VPC Press Release re: DC Gun Ban Repeal


PDA






Mulliga
September 30, 2004, 03:27 PM
Sorry if this has already been posted:

http://www.vpc.org/press/0409dc2.htm

======================

Bill Would Repeal DC Handgun Ban, Allow Semiautomatic 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles and Assault Rifles to be Carried Throughout City

Following today's House vote to repeal the District of Columbia's gun laws, the Violence Policy Center released the following statement from Legislative Director Kristen Rand:

Since its passage, repeal of the DC handgun ban has been the National Rifle Association's Holy Grail. This effort is being undertaken without regard for the safety of DC residents—or our national leaders. This bill not only repeals DC's handgun ban, but also legalizes semiautomatic assault weapons and 50 caliber sniper rifles in the District of Columbia. One out of five police officers slain in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon. Yet this bill legalizes the possession of all assault weapons in DC and even removes restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition. Under the bill, AK-47s and AR-15s can legally be carried on city streets or virtually any other place in the District. [The VPC has b-roll of examples of assault weapons that would be legalized under the legislation.]

The bill would also legalize the sale of semiautomatic 50 caliber sniper rifles. These guns are used by our troops in Iraq and are valued for their ability to destroy parked aircraft, bring down helicopters, and pierce light armor—the type of armor used on armor-plated limousines. They are accurate up to a mile, roughly the distance from the West Front of the Capitol to the Smithsonian metro station. Under this measure, from DC, snipers could legally travel and position themselves to target and destroy passenger aircraft at National Airport. This measure gives its blessing to anyone who decides they want to take their loaded 50 caliber sniper rifle to the roof deck of their condominium or office building—even if they live near a federal building or common motorcade route.

To think that at the same time that DC is being turned into a virtual fortress—with vehicle checkpoints on public streets and cement barriers at every turn—the House of Representatives has voted to allow handguns, assault weapons, and semiautomatic 50 caliber sniper rifles to be sold and transported throughout the city is sheer lunacy. If Congress truly believes the rhetoric used by proponents of the bill, then it should also repeal the ban on guns in the U.S. Capitol and Congressional office buildings.

====================================

If you enjoyed reading about "VPC Press Release re: DC Gun Ban Repeal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
444
September 30, 2004, 03:28 PM
Yes, DC has certainly become a much safer place since the ban went into effect.

Mulliga
September 30, 2004, 03:32 PM
and even removes restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition

TRANSLATION: Centerfire rifle ammo. :)

AK-47s and AR-15s can legally be carried on city streets or virtually any other place in the District

Is this even true? :what:

EDIT: Perhaps they mean rifles can be carried everywhere, just like most places in America, if the rifle is in a case.

They are accurate up to a mile, roughly the distance from the West Front of the Capitol to the Smithsonian metro station. Under this measure, from DC, snipers could legally travel and position themselves to target and destroy passenger aircraft at National Airport. This measure gives its blessing to anyone who decides they want to take their loaded 50 caliber sniper rifle to the roof deck of their condominium or office building—even if they live near a federal building or common motorcade route.

Is the VPC planning something we don't know about? How come they always hatch these crazy schemes? :scrutiny: :scrutiny: :rolleyes:

deej
September 30, 2004, 04:48 PM
If Congress truly believes the rhetoric used by proponents of the bill, then it should also repeal the ban on guns in the U.S. Capitol and Congressional office buildings.



Finally, VPC and I agree on something!

Ukraine Train
September 30, 2004, 05:12 PM
When the heck did this happen? They actually repealed the ban??

Warbow
September 30, 2004, 05:20 PM
Ukraine Train wrote:

When the heck did this happen? They actually repealed the ban??

Not yet. The House passed a bill which would, but it still has to get through the Senate (good luck).

Ukraine Train
September 30, 2004, 05:20 PM
Oh, gotcha. Any idea when the senate will vote on this?

carpettbaggerr
September 30, 2004, 05:26 PM
Never. Or maybe after the elections. The RINOs and the Dems are squashing it. Too big a club for their opponents.

Gunstar1
September 30, 2004, 05:59 PM
The house of reps passed it.

However, I expect a good filibuster on the Senate version.

On another note, Does the VPC think that the Seceret Service does not already treat D.C. as if there are guns everywhere?

The VPC acts like the Seceret Service has had no concern with people shooting at the White House or polititians in DC up until now? It's like they could lounge around with no concern for hidden weapons now, but the second that bill passes - everyone is a target.

If someone wanted to kill they will either ignore the DC law or wait until they left DC. A gun ban does not stop the person from trying to kill them.

Harry Tuttle
September 30, 2004, 06:29 PM
brandishing a firearm down the mall to your sniper hide to pick off 757s would still be problematic

Graystar
September 30, 2004, 06:45 PM
She did say one thing that I wholeheartedly agree with... If Congress truly believes the rhetoric used by proponents of the bill, then it should also repeal the ban on guns in the U.S. Capitol and Congressional office buildings.

tulsamal
September 30, 2004, 06:59 PM
This is what happens when you let your enemy define your terms.

One out of five police officers slain in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon.

On the face of it, that statement makes no sense. We just saw a report that assault rifles are used in less than 1% of crimes. Significantly less than 1%. (But notice I just used a different word.) What does the population think when they hear that "1 in 5" sentence? I would guess they think of the Hollywood bank robbery. Full auto AK's blasting at everything. They at least see a "military style rifle" in their mind's eye. But notice the quote said "assault weapon." So if a cop is killed with his own handgun, he was killed with an assault weapon because it had a high capacity magazine in it.

You would _think_ even Joe Sixpack would realize 1 in 5 police officers killed isn't shot with an AK. But the VPC says it so it much be true! It's certainly what the network news has implied in their coverage of the AWB.

Gregg

spacemanspiff
September 30, 2004, 07:31 PM
how many enemy helicopters or limos have our guys been destroying with the .50bmg over in iraq?

:rolleyes:

Nightfall
September 30, 2004, 07:37 PM
Oh no, goodness forbid that the DC gun ban be repealed! Think of all the shootings and murders that would happen!

Oh... wait a minute... :rolleyes:

RealGun
September 30, 2004, 08:23 PM
Is there such a thing as a "semiautomatic 50 caliber sniper rifle", quoting the article? I am aware of bolt actions and have seen one in a gun shop. Is there anyone man enough to shoot a semiauto 50? I have a spent 50 BMG case on my desk and cannot picture a series of those flying from a semi auto. Wow!

As far as I know, an assault rifle is what police swat teams and the military use, having alternate modes of fire. It takes more than a big magazine to make the real thing. Few of us even own such a rifle, so the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" is the usual big lie or just plain ignorance. I also doubt that many criminals have or are on record as using a real assault rifle. More lies.

jefnvk
September 30, 2004, 08:36 PM
On the face of it, that statement makes no sense. We just saw a report that assault rifles are used in less than 1% of crimes. Significantly less than 1%. (But notice I just used a different word.) What does the population think when they hear that "1 in 5" sentence?

Check out their report. M-1 Carbines are included as assualt weapons, SKS are included, and MAK90's. None of those were considered 'assualt weapons', but those three alone covered almost half of police deaths from 'assualt weapons'. Also listed was the Mini-14, but IIRC, it was legal in one config, but not another. So maybe another stretched area.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officetwo.htm

and the 1% is for all crime IIRC.

Is there such a thing as a "semiautomatic 50 caliber sniper rifle", quoting the article?
Barrett M82A1. And I woud think that a semi-auto would kick less than a bolt, but having shot neither (in .50), I don't know.

Harry Tuttle
September 30, 2004, 08:48 PM
VPC considers anything banned under the 1994 law an assault weapon

large capacity magazines for pistols were banned

any police officer shot with a pistol capable of using a high cap mag...

tulsamal
September 30, 2004, 10:12 PM
VPC considers anything banned under the 1994 law an assault weapon

large capacity magazines for pistols were banned

any police officer shot with a pistol capable of using a high cap mag...

Exactly.

The Glock 17 with a ten round mag is ok. At least for now. But a Glock 17 with a 17 round magazine would fall under the 1994 definition. They would try to include it as an assault weapon. That's why they WANT to use the word assault weapon instead of assault rifle. (Plus the fact that there was a hard and fast definition for assault rifle that they couldn't meet.) Just call anything, rifle, pistol, or shotgun that looks scary an assault weapon. Nobody could really "need" or even "want" to own an assault weapon unless they were a dangerous person, right?

Gregg

Standing Wolf
September 30, 2004, 10:21 PM
If Congress truly believes the rhetoric used by proponents of the bill, then it should also repeal the ban on guns in the U.S. Capitol and Congressional office buildings.

If that's a motion, I'll second it!

ksnecktieman
September 30, 2004, 10:59 PM
For two cents worth,,,,,,,,,, For the murder capitol of the United States, I think ANY change to their law has to be good:)

Can we send in Eddie Eagle, and teach kids about gun safety, and then issue each of them an assault weapon on their eighteenth birthday?

deej
October 1, 2004, 12:57 AM
This might deserve a thread of its own...but what would a .50 REALLY do to a commercial airliner? Seems to me that commercial jets have suffered worse and still been airworthy.

jnojr
October 1, 2004, 03:02 AM
The bill would also legalize the sale of semiautomatic 50 caliber sniper rifles. These guns are used by our troops in Iraq and are valued for their ability to destroy parked aircraft, bring down helicopters, and pierce light armor—the type of armor used on armor-plated limousines. They are accurate up to a mile, roughly the distance from the West Front of the Capitol to the Smithsonian metro station. Under this measure, from DC, snipers could legally travel and position themselves to target and destroy passenger aircraft at National Airport.

You mean, like all the airplanes shot down at every other airport in the nation??? Oh my God won't anyone thing of the children???

My GFs place is a little over a mile from Linbergh Field. And the California ban on .50s hasn't taken effect yet! I can buy one right now and shoot down airplanes! Oh, praise be to Osama! I've got work to do...

SUE ROVR
October 1, 2004, 04:15 AM
""semiautomatic 50 caliber sniper rifle", "

Yes they make them :)


http://www.impactguns.com/store/barrett_m82a1.html

Has anyone actually used one of these in a crime?

I mean with all the hype you would think someone would go out, buy one and commit a crime with it.

RealGun
October 1, 2004, 07:45 AM
is anyone man enough

Thanks for the info. To answer my own question:

"A heavy-duty Kick-Eze shoulder pad assists in reducing the felt recoil, which is no stouter than that from a lightweight shotgun. Overall, the recoil is slower than that of a shotgun and reminiscent of the H&K G3. This reduction of recoil allows rapid aimed fire to be accomplished with ease. It also allows the M82A1 to be fired from an underarm position where the rifle is braced with the issue sling and recoils straight back with no sideswing."

My tack driver is .17HMR (200yds) , so what do I know? The heaviest I have shot is a Russian 7.62 x 55 and a .30-.06. Not a big man, I opted out on the chance at a .454 Casull revolver. A crow at 275 with a .22-.250 is my longest shot. Optics almost always at 9X.

A .308 with 20X is on my list. There is a 300 range in my area.

BryanP
October 1, 2004, 09:57 AM
I mean with all the hype you would think someone would go out, buy one and commit a crime with it.

If you can afford to throw down the cash for it you probably don't have any need to commit a crime.

Bubbles
October 1, 2004, 10:11 AM
Under this measure, from DC, snipers could legally travel and position themselves to target and destroy passenger aircraft at National Airport. This measure gives its blessing to anyone who decides they want to take their loaded 50 caliber sniper rifle to the roof deck of their condominium or office building—even if they live near a federal building or common motorcade route.

I hate to give them any ideas, but for this particular scenario a sniper would be more likely to set up in Arlington, VA versus DC. The office buildings are taller, the planes flying into National travel along very predictable routes, often below the tops of the buildings, there are multiple escape routes (I-66, Route 50, Route 29, Route 110, or even metro) and there's no pesky river to cross during exfiltration.

Harry Tuttle
October 1, 2004, 01:05 PM
http://www.82ndfightergroup.com/webreadyphotos/Phil%20web%20ready/B17%20made%20it%20home%20aa.jpg

Jay Kominek
October 1, 2004, 02:16 PM
On another note, Does the VPC think that the Seceret Service does not already treat D.C. as if there are guns everywhere?
I think the VPC are the only ones who don't treat D.C. as though it is full of guns (in the wrong hands).

I find it fascinating that they're suggesting that a law against guns in D.C. will somehow prevent a terrorist from driving around town to set up a sniping position in a tall building. Do they think terrorists will strap a rifle to their roof like a pair of skis so that they cops will notice it? Or do they expect the cops to stop every car after it travels more than a block and search it?

SMMAssociates
October 1, 2004, 03:05 PM
A .30Cal or .50Cal machine gun has always been something of a standard way to shoot down an airplane.

However, I don't think there have been more than a few successful ground based attacks with a rifle since WWI. Too high, too fast, etc.

Aircraft (and missles) are extremely vulnerable during takeoffs (and aircraft during landings) because they're not moving very fast, aren't too high, etc., but IMHO it'd take a very luck shot to bring down a heavy jet with anything you can buy without NFA conditions.

Yeah - they're built out of surplus tinfoil, but there's a LOT of it. Remember the plane on it's way into Hawaii that lost a good part of it's "roof".

I think it's the same old "depressurization" game - the idea that a single bullet hole in an aircraft will bring it down. Ain't gonna happen....

Why do you think that "fighter" aircraft have machine guns, not semi-auto's? Do a LOT of damage....

Don't forget.... Stop hijackings by banning travel agents.... :neener:

bobs1066
October 1, 2004, 03:35 PM
Does anyone know the stats on how many rounds of 50 cal, fired from the ground, it took, on average, to shoot down a single aircraft during WW II?

Harry Tuttle
October 1, 2004, 04:13 PM
http://www.uploadit.org/docZox/VPC50bmg.jpg

Gunstar1
October 1, 2004, 05:06 PM
That comic brought up a good point.. after I stopped laughing.

There is a bit of practice you will need before you are likely to hit the broad side of a barn at 1/2 miles or greater, much less a flying object that is not only changing direction but speed as well. I shoot rifles but none that big and nowhere near that distance with wind affecting the shot.

A normal lead bullet is not going to bring an airliner down. It will punch some large holes but thats it(aircraft have redundant systems, taking out one engine will not usually bring one down). If you want to explode the aircraft you could get tracers and fire them into the gas tank, but that would be pointing at your position. Not to mention if you have to fire more than one shot, the sound that a .50 makes when it goes will give away your position to anyone within 10-15 blocks. One shot would be, hey I am in this building... multiple shots would be giving out the floor and the room.

Not to mention these guns are HUGE and very hard to hide.

Harry Tuttle
October 1, 2004, 05:13 PM
heres another one i made "for" the VPC:
http://premium.uploadit.org/docZox/diazchicken3.jpg

carpettbaggerr
October 1, 2004, 05:34 PM
Why would you bother with a .50? Just smuggle in a Stinger or even an RPG7, and you'd have a much better chance of shooting down an airliner.

I doubt terrorists are going to bother with a .50 BMG rifle.

hardhead
October 2, 2004, 08:50 PM
Ever notice how in almost every statement from the VPC about the 50s, they mention that they are capable of penetrating an armored limousine? This mention was also prevalent in statements from Blohardovich when he was a congresscritter.

If the SHTF, the socialist bastards know that they would have come out sometime, and they know they are vulnerable to the 50BMG, among other nearly as potent calibers.

Given the stated agenda of these traitors, I can understand their concern.







(Keep it up, I'm loading up the big stuff as fast as I can.)

If you enjoyed reading about "VPC Press Release re: DC Gun Ban Repeal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!