Answers for the mob
TO JEFNVK
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.
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.
Thirdly, the BOR is a limitation on GOVERNMENT POWER, not an entitlement of rights to individuals.
That’s not the way most posters here act
I'll say that your description of government is consistent with fascism
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
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 "irrational 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.
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
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
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'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 necessary to secure nothing less the freedom of this republic and it's people from any armored-limo driving enemies?
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