Ban on 50 Caliber Weapons

This may help to explain why they want to ban .50 rifles, watch the video :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As far as rifels go, sniping is the only situation a 50 is good for (unless you have it mounted to the back of a pickup or something and convert to fully auto, but we all know how likely this is) and to be honest a 308 would do the job just as well in any realistic situation.

The XM107 LRSR's primary purpose is anti-vehicle.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
There is a diference - driving a car is a previlage, owning a gun is a RIGHT.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Requiring mandatory safety courses and certification does not infridge on the right to keep and bear arms. Just as requiring a permit for a public demostration does not infridge on your freedom of speech.

The Second Amendment does not say, "Duck Hunting and Trap Shooting Being Necessary to the Security of A Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If your country's standing army has the weapon, why should you be allowed to have it? In fact, what sort of government presumes to "to allow" free, lawabiding people to have weapon in the first place?

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Like the quote? Google it.

The whole hunting/self-defense debate is ridiculous. Guns are for tyrant shooting (at least insofar as the right to carry them is concerned). I have to shake my head when I hear reporters and politicians suggest that these laws are passed by well intended people concerned with our protection. I don't require their protection. Anyway, these people, in my opinion, aren't concerned with protecting society; they're concerned with controlling it. And by control I do not mean lunatic fringe, conspiracy, Dr. Evil, type control, but the "because I'm the mommy, that's why" type control.

Dear Gun Control Friend:
Nobody is saying you're not bright. You are very bright. We appreciate you and thank you for sharing. Also, nobody is insisting that you must purchase a gun of your own (though you would probably do well to at least show your child which end you never want him to be on). Relax. Check something out at the public library or take take a what in the park. But next time you feel overcome by that urge to stick your nose into another person's right to bear arms, just stroll into Starbuck's and have a nice hot cup of shut the @#$%-up instead (vente).

Originally posted by GessoI

The whole hunting/self-defense debate is ridiculous. Guns are for tyrant shooting (at least insofar as the right to carry them is concerned). I have to shake my head when I hear reporters and politicians suggest that these laws are passed by well intended people concerned with our protection. I don't require their protection. Anyway, these people, in my opinion, aren't concerned with protecting society; they're concerned with controlling it. And by control I do not mean lunatic fringe, conspiracy, Dr. Evil, type control, but the "because I'm the mommy, that's why" type control.

Thats a good point. Nobody can say it cant happen In America Because it happened time and time again in History.

Hitler got rid of guns early on, Stalin was all so a big fan of taking away guns from the public. Then we cant forget Mussolini. Look where gun control got those countries. Those are some great poster boys for the anti-gun people

Though I do think hunting/self-defense /target shooting are also valid reasons in their own right. When somebody breaks into my house shooting tyrants will be the last thing on my mind.

If the Goverment ever takes over in a evil Nazi or NWO type way.

This might be what the American people will have to deal with. Perhaps this will be the NWO soldier


All the hunting shotguns in the world wont save us.If they would even let us have those If they wanted to do such a thing.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 15-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO



Requiring mandatory safety courses and certification does not infridge on the right to keep and bear arms. Just as requiring a permit for a public demostration does not infridge on your freedom of speech.

That was more or less what I was getting at. I think it is not too much to ask that we have laws to make sure that the people handling DEADLY weapons are properly trained in their use and more importantly, not fresh out of the looney bin or jail.

The consequences of mis-using a gun are just a dangerous as the consequences of mis-using an automobile. A little mandatory regulation is not too much to ask in my opinion.

Originally posted by GessoI


Dear Gun Control Friend:
Nobody is saying you're not bright. You are very bright. We appreciate you and thank you for sharing. Also, nobody is insisting that you must purchase a gun of your own (though you would probably do well to at least show your child which end you never want him to be on). Relax. Check something out at the public library or take take a what in the park. But next time you feel overcome by that urge to stick your nose into another person's right to bear arms, just stroll into Starbuck's and have a nice hot cup of shut the @#$%-up instead (vente).

I think it is safe to assume that this is directed at me.

As written several times *sigh* I am not for banning weapons. I am for regulating them for publice safety reasons. ie. making sure people are of sound mind and qualified to use them. You don't want a schizo getting their hands on an AK. Since gun control involves public safety(you, me &everyone else) you better believe that I am going to stick my nose in it. As I wrote earlier, this is a debate well worth having.

And I don't drink at starbucks anymore.

Originally posted by Facefirst

That was more or less what I was getting at. I think it is not too much to ask that we have laws to make sure that the people handling DEADLY weapons are properly trained in their use and more importantly, not fresh out of the looney bin or jail.

The consequences of mis-using a gun are just a dangerous as the consequences of mis-using an automobile. A little mandatory regulation is not too much to ask in my opinion.

I can agree with that dangerous or mentally unstable should not be allowed to get guns dangerous criminals should also not be allowed body armour. I can deal with background checks the whole nine yards. I as a lawful gun owner have nothing to hide. If I have to get a permit and take a course I can deal with that.

I dont agree with turning that into a thing were I have to pay thousands of dollars if I want such a weapon which is sometimes the case now. They make it so the rich can have no problem getting any weapon they want for defense or any other reason.

Just imagine if you had to pay thousands of dollars to get your driver's license

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


I can agree with that dangerous or mentally unstable should not be allowed to get guns dangerous criminals should also not be allowed body armour. I can deal with background checks the whole nine yards. I as a lawful gun owner have nothing to hide. If I have to get a permit and take a course I can deal with that.

I dont agree with turning that into a thing were I have to pay thousands of dollars if I want such a weapon which is sometimes the case now. They make it so the rich can have no problem getting any weapon they want for defense or any other reason.

Just imagine if you had to pay thousands of dollars to get your driver's license

In some countries, Germany and Japan come to mind, you do have to pay thousands.

I am not for it to be that extreme. A safety course, backround check and shooting time with an instructor seem pretty reasonable to me.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by Facefirst
...I think it is not too much to ask that we have laws to make sure that the people handling DEADLY weapons are properly trained in their use and more importantly, not fresh out of the looney bin or jail.

The consequences of mis-using a gun are just a dangerous as the consequences of mis-using an automobile. A little mandatory regulation is not too much to ask in my opinion.

I disagree. The right to bear arms is a right, and not something that the government should be tasked with regulating (i.e., providing licenses). Requiring a permit just provides one more way for them to take away certain weapons or make them so costly that they are un-obtainable for the average citizen.

I am happy with the current system of all gun purchases going through a registered FFL, and guns not being available to those who have felony convictions or outstanding warrants. Anything more than that and I start to get worried.

Originally posted by Facefirst

In some countries, Germany and Japan come to mind, you do have to pay thousands.

I am not for it to be that extreme. A safety course, backround check and shooting time with an instructor seem pretty reasonable to me.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Facefirst]

I dont think thats unreaonable you basically described what a person has to go through to get a handgun permit, At least in my state im not sure about others but I think its just about the same.

Like Para said it is a right so it shouldnt really be about money IMO I have to register to vote but they dont make me pay for it because its my right. I can understanding having to pay some money since you have to pay the instructors and background checks cost money but they go to far with the money issue. It should never be a right just for the rich

What you described is not that unreasonable, in all honesty. It is something that I could live with, but I wouldn�t like it. But what you have to consider is what the anti-gun contingent (Brady campaign) could do with it. BATF background checks currently take 90 days minimum. This could easily be extended for just about any reason that happens to come to mind. Then there is the safety course. What if they decide to reduce them to only one course per year? How about instituting a maximum of 100 students per course? Or charging thousands of dollars just to get considered for a seat? Then you have the time with the instructor. We conveniently only have a handful of instructors available at any time, all who cost large sums of money. Then, these instructors are only capable of certifying you on certain weapons that have been deemed "safe". So bolt-action rifles, in "reasonable" calibers, shotguns, and maybe a few handguns her and there. You have just effectively made it impossible for the average citizen to own a firearm of any type.

That may sound extreme, but I don�t think the people behind the anti-gun legislature would hesitate to do it. They seem to think that I need to be protected from myself and as GessoI put it, exercise �mommy� control over any and all guns in the nation. It�s not something that I want to see happen.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As far as rifels go, sniping is the only situation a 50 is good for (unless you have it mounted to the back of a pickup or something and convert to fully auto, but we all know how likely this is) and to be honest a 308 would do the job just as well in any realistic situation.

The XM107 LRSR's primary purpose is anti-vehicle.

So? It is still less suited to almost all needs of criminals then other more conventional weapons.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
There is a diference - driving a car is a previlage, owning a gun is a RIGHT.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Requiring mandatory safety courses and certification does not infridge on the right to keep and bear arms. Just as requiring a permit for a public demostration does not infridge on your freedom of speech.

And that is my point - ANY requirement to own a firearm is an infringement. It is a form of restriction, and restriction of ownership IS an infringement.

I think your right Para some of the people behind the brady bill would love if it was like that, some would even like to have no guns at all.

I think the vast majority of Americans have a moderate view like Facefirst or are pro-gun. I think theres over 100 million legal gun owners in the US thats alot of Americans I think its safe to say they would be pro-gun and most are voting age. I think a large number of non-gun owners have a view like Facefirst about control.

Then we have this radical anti-gun group that wants to either ban all guns or make it so only the very rich can own them. I think that group is the smallest of all the groups.

This is a reason behind the sunset of the AWB its not good to piss off 100million voters before a elections. Both sides decided not to touch it because they were scared.


On a side note did anyone see the Daily Show today about the AWB what a bunch of crap on that issue. They made it seem like now everyone can go out and buy machine guns. I know its not a real news show but come on.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think the vast majority of Americans have a moderate view like Facefirst or are pro-gun. I think theres over 100 million legal gun owners in the US thats alot of Americans I think its safe to say they would be pro-gun and most are voting age. I think a large number of non-gun owners have a view like Facefirst about control.

Then we have this radical anti-gun group that wants to either ban all guns or make it so only the very rich can own them. I think that group is the smallest of all the groups.

I think your right that most Americans are pro-gun or for moderate gun control. The end of the assault weapons ban has a lot of people making decisions about those types of guns without the correct information, no thanks to the media (BTW, didn�t catch The Daily Show, I haven�t had a TV for about a month).

Personally I am for as little gun control as is necessary. I tend to go a little too far with that sometimes, but I can admit that some gun control is needed. Mainly, keeping guns away from those who are too immature to use them properly and those who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with them (felons). Other than that, I believe it is a right and that the individual should be able to exercise freedom when purchasing them.

The problem with the radical anti-gun group is that they have proven to be effective in taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens. Through scare tactics and misinformation they have managed to spread their message and further their cause. We were caught sleeping on the assault weapons ban, but now that we are aware of what they are willing to do we can�t let it happen again, because I am willing to bet that whatever legislation they attempt to pass next time will be significantly harsher than the AWB was.

Taking the 2nd ammendment to its logical conclusion, everyone should get a nuclear device at birth. You know the right to bear arms...

And I thoght it was protecting your right to roll up your sleeves.

Originally posted by Corinthas
Taking the 2nd ammendment to its logical conclusion, everyone should get a nuclear device at birth. You know the right to bear arms...

And I thoght it was protecting your right to roll up your sleeves.

Typical anti-gun bunk Yes all pro-gun people want nuclear weapons you fund us out. When we want to protect our right to own guns But we are secretly planning to make nukes legal for everyone.

If every one has a gun the guy with the biggest one wins.

The logical conclusion is that obviously a race to get the biggest gun starts.

Or do i have that wrong? Is it rate of fire that wins, or calibre or what?


Sorry not a violence freak here so I don't have a clue, exept that a small mass of dense metal at high velocity makes terminal holes in people.

I was just suggeesting that the biggers "arm" is a nuke, maybe ita a "H" bomb...

Again typical people that attack gun rights know next to nothing about guns.Your knowledge of guns is amazing did you help the brady bill bunch out?

Oh yes its all about the size the biggest gun wins, no wait its all about the fast shooting gun

100 millin gun owners and we are all violent, we all kill someone on a daliy basis. Nobody hunts ,nobody target shoots, guns have never protected a single person they are evil evil evil and only a violent monster would ever think of owning a gun.

When people want guns for any reason be it hunting ,target shooting ,home defense or collecting they really want nukes because that would work so much better

Oh and the AWB is gone we can all run out and buy machine guns even nuclear weapons

[edit on 15-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Have you ever been to switzerland? Well there used to ba an assault rifle in every closet, right next to the vacuum cleaner, IN EVERY HOUSE.

Why?

'Coz every one was in the Army and "brought their work home with them".
Now this place 1. Has lots of guns 2. Doesn't pretend people have the "right" (we have lots of "rights" that shouldn't be invoked, like my right to do anything in my power.. kill you for example) or the need to own guns privately and 3. Doesen't have half the problems the US have.

OK it has way less people so the "psycho-nutter" factor is not as big as it is in the US, but still no way near the same scale of problems.