[PsychO!1]

I understand my 'right to bear arms'...and on a basic level, agree with it. Being able to legally own a gun for sport, hobby, or protection is a basic right for all Americans. I also understand no civilian should have the right to own highly destructive weapon like a tank or missle.

My question is...where do you draw the line?? A lot of these military style weapons appear to fall into a large grey area, just wondering what the gun rights people think is too much??

 

[valve bouncer]

And I demand the right to own and operate a hydrogen bomb. :dancing:

Ok, OK, you can have one but only a little one.
All I want is a bazooka- I'm a chronic road rager.

 

[blue]

The behemoth Mack posted is also designed to penetrate/destroy light armored vehicles. It's not just a sniper rifle, it's nearly a ****ing artillery piece. There is a reason such things are illegal...I think I'd be far more afraid of one of those falling into some unskilled adolescent hands than a .22.

Meh, I'm with the "guns should be illegal" crowd, but what do I know, I'm just a pussy pacifist who doesn't believe in killing people.

 

[jon cross]

With the Barrett I'd be much more concerned about a redneck taking shots at a raccoon (failing to realize that it's a .50 caliber armor piercing round effective out to 1500 meters) than a terrorist getting their hands on it. There are plenty of places for them to get weapons, and none of them are in CA.

 

[lovebunny]

well considering the redneck hunting crownd aint too large in CA i dont think its much of a prob. but i do agree w/ mack and sean. and the guy who said about them costing alot to "own and operate". well hell a dh bike costs alot to own and operate man. i mean thats all up to the owner isnt it?

 

[Silver]

You've never been to Riverside, have you?

 

[Honeywell]

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

The gun still has to be registered though.

It's all just ignorance and fear. Have you EVER heard of a crime commited with a .50 caliber rifle? I don't think so.

California has a list of "approved" guns, guns that can be sold and owned in the state. Some pistols are even banned from the state. How do you explain that one?

As for whether you need a gun like this or not? I think others have covered that pretty well with the SUV argument. I mean, c'mon, they're a killing machine compared to a .50 rifle, someone better ban them as well, since no one actually needs one.

Here's a letter from Ronnie Barrett, the owner of Barret Firearms, to the Chief of the LAPD. Looks like the LAPD has burned some bridges....

http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/la50banbarrett.shtml

 

[Silver]

The SUV argument and gun analogy (unless maybe we are specifically talking about long bolt action hunting rifles) is so riddled with holes I could drive one of Arnie's hydrogen Hummers through it...

 

[Kiltim]

i dont think they are banning the .50cal because of its accuracy. many rifles are much more accurate than that thing. imo, its the fact that it is a very powerful weapon. the military even consideres it "inhuman" to use in combat sometimes. if you shot that thing at someone, even if the round didn't hit them and just came within 6-12" of hitting someone, it would rip off your arm/leg/head...whatever. its a badass gun. with a round the length of my hang...i sure wouldnt want that thing wizzing by me anytime soon.

 

[syadasti]

The gun still has to be registered though.

It's all just ignorance and fear. Have you EVER heard of a crime commited with a .50 caliber rifle? I don't think so.

North Hollywood Bank Robbery - committed with semi and automatic armor and vehicle piercing guns...

 

[jon cross]

I don't think anyone ever said it was banned because it was accurate, though it is. I think the concern is that this is a light anti-tank weapon. It is banned from use against personnel by the geneva convention and is used to destroy equipment at long ranges. The only reason to own one is to have this ability and that is something that, though I am adamantly opposed to most gun control laws, is not suitable for a civilian. I think that the M82 should fall under the same category as a mortar or an artillery piece, in the right hands it is equally dangerous.

 

[N8 v2.0]

The main reason that rifle is banned in CA is because it is 'scary-looking'...

..and we know scary-looking rifles kill more people than not-so-scary-looking' rifles.

 

[jon cross]

I read that letter written by Barrett himself, turns out that it isn't possible for a civilian to own the M82 anyway. This ban is to be placed on .50 Caliber rifles in general- not the M82 specifically. Kinda makes me wonder if my Grandpa's preferred hunting rifle would fall under that category- it's a .50 cal muzzle loader. It's pretty low-terror stuff, since it takes a minute or two to load/reload and can only do damage at limited range. I wonder why the people pushing this legislation chose a weapon that isn't even available commercially as it's poster child- oh yeah, as N8 said, it's scary looking. Shock value I suppose.

 

[clancy98]

guns are not made only for killing. mine sits under the bed and protects me every second its there. From criminals, terrorists, junkies, hopheads, liberals, and the like.

And I (NOTE I, SINCE MY GUN WILL NOT KILL ANYONE UNLESS I MAKE IT) have never killed anyone.

Now thats practical.

PS in most cases, black powder, muzzle loaders, ect.. are not included in a ban.

 

[fluff]

guns are not made only for killing. mine sits under the bed and protects me every second its there. From criminals, terrorists, junkies, hopheads, liberals, and the like.

And I (NOTE I, SINCE MY GUN WILL NOT KILL ANYONE UNLESS I MAKE IT) have never killed anyone.

Now thats practical.

PS in most cases, black powder, muzzle loaders, ect.. are not included in a ban.

You're mad aren't you?

 

[N8 v2.0]

BTW... the most 'bad-ass' gun ever in my opinion was the German FlugzeugAbwehrKannone 88.

 

[fluff]

BTW... the most 'bad-ass' gun ever in my opinion was the German FlugzeugAbwehrKannone 88.

You could kill a whole herd of deer with one shot from that. Would make it ideal for home defence, you just need a bigger bed to keep it under and it won't kill anyone.

Where can I buy one?

 

[N8 v2.0]

You could kill a whole herd of deer with one shot from that.

Not to mention you can down allied bombers all day long...

 

[llkoolkeg]

North Hollywood Bank Robbery - committed with semi and automatic armor and vehicle piercing guns...

But NOT with a .50 BMG, which was the question posed. Quit dodging.

Not that anyone cares, but gun banners have been on the defensive since the proven laughable "assault weapons" ban was repealed and desperately need SOMETHING to justify their continued existence. Sarah Brady, Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein and the rest of that lot need to win SOME battle to keep the donations to their coffers from drying up completely.

I personally know two people that own the Barrett M82A1 and it is a very nice gun indeed...but too rich for my blood. If I had the money, though, I would own one. The .50 BMG round has been with us for decades and to this day, I have yet to hear of a single crime committed with one. Why all of a sudden do we need to ban something that isn't getting innocents killed? Because, as I stated, the anti-gun lobby's countless chicken little gratuitous assertions have finally resulted in their becoming a waning, practically insignificant voice. By pulling the wool over the public eye once again, they have managed to survive to fight another day.

 

[Silver]

Well, since there are massive screams and cries of pain when handgun restrictions are talked about, I'm guessing that this is a way to look like you're doing something without actually doing anything.

It also affects such a small amount of people that you're not going to get too many pissed off letters about it.

 

[ThePriceSeliger]

i say we should go dove hunting and see what we can get with that!

 

[clancy98]

You're mad aren't you?

at you? Yes.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Well, since there are massive screams and cries of pain when handgun restrictions are talked about, I'm guessing that this is a way to look like you're doing something without actually doing anything.

It also affects such a small amount of people that you're not going to get too many pissed off letters about it.

PRE-cisely. It is a token win that will secure some additional funding for a lobby whose very existence is dependent upon that which they attack. Same thing with those who lobby for mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders.

 

[mack]

North Hollywood Bank Robbery - committed with semi and automatic armor and vehicle piercing guns...

you are a fool, they used semi auto matic soviet rifles, not barrets or any gun of that type dont make posts when you dont know much about guns...

They used guns similar to that first picture i showed.

This is gun not practical for anything. A hydrogen powered hummer packed with bio diesel fuel and fertilizer explosive is 1k times more dangerous.

 

[binary visions]

you are a fool

Considering the general quality of his posts vs. the general quality of yours, you should be the last person to call anyone a fool.

Hypocrite.

Case in point:

This is gun not practical for anything

Uhh, what?

 

[syadasti]

you are a fool, they used semi auto matic soviet rifles, not barrets or any gun of that type dont make posts when you dont know much about guns...

Oh I see, where did I say barrets specifically? My point was that high-powered rifles can, have, and will be used in crimes thus controlling and/or banning them makes sense - police departments usually stand behind such legislation too...

 

[DRB]

It is banned from use against personnel by the geneva convention and is used to destroy equipment at long ranges.

A .50 caliber round or weapons that fire .50 caliber rounds are NOT banned as anti-personnel weapons by the geneva convention.

 

[clancy98]

Oh I see, where did I say barrets specifically? My point was that high-powered rifles can, have, and will be used in crimes thus controlling and/or banning them makes sense - police departments usually stand behind such legislation too...

honestly, no sarcasm or otherwise.

How do you draw the line on things that should be banned because you can use them in crimes? That is, what is your criteria to qualify something as "ban" able?

 

[dante]

I want a heat-seeking, shoulder-fired anti-aircrafti missile. Its "arms" and protected by the 2nd amendment. So what if I want to sit with it at the end of a runway after the RNC convention, its my constitutional right. I also want to drag around fully-automatic M-16s with armor-piercing bullits, etc. I don't remember anything in the constitution commenting on what *kind* of arms I'm allowed to have, so theoretically I'm allowed any weapon I want. Yay Strict Constructionism!!!!

 

[syadasti]

honestly, no sarcasm or otherwise.

How do you draw the line on things that should be banned because you can use them in crimes? That is, what is your criteria to qualify something as "ban" able?

Its quite simple really - machines designed solely for killing people have no purpose in being in anyone's hands but law enforcement and military.

 

[jon cross]

"By the way, you know you can't hit a human target with a .50-caliber weapon, right? It's in the Geneva Convention. So you hit the gas tank on their vehicle, and they get blown the hell up, but you can’t target some lonely guard or a couple of towlies in an OP calling in bombs."

Marine Corps sniper Anthony Swofford quoted his instructor as having said that about the Barrett when his platoon was issued the weapon in the first gulf war.

But then there's this:
Dutch army manual VS 2-1351, Handboek voor het kader ("field manual for officers and NCOs"), 1991 edition. Chapter 16 covers the maintenance and operation of the mitrailleur Browning .50 inch M2 HB. Section 4.c has the goods (translated from the Dutch):
Types of targets
- Weapons emplacements.
- Lightly armoured and unarmoured vehicles.
- Directly attacking aircraft.
- Slow, low-flying aircraft.
- Paratroopers.
- Helicopters, troops on foot, both in cover and in the open.

Upon looknig I haven't found anything banning .50 BMG rounds for antipersonnel use- you're right. I wonder why it's commonly taught otherwise by the Marine SOI.

 

[caputo1989]

They don't.

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

1. guns don't kill people
2.bulits kill people.
*3*. that gun is for colecters who have A.) the money for the gun AND B.) the license to own the gun witch is like $1000/ year to maintain. :mumble:
Do you kno what else is a Bad Ass gun the S&W 500mag.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Its quite simple really - machines designed solely for killing people have no purpose in being in anyone's hands but law enforcement and military.

If you choose to abdicate your right to self-protection, so be it, but do not pretend to be wise enough to take that decision for me!

And to correct another bit of commonly bandied-about Bravo Sierra, private citizens in the U.S. can and do own fully-automatic machine guns, cannons and other Class III/C "destructive devices". Check with the BATF- there is a whole protocol for doing so already in place, as there has been for decades.

 

[DRB]

"By the way, you know you can't hit a human target with a .50-caliber weapon, right? It's in the Geneva Convention. So you hit the gas tank on their vehicle, and they get blown the hell up, but you can’t target some lonely guard or a couple of towlies in an OP calling in bombs."

Marine Corps sniper Anthony Swofford quoted his instructor as having said that about the Barrett when his platoon was issued the weapon in the first gulf war.

<snip>

Upon looknig I haven't found anything banning .50 BMG rounds for antipersonnel use- you're right. I wonder why it's commonly taught otherwise by the Marine SOI.

You don't need the dutch manual. The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations NWP1-14/MCWP 5-12.1 (the MCWP being the MARINE CORP publication) in chapter 9.1.1 specifically says

Use of .50 caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.

As for the Marine Corp teaching that as Swafford claims, there is a great deal of discussion on exactly how accurately Swafford portrayed his military service.

 

[syadasti]

If you choose to abdicate your right to self-protection, so be it, but do not pretend to be wise enough to take that decision for me!

And thats not what I said. Its pretty simple really, you don't have to kill someone to protect yourself (and a 50cal rifle isn't ideal either way). Small arms, non-lethal weapons, martial arts etc...

Even the military understands protection doesn't mean killing people. Why do you think the military has spent so much money on less than lethal weapons R&D in recent years?

 

[qualude]

give me some spray foam and a net gun.....

since I can't own a firearm in NYC anyhow...

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

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.

I'm with ya brother. Tooling around with big guns is a constitutional right and should not be messed with.

... of course, I hope your equally dedicated to the other 9 amendments as well ...

 

[clancy98]

Its quite simple really - machines designed solely for killing people have no purpose in being in anyone's hands but law enforcement and military.

and explain why you don't think thats contrary to the second amendment?

 

[syadasti]

and explain why you don't think thats contrary to the second amendment?

Because private militias no long play a role in protecting our country from foreign threats - thats what we pay the law enforcement and the military to do...

Its a living document and its meant to change with the times. Why do you thing they are called amendments?

 

[N8 v2.0]

... I can't own a firearm in NYC anyhow...

And NYC is totally crime-free as a result too!

I mean there's no guns so there's no violent gun crime either...right?

Same for DC...