Quantcast

California to ban the most bad ass gun ever.

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
Why on earth would you want to ban one of these?





Some goofy politicians who cant tell a gun from a nerf rifle think that terrorists are going to use this weapon. :rolleyes: Like making a gun illegal will stop them from getting one? I dont think so, this isnt the only 50 cal sniper rifle that they can get, there are also many swedish made guns that have even better acuracy. Some times i hate politicians so much. :nopity:

They shouldnt out law it but rather keep track of who owns them, even still, all the terrorist's are suicide bombers so what good what it do except prosecute the people who illegaly sold it to them. And they wont use these guns any way, considering that they could get Bushmasters and convert them to full-auto.

Next their going to want to band diesel fuel and fertilizer. :blah: Chlorox and amonia? Its so easy to make weapons and get them, what good would making them illegal do except make them cost more money? Or when they can get Ak's and RPG"S in columbia and smuggle them in.
 

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
They are really fun to shoot, and although ive never shot one, id love to have one, and how else are we supposed to kill deer. Its not that you need them but more that we have the right to have them. I care because its in america.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
mack said:
They are really fun to shoot, and although ive never shot one, id love to have one, and how else are we supposed to kill deer. Its not that you need them but more that we have the right to have them. I care because its in america.
Wait, they are really fun to shoot, but you've never shot one before?

I never knew that deer were a threat to our freedom :confused:

Real hunters use what they kill - blowing up a deer isn't hunting...
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,831
1
slc
mack said:
They are really fun to shoot, and although ive never shot one, id love to have one, and how else are we supposed to kill deer. Its not that you need them but more that we have the right to have them. I care because its in america.
Their are plenty of other rifles out there...

Move somewhere else if it bothers you. No one is forcing you to stay here.
 

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
syadasti said:
Wait, they are really fun to shoot, but you've never shot one before?

I never knew that deer were a threat to our freedom :confused:

Real hunters use what they kill - blowing up a deer isn't hunting...

At least i admitted that i never shot one, I could have just lied and told you i had one. :rolleyes:

There not for dear hunting, i was laying the sarcasim on heavy there, they are for target shooting and enthusists. People like them and they have a better record than any other gun.

I have a 30 ot 6, much more power than a 30 30 but not any where near that thing! :eek:

edit: Give me a valid reason to ban this gun and why it would make sense please. And its in our constitution.
 

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
You really think that banning that gun is going to prevent a terrorist attack? Its a sniper rifle, not a machine gun. California wants to ban those but you can have handguns? Yeah, next time holds up a 711 with one let me know...

What is stupid is that the government only keeps tabs on new gun sales for 24 hours. Now that is stupid.
 

Snacks

Turbo Monkey
Feb 20, 2003
3,523
0
GO! SEAHAWKS!
mack said:
edit: Give me a valid reason to ban this gun and why it would make sense please. And its in our constitution.
Because it's completely unnecessary for ANY civilian American, except the military, to own one.

I saw this on 60 minutes on Sunday and was laughing so hard at the gun maker stating the reasons for a civilian to own one of these gun...hunting and target practice :rolleyes: What kind of person needs to hunt with a 50 caliber weapon at 1.5 miles away from the animal?

Do you know how long the FBI keeps records on gun purchases? 24 hours.
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,831
1
slc
Snacks said:
Because it's completely unnecessary for ANY civilian American, except the military, to own one.
:stupid:

People just get guns like that so they can a.) show them off b.) exercise their 2nd ammendment right or c.) shoot them at range.
 

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
Snacks said:
Because it's completely unnecessary for ANY civilian American, except the military, to own one.

I saw this on 60 minutes on Sunday and was laughing so hard at the gun maker stating the reasons for a civilian to own one of these gun...hunting and target practice :rolleyes: What kind of person needs to hunt with a 50 caliber weapon at 1.5 miles away from the animal?

Do you know how long the FBI keeps records on gun purchases? 24 hours.
well, handguns are unessisary so why do people need those? Huh? thats what i thought.

Handguns, bushmasters, ar 15's, H&K semi autos and knock of mac 10's are much more dangerous than the Barret, and if you dont think so your ignorant.

I already mentioned the 24 hour rule. Wich as i will state again is stupid beyond stupid. But, is a terrorist really going to care if he spends the rest of his life in jail? No.

The main argument for these guns to be banned isnt weather citizens like them or not, its for the terrorist threat and terrorists dont use those. Why not just get real military equipment from columbia and smugle it in. See the logic?
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,831
1
slc
mack said:
well, handguns are unessisary so why do people need those? Huh? thats what i thought.

Handguns, bushmasters, ar 15's, H&K semi autos and knock of mac 10's are much more dangerouse than those, and if dont dont think so your ignorant.

I already mentioned the 24 hour rule
They don't.

Any gun will kill you the same as another, I wouldn't call one more dangerous then another...
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,831
1
slc
mack said:
The main argument for these guns to be banned isnt weather citizens like them or not, its for the terrorist threat and terrorists dont use those. Why not just get real military equipment from columbia and smugle it in. See the logic?
Because so many terrorist attacks involve guns... :think:
 

punkassean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2002
4,561
0
SC, CA
For once I have to side with mack :eek:

Just like people can drive gas guzzling trucks lifted to the sky for no apparent reason, we too should have the right to own powerful guns. You can kill lots of people dead with a car or truck just as good as any gun. Just because it's not practical doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Mostly though it's the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people and therefore if someone has harmful intentions they will not be bothered by some silly law, they will find the means to carry out their plans and all the while innocent people who want "nice toys" are left to decide whether or not they are willing to go to jail for their hobbies. It's really not all that different than riding bikes. What "real" or justifiable purpose does it serve? Yet it means a lot to some of us (of course bikes don't explode a deer from 1/2 mile :D but still ).
 

Zark

Hey little girl, do you want some candy?
Oct 18, 2001
6,254
7
Reno 911
I think the reasoning is .50 rifle can disable cars, trucks, planes, and anything else that isn't heavily armored. Its a freakin cannon as much as a rifle. Do 2nd ammendment rights protect your right to own a howitzer? No.

Do I think the ban would effectively stop a terrorist plot or do anything but make some politician think "I've protected America"? No, I don't think banning it would do anything that makes a difference.

It'd have to be one well funded terrorist, those things go for $5-6g's
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,831
1
slc
punkassean said:
For once I have to side with mack :eek:

Just like people can drive gas guzzling trucks lifted to the sky for no apparent reason, we too should have the right to own powerful guns. You can kill lots of people dead with a car or truck just as good as any gun. Just because it's not practical doesn't mean it should be illegal.
The difference between cars and guns is that guns are created with no other purpose then killing...
 

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
I dont get your tone of voice. Sarcastic? Dont you understand that that gun is a highly special and expensive sniper rifle? It weighs 40 pounds for christ sake, its not a ideal weapon for killing allot of people, the magazine only holds 10 shells.

Notice how only california is thinking about banning the gun. If this really was a problem then it would already be banned nation wide, like sawed off shotguns.



these are legal...

so are these



what do you think this gun was desinged for? Oh, thats it, penetrating body armor...
 

punkassean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2002
4,561
0
SC, CA
.:Jeenyus:. said:
:stupid:

People just get guns like that so they can a.) show them off b.) exercise their 2nd ammendment right or c.) shoot them at range.
What purpose does your DH or even XC bike really serve???

Bad logic, not everything needs to have a directly definable purpose to be ultimately justifiable...

If good people enjoy responsibly owning guns then I'm all for it. I personally don't own any guns but who am I to say...
 

punkassean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2002
4,561
0
SC, CA
.:Jeenyus:. said:
The difference between cars and guns is that guns are created with no other purpose then killing...
The original purpose of a gun was to kill yes, but in this day and age that is not the case. Although many guns are used to legally kill (hunting) far more are used only for sport shooting. Sport shooting is a big industry and just because you aren't part of it doesn't make it wrong. You are thinking like the Sierra Club man :nope:
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
I want the right to own my own tank. The ****ing government won't let me buy an M1, and that just isn't right! It's in the second amendment!
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,831
1
slc
punkassean said:
What purpose does your DH or even XC bike really serve???

Bad logic, not everything needs to have a directly definable purpose to be ultimately justifiable...

If good people enjoy responsibly owning guns then I'm all for it. I personally don't own any guns but who am I to say...
I dont have a DH or XC bike :eviltongu ;)

I agree that if responsible people own guns there is no problem, but why would someone need to own a gun that is created with the purpose of killing other people in mind? (not necessarily the gun that started the topic)
 

punkassean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2002
4,561
0
SC, CA
Dude I am going to boil it down to the essentials here for all of you who still don't get it...

Laws that ban guns assume that people who would use a gun to hurt someone now won't because of fear of legal punishment. Well if a person is bent on killing another person it seems to me they don't really care about the law now do they??? So now in order to kill someone they have to break two laws instead of one, big freakin' deal!

Murderers are criminals, criminals are people who break the law. What good does a law do to prevent a criminal?????????????????????????
 

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
They shouldnt, that why it makes the government look silly when it allows people to own handguns and semi automatic SMG's.

But when you get down to it, a terrorist is going to kill people weather there is a law for it or not. Thats why im saying it doesnt make sense to band this one. In allot of ways this reates to the border thread. Mexico is like the New Las Vegas, like a "boarder state".
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,831
1
slc
punkassean said:
Dude I am going to boil it down to the essentials here for all of you who still don't get it...

Laws that ban guns assume that people who would use a gun to hurt someone now won't because of fear of legal punishment. Well if a person is bent on killing another person it seems to me they don't really care about the law now do they??? So now in order to kill someone they have to break two laws instead of one, big freakin' deal!

Murderers are criminals, criminals are people who break the law. What good does a law do to prevent a criminal?????????????????????????
Make it a whole lot harder for him/her to walk into a store and purchase a weapon.

Look at the amount of deaths caused by guns in Canada compared to the US. Now that might just be because Canadians are one hell of a lot nicer then the average american, but me thinks not.
 

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
.:Jeenyus:. said:
Make it a whole lot harder for him/her to walk into a store and purchase a weapon.

Look at the amount of deaths caused by guns in Canada compared to the US. Now that might just be because Canadians are one hell of a lot nicer then the average american, but me thinks not.
Again, were talking about the Barret, and the reason its getting banned is because of terroritsts, the government isnt worried about hicks shooting up each other with them ;) And terrorists can get weapons from mexican drug lords. Its not hard to buy illegal weapons. Sure, if the US banned its citiznes from having guns there would be very little gun attacks, but it still wouldnt stop a organized terrorist group. Just maybe the drug cartel that was going to shoot his competition up. Wich isnt such a bad thing, less drug dealers=good. :D
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,831
1
slc
mack said:
Again, were talking about the Barret, and the reason its getting banned is because of terroritsts, the government isnt worried about hicks shooting up each other with them ;) And terrorists can get weapons from mexican drug lords. Its not hard to buy illegal weapons. Sure, if the US banned its citiznes from having guns there would be very little gun attacks, but it still wouldnt stop a organized terrorist group. Just maybe the drug cartel that was going to shoot his competition up. Wich isnt such a bad thing, less drug dealers=good. :D
Once again, terrorists don't use guns in their major attacks.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
Gun control in the US has nothing to do with terrorism. It didn't just pop up after 9-11. Quit watching Fox News.

The Constitution is a living document meant to change with the times. We no longer need a private militia to protect our freedom, we have the military for that now. High power guns aren't needed for target practice and cost more money to own and operate - nobody needs them for any good reason...
 

jaydee

Monkey
Jul 5, 2001
794
0
Victoria BC
mack said:
well, handguns are unessisary so why do people need those? Huh? thats what i thought.

Handguns, bushmasters, ar 15's, H&K semi autos and knock of mac 10's are much more dangerous than the Barret, and if you dont think so your ignorant.
Great! Ban those too. Good idea.

mack said:
The main argument for these guns to be banned isnt weather citizens like them or not, its for the terrorist threat and terrorists dont use those. Why not just get real military equipment from columbia and smugle it in. See the logic?
So how many of the many thousands of gun deaths in the US every year do you figure are caused by terrorists. I figure about zero. Your constitution was drawn up in frigging 1776. Do you figure nothing has changed since then? The only reason you think you need a gun in the US now is to protect yourself from other idiots who think they need guns to protect themselves from other idiots who think.....

I have no problem with hunting or target practice with hunting weapons, but what exactly are you practising to do with an assault rifle or a handgun or a sniper rifle.