Ban on 50 Caliber Weapons

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
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.

Because realistically, there are better anti armour methods available then a 50. For one, you actually have to have a background check to purchase one. Secondly, you would be hard pressed to find a place to take out your target where you wouldn't be discovered prior to or after you attacked your target. These things are for fun and bragging rights mostly in civs hands, not to fulfill there original purpose, just as many people own swords, but don't go around hacking people to death with them.

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

Yes, but the masses are not to trump the rights of the individual as long as those rights are expressed in law. Otherwise you could justify - say - making Islam illegal in the US because some of those followers might be terrorists.

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.

I believe there would be many supreme court justices who would disagree with that statement.

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?

Well, I don't know a lot of the details of this case, but from the artical the first things that come to mind are he A) did not check the weapon himself and B) he used the slide release instead of slowly letting the slide down manually (I do this to prevent wear and tear on my pistols, but it also helps prevent accidental discharge if a round happened to be in the chamber). I would imagine this is the case if he got shot in the thigh and the weapon was pointed at the ground and not towards himself.

Also, he should have had the weapon pointed down range if they were at one.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Because realistically, there are better anti armour methods available then a 50.

I didn't say it was an anti armor weapon. I said it could disable lightly armored vehicles. As an anti armor weapon it is ineffective. As a anti-vehicle weapon, it is highly effective. Especially in a supporting role.

For one, you actually have to have a background check to purchase one.

Infringing on your right to purchase a weapon? You don't say.

Secondly, you would be hard pressed to find a place to take out your target where you wouldn't be discovered prior to or after you attacked your target.

This really depends on terrain, range and number of shots. But I wouldn't say I would be "hard pressed".

These things are for fun and bragging rights mostly in civs hands, not to fulfill there original purpose, just as many people own swords, but don't go around hacking people to death with them.

Do you know why I don't oppose ownership of weapons such as a .50 cal?
Because one day the owner may need to use it against the target it was designed to neutralize. The spirit of the second amendment is to ensure that the people are properly armed to defend against aggression.

Yes, but the masses are not to trump the rights of the individual as long as those rights are expressed in law. Otherwise you could justify - say - making Islam illegal in the US because some of those followers might be terrorists.

But you seem to over look the "spirit" of the constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The right to keep and bear arms is first and foremost to "insure domestic tranquilty", "promote the general welfare", and "secure the blessings of liberty". At the point where that right infringes on these things, it is no longer a right.

I believe there would be many supreme court justices who would disagree with that statement.

It's never been done, and based on the "inconsistant" rulings of the Supreme Court, I certainly wouldn't be too quick to determine if they would agree or disagree. When faced with constitutional disputes, the supreme court looks at the facts. The questions to ask are "Does this infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?", "Is a .45 Cal musket an arm?", and "Does the amendment include the right to choose?"

A) did not check the weapon himself

First, he assumed there was not a round in the chamber. Had he not made this assumption, he would have checked the weapon himself instead of "trusting" a group of people who apparently didn't know a bullet from a hole in the leg.

Second, (you are right) he should have been taking better care as to where the "business end" of the weapon was pointing, even if it "wasn't" loaded. The ground is ok. Your own leg, not so ok.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

[edit on 16-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

[edit on 16-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Raphael_UO, thanks for the links.. I'm still in the middle of reading the (rather lengthy) second one.

I too read the second amendment as "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." with no connection between the purpose clause and the main clause. At least the supreme court seems to be fairly consistent in interpreting the second amendment as an individual right even if lawmakers don't.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
I didn't say it was an anti armor weapon. I said it could disable lightly armored vehicles. As an anti armor weapon it is ineffective. As a anti-vehicle weapon, it is highly effective. Especially in a supporting role.

Same difference as far as I am concerned. It's a lot more practical to simply make a bomb. It is a lot cheaper, to start off and also doesn't leave a lot of evidence other then the type of explosive and fuse used. A .50 on the other hand leaves a tell tale signature to ballistic experts, and since there are limited numbers of .50 cals in the US it would be a easy to get caught. As far as a supporting role - if a group of criminals is going so far as to have a .50 supporting their "main" attack team or whatever, then this situation will most likely be resolved with SWAT teams or national guard. I mean, how many times has a criminal organization had a 50 supporting "front line" crooks?

For one, you actually have to have a background check to purchase one.

Infringing on your right to purchase a weapon? You don't say.

Yes it is. If it was up to me there would be no FBI background checks - just a simple police history. If you have commited violent crimes then no guns for you. Otherwise, go ahead and buy all the guns you want.

Do you know why I don't oppose ownership of weapons such as a .50 cal?
Because one day the owner may need to use it against the target it was designed to neutralize. The spirit of the second amendment is to ensure that the people are properly armed to defend against aggression.

Oh - I agree totaly. But lets face it - most people have it as a nice toy, and - in the event there is a need for it - well, they have it.

A) did not check the weapon himself

First, he assumed there was not a round in the chamber. Had he not made this assumption, he would have checked the weapon himself instead of "trusting" a group of people who apparently didn't know a bullet from a hole in the leg.

Second, (you are right) he should have been taking better care as to where the "business end" of the weapon was pointing, even if it "wasn't" loaded. The ground is ok. Your own leg, not so ok.

Well checking the weapon yourself is the first rule of gun safety (as far as I'm concerned) so this really doesn't boad to well for your idea of government safety courses now does it?

Well thank goodness for the "black market". May cost a little more but what the hell. Reload all the rounds yourself and you'll have a ball 'til doomsday!

If a person really wanted to kill someone enough, it doesn't matter what sort of gun he has, they all have the same effect, so get off the .50 lovers backs alright? Hell, I could kill someone with a beer bottle, try banning beer.

Originally posted by dnnx
We need to be able to protect ourselves in case of an invasion, ie: China, Canada, Cayman Islands, Grays, or whoever else.
If we wont protect ourselves , who will? The National Guard? From Iraq?

I do hope you are joking about protecting yourselves from invasion, if an invading force was able to defeat your governments agencies & armed forces, Joe Doe sat on his porch with his handgun ain't gonna stop nobody! The whole gun law is based around an anachronism at best, xenophobic racism (let all good white folk keep a gun so's they can shoot them nasty injuns themselves!) at worst. If there were less guns in the US of A, there would be less shootings, simple fact!

No, they are for personal protection should it ever be required. If the Armed forces failed to stop an invasion of the United Stated, we as individuals would probably not be able to stop them either. But possessing firearms gives us the opportunity to fight for our survival if things ever come to that. We may win or we may lose, but in the case of invasion I am not going out without a fight.

What does race have to do with any of this? A white person is not inherently more responsible that an african american, nor vise-versa. A citizen of any descent who is mature and responsible enough to should be able to posses a firearm, period.

Originally posted by para
No, they are for personal protection should it ever be required. If the Armed forces failed to stop an invasion of the United Stated, we as individuals would probably not be able to stop them either. But possessing firearms gives us the opportunity to fight for our survival if things ever come to that. We may win or we may lose, but in the case of invasion I am not going out without a fight.

What does race have to do with any of this? A white person is not inherently more responsible that an african american, nor vise-versa. A citizen of any descent who is mature and responsible enough to should be able to posses a firearm, period.

Was your constitution written to protect Native Americans? Who exactly are you going to defend yourselves from? Russians or Martians? LOL A gun has one purpose - killing - to own one is to contemplate & support killing, anything other than hunting guns are designed to kill people.

Originally posted by bungle
Was your constitution written to protect Native Americans? Who exactly are you going to defend yourselves from? Russians or Martians? LOL A gun has one purpose - killing - to own one is to contemplate & support killing, anything other than hunting guns are designed to kill people.

Yes, I support shooting people who are shooting at me.

No, I don�t own guns to protect myself from some kind of Martian invasion. I own them to defend myself and my family from anyone who wishes to do us harm.

So you concede that if there were no guns on your streets you wouldn't need a gun?

Yes, it would be nice if we could live in some sort of utopia where there was no violence and no need for weapons of any kind.

But this is reality.

If you take away all the guns, people will kill each other with knives. Take the knives away, and people will use bats. Take them away and people will stab each other with pencils. Aggression will still be here if weapons aren�t. People will still kill each other if they have to beat each other to death. Violence will not disappear even if you remove every gun from the face of the earth. The weapons aren�t the problem, the people are.

Now you're being ridiculous, answer a straight question. We in the UK don't have anywhere the level of gun-related violence because guns are illegal, ergo your theory falls down. Now I'm not saying there's no gun violence here, just a hell of a lot les & this isn't some idealistic utopian paradise although it must seem it compared to the USA at the moment!

Originally posted by bungle
Now I'm not saying there's no gun violence here, just a hell of a lot les & this isn't some idealistic utopian paradise although it must seem it compared to the USA at the moment!

Do you really think we are a bunch of cowboys running around with six-guns shooting each other at high noon and killing Indians? Do you think that we start shooting at each other over parking spaces or when someone cuts us off?

Criminals will have access to guns regardless of whether they are illegal or not because by definition, they break the law. So what good does it do to take guns away from me, a law abiding citizen?

To answer your "straight question:" if there were no guns on our streets, I would still need one. Taking guns off "the streets" does not take them away from everyone.

Check out this link, most gun crimes are not comitted by "hardcore criminals" but by people who know each other and shoot because there is a gun at hand, it takes less than a second to pull a trigger and with the safety off, in a tense moment it is all too easy to squeeze. It takes a lot for a person to bludgeon someone to death or stab repeatedly, or cut someones throat, that type of killing is much harder.

In 2002 in the USA there were 14,054 murders in the USA of which 9,369 involved firearms.

Only 2,314 of the 14,054 were felony killings, of which 1,640 involved guns.

More of the murders were arguments. In fact 7,097 killings took place which were classified other than a felony, 3,967 were arguments, in 2,377 of which guns were used and curiously only 984 were gang-related (911 juvenile gang killings and 73 adults) involving 938 uses of firearms (870 by juveniles & 68 by adults) so don't start spouting that armed criminal crap.

Therefore, it is an unreasonable argument for you to suggest you are surrounded by violence, like you said, you don't shoot each other over a parking space. It seems most people are shot by someone they know.

It would help if I included the link!!! D'oh!

www.fbi.gov...

The fact of the matter is that America does not need guns, no one is going to invade them, and if they did, they have the military to defend them.

However, it's completely impossible to have a ban on guns in America, banning one type aint gonna make a difference anyways. There are so many guns now that a comlplete ban would never work. Even if you stopped the imports of ammunition or manufacture of it, people would keep hold of what they have at the moment, and crime would still involve guns.

So there's no point in banning it all cos it's completely impractical. It's worked for over 200 years, if it aint broke dont fix it... yes innocent people will die in greater numbers than other developed countries because of the guns, but that's the price you have to pay for the 2nd amendment, and it looks like most American's like that freedom and understand the risks involved.

So that's my view on the matter, it would be great to have Guns banned in the states but it's just never going to happen, there is not the public support or the practical ability to impliment such action. So i think they should concentrate on the criminals using them, and work out better prevention methods rather than taking them off honest citizens.

Me personally i'd love to shoot an AK47 or HK assualt weapon, go down the target range at the weekend and let off some steam!

Originally posted by bungle
Now you're being ridiculous, answer a straight question. We in the UK don't have anywhere the level of gun-related violence because guns are illegal, ergo your theory falls down. Now I'm not saying there's no gun violence here, just a hell of a lot les & this isn't some idealistic utopian paradise although it must seem it compared to the USA at the moment!

Do you have the same population?
Do you have the same racial tension?
Do you have the same poverty rate?
What are the rates like in coomaprison to the US in other weapons related violence?

news.bbc.co.uk...

Some good figures here if anyone wants a look, On a population ratio the UK has more violent crimes than the US.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Same difference as far as I am concerned. It's a lot more practical to simply make a bomb. It is a lot cheaper, to start off and also doesn't leave a lot of evidence other then the type of explosive and fuse used. A .50 on the other hand leaves a tell tale signature to ballistic experts, and since there are limited numbers of .50 cals in the US it would be a easy to get caught. As far as a supporting role - if a group of criminals is going so far as to have a .50 supporting their "main" attack team or whatever, then this situation will most likely be resolved with SWAT teams or national guard. I mean, how many times has a criminal organization had a 50 supporting "front line" crooks?

Why do you keep looking at criminal use of the weapon? Just because a criminal would do something differently to prevent being caught does not make the purpose of the weapon anything other than what it is.

If it was up to me there would be no FBI background checks - just a simple police history. If you have commited violent crimes then no guns for you. Otherwise, go ahead and buy all the guns you want.

Infringing on their right to purchase a weapon? You don't say.

Oh - I agree totaly. But lets face it - most people have it as a nice toy, and - in the event there is a need for it - well, they have it.

I have a problem with weapons being purchased for fun.

Well checking the weapon yourself is the first rule of gun safety (as far as I'm concerned) so this really doesn't boad to well for your idea of government safety courses now does it?

Checking a weapon yourself is directly related to assumptions. Never assume. Always check yourself.

I pointed out the article because it highlighted a point. Weapon safety is easily overlooked even by people with training. It is important. People die because of assumptions and improper handling of weapons.


@bungle

What do you make of this link?

Doesn't sound like the UK's weapon ban had much effect.