Hate to say it for the third time, but there are nine confirmed murders committed between 1992 and 1997 in Northern Ireland using .50 calibre barretts. That's not an assertion, by the way, it's fact based on the recovery of the bullet or bullet fragments, the recovery of the rifles, and the capture of the ????s who pulled the trigger.
US Senate and .50 Cal
- Thread starter RealGun
- Start date
- Status
jefnvk
Member
First off, it is Detroit and Flint and Ann Arbor area keeping Levin in. I'll try to clean him out in 2009 (if I am still around here then).
I believe that there is no need for police to have .50 rifles either. There is not a single reason that a police would have to engage a target a mile away. A .223 is all you need.
See? It can work both ways.
And why does need have an effect on anything. I look around my room. Short of the bed, clothes and food, I don't see anything I NEED to live. TV? Nope, don't need that. Computer? Nope. Books, movies, a dartboard, phone, clocks, snowshoes, posters of hot chicks? Nope, I don;t need anything of that.
Come to think aboiu it, I have a new idea. We will ban anything anything that is not needed. When everyone only has what they need, there will no longer be any reason to comitt crimes against anyone. Theft will drop to zero, as there will be nothing to steal. I don't really see any reason to hold someone up, as they have nothing to steal. Can't kill someone for something they don't have, simply necause they say they dont have it, because no one does.
Outside of food, clothing and shelter, everything else is a luxury. LUXURY.
My luxuries are different than yours. I don't ask that you start to like my luxuries, just that you don't deprive me of them.
After all, who needs a diamond necklace, anyway?
I believe that there is no need for police to have .50 rifles either. There is not a single reason that a police would have to engage a target a mile away. A .223 is all you need.
See? It can work both ways.
And why does need have an effect on anything. I look around my room. Short of the bed, clothes and food, I don't see anything I NEED to live. TV? Nope, don't need that. Computer? Nope. Books, movies, a dartboard, phone, clocks, snowshoes, posters of hot chicks? Nope, I don;t need anything of that.
Come to think aboiu it, I have a new idea. We will ban anything anything that is not needed. When everyone only has what they need, there will no longer be any reason to comitt crimes against anyone. Theft will drop to zero, as there will be nothing to steal. I don't really see any reason to hold someone up, as they have nothing to steal. Can't kill someone for something they don't have, simply necause they say they dont have it, because no one does.
Outside of food, clothing and shelter, everything else is a luxury. LUXURY.
My luxuries are different than yours. I don't ask that you start to like my luxuries, just that you don't deprive me of them.
After all, who needs a diamond necklace, anyway?
jefnvk
Member
The problem is, that the media plays it up like they are the weapon of choice of terrorists and criminals. 9 uses is not 'the choice weapon' by any measure (unless you are playing golf scores
)Molon Labe
Member
O.K. guys, listen up. Whenever politicians start talking about legislation to ban the .50 BMG, our knee-jerk reaction is always, "But the .50 BMG has never been used in a crime!!"
This is a terrible argument to justify why the .50 BMG should not be banned. This is because we are implying that if the .50 BMG is ever used in a crime, then it would be O.K. to ban them.
Please, please. Don't use this argument. It wouldn't matter if a thousand crimes a year involved the use of a .50 BMG; you would still have a right to own one. Instead, our argument should simply be, "We have a right to own .50 BMGs, and that's that."
This is a terrible argument to justify why the .50 BMG should not be banned. This is because we are implying that if the .50 BMG is ever used in a crime, then it would be O.K. to ban them.
Please, please. Don't use this argument. It wouldn't matter if a thousand crimes a year involved the use of a .50 BMG; you would still have a right to own one. Instead, our argument should simply be, "We have a right to own .50 BMGs, and that's that."
Zak Smith
Member
Your facts are incorrect. SKS's are perfectly legal. Driving as fast as you want to is perfectly legal, just not on public highways.
Thirdly, the BOR is a limitation on GOVERNMENT POWER, not an entitlement of rights to individuals.
Since I can't call you a facist on THR, I'll say that your description of government is consistent with facism.
I shoot my 50BMG at my local range, 35 minutes from my house, all the time.
What is your problem?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Molon Labe, your argument is entirely correct of course. Thanks for pointing that out.
Until the 60 minutes thing, I had never really given any thought to the .50 for my own purposes but now I may buy one just because I can.
Until the 60 minutes thing, I had never really given any thought to the .50 for my own purposes but now I may buy one just because I can.
Zak Smith
Member
What, you mean like an M4 or an MP5? What's the big deal? A friend of mine has both of those along with M16's, full auto battle rifles, other subguns, etc, and beltfeds in his safe. How is it "irratoinal and irresponsible" .. "to keep such weapons" in one's house, as long as they are secured?
They don't jump and start shooting themselves-- they are inanimate objects.
Jeesh.
Do you drive a nice sedan, sports car, or SUV, when a 1990 Honda Civic would do the job? Why? Nevermind, it's a rhetorical question.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
WooHoo!!!
Thank god that people like me ARE allowed to own such weapons if our LEO community thinks like this. That's pretty much the prime example of what the Founding Fathers put that pesky Second Amendment in there for....
Thank god that people like me ARE allowed to own such weapons if our LEO community thinks like this. That's pretty much the prime example of what the Founding Fathers put that pesky Second Amendment in there for....
Molon Labe
Member
I finally splurged and bought a Serbu BFG-50 last year. It was worth every penny. God I love that rifle.
At least half of those are illegal posession which doesn't count. And the others are about when, "fired 50 caliber sniper rifles at federal ATF agents". Key word being at, meaning they didn't kill anyone with it.
edit: And now I knotice that most wern't even illegal posession, just ownership at the same time they commited an unrelated crime.
10 Ring Tao
Member
Levin might as well be black, to match his most beloved constituents in downtown detroit, who are the only reason hes still around.
rdbrowning
Member
I appologize to one and all for Mr. Levin's antics. He represents the state in which I live, but he sure don't represent me. I will do everything I can to replace him next election. But after 20+ years it won't be easy.
The arguements for banning the .50 BMG firearms don't matter. They can actually be used to ban any firearm if you're emotional enough. They're all to powerfull to the grabbers because they can be used against them. Tom Diaz isn't solely concerned with the .50 BMG. Him and his kind want all guns banned. That is the plan. You can be rest assured they want them all banned one step at a time or any way they can. Their arguements don't hold water when you look at their anti-freedom, victim disarmament bias. They are clearly disingenious and so was the hit peice on CBS.
They did not show any sporting events or tournaments where the .50 BMG is used or speak to those who matter. The citizens! They did not talk of Tom Diaz being one of the head big mouths of a far left organization in VPC.
The crime usage is not an issue for anyone that uses common sense. There are many crimes committed with many caliber of firearms. Should we ban those too? Pointing out that there isn't crimes committed with these firearms is good for PR because only sportsman use them. This is why they want to keep their real usage on the down low and lie about the branch davidians.
What the IRA may or may not have done has no bearing on reality here in the United States.
They did not show any sporting events or tournaments where the .50 BMG is used or speak to those who matter. The citizens! They did not talk of Tom Diaz being one of the head big mouths of a far left organization in VPC.
The crime usage is not an issue for anyone that uses common sense. There are many crimes committed with many caliber of firearms. Should we ban those too? Pointing out that there isn't crimes committed with these firearms is good for PR because only sportsman use them. This is why they want to keep their real usage on the down low and lie about the branch davidians.
What the IRA may or may not have done has no bearing on reality here in the United States.
artherd
member
I'm all for it! Except I demand the government not be permitted to do it or have absolutely any say in the issue at all, because of a simple conflict of intrest.
Are you going respond to my assertation that civilian ownership of .50BMG rifles is nessecary to secure nothing less the freedom of this republic and it's people from any armored-limo driving enemies?
artherd
member
Bahaha! Quote of the month Zak!
This particular practice is an idiotic and a slap to the idea of citizenship.
Why is it police officers are arbitrarily given the right to own these firearms?
Why aren't military allowed this same privlege?
And why aren't XXX allowed this privilege ??
I'm sorry, this is the US. People in this country aren't supposed to get special status. The only "special" status afforded people in the constitution is that of "citizenship".
I've heard some long time police officer brag about how he gets special treatment and such and how he likes that (getting out of tickets, getting stuff he wants by saying he's a police officer). That makes me utterly ill.
artherd
member
In falgrant violation of the 14th ammendment (oh, look it up)
50 Shooter
member
Well, I'll just add that the shootings were in the UK and NOT in the U.S. Who cares what they were shot with, they were still shot. What I find disturbing is that they blame the weapon and not the terrorist/person.
All the other B.S. on VPC's website is just that B.S.! They continue to lie about Waco but no one can produce a .50. I guess it was buried by the bulldozers just like the guy in KC who's house was bulldozed the next day. Can you say tampering with evidence?
It also has NOTHING to do with need or want, the 2nd Amendment ALLOWS us the RIGHT to have them.
All the other B.S. on VPC's website is just that B.S.! They continue to lie about Waco but no one can produce a .50. I guess it was buried by the bulldozers just like the guy in KC who's house was bulldozed the next day. Can you say tampering with evidence?
It also has NOTHING to do with need or want, the 2nd Amendment ALLOWS us the RIGHT to have them.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
50 Shooter, that's not quite right: The Second Amendment acknowledges our right to own and possess. The Bill of Rights enumerates some of the many rights which exist for all individuals whether or not there is any government at all.
Note that the purpose of the BOR is to restrain the State agains abuse of its powers. That is so stated in the Preamble.
Art
Note that the purpose of the BOR is to restrain the State agains abuse of its powers. That is so stated in the Preamble.
Art
oldfart
Member
It's been said that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' That's true, of course, but the principle holds true in other fields as well. On another board recently, I've seen auicide bomber in Iraq with his head blown into a mass of mush, evidently by a .50. Not a pretty sight, but not unusual in war. Still, I imagine his mother entertained thoughts that he had been murdered by some outlaw infidel.
Those 19-year old boys had mothers, fathers and friends who obviously still consider their deaths 'murder.' Yet, just like the sniper who killed the suicide bomber, the man who pulled the trigger on the British soldier probably felt he was just protecting his country from an aggressor.
Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Many of the founders of the United States were considered criminals by the British government.
Those 19-year old boys had mothers, fathers and friends who obviously still consider their deaths 'murder.' Yet, just like the sniper who killed the suicide bomber, the man who pulled the trigger on the British soldier probably felt he was just protecting his country from an aggressor.
Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Many of the founders of the United States were considered criminals by the British government.
Answers for the mob
TO JEFNVK
Answer: I never said Law enforcement needed .50 cal. You must have missed that
To Zak Smith
SKS with 10 American parts.
Nader, national speed limits on highways were the references
and lastly 35 mins to that open of a range is not to bad. However that is one of the limited places were you can fire your gun. It is not like a gun you can shoot on your property.
To Zack Smith
FYI I collect 60’s muscle cars but I do have a Honda bike
To TexasSIGman
TO artherd
I am advocating additional training for the safe use of such a powerful weapon.
I would think a person who passes the background and buys such a gun needs to attend, Oh I don't know at least an 8-hour instructional and familiarization course before the take the gun home.
Part two
I don’t feel the level of uncertainty in regards to the need to have this weapon. It sounded like your were describing a dooms day governmental conspiracy. In which the government took to rounding up and murder innocent civilians. I understand that point. However if you find the link to the BMG killings posted earlier in the thread, you will see those using the guns were religious in nature, and theses groups were often doomsday cults as well. Average Americans, including myself, fear religious based doomsday cults.
BTW the 14th extends the rights of due process to the states. There is no violation in my statement I was giving a responsibility I chose weather or not I wish to have a weapon in my house. Policing standers here are regulated by the state any 19 year old with a clean past can go to the academy
TO JEFNVK
Answer: I never said Law enforcement needed .50 cal. You must have missed that
To Zak Smith
SKS with 10 American parts.
Nader, national speed limits on highways were the references
and lastly 35 mins to that open of a range is not to bad. However that is one of the limited places were you can fire your gun. It is not like a gun you can shoot on your property.
That’s not the way most posters here act
LOL my sides hurt, however that seems like a personal emotionally charges attack. That’s not very HR like The first thing the communist did was attempt to discredit there opposition in the polls of public opinion then they round them up comrade
To Zack Smith
It is nice to here they are SECURED. Is your friend a Class 3 dealer? You see the fence sitters point to examples like your friend and then side with the anti gun die hard’s because that level of armament seems irrational.
FYI I collect 60’s muscle cars but I do have a Honda bike
To TexasSIGman
You shorten my statement which is in response to a quote taken from another members post and attempt to twist is as if it were my own post. What are you asserting?
TO artherd
I am advocating additional training for the safe use of such a powerful weapon.
I would think a person who passes the background and buys such a gun needs to attend, Oh I don't know at least an 8-hour instructional and familiarization course before the take the gun home.
Part two
I don’t feel the level of uncertainty in regards to the need to have this weapon. It sounded like your were describing a dooms day governmental conspiracy. In which the government took to rounding up and murder innocent civilians. I understand that point. However if you find the link to the BMG killings posted earlier in the thread, you will see those using the guns were religious in nature, and theses groups were often doomsday cults as well. Average Americans, including myself, fear religious based doomsday cults.
BTW the 14th extends the rights of due process to the states. There is no violation in my statement I was giving a responsibility I chose weather or not I wish to have a weapon in my house. Policing standers here are regulated by the state any 19 year old with a clean past can go to the academy
Zak Smith
Member
If I had property on which I could shoot ANY gun, I could shoot the 50 there. I happen to live in town, so I can't shoot a .22 either. There is only one private range I know of in Colorado which PROHIBITS 50's, and that's just their policy, not law. All the other ranges, the 50 gazillion aces of the Pawnee National Grasslands and any of the National Forests are all legal and safe to shoot on.
It is totally FALSE to say there are "limited places" where I can fire my 50-- it's no more true than where I can shoot a 9mm or a regular rifle.
It sounds like you both live in a city in a congested area of the country (eg, CA or out East) and have never shot a 50. Do you have any experience with what you're talking about?
Not at all. You promote laws and policies which put the the nation or state above the individual-- the definition of fascism. I'm surprised you don't realize it.
I'm not talking about a Public Relations exercise. I am talking about your dismissal of ownership of types of weapons because...
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Funny-odd: No matter how many times we speak of the inability of inanimate objects to do harm without some human involved, we still get into arguments about "things".
I don't care what any agency of government has. I don't care what individuals have. What matters is how they're used, not whether or not a governmental agency "needs" them nor whether or not I myownself "need" the same item.
As for a .50, I don't see why "training" takes more time than pointing out that it shoots farther than a .30-'06, which shoots farther than a .22 rimfire. Oh, and it's louder. After all, these three examples are merely escalations from a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun.
What's needed to be learned are the Four Rules of safe gun handling...
Art
I don't care what any agency of government has. I don't care what individuals have. What matters is how they're used, not whether or not a governmental agency "needs" them nor whether or not I myownself "need" the same item.
As for a .50, I don't see why "training" takes more time than pointing out that it shoots farther than a .30-'06, which shoots farther than a .22 rimfire. Oh, and it's louder. After all, these three examples are merely escalations from a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun.
What's needed to be learned are the Four Rules of safe gun handling...
Art
artherd
member
I can and have shot my Barrett M82A1 on my property. I will do so as I please.
Why not a 16 hour course? Why not a 60 DAY course? Why not make the course for whites-only to keep the world safe from 'terrorists'? Why not make the permit then 'may-issue' and give the local sherrif discression?
Like the CCW situation in Los Angeles, where a jewler cannot get a permit, but Sean Penn (multiple felon!) CAN?!
Have you been drinking the bong water, officer?
Your feelings are all well and good, but they are irrelivant. The gun is there to stop exactly the kind of genocide you suggest. 170million people have been murdered by your kinds of 'feelings' SINCE the year 1900.
Think it can't happen here? It already has.
Why not a 16 hour course? Why not a 60 DAY course? Why not make the course for whites-only to keep the world safe from 'terrorists'? Why not make the permit then 'may-issue' and give the local sherrif discression?
Like the CCW situation in Los Angeles, where a jewler cannot get a permit, but Sean Penn (multiple felon!) CAN?!
Have you been drinking the bong water, officer?
Your feelings are all well and good, but they are irrelivant. The gun is there to stop exactly the kind of genocide you suggest. 170million people have been murdered by your kinds of 'feelings' SINCE the year 1900.
Think it can't happen here? It already has.
- Status
