?

Sid_6.7:

Now, I will agree that there aren't many 'legitimate' uses for a .50 cal. rifle that couldn't be done with a smaller round, but I could be wrong. However, if people want to use them, okay.

100% true.

Just like there isn't much of a legal use for a car that goes over 65mph, yet most cars do. Yet you don;t see anti-car activists. Just think of those millions of bajilon-cal self-guided bullets going around.

spesimen

I thought you were anti-gun from your post, I apologize.

And BTW, I think Elvis Nixon was serious, not sarcastic.

Twisted Fark

GAH, that's not the main reason why guns should be legal, I was just countering Elvis Nixon's idiot post about how people who want to own guns should be shot at.

Sid_6.7

I've made precisely ZERO of those arguments.

The only argument I've made in this thread is that there _are_ limits, that those limits ARE relatively arbitrary, but once you say something is too much, you have to ask where the line is drawn. I haven't even said that _this_ is that limit, just that the fantasyland that the constitution guarantees the right to have any number, type and size of firearms in the possession of anyone in any place is totally unrealistic.

Myself and others in this thread simply do not white-out the words "well-regulated militia" for convenience. That's it.

spesimen

"security of a free state" doesn't really hold much water for me either, if the military really wanted to stop some kind of uprising in montana or something i'd expect they would go all iraq on it and bomb the crap out of it anyway :)

and lose, and leave like we are going to do?
Your statement rather confuses me.

With a starting price of $3000 and approaching $10K, does anyone actually think these will ever be a threat to society?

Voshterkoff

He was showing how a cheap

Thanks for explaining my point. The real kicker is that you can do extreme dammage to the power grid by ACCIDENT. A few years ago, someone slid off the road into a power pole and knocked out power to half the county. It was a cascade failure, that pole going down caused a breaker to trip at the substation. The resulting power surge from that caused other breakers to trip. Isn't that what caused that big blackout in New York in the 60's, a faulty circut breaker.

equusdc:

The only argument I've made in this thread is that there _are_ limits, that those limits ARE relatively arbitrary, but once you say something is too much, you have to ask where the line is drawn. I haven't even said that _this_ is that limit, just that the fantasyland that the constitution guarantees the right to have any number, type and size of firearms in the possession of anyone in any place is totally unrealistic.

The lines are allready drawn. "Class 3" and "Destructive Device" classified weapons are strongly regulated. Anti-gun people are just trying to push more restrictions untill Rosie O'donald can smile happy knowing all guns are banned.

TwistedFark
PPS: Anyone else think the "I need to protect my family crowd" is really spewing out coded messages that say, "Oh noes! Darkie is gunna get me!"?

Now remember children, anytime anyone doesn't agree with you on any issue, just call them a racist. It's a completely legitimate debating technique that is often used on the Internet's Fark.com.

Don't worry, in no way does randomly calling someone a racist making you look like a complete and utter farktard. It makes you look smart, with a large penis.

lbadge: The guy who said we should ban cars was JOKING, YOU MORAN! sheesh.

Voshterkoff

Unless it's her security guards who have guns.

Dameron, the Concorde went down because a section of the blown tire got sucked into the engine, which then went "boom". The same effect could have been had by lobbing frozen turkeys at it, or by shooting the engine with a plain-jane .308.

Haven't you ever heard of FOD, and the saying "Eagles soar, but a weasel will never get sucked into a jet engine intake"?

Tinian

Wow, I was looking for a nuclear rifle, but that look slike a handgun, which is even better.

Does it come with a holster?

You guys have to stop with the idiotic guns-to-cars comparison.
It's a completely ridiculous

Cars are an integral part of life, a necessity for transportation and a crucial part of daily life for the vast majority of Americans. Their primary purpose is to get someone from point A to point B.

Guns are not an integral part of life in that they are not a necessity for anyone that does not hunt to eat every night. They are not a crucial part of daily life for the vast majority of Americans. Their primary purpose is to cause death, be it animal or otherwise.

Comparing safety regulations that apply to these two categories of things is completely ridiculous.

"PPS: Anyone else think the "I need to protect my family crowd" is really spewing out coded messages that say, "Oh noes! Darkie is gunna get me!"?"

There ARE racists in the gun control movement. They're the people who say "we must keep guns out of the wrong hands". The "wrong hands" are black hands. It's all about understanding the codes used....

Trail Mix: lbadge: The guy who said we should ban cars was JOKING, YOU MORAN! sheesh.

True fact.

A note to gun-grabber types:

It's the right to bear ARMS, not the right to bear HUNTING EQUIPMENT.

You'd think all the paranoia about the inevitable terrorist attacks would make people feel better if the people are armed. The mind baffles.

knuckleball:

Cars are an integral part of life, a necessity for transportation and a crucial part of daily life for the vast majority of Americans. Their primary purpose is to get someone from point A to point B.

People can take the bus. Why must we have all of those dangerous cars around?

SOMEONE COULD DRIVE DRUNK!

This is how anti-gunners sound to pro-gunners.

TwistedFark

Say, do you own a smoke detector or fire extinguisher? Why? You have a better chance of being in a fatal car accident than having a fire in your home.

Don't know if that's really true but see the point?

True, Daswiggy. The original gun control was in the south and was intended to keep blacks from owning guns, thus making them easier to control. Which is what gun control is about today. It's not control of guns, it's control of people.

Voshterkoff: Yet you don;t see anti-car activists.


Actually you do.....they are PETA loving, tree huggin' types that ride their bikes everywhere.

/just sayin

Farkit, the Birdman stuff is a joke. They "sell" a handgun that fires nuclear warheads, a .50 BMG "rifle" made out of wood, pipe, rubber bands, plastic utensils, and an empty Mountain Dew can, and "homeboy Nyte Sytes" which go on the side of the pistol so you can actually aim while shooting "gangsta".

It's a parody....sheesh.

SpiltMilk:

You'd think all the paranoia about the inevitable terrorist attacks would make people feel better if the people are armed. The mind baffles.

What's funny, anti-gunners think it's all the paranoid gun nuts that have guns and are dangerous. Yet the anti-gunners want to take perfictly legal firearms out of law-abiding citizens hands because someone might use one for a crime. Who's the real paranoid one?

Actually, someone taking a pot shot at an LNG tanker would be far worse than bringing a jet down.

Since 9/11, Boston officials have been trying to keep them out of the harbor.

Here's the explosive yield for some common vehicles:

Standard fuel oil truck: ~0.3 kilotons
Fueled 757/767 at cruise: ~0.8 kilotons
Typical LNG marine tanker: ~70.0 kilotons

The nuclear device detonated over Nagasaki had a yield of ~21.0 kilotons.

LNG Tanker = Big Boom!

kittz_cat:

Actually you do.....they are PETA loving, tree huggin' types that ride their bikes everywhere.

They are aginst everything though.

Dano33
... what if I dont know say 10 alqueda members working in groups of 2 spaced out in 5 different cities opened up fire (with guns that where purchased at a gun show) on crowds killing and wounding a mess of people before beng shot and killed themselves.

What if, what if, what if ...

You can do that all day long with ANYTHING and come up with a doomsday scenario ... Here's one. What if a half dozen highly determined fanatics each smuggled a 79 cent boxcutter onto a commercial plane, highjacked it and smashed it into the center of American commerce. Total cost to the terrorists (including plane tickets for all of the highjackers) less than $5000 for nearly 3,000 killed. You do realize these rifles cost over $6,000 each?

These terrorists that everybody is peeing their pants over have never done anything that makes them seem conspicuous. Filling out a form 4473 and buying a light .50 would put them on the government radar where they don't want to be. It's also been mentioned that Barrett has a really tight screening process for their customers and it would make it very difficult for the wrong person to get ahold of one. And as far as the "Gun Show Loophole" goes ... I've personally NEVER seen one for sale at a Gun Show, and considering the general culture and personalities that you see at a gun show, lets face it, a couple of Middle-Eastern looking guys aren't going to get 10 paces into one without sticking out like a sore thumb ...

The point is there are easier and less conspicuous ways for motivated terrorists to hurt/kill a lot of people without getting noticed.

What if a couple of terrorists decided to rent apartments in a high rise apartment building, leave the gas on for a couple of days and then set them off all at once? You going to outlaw renting apartments now because it could happen?

[quote]
What's funny, anti-gunners think it's all the paranoid gun nuts that have guns and are dangerous. Yet the anti-gunners want to take perfictly legal firearms out of law-abiding citizens hands because someone might use one for a crime. Who's the real paranoid one?[/quote]

Well, all I can say is that I'm amazed at how effectively all the anti-gun laws are disarming the violent criminals.

/sarcasm

DasWiggy

I know it's a parody, I was being sarcastic.

Voshterkoff

Bus or car (I can't believe you think THAT'S a meaningful distiction for the point you're attempting, by the way, but whatever), getting from point A to B is still a necessity of life.

If pro-gunners actually engage in the mental gynmastics that you just did, it only reinforces the stereotype that pro-gun people are dim.

Voshterkoff

Where I live, ALL guns are banned. I'm not anti-gun at all. I just find some of the extreme "no regulation" unworkable and totally at odds with the patently obvious use of the word "regulated" in the constitution.

knobmaker

Yes, I'm in favor of compulsory training, which as far as I'm concerned can be determined by your own town/city. Compulsory military service? I think there are certain positive aspects to that, yes. However, that doesn't mean _federal_ conscription.

As long as it fits with "well-regulated," I don't give a rats ass if you want to get your jollies off firing farking howitzers as long as it's part of a civil defense force. I don't care if you want to own fifty-three fully automatic machine guns, as long as you have to store them with that CDF and check them out when you want to go blasting fence posts. Key words: well regulated. As long as that's the case, go ahead and fill a farking stadium with guns as far as I'm concerned.

Here's a good examination of the historical use of "well-regulated" that includes a number of examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of other uses of the phrase from around the time the Second Amendment was written.

Amusingly enough, the 1862 line "It appeared, to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." was from a book named "Mrs. Halliburton's Troubles".

knuckleball:

Bus or car (I can't believe you think THAT'S a meaningful distiction for the point you're attempting, by the way, but whatever), getting from point A to B is still a necessity of life.

If pro-gunners actually engage in the mental gynmastics that you just did, it only reinforces the stereotype that pro-gun people are dim.

I was making the point that if there where fewer autos ( meaning only public transportation) there would be fewer acidents. With thousands fewer deaths. Yet nobody is pushing this agenda. It's not a serious post, just pointing out that anti-gunners are not interested in general saftey, just in getting rid of guns.

You can have my Barret when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands....

A letter from Ronnie G Barrett of Barrett Firearms:

December 11, 2002
Via Facsimile (213) 847-0676 and
U.S. Mail


Chief William J. Bratton
Los Angeles Police Department
150 North Los Angeles Street


Re: LAPD 82A Rifle, Serial No. 1186


Point of Contact: Jim Moody
213 485 4061
Dear Chief Bratton,

I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation's armed forces.

You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other "too powerful" rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States .

The VPC's most recent efforts directs this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002 the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5 to 0 with 1 abstaining vote.

Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to bar ownership of the .50 caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city's representatives in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. to push for bans at their respective levels.

At that council meeting, I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal rifle. It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82AI in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an "assault weapon." This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles. One councilman even questioned how this rifle was available under current laws, but as I stated, facts were ineffective that day.

Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed.

Since 1968, with the closing of the U.S. Springfield Amory, all of the small arms produced for the various government agencies are from the private sector. Every handgun, rifle or shotgun that law enforcement needs comes from this firearms industry. Unless the City of Los Angeles has plans of setting up its own firearms manufacturing, it may need to guard the manufacturing sources it has now.

When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.

I implore you to investigate the facts of the .50, to consider the liberties of the law-abiding people and our mutual coexistence, and to change your department's position on this issue.

Sincerely,
BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.




Ronnie Barrett
President

/shamelessly copied from: http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/la50banbarrett.shtml
because I didn't feel like retyping the whole thing myself

//I love my M48 Yugoslav Mauser, <$125