Ban on 50 Caliber Weapons

Originally posted by para
What you described is not that unreasonable, in all honesty. It is something that I could live with, but I wouldn�t like 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".

Nobody(including me) likes to go to the DMV and deal with the red-tape, but it is a necessary evil to help insure public safety.

Out here in California(I am orig from NY), the State Govt. has contracted out private services along with the CHP courses as well to help drivers learn to be more safe. I think something similar could be fairly easily devised for the gun end of things. That way, a person who wants to own a gun can be certain that they will be properly trained. The only difference is that I think it should be mandatory. That is to simply make sure that if someone purchases a deadly weapon, they at the very least know what they are doing with regards to safety and proper use. I don't want just anyone getting their hands on a gun. I want responsible people with respect for other citizens. I know the majority of gun-owners are responsible, but some more comprehensive regulations are needed, just as comprehensive regulations are needed for driving and operating cars, boats and airplanes, etc. You sure don't want someone getting behind the wheel of an eighteen wheeler or the stick of a 747 without the proper training? The consequences of poor/improper use of a gun are just as drastic.

It is a right to bear weapons, but only if responsibly.(and I mean that only with regards to public safety) That means not using them recklessly or poorly handling them. (I have seen enough of that at gun ranges!)

While I am not for assault rifles being used outside of Law or military use, I am not for the right to bear arms being taken away at all. That is just my layman's opinion.



[edit on 15-9-2004 by Facefirst]

People who don't like guns are people who also had no interest in serving this country. They should have no right to take away my weapons. Maybe we should reinstate the draft so no one will be scared of weapons.

If you don't weapons drop and give me 20!!

DELETED.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by Corinthas
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.

I know all about Switzerland gun control and crime rates. Criminals dont like to rob houses with military rifles in them here in the states either.

See we have this little thing called the 2nd amendment in the states. Since you are not from the Untied States I dont expect you to understand. Nor do I care your views on American gun control.

Take away all the guns you want in the Netherlands

[edit on 15-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Its all about keeping the cycle of violence rolling along happlily.

Bottom line in the US:

2nd amendment is only useful to keep arms sales up. Thats it!

As if they really give a @!#% about "rights".

You might give about rights but not "them".

"They" only care about more $$$ though selling more guns.

Thats why there is such a problem trying to control guns in the US it's your big earner.

Wrong most of the guns I own come from Germany, Russia and Italy. The new American military rifle is made by a German company HK. Some of the most popular guns are made outside the US

Please try again you might get something right about guns yet.

I have a better idea, ammend the 2nd ammendment to read: ..the right to bear two arms... no wait three.

NRA lobbying is not bribery


Hey I could run for president with Ideas like these...

Wow you really know so much about the gun issues in America is amazing. I wish all anti-gun people knew as much as you do.

Oh the anti-gun movement does not lobby either

You should run for president (in your own country) but thank god you cant in run in America

So the US makes how much on arms sales exactly? Just wondering...

Originally posted by American Mad Man
So? It is still less suited to almost all needs of criminals then other more conventional weapons.

You said a 308 would could do the job in any realistic situation. Realistic situations involve disabling lightly armored vehicles. Why a criminal would or wouldn't use it isn't even an issue with me.

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 have no problem with a person owning a .50 Cal as long as they know the capabilities and proper safety with that weapon. I don't have a problem with a person owning a fully automatic assault rifle as long as they know the capabilities and proper safety with that weapon.

If someone used an XM107 LRSR for home defense (for whatever reason) without knowing that after it "vaporized" the criminal the round would then continue through the wall, across the street, into my house to possibly kill one of my children, I have a problem.

Requiring a person to know the capabilities of a weapon and proper safety is not to infridge on the right to bear arms. It is to protect the right to life of the people around you. Which is more important? Your right to use a weapon in ignorance or a person's right to live? I'll tell you, it is the right to live freely that gives the second amendment its power. Life my friend is what it is all about.

Originally posted by Jarhead
People who don't like guns are people who also had no interest in serving this country. They should have no right to take away my weapons. Maybe we should reinstate the draft so no one will be scared of weapons.

People who like guns are people who haven't served their country. Guns are for fun. But regardless of semantics, not all people who have served their country like weapons or exercise their right to own a weapon.

I agree the Government should not have the right to take away anyone's weapon.

Funny you should mention the draft, many years ago I debated against a friend who felt that mandatory boot camp was a good thing for this country. No service requirement just the basic training. I was hard pressed to counter his points.

A similar system for people who wished to exercise their right to keep and bear arms could work. No cost (in fact they pay you). No required service, although I would say that these people should be called to serve first if the draft is ever reinstated.

.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

I have to dissagree with most of the posts in this thread, why do you have a car that does over 140-160 mph, isnt a car like a missle, its got a tank filled explosive liquid, its fast and it blows on impact at 140-160 mph, cars kill more people in america and the united kingdom then guns do, you can't ban 50. caliber weapons.... if I shot someone in the face with a 9mm bullet and I shot someone else with a 50 cal whats the difference other then a bigger hole? you still get the desired effect!

people are asking why would you want an AK47, MP5, SA80.... The reason man wants an AK47 in his house is the same reason why you want a Shelby GT 500 or a mercedes benz because it looks bloody great, its powerful and you feel complete with it, plus with a weapon you put your mind at ease knowing if the worst should happen you can protect yourself or your family, if you dont understand what I am saying you should watch a brittish horror film and you will see why its good for american's to be able to have a weapon, its far fetched but in this world anything can happen, I am a brittish citizen and I would give anything to be able to have a 9mm berretta just for my peice of mind...

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Funny you should mention the draft, many years ago I debated against a friend who felt that mandatory boot camp was a good thing for this country. No service requirement just the basic training. I was hard pressed to counter his points.

A similar system for people who wished to exercise their right to keep and bear arms could work. No cost (in fact they pay you). No required service, although I would say that these people should be called to serve first if the draft is ever reinstated.



[edit on 15-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Thats a very interesting concept I think something like that could indeed have benifits. Most gun accidents come from a lack of knowledge about guns. I cant even count how many times someone has handled a automatic pistol and thought when the clip was out of it there was no chance a bullet is still in the gun. If you dont have basic information about guns having a bullet in the chamber will escape you.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
You said a 308 would could do the job in any realistic situation. Realistic situations involve disabling lightly armored vehicles. Why a criminal would or wouldn't use it isn't even an issue with me.

Realistic situations involve disabling lightly armored vehicles? Riiiiiiiight. Can you give me a single example of a criminal ever using a 50 cal for this purpose in the history of the Untied States? Of course you can't, because it hasn't happened. I'm not talking about hollywood crap here, I am talking about things that actually happen, IN THE REAL WORLD.

I have no problem with a person owning a .50 Cal as long as they know the capabilities and proper safety with that weapon. I don't have a problem with a person owning a fully automatic assault rifle as long as they know the capabilities and proper safety with that weapon.

Well thats nice that you don't mind if people own them, but the fact is that ANY form of qualification is inharently infringing on the right to bear arms. The problem is that once you have one form of gun control, then the logical step is to extend that step. IE at first you are allowed to own anything with certification. Then with Certification and a fee. Then cirtification background check and fee. Then cirtification background check higher fee and no legal history. then all of the above, only a limit on what guns you can own. No semi-auto rifles or shotguns plus all above. Then all of the above plus no semi-auto pistols. All of the above plus you can't carry. All of the above plus yearly fee.

Get the point?

If someone used an XM107 LRSR for home defense (for whatever reason) without knowing that after it "vaporized" the criminal the round would then continue through the wall, across the street, into my house to possibly kill one of my children, I have a problem.

Again, no one would do this. It isn't practical. Anyone defending his home would simply use a pistol, shotgun or folding stock/short barreled rifle. By your logic everyone should take a course on how to use a knife, because if your kid is in the same kitchen as the cook, the cook might not know that that knife could cut your kid.

Requiring a person to know the capabilities of a weapon and proper safety is not to infridge on the right to bear arms. It is to protect the right to life of the people around you. Which is more important? Your right to use a weapon in ignorance or a person's right to live? I'll tell you, it is the right to live freely that gives the second amendment its power. Life my friend is what it is all about.

It is infringement because it is within someone elses power to deny you of that right. Words can hurt if used improperly, they can even lead to someone getting fired from work, losing their wife/husband ect ect ect. Should we require every man to get certified to talk? NO! Why? BECAUSE IT IS A RIGHT, JUST AS BEARING ARMS IS!

I am a gun owner, and I support reasonable gun control laws. However, I think the "Assault Weapon" ban was a joke. Here are some reasons...
1)Very few gun related crimes involve so-called assault weapons. Why? Because they are impractical. Its pretty hard to hide an M4 under your shirt, even if it has a collapsible stock! Its much easier to simply buy a cheap pistol. Plus, if your slinging crack on the streetcorner with an AK-47 on you back, you would probably attract some unwanted attention from the local law enforcement.
2)I used to question the need for an individual to own an "assault" weapon. Then the chaos in Iraq started. Untrained fighters armed only with AK-47s and RPGs were able to launch successful attacks against the world's most high tech and modern military. Seeing that made me realize that if our own country was invaded(or our government became corrupt), we could successful put up a defence using similar weapons. Kind of "conspiracy theory" like, but hey, it could happen!
3)The ban didnt accomplish anything! You could buy the exact same gun, minus a few unimportant features. They fired the same bullet, at the same rate of fire, and could accept the same high capacity magazines. So what changed? Well, the rifles couldnt have a bayonet lug, a collapsible stock, or a flash hider. It was ok to have a powerful semi-automatic firearm, just as long as you didnt put a bayonet on it! I'm sure that cut down on the thousands of bayonet related murders in the US every year.... hahaha.
Anyway, if any firearm should be banned, its the handgun. Far more people are killed every year with a handgun than are killed with "assault" rifles.

apw100 - well said

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Realistic situations involve disabling lightly armored vehicles? Riiiiiiiight. Can you give me a single example of a criminal ever using a 50 cal for this purpose in the history of the Untied States? Of course you can't, because it hasn't happened. I'm not talking about hollywood crap here, I am talking about things that actually happen, IN THE REAL WORLD.

In the real world the XM107 LRSR is an anti-vehicle weapon. It is realistically used to disable lightly armored vehicles. What a criminal would or wouldn't do with it is not the issue.

The weapon is not primarily used for anti-personel. If you had training to cover the capabilities and safety for the weapon, you would know that.

Well thats nice that you don't mind if people own them, but the fact is that ANY form of qualification is inharently infringing on the right to bear arms. The problem is that once you have one form of gun control, then the logical step is to extend that step. IE at first you are allowed to own anything with certification. Then with Certification and a fee. Then cirtification background check and fee. Then cirtification background check higher fee and no legal history. then all of the above, only a limit on what guns you can own. No semi-auto rifles or shotguns plus all above. Then all of the above plus no semi-auto pistols. All of the above plus you can't carry. All of the above plus yearly fee.

Get the point?

My idea would save lives but its a "no go" with you because other ideas would take away your second amendment rights.

Safety courses are already required for hunting licenses (at least in my state). I just propose something similar for ownership.

Taking control of the direction that the "limitations" take is in your best interest. It only takes an amendment to the constituion to repeal an amendment to the constitution. Then all you will be able to say is "It used to be a right!"

Again, no one would do this. It isn't practical. Anyone defending his home would simply use a pistol, shotgun or folding stock/short barreled rifle. By your logic everyone should take a course on how to use a knife, because if your kid is in the same kitchen as the cook, the cook might not know that that knife could cut your kid.

Never say "no one". People do not always do the pratical thing.

But, my point holds for any weapon.

If you would like to talk about knives, I am also a firm believer in knife safety. But, a knife will not usually penetrate multiple sheets of plywood, so is not a threat to my children if used in your own kitchen.

It is infringement because it is within someone elses power to deny you of that right. Words can hurt if used improperly, they can even lead to someone getting fired from work, losing their wife/husband ect ect ect. Should we require every man to get certified to talk? NO! Why? BECAUSE IT IS A RIGHT, JUST AS BEARING ARMS IS!

But yet, it is illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Why? Public safety.

The rights of the many will always trump the rights of the few.

Edit: I remembered reading this article earlier this year. It highlights the need for proper weapon safety and discipline.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

I'm farily certain I didn't see this angle covered in the thread yet:

Gun ownership is established as a right in the constitution. Not the ownership of some guns, the ownership of any gun. A US citizen should not have to justify the reasoning behind the purchase of any gun. It is up to congress to justify infringing upon that constitutional right is for the good of the people and pass a law restricting that right.

The AK-47 and AR-15 are not a sufficient threat to the common good that they should be outlawed. The burden of proof does not rest on the gun owners.

Personally I think that any law limiting gun ownership should require an amendment to the constitution because that is where the right to own guns is granted. If a constitutional scholar could point me in the direction of the rationale why this isn't the case in actual practice, I would greatly appreciate it.

As a reference, here is a timeline and description of federal gun control legislation.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
In the real world the XM107 LRSR is an anti-vehicle weapon. It is realistically used to disable lightly armored vehicles. What a criminal would or wouldn't do with it is not the issue.

The weapon is not primarily used for anti-personel. If you had training to cover the capabilities and safety for the weapon, you would know that.

I do know that, and so would anyone buying it. Thus, if a criminal wants to take out an armoured car, he can with or without the gun, and quite frankly using the gun would be harder to do then other methods. If it is a law abiding citizen then they are using it for recreational purposes, probably blowing to bits the backstops of a firing range, just as I did with a Barrett 50 I shot. It is not up to the government to show people how to and how not to operate their weapons.

My idea would save lives but its a "no go" with you because other ideas would take away your second amendment rights.

Your idea wouldn't save any lives - all it would do is hinder law abiding people from obtaining firearms.

Safety courses are already required for hunting licenses (at least in my state). I just propose something similar for ownership.

The reason for these courses is mainly to outline the difference between legal hunting and illegal hunting. Yes, there is some safety involved, but it isn't much, and the safety part of it is something akin to "you must have X ammount of orange clothing on your body."

I will not agree ever to anyform of requirement to own a weapon other then being 18 and not having been convicted of a violent crime. I feel that strongly abouth the 2nd amendment.

Taking control of the direction that the "limitations" take is in your best interest. It only takes an amendment to the constituion to repeal an amendment to the constitution. Then all you will be able to say is "It used to be a right!"

I agree, and that is why I will never give a single inch on any form of gun control. I will never support any form of restriction of firearms because frankly, as they say, you give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

Never say "no one". People do not always do the pratical thing.

OK, I agree that there may be someone who would, but come on. If the person had such a weapon, then they have invested a great deal of money into it. Thus, they have an idea of what it is capable of and wouldn't go shooting at other peoples houses. If they are criminals trying to kill someone, well then they will find a way to kill no matter what.

But, my point holds for any weapon.

If you would like to talk about knives, I am also a firm believer in knife safety. But, a knife will not usually penetrate multiple sheets of plywood, so is not a threat to my children if used in your own kitchen.

You are right it won't. But it could still kill anyone any time it is used, just as a fire arm can. Thus a knife would need certification. The same goes for baseball bats, hockey sticks, shovels, ice picks, Bows, slingshots, fireworks, lacross sticks ect ect ect.

But yet, it is illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Why? Public safety.

Just as it is illigal to fire a weapon closer then 100 yards (if my memory serves me right) to a road. It is also illegal to fire a weapon in a movie theater (unless in self defence) or to even brandish it. Yet, you don't want people taking a course on what to say/not say in any given situation.

The rights of the many will always trump the rights of the few.

Unfortunatly, that was not supposed to be the case in this country - it was supposed to be the right of the individual will trump those of the masses.

Originally posted by Enki
Personally I think that any law limiting gun ownership should require an amendment to the constitution because that is where the right to own guns is granted. If a constitutional scholar could point me in the direction of the rationale why this isn't the case in actual practice, I would greatly appreciate it.

"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."

The argument basically boils down to how this is read:

In order to have a well regulated milita, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or

A well regulated milita is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you remember grade school english, here is a Sentence Diagram

Based on that, I would say the first part of the sentence has no connection to the second part of the sentence. So I would agree with my second interpretation.

These two links should cover enough of the angles on official interpretation:

Link One

Link Two

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I do know that, and so would anyone buying it. Thus, if a criminal wants to take out an armoured car, he can with or without the gun, and quite frankly using the gun would be harder to do then other methods. If it is a law abiding citizen then they are using it for recreational purposes, probably blowing to bits the backstops of a firing range, just as I did with a Barrett 50 I shot. It is not up to the government to show people how to and how not to operate their weapons.

If you knew that, why did you say this:

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.

That was my entire point of everything I have written on the topic. A 308 would not do the job just as well in any realistic situation. Realistically, a .50 cal is an anti vehicle weapon.

Unfortunatly, that was not supposed to be the case in this country - it was supposed to be the right of the individual will trump those of the masses.

This government has always been "of the people, by the people, for the people".
Plural.

Concerning the rest of your post, you are a bit stubborn concerning the rights you think you have.

Here is an example of a loophole: Which words in the constitution protect your right to purchase a weapon? Would that be "keep" or "bear"?

You do not need to have the right to purchase a weapon in order to have the right to keep and bear the weapon. The government could decide to issue a .45 cal musket to each american and say "Here's the arm you have the right to bear and keep." and there would be little legally you could do about it.

So relax a bit and be thankful you currently have the right to own a weapon with a fire rate above 2/3 shots per minute.

As far as required safety courses and training not saving lives, I'll just say "If you say so..." and leave it at that.

By the way, did you read the link to the article about the DEA agent? Do you know where he failed to follow gun safety?

[edit on 16-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

[edit on 16-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]