We could hold up a liquor store. I'll hide the gun in my coat.MikeD said:
California to ban the most bad ass gun ever.
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
1200??? You need to practice more.MikeD said:
Well, it's a robbery; we don't want to have to run *too* far to grab the money after we shoot the clerk...plus, nothing wrong with being as close as practical when it counts! Give yourself some leeway for capricious winds and intermittently moving targets...
If you think the .50cal is over kill.....try 20mm.....look up the new and improved Barrett XM-109. Personally i've like the exercise my 2nd rights and get the 30mm GAU-8/A off an a-10 but it kinda hard to carry around.
FYI to the you can't use .50 as an antipersonal...we can and do all the time use the 30mm on a-10s as antiperonal weapons in Afganastan
FYI to the you can't use .50 as an antipersonal...we can and do all the time use the 30mm on a-10s as antiperonal weapons in Afganastan
MikeD said:
Yeah, just adding another support to it.
True, plus at 1200 you could put it through the window, the "bullet proof" glass is they had it, the register, outta them and into the wall behind them.MikeD said:
I be a dullard so no cunexshuns can I make! My feelins' be pained, tho. I go to cry my l'il tough guy eyes out now so I not destrakt you. Buh bye!clancy98 said:
.50s are fun to shoot.
I loved the respeonse from the owner of Barrett Firearms:
http://www.barrettrifles.com/news.htm
click on the "Bite the Hand that Arms You".
it's weird how California is in another fiscal catastrophe in motion, yet all the liberals are getting worked up on banning firearms. Why don't they stick to what they do the best, like lobby for education or something? oh wait, the politicians are too busy getting "we banned the .50 cal rifle" on their carreer description to care about the state's children. the result? The University of California system has raised its fee 30 percent in the last 3 years, and folks like me have to pay for the price. Of course, that just doesn't make headlines any more, but heck, banning a rifle, woo-hoo!!!
Sigh.....
http://www.barrettrifles.com/news.htm
click on the "Bite the Hand that Arms You".
it's weird how California is in another fiscal catastrophe in motion, yet all the liberals are getting worked up on banning firearms. Why don't they stick to what they do the best, like lobby for education or something? oh wait, the politicians are too busy getting "we banned the .50 cal rifle" on their carreer description to care about the state's children. the result? The University of California system has raised its fee 30 percent in the last 3 years, and folks like me have to pay for the price. Of course, that just doesn't make headlines any more, but heck, banning a rifle, woo-hoo!!!
Sigh.....
I don't think there is anything wrong with debating something that deals with public safety. Having shot that exact weapon, i can tell you there is NO reason for a private citzen to own one. The only purpose it has is to destroy things and kill people. No one would argue that people shouldn't be allowed to own a 105-Howitzer, so why should this be different? The arguement Barret makes is fulla crap it's not even funny. If he claims that private citzens can't own one, then why would it matter if they ban them? Sounds like someone is more worried about sales.springfield1911 said:
If your going to use an example of headlines pick one that wasen't debated...that was all over the news when they annouced the hike.
Also before some accusses me of being being a liberal freak, I am a gun owner, i just have common sense.
Zutroy said:
if some of us decide that it is not for them because it is too much, that's fine. But limiting others' rights to own it is a whole other story. You are technically allowed to own a moster truck, whose whole purpose is to crush cars and waste fuel(which is awsome, IMHO), but i don't see people use the Goldberg illegally on the streets and run over cars...
The .50 cal rifles are designed for the owner who feels that need to purchase one, be it long range shooting, as a collector's item, or as a show off piece. That is up to the individual owner's discretion and their judgement. Limiting the sales to civilians would not prevent the terrorists to get one(yeah, would they really want one when you can get light cannons from the former Soviet republics very easily?)
As for the public school fee hikes, it made the news, but nothing was done to save it, not even the state legislators. the education professionals even hailed the Governator's budget ssince it didn't cut any more from the future University funding provided that the fee would make up the difference. at the end, the public gets the short end of the stick. But who cares, as long as we get the massive number of .50 cal rifles, which kills so many innocent children and shooting so many helicopters every year, off the streets, right?
The way I see it, by cutting education, the state is killing kids much more effectvie than and small arms ever could. But then again, I suppose for the liberal freaks, banning guns look better on the 10 o'clock news than pledging another 10 million dollars so the teachers in public high schools in small towns can avoid paying for school supplies out of their ow npockets, right?
interestingly, in 2004, in the the United States, less kids died from the 50 cal rifles than high school football practices(perhaps 0 deaths from the rifles). Should the politicians start looking to ban football? No way in hell, since it will offend the parents much more to see sports go than the "evil looking high powered rifles that can shoot down helicopter and low flying aircrafts". but then again, the voting power of the sympathetic soccer moms can add up, especially since they totally can distinguish between a rifle in .470 Nitro Express and a Gamo air rifle, since they both have the mean looking scopes and the black barrels.... :angry:
Wow that was a rant. but what I'm trying to say is, just because you don't think you would ever use something does not mean others cannot enjoy it. you can make that sort of decisions if you are the emperor of Rome, but this is America, and we all made a choice some point in history to settle here, so don't make it your personal domain, shall we?
Just a tip...if you don't want to look like a gun nut up front, don't register a gun name as your user name.
It's not that your post was bad, but it's just distracting. Kind of like a guy with the name TedK defending his right to make bombs in his workshop...
It's not that your post was bad, but it's just distracting. Kind of like a guy with the name TedK defending his right to make bombs in his workshop...
Silver said:
Just for your information, I'm not as much of a gun nut as you may think. I just happen to be an avid fan of the Springfield 1911A1 pistol. I value its machnical ingenuity, the overwelming presence of safety features that are designed to avoid unnecessary deaths, and its rich history.
I would never buy a .50 cal rifle, since I have no desire and ability to own something like that just for infrequent usage that is not very cost effective. But I will not trample on other peoples' rights to own it if they are so inclined. Your assumption was utterly mistaken. Just because someone's handle is the name of a famous small arm does not mean he/she is automatically an moron that will say yes to everything out there. i for one do not like automatic weapons, since i value marksmanship over the cycling rate of a firearm.
I don't care if you want to label me, it's a passion of mine and i'm proud of it. And just a tip, if you don't want to appear as unoriginal, don't use other people's names as a basis for your assumptions. We can all make predictions about each other based on their names. And we all have been able to do that since pre-school. ususally when people make fun of my name, I know he/she is out of conversation material. But thanks for your opinion, anyway.
Respectafully Yours,
Springfield1911
I should change my name to Kimber45Glock23Remington870SKS 
They ARE fun, but they don't define who I am (even though the gun-grabbers out there would happily do so...)
I have no need for a .50cal sniper rifle, although it WOULD be really fun to rent. I met a Japanese guy at the range a couple years ago who was shooting a 20mm gun. I don't remember what exactly it was, but it had a recoiling barrel and shells that were about 8 inches long. No, he was not firing it from the hip
They ARE fun, but they don't define who I am (even though the gun-grabbers out there would happily do so...)
I have no need for a .50cal sniper rifle, although it WOULD be really fun to rent. I met a Japanese guy at the range a couple years ago who was shooting a 20mm gun. I don't remember what exactly it was, but it had a recoiling barrel and shells that were about 8 inches long. No, he was not firing it from the hip
Geeziz, I don't know, but it looked something like that. Going squirrel hunting, are 'ya? :lol:
Everyone needs a Barret .50 cal sniper rifle. Thats a great weapon to defend you home from invaders. You can hit them from 4 blocks away as they approach
naaahh!, if you believe you need protection that bad.. you dont need a .50... you need a good strong anti-psychotic like zyprexa to cut off the persecution paranoia...genpowell71 said:
There is this new thing called sarchasm...ALEXIS_DH said:
Is it related in any way to sarcasm, or is there a gulf between the two?genpowell71 said:
Webster made a new version. Sarchasm is sarcasm just in version 2.0
It makes for abyssmal humour...MikeD said:
Anyone catch West Wing last night? They close the show with the President calling for an ambitious final year in office where they will finally be able to "do REAL good for American society". Health Care...Torte Reform...New Latin Americas Policy...ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN... 
I mean how fuggin' lame. It's a liberalish administration on a liberalish show worked on and written for by liberalish Hollywood pukes, so I shouldn't be surprised...but don't they have the common sense to realize and admit that the so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban was proven to be an utter and complete failure, was repealed like Prohibition...and STILL those schwantzes can't let go of it! :mumble:
I mean how fuggin' lame. It's a liberalish administration on a liberalish show worked on and written for by liberalish Hollywood pukes, so I shouldn't be surprised...but don't they have the common sense to realize and admit that the so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban was proven to be an utter and complete failure, was repealed like Prohibition...and STILL those schwantzes can't let go of it! :mumble:
Holely unsatisfying.MikeD said:
You've left me in a deep depression.MikeD said:
I think you're tying to shaft me.MikeD said:
Huh? That link worked just fine...if you were trying to link to the image, you probably just let spaces between the URL and the tag, in which case [url] tags are automatically inserted.ohio said:
Anyhow, "harmless" ball of air my foot. You're crazy if you think that thing should be legal. The site even endorses using it in SCHOOLS for god's sake!