If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Chris Christie on bill he requested banning military sniper rifles: "LOL, JK"   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 232
    More: Asinine, Chris Christie, sniper rifles, semi-automatic rifle  
•       •       •

1350 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 12:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 10:59:49 AM
He has to think of the red states if he is going to run for national office.
 
2013-08-19 11:04:23 AM
These are essential for home protection.
 
2013-08-19 11:09:58 AM

Lionel Mandrake: These are essential for home protection.


Deer hunting, obviously. The only way that I can hit a buck is when I'm 1.5 miles away
 
2013-08-19 11:13:10 AM
Go ahead and buy one if you can afford one.
 
2013-08-19 11:30:19 AM
The cost of one is enough of a deterrent. Not to mention the bullets.

Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?
 
2013-08-19 11:31:33 AM
They had some videos of Taliban getting their heads blown off by our sharpshooters using a
.50 cal. Just like a watermelon.
 
2013-08-19 11:45:46 AM

scottydoesntknow: The cost of one is enough of a deterrent. Not to mention the bullets.

Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?


That's not entirely the point. The point is we draw a line somewhere as to what is reasonable for a personal arsenal. No grenades, no rocket launchers, no land mines. These things can take down small aircraft like traffic choppers, and we already have idiots who try and blind pilots with laser pointers, imagine some jackass taking pot shots at a jet liner with one of these, a shot to a jet engine at take off or landing and they can kill a lot of people.
 
2013-08-19 11:47:45 AM
Funny, I don't recall any incidents of illegal activity regarding a .50 caliber rifle being reported.  But they're scary!  Let's ban them!
 
2013-08-19 11:49:13 AM

Aar1012: Deer hunting, obviously.


And don't forget your mutated anthrax.

i44.tinypic.com

you know, for duck hunting.
 
2013-08-19 11:56:58 AM

nmrsnr: scottydoesntknow: The cost of one is enough of a deterrent. Not to mention the bullets.

Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?

That's not entirely the point. The point is we draw a line somewhere as to what is reasonable for a personal arsenal. No grenades, no rocket launchers, no land mines. These things can take down small aircraft like traffic choppers, and we already have idiots who try and blind pilots with laser pointers, imagine some jackass taking pot shots at a jet liner with one of these, a shot to a jet engine at take off or landing and they can kill a lot of people.


And where exactly is that line? Based on what you say, we should be drawing it at anything ≥ a laser pointer.
 
2013-08-19 12:02:10 PM

scottydoesntknow: And where exactly is that line?


I think anti-personnel vs. anti-aircraft is a pretty clear, if arbitrary, line.
 
2013-08-19 12:10:50 PM

nmrsnr: scottydoesntknow: And where exactly is that line?

I think anti-personnel vs. anti-aircraft is a pretty clear, if arbitrary, line.


And yet, it's never been used as an anti-personnel or anti-aircraft weapon in a non-military setting. Seems pretty stupid to ban something that's never been a problem to begin with.

It's hard to imagine some "jackass" spending $10,000+ on a rifle and ammunition to take potshots at a jet liner. Your hypothetical scenarios just don't match up with real life.
 
2013-08-19 12:11:02 PM

nmrsnr: scottydoesntknow: The cost of one is enough of a deterrent. Not to mention the bullets.

Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?

That's not entirely the point. The point is we draw a line somewhere as to what is reasonable for a personal arsenal. No grenades, no rocket launchers, no land mines. These things can take down small aircraft like traffic choppers, and we already have idiots who try and blind pilots with laser pointers, imagine some jackass taking pot shots at a jet liner with one of these, a shot to a jet engine at take off or landing and they can kill a lot of people.


It would interest you to know that it's legal to own anti-air 160mm rockets and 75mm pack howitzers.
 
2013-08-19 12:11:44 PM

nmrsnr: scottydoesntknow: And where exactly is that line?

I think anti-personnel vs. anti-aircraft is a pretty clear, if arbitrary, line.


A sniper rifle's not really considered an anti-aircraft weapon.
 
2013-08-19 12:12:02 PM

vygramul: nmrsnr: scottydoesntknow: The cost of one is enough of a deterrent. Not to mention the bullets.

Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?

That's not entirely the point. The point is we draw a line somewhere as to what is reasonable for a personal arsenal. No grenades, no rocket launchers, no land mines. These things can take down small aircraft like traffic choppers, and we already have idiots who try and blind pilots with laser pointers, imagine some jackass taking pot shots at a jet liner with one of these, a shot to a jet engine at take off or landing and they can kill a lot of people.

It would interest you to know that it's legal to own anti-air 160mm rockets and 75mm pack howitzers.


And the M134 GE Minigun. That baby cranks out 150+ rounds per second.

Let's see how many hypothetical scenarios we can make out of that!
 
2013-08-19 12:12:50 PM

scottydoesntknow: nmrsnr: scottydoesntknow: And where exactly is that line?

I think anti-personnel vs. anti-aircraft is a pretty clear, if arbitrary, line.

And yet, it's never been used as an anti-personnel or anti-aircraft weapon in a non-military setting. Seems pretty stupid to ban something that's never been a problem to begin with.

It's hard to imagine some "jackass" spending $10,000+ on a rifle and ammunition to take potshots at a jet liner. Your hypothetical scenarios just don't match up with real life.


An RPG is exceedingly unlikely to take down a 737, much less a rifle.
 
2013-08-19 12:16:57 PM
I'm more worried about the the guy hoarding ARs with the .458 SOCOM conversion than the guy with the .50 cal sniper rifle.
 
2013-08-19 12:21:33 PM

vygramul: A sniper rifle's not really considered an anti-aircraft weapon.


Most aren't effective in that capacity, this one was advertised as having that benefit.

scottydoesntknow: It would interest you to know that it's legal to own anti-air 160mm rockets and 75mm pack howitzers.And the M134 GE Minigun. That baby cranks out 150+ rounds per second.


And if people want to ban those on similar lines, I think I could be convinced of that. There is a point at which we don't let people have dangerous things, where that line is is debatable.

scottydoesntknow: And yet, it's never been used as an anti-personnel or anti-aircraft weapon in a non-military setting. Seems pretty stupid to ban something that's never been a problem to begin with.


And small-yield nuclear weapons are far more expensive (in the millions of dollars) and require a significant more training to arm and detonate properly, and have never been used by a civilian or military, so those bans are extraneous as well, right?

Where you draw the line is simply a matter of what level of lethality you are willing to accept in the hands of people you don't know and have no control over. Potentially killing a handful of people individually? We're pretty okay with that as a country. The capability of killing dozens to hundreds of people with one go? Not so much. This weapon looks like it has that capability.
 
2013-08-19 12:23:20 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Funny, I don't recall any incidents of illegal activity regarding a .50 caliber rifle being reported.  But they're scary!  Let's ban them!


scottydoesntknow: Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?


Does anybody else find it amusing that people who are willing to require photo IDs to vote because of a mythical problem with voter fraud are completely unwilling to ban people from buying a military-grade sniper rifle because of a similar mythical problem with deaths from sniper rifles?
 
2013-08-19 12:25:27 PM

nmrsnr: And small-yield nuclear weapons are far more expensive (in the millions of dollars) and require a significant more training to arm and detonate properly, and have never been used by a civilian or military, so those bans are extraneous as well, right?


They have been used by the military. Twice. On civilians. They know the destructive power of them because it's been witnessed firsthand.

Putting the .50cal even in the same category of explosives, much less nuclear weapons, is just dumb and you know it.

nmrsnr: The capability of killing dozens to hundreds of people with one go? Not so much. This weapon looks like it has that capability.

You're really starting to make me think you have absolutely no knowledge of the .50cal sniper rifle beyond Michael Bay movies.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 12:25:30 PM
It's basically an anti-tank rifle.  The .50" cartrige was designed as an anti tank round at the end of WW I and the Barrett is basically the same as AT rifles from that time.
 
2013-08-19 12:26:50 PM

Serious Black: Marcus Aurelius: Funny, I don't recall any incidents of illegal activity regarding a .50 caliber rifle being reported.  But they're scary!  Let's ban them!

scottydoesntknow: Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?

Does anybody else find it amusing that people who are willing to require photo IDs to vote because of a mythical problem with voter fraud are completely unwilling to ban people from buying a military-grade sniper rifle because of a similar mythical problem with deaths from sniper rifles?


I find it amusing you assume I've ever said anything about photo IDs being required for voting.
 
2013-08-19 12:27:07 PM

vpb: He has to think of the red states if he is going to run for national office.


Yup. Everyone praising this tubby bastard for his moderate stances better be prepared for him to turn up the derp in the coming years.
 
2013-08-19 12:27:41 PM
You can't say you vetoed something unless if you cause them to try to pass it first.
 
2013-08-19 12:28:16 PM

nmrsnr: The point is we draw a line somewhere as to what is reasonable for a personal arsenal.


And who is this 'we' tha is  to decide what is 'reasonable'?
 
2013-08-19 12:29:07 PM
I use these to hunt from across town.  Then my aerial drones retrieve the carcass.  Generally it works out pretty well.  But once or twice I've gotten some meat back that was wearing a plaid flannel shirt, which is pretty ridiculous.
 
2013-08-19 12:29:35 PM

Lionel Mandrake: These are essential for home protection.


You never know when your house is going to be robbed by an armored personnel carrier.
 
2013-08-19 12:30:58 PM

scottydoesntknow: Serious Black: Marcus Aurelius: Funny, I don't recall any incidents of illegal activity regarding a .50 caliber rifle being reported.  But they're scary!  Let's ban them!

scottydoesntknow: Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?

Does anybody else find it amusing that people who are willing to require photo IDs to vote because of a mythical problem with voter fraud are completely unwilling to ban people from buying a military-grade sniper rifle because of a similar mythical problem with deaths from sniper rifles?

I find it amusing you assume I've ever said anything about photo IDs being required for voting.


I doubt you have too, but statistically speaking, people who support photo ID requirements are much more likely to oppose any firearm regulation whatsoever, including a ban on these kinds of sniper rifles that can make your head explode like a watermelon hit with a sledgehammer.
 
2013-08-19 12:31:42 PM

vpb: It's basically an anti-tank rifle.  The .50" cartrige was designed as an anti tank round at the end of WW I and the Barrett is basically the same as AT rifles from that time.


Well you never know when gang-bangers or blah people will break into your home with a tank. By the time the police get to your home, the tank has already killed your entire family.
 
2013-08-19 12:32:03 PM
Does anyone have a link to the text of the bill?
Does it only ban .50-cal rifles or does it dan other types of weapons?

The only real difference between a lot of sniper rifles and hunting rifles is what pattern of camo the guy holding it is wearing.
 
2013-08-19 12:32:07 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: The point is we draw a line somewhere as to what is reasonable for a personal arsenal.

And who is this 'we' tha is  to decide what is 'reasonable'?


i8.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-19 12:32:30 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: The point is we draw a line somewhere as to what is reasonable for a personal arsenal.

And who is this 'we' tha is  to decide what is 'reasonable'?


I think we should leave it to the Christian nationalist xenophobes.
 
2013-08-19 12:33:11 PM

scottydoesntknow: The cost of one is enough of a deterrent. Not to mention the bullets.

Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?


But I've been told that we can't use the free market as a method for gun control because expanding the constitutional taxes on guns would be unconstitutional because it would mean poor people can't buy them. Plus it wouldn't do anything, anyway.

Were those people being disingenuous?!?!??!?!?!?!????? Couldn't be.
 
2013-08-19 12:35:37 PM
Yes. Military sniper rifles are far too deadly to be in civilian hands.
Just look at this terror weapon!

accurateshooter.net
 
2013-08-19 12:37:00 PM

Serious Black: Marcus Aurelius: Funny, I don't recall any incidents of illegal activity regarding a .50 caliber rifle being reported.  But they're scary!  Let's ban them!

scottydoesntknow: Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?

Does anybody else find it amusing that people who are willing to require photo IDs to vote because of a mythical problem with voter fraud are completely unwilling to ban people from buying a military-grade sniper rifle because of a similar mythical problem with deaths from sniper rifles?


What was mythical about the DC snipers? They killed like 11 people and took a while to find.
 
2013-08-19 12:37:37 PM

nmrsnr: vygramul: A sniper rifle's not really considered an anti-aircraft weapon.

Most aren't effective in that capacity, this one was advertised as having that benefit.


Yeah - and I was told Windows Vista would make things better.

It might have that benefit in an exceedingly narrow set of circumstances involving highly-trained professionals against small aircraft, but I guarantee it wasn't advertised as being anti-airliner.
 
2013-08-19 12:38:42 PM

justtray: Serious Black: Marcus Aurelius: Funny, I don't recall any incidents of illegal activity regarding a .50 caliber rifle being reported.  But they're scary!  Let's ban them!

scottydoesntknow: Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?

Does anybody else find it amusing that people who are willing to require photo IDs to vote because of a mythical problem with voter fraud are completely unwilling to ban people from buying a military-grade sniper rifle because of a similar mythical problem with deaths from sniper rifles?

What was mythical about the DC snipers? They killed like 11 people and took a while to find.


They didn't use a sniper rifle.
 
2013-08-19 12:39:06 PM
Why would a civilian ever need a sniper rifle?

If it for that deer hunter just too freaking lazy to actually go out in the woods?

It would be like, "Dang, sure would like to bag me buck!  But screw walking in those woods and the snow and shiat, I'll just sit on the roof and bag me one with my shiny new sniper rifle!  Hyuck!"
 
2013-08-19 12:39:55 PM

justtray: What was mythical about the DC snipers? They killed like 11 people and took a while to find.


And were using a standard Bushmaster .223 hunting rifle.
 
2013-08-19 12:40:26 PM

justtray: What was mythical about the DC snipers? They killed like 11 people and took a while to find.



Bushmaster .223.
Not a sniper rifle, but it works great on school children.
 
2013-08-19 12:41:33 PM
When I was 19, I did a guy in Laos from a thousand yards out. It was a rifle shot in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that shot. It's the only thing I was ever good at. Well, see ya tomorrow.
 
2013-08-19 12:42:41 PM
The agrument "one has never been used in a crime" is a BS one.  Nobody has ever used a nuclear bomb in a crime either, but that doesn't mean civilians should be able to own one.
 
2013-08-19 12:44:45 PM

Geotpf: The agrument "one has never been used in a crime" is a BS one.  Nobody has ever used a nuclear bomb in a crime either, but that doesn't mean civilians should be able to own one.


And that's the second time nukes have been brought up in this thread.

Is there a term for godwinning a thread with nukes? Hiroshimming a thread?
 
2013-08-19 12:44:49 PM

Dhusk: Why would a civilian ever need a sniper rifle?

If it for that deer hunter just too freaking lazy to actually go out in the woods?

It would be like, "Dang, sure would like to bag me buck!  But screw walking in those woods and the snow and shiat, I'll just sit on the roof and bag me one with my shiny new sniper rifle!  Hyuck!"


One of these is a Remington-700 hunting rifle. The other is a USMC M-40 sniper rifle.
www.accuratereloading.com
www.snipercentral.com
 
2013-08-19 12:45:26 PM
Will it protect me from drone strikes?
 
2013-08-19 12:48:39 PM
FACT: There has never been a regulation on guns or gun owners that has prevented a single crime. Any claim to the contrary is just libtardo speculation and obsfucation.

/study it out
 
2013-08-19 12:50:47 PM

vygramul: justtray: Serious Black: Marcus Aurelius: Funny, I don't recall any incidents of illegal activity regarding a .50 caliber rifle being reported.  But they're scary!  Let's ban them!

scottydoesntknow: Has there ever been a documented case of one being used to commit a crime or kill someone in a non-military setting?

Does anybody else find it amusing that people who are willing to require photo IDs to vote because of a mythical problem with voter fraud are completely unwilling to ban people from buying a military-grade sniper rifle because of a similar mythical problem with deaths from sniper rifles?

What was mythical about the DC snipers? They killed like 11 people and took a while to find.

They didn't use a sniper rifle.


It's not so much about the weapon as it is the method.

Still interesting that they used the equivilent of an AR-15
 
2013-08-19 12:53:17 PM

Cheron: When I was 19, I did a guy in Laos from a thousand yards out. It was a rifle shot in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that shot. It's the only thing I was ever good at. Well, see ya tomorrow.


Nice reference.

Geotpf: The agrument "one has never been used in a crime" is a BS one.  Nobody has ever used a nuclear bomb in a crime either, but that doesn't mean civilians should be able to own one.


The threat has to be real and severe enough to justify the ban. The potential from harm has to be balanced against the likelihood. A nuclear weapon's potential is enough to ban it, despite its exceptional unlikelihood. A sniper rifle's potential is really about the same as any other rifle, but far less likely.

/Any civilian aircraft that could be reasonably brought down by a .50 can probably be brought down by smaller weapons just as easily.
 
2013-08-19 12:53:18 PM
www.joebrower.com

Second Amendment solutions.
 
2013-08-19 12:55:55 PM
No nuclear weapon has ever been used in a crime. Clearly, preventing civilians from owning them is a violation of the second amendment.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report