Can we get back to the witty comments, please?
Lest this thread go further downhill...
Lest this thread go further downhill...
California to ban the most bad ass gun ever.
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
We could rise to the occasion?ohio said:
You need that gun to........I dunno have fun? 
Last time I was at the gun range some crazy fool pulled something similar to that out, and when he'd shoot it everyone stopped to take notes and watch. I dunno what the range was on that but it had to be a mile + in distance. It's like a anti-car/aircraft gun. It was nuts to watch him shoot it though.
I love guns. They have to be one of the more fun things I've gotten to do in my life. There's such a taboo about them (shooting them, owning them etc...) but once you shoot one you see why people want them. They're just fun.
As far as terroists go, I don't think USA has to worry about that gun. We have so many groups in the USA that would sacrifice their lives to take out others. American, white, black, mexican, middle eastern etc....it doesn't matter. It's just like the whole guns kill people thing.......people kill people, guns just help them do it.
Last time I was at the gun range some crazy fool pulled something similar to that out, and when he'd shoot it everyone stopped to take notes and watch. I dunno what the range was on that but it had to be a mile + in distance. It's like a anti-car/aircraft gun. It was nuts to watch him shoot it though.
I love guns. They have to be one of the more fun things I've gotten to do in my life. There's such a taboo about them (shooting them, owning them etc...) but once you shoot one you see why people want them. They're just fun.
As far as terroists go, I don't think USA has to worry about that gun. We have so many groups in the USA that would sacrifice their lives to take out others. American, white, black, mexican, middle eastern etc....it doesn't matter. It's just like the whole guns kill people thing.......people kill people, guns just help them do it.
I don't think so; this thread is just too much of a downer.Westy said:
Well, perhaps if you'd lower your expectations, you wouldn't get your hopes up.MikeD said:
sweeet, but why buy something that you would go broke on if you only shot 100 rounds threw it. 50 cal ammunition is alota money. ill stick with my ruger 22 just to save doe for a kona roast or a stp 1
syadasti said:<snip>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.Ummm... I hate to break it to you, but the writers of the Constitution didn't have a citizen militia in mind to defend against *foreign* invaders...
Neither are Hummers, as someone else pointed out. Just because *you* don't find target shooting with an extremely high powered rifle challenging and enjoyable does not (IMHO) allow you the privilege of telling those who do find it enjoyable that they can't do it. Does it?
-S.S.-
SkaredShtles said:Ummm... I hate to break it to you, but the writers of the Constitution didn't have a citizen militia in mind to defend against *foreign* invaders...
Neither are Hummers, as someone else pointed out. Just because *you* don't find target shooting with an extremely high powered rifle challenging and enjoyable does not (IMHO) allow you the privilege of telling those who do find it enjoyable that they can't do it. Does it?
-S.S.-
Just because *you* don't find target shooting with an extremely high powered "WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION" challenging and enjoyable does not (IMHO) allow you the privilege of telling those who do find it enjoyable that they can't do it. Does it?
really??? why is everybody pissed iran or iraq could have some???
smells like double standard....
what if you feel the access of said "high powered rifle" is a threat to those around????
is invasion of their house allowed in a preemptive strike??
or better just makign said guns illegal??
My Hopes have been dashed and my spirit will soon brake.binary visions said:
You're frothing.ALEXIS_DH said:
-S.S.-
Let this ****ing mother****er of a monkey****ing thread die, for ****'s sake.
Silver said:
you know what i noticed.. that english only got **** as a universal curse word... i mean.. what do i use if i want to be more specific?? mother****er, ****ing, ****.. man! they are all the same ****!!!!!..
we need more variety in the curse words field....
God Told Me To Buy A Gun..
HEY!!! I see someone coming to break into my house and he's about 10 blocks away. Let me get my .50 cal sniper rifle and get him before he gets to my house. I dont even know if he's an actual thief, but why take chances???
10 blocks? That's weak, man. You ought to be able to do that with a .308, right?genpowell71 said:
Besides, won't the .50 go through the guy and a couple houses behind him?
I worry about people that use any kind of rifle for "home defense" (especially one that uses a BMG round). A rifle round can pass through a wall, window, person or whatever and remain lethal- meaning if it doesn't stop when you hit the guy breaking into your house, it might find its way into the next room where your kids sleep. I never understood why people would get bent out of shape over a law that made automatic rifles illegal without a special license because, while I am against gun control, I am also against morons using a Colt M4 as their own private antitheft system. A 12 ga shotgun is smarter and safer to use, but then it's not something that has the "cool" factor of a high powered rifle. As much as I dislike gun control and all of that, I find it even more troubling that certain types of people seem to have such a thirst for violent tools that have no practical purpose for them. The question that this thought brings up is the original debate in this post- is it the responsibility of the government and law enforcement to manage people's love of violence by restricting access to certain weapons?
Technically, would it not be going through him, since there would be nothing left of him?HarryCallahan said:
Someone needs to use the amazing stopping power of the Barrett to shoot this zombie thread down.
And to stop me with a merciful head shot before I get on the "you need a dictionary more than you need a gun" kick with JBVyaddayaddayadda.
And to stop me with a merciful head shot before I get on the "you need a dictionary more than you need a gun" kick with JBVyaddayaddayadda.
um, please read yoru constitution again.mack said:
You have a right to bear arms..AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. This was the only way to get all the colonies to join the union. It gavce them the right to rise up and seperate should they not like what was going on.
So if you want CT to rise up and leave the union, then by all means you have the right to own a weapon. Otherwise shut your yap and learn a little history. Take all those NRA freaks with you, they may learn something.
Oh C'mon Mike, everyoen needs an anti-materiel weapon! We all have engine blocks to crack.MikeD said:
if i had a gun, i would shoot all the PBR cans lying around my yard...
You all make it sound like the .50 caliber is the nadest weapon on the planet.
Ok, I'll go with that statement...
Ok, I'll go with that statement...
Great gun....however, i can see where they're coming from with the ban. having serviced and fired a .50ca berrett i can honestly say that it is an amazing gun (even if it does cost about $1.50 per round 
).
i believe that good 'ole CA is worried about the fact that the .50 Cal is the only rifle capable of firing an armor peircing round. i know i'd be a little nervous in a civil unrest situation knowing that joe schmoe is out there with a round that will come right through the wall of my armored personnell carrier.
but you're right...banning it won't stop anyone from getting one that really wants it. just like the old assault rifles ban, it only kept them out of the hands of the responsible people, the bad guys still had them.
).i believe that good 'ole CA is worried about the fact that the .50 Cal is the only rifle capable of firing an armor peircing round. i know i'd be a little nervous in a civil unrest situation knowing that joe schmoe is out there with a round that will come right through the wall of my armored personnell carrier.
but you're right...banning it won't stop anyone from getting one that really wants it. just like the old assault rifles ban, it only kept them out of the hands of the responsible people, the bad guys still had them.
manimal said:Great gun....however, i can see where they're coming from with the ban. having serviced and fired a .50ca berrett i can honestly say that it is an amazing gun (even if it does cost about $1.50 per round
i believe that good 'ole CA is worried about the fact that the .50 Cal is the only rifle capable of firing an armor peircing round. i know i'd be a little nervous in a civil unrest situation knowing that joe schmoe is out there with a round that will come right through the wall of my armored personnell carrier.
but you're right...banning it won't stop anyone from getting one that really wants it. just like the old assault rifles ban, it only kept them out of the hands of the responsible people, the bad guys still had them.
that reasoning of "the bad guys will still have them no matter what".. is sort of the "perfect solution" fallacy...
ALEXIS_DH said:that reasoning of "the bad guys will still have them no matter what".. is sort of the "perfect solution" fallacy...
sorry, i guess i shouldn't use first-hand experience whilst debating in the political forum
i'll just get back to blind speculation...all this field experience/research is for the birds.
The only "perfect solution" that takes human nature into account is weapons handling and Close Quarters Battle training for the general public. It helps to eliminate victims....but that theory is as far fetched at utopia.
i dont think you got the point.manimal said:sorry, i guess i shouldn't use first-hand experience whilst debating in the political forum
i'll just get back to blind speculation...all this field experience/research is for the birds.
The only "perfect solution" that takes human nature into account is weapons handling and Close Quarters Battle training for the general public. It helps to eliminate victims....but that theory is as far fetched at utopia.
the perfect solution fallacy states that a meassure is useless just because it isnt perfect or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
example: (which is almost identical to your reasoning)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
[k]It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile? [/k]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
and you are assuming banning high powered guns is useless because "bad guys will still use them".. which is kinda like you are expecting only a perfect solution to be enforced....
and not thinking about the slower growth of the market for big guns (given the reduced offer and availability) than otherwise.. which would probably be enough to make the policy worthwhile....
get it now??