California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I think they just did it to appease the Anti Gun Nutjobs.

Probably. Much like the AWB I suppose.

Just one more reason to avoid CA in its entirety.

Viper GTS

 

[nellienelson1]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: nellienelson1

Bah. the .338 Lapua Magnum is the sniper rifle of choice now anyhow.

not quite, its the 6.5mm by 284, which is essentially a necked down winchester 308, it has a higher velocity than the .308, also can still take the high grain bullets (around the 140-150 mark) and when the bullet heads are moly coated it has a very good ballistic efficiency. which all add up to a very accurate shot.
btw the canadians in afganistan claim to have had a kill with a 50 cal rifle from 2 km. just thought i would add that for all of you who dont see the .50 cal as a dangerous weapon. of course in the correct hands (such as this pair) its a lovely shot.

cheers

Dangerous? Heck yes it's dangerous - If you're on the receiving end.

How many people have been killed by .50 BMG rifles in CA in the last 10 years?

*crickets chirping*

OK, easier - How many have been seized after being involved in a crime, or seized as part of an investigation? How many are actually IN CA?

.50 BMG is something that the serious gun enthusiast picks up, it's not something the criminal type would have much interest in. At $2K (on the extreme low end) cost of entry it's for rich folks who like guns.

This is roughly the equivalent of banning private aircraft on the off chance they could be flown into something.

Viper GTS

good answer,
(massive tongue in cheek btw for this next bit) basically then all 'sniper rifles' should be banded as a terrorist could buy one and go on to assisinate (nasty spelling) somebody.

 

[Viper GTS]

BTW, for those who haven't seen it:

Ferret 50 AR Upper

.50 BMG on the cheap!

Viper GTS

 

[TallBill]

If anyone tried to ban all "sniper rifles" people would start getting assasinated.

Some pro gun nuts would take out some anti gun nuts.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
BTW, for those who haven't seen it:

Ferret 50 AR Upper

.50 BMG on the cheap!

Viper GTS

Wooooo doggy!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TallBill
Uh, yes I am trained for just that situation. That IS my job when I'm back in the states. I AM an LEO. What do you think active duty military police do when we arren't deployed? We're regular cops, just on a military base.

You also stupidly assume that I'd just start firing. There are a few steps before actually using deadly force, including shouting and show of deadly force. Sometimes time doesn't permit of course. Hey, if the guy just decides to lay his pistol down, great. I'll keep watch untill police of jurisdiction show up and arrest him. If he decides to take off, thats when I really cant do anything. Its beyond me to chase or anything at that point.

Why would I stupidly assume that you'd just start firing

If someone decides to rob a store that I'm shopping at, they are getting shot until they stop robbing

Maybe because that's what you said!!!!

Eh, I made a poor assumption that people would know concealed carry laws. They give you the right to use a firearm untill the person "stops". If I pull a pistol out and they run away, they are "stopped" and I have to stop firing. If I pull a pistol out and shoot the ground once and he runs away, he is "stopped" and I must stop firing. Thats why i worded it "they are getting shot until they stop robbing". I guess if you've never heard of the "shoot to stop" before, the wording wouldn't mean anything to you.

Bill, I don't want any bullets flying in the vicinity of where I am at. If that means some junkie is going to make off with a couple of hundred dollars fine.

I bet it's pretty safe to assume that the Police wouldn't want you taking the law into your own hands and would advise you not to do anything unless your life or others where in imminent danger (as in the Perp started shooting)

Don't take what I am saying personal, I wouldn't want anybody who doesn't have jurisdiction where the robbery was being committed to take any actions that could put my and others life at risk.

 

[K1052]

There is only one solution to this problem:

Switch to a higher caliber!

I'll take the Lhati 39.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I think they just did it to appease the Anti Gun Nutjobs.

Probably. Much like the AWB I suppose.

Just one more reason to avoid CA in its entirety.

Viper GTS

Not enough reason for me as I didn't plan on owning a 50 Caliber gun anyway

 

[TallBill]

Alexander Arms Beowulf .50

 

[TallBill]

Red, I get what your saying, but if I was to bring out a pistol in the civilian world it would be with a CCW as a civilian and not as someone on duty. It automatically brings with a set of laws that cover what your worried about. A civilian firing would be highly highly liable for their shots, and they can only in a life threatening situation. All of that being said, someone pointing a pistol at someones head for money is a life threatening situation.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Red, I get what your saying, but if I was to bring out a pistol in the civilian world it would be with a CCW as a civilian and not as someone on duty. It automatically brings with a set of laws that cover what your worried about. A civilian firing would be highly highly liable for their shots, and they can only in a life threatening situation. All of that being said, someone pointing a pistol at someones head for money is a life threatening situation.

Understood.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Ahnuld is a traitor among men.

A .50BMG is going to do just as well as a 30-06 in any realistic assassination, and it SURE AS FVCKING HELL isn't going to shoot down an airplane. You don't shoot down an airplane with a ground-based MACHINE GUN. And don't get me started on the assassination potential of guns that were virtually MADE FOR IT (winmag comes to mind)

"They can pierce the skin of an aircraft," said Daniel R. Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a central supporter of the law. "It could be used to shoot down an airplane. And we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it."

Uhhhh right. My .22 can pierce the skin of an airliner, too.


Then again, California gun laws have always been lame.

Ummm, a .50BMG will bring down a airplane quite easily, in fact a lot easier than a 30-06. Their main purpose was to take out expensive equipment from a long range with one shot. A Comercial airliner that is on his downwind or final approach and is only 1500 AGL is a very easy target.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Ahnuld is a traitor among men.

A .50BMG is going to do just as well as a 30-06 in any realistic assassination, and it SURE AS FVCKING HELL isn't going to shoot down an airplane. You don't shoot down an airplane with a ground-based MACHINE GUN. And don't get me started on the assassination potential of guns that were virtually MADE FOR IT (winmag comes to mind)

"They can pierce the skin of an aircraft," said Daniel R. Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a central supporter of the law. "It could be used to shoot down an airplane. And we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it."

Uhhhh right. My .22 can pierce the skin of an airliner, too.


Then again, California gun laws have always been lame.

Ummm, a .50BMG will bring down a airplane quite easily, in fact a lot easier than a 30-06. Their main purpose was to take out expensive equipment from a long range with one shot. A Comercial airliner that is on his downwind or final approach and is only 1500 AGL is a very easy target.

What part of an airliner are you going to shoot with one shot to bring it down?

 

[TallBill]

Ummm, a .50BMG will bring down a airplane quite easily, in fact a lot easier than a 30-06. Their main purpose was to take out expensive equipment from a long range with one shot. A Comercial airliner that is on his downwind or final approach and is only 1500 AGL is a very easy target.

You've seen a few shows on discovery channel and are now an expert. Their technical purpose is to take out equipment or a position, but they are used on people too of course for long distance shots. If it was so easy to take down aircraft with a single shot sniper rifle, how come al queda hasn't been shooting them down left and right in the middle east and in the us?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Ahnuld is a traitor among men.

A .50BMG is going to do just as well as a 30-06 in any realistic assassination, and it SURE AS FVCKING HELL isn't going to shoot down an airplane. You don't shoot down an airplane with a ground-based MACHINE GUN. And don't get me started on the assassination potential of guns that were virtually MADE FOR IT (winmag comes to mind)

"They can pierce the skin of an aircraft," said Daniel R. Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a central supporter of the law. "It could be used to shoot down an airplane. And we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it."

Uhhhh right. My .22 can pierce the skin of an airliner, too.


Then again, California gun laws have always been lame.

Ummm, a .50BMG will bring down a airplane quite easily, in fact a lot easier than a 30-06. Their main purpose was to take out expensive equipment from a long range with one shot. A Comercial airliner that is on his downwind or final approach and is only 1500 AGL is a very easy target.

What part of an airliner are you going to shoot with one shot to bring it down?

Why do you want to know?

 

[Panthro]

Amendment II
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.

This is one of the rights the Founding Fathers of the United States put in the US Constitution to affirm individual right to own weapons to protect ourselves, family, state and country from criminals and enemies foreign and domestic. The reson why they put it in there because they knew in the future that individuals like King George would rise to power and try to supress rights of the people and the people would need to defend their rights if necessary with force.

The US Justice Department has also said that the second ammendment applies to individuals.

So you people who would like to take this right away from the law abiding citizens are traitors to your families, community, state, country and freedom.

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
1. Nobody needs a gun like that. Period. You can't use it for hunting, unless you're hunting dinosaurs. It will blow away most any currenty mammal.
2. If someone, for whatever reason, feels they need to buy one of these, they should be able to. They should simply be strictly regulated, like automatic weapons are now.
3. Anyone who thinks you can't bring a plane down with one of these is crazy. This round won't just pierce the skin of an aircraft, it will go right through the engine. Now it'd be pretty hard to hit a plane in flight with a single shot, but getting one just as it lands, or takes off from a long distance wouldn't be.
As someone else said though, this isn't the most efficient way to bring a plane down.
These could also be used to disable vehicles, as the round will go right into a car's engine, whereas the average deer rifle won't.
A .50 caliber is completely bad-ass.

a .50 cal round will damage a jet engine. However, it won't cause catastrophic failure, fire, or complete loss of power, unless the pilot is very unlucky or the shooter is on God's team.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
1. Nobody needs a gun like that. Period. You can't use it for hunting, unless you're hunting dinosaurs. It will blow away most any currenty mammal.
2. If someone, for whatever reason, feels they need to buy one of these, they should be able to. They should simply be strictly regulated, like automatic weapons are now.
3. Anyone who thinks you can't bring a plane down with one of these is crazy. This round won't just pierce the skin of an aircraft, it will go right through the engine. Now it'd be pretty hard to hit a plane in flight with a single shot, but getting one just as it lands, or takes off from a long distance wouldn't be.
As someone else said though, this isn't the most efficient way to bring a plane down.
These could also be used to disable vehicles, as the round will go right into a car's engine, whereas the average deer rifle won't.
A .50 caliber is completely bad-ass.

a .50 cal round will damage a jet engine. However, it won't cause catastrophic failure, fire, or complete loss of power, unless the pilot is very unlucky or the shooter is on God's team.

Wouldn't a couple of rounds in the Cockpit wreck havoc?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
1. Nobody needs a gun like that. Period. You can't use it for hunting, unless you're hunting dinosaurs. It will blow away most any currenty mammal.
2. If someone, for whatever reason, feels they need to buy one of these, they should be able to. They should simply be strictly regulated, like automatic weapons are now.
3. Anyone who thinks you can't bring a plane down with one of these is crazy. This round won't just pierce the skin of an aircraft, it will go right through the engine. Now it'd be pretty hard to hit a plane in flight with a single shot, but getting one just as it lands, or takes off from a long distance wouldn't be.
As someone else said though, this isn't the most efficient way to bring a plane down.
These could also be used to disable vehicles, as the round will go right into a car's engine, whereas the average deer rifle won't.
A .50 caliber is completely bad-ass.

a .50 cal round will damage a jet engine. However, it won't cause catastrophic failure, fire, or complete loss of power, unless the pilot is very unlucky or the shooter is on God's team.

Wouldn't a couple of rounds in the Cockpit wreck havoc?

Only if you managed to kill the flight crew, but they are rather small targets moving at 100+ kts so I think it would be a tad hard.

 

[oogabooga]

i dont care either way for guns.

I do NOT think it's a consitutional right to carry a gun whenever wherever (Save in a well regulated militia). But i do not think banning guns is doing anything. That being said, this law sounds silly, and the rational behind it seems sillier

(sits in lawn chair to watch the rest of the fun)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
1. Nobody needs a gun like that. Period. You can't use it for hunting, unless you're hunting dinosaurs. It will blow away most any currenty mammal.
2. If someone, for whatever reason, feels they need to buy one of these, they should be able to. They should simply be strictly regulated, like automatic weapons are now.
3. Anyone who thinks you can't bring a plane down with one of these is crazy. This round won't just pierce the skin of an aircraft, it will go right through the engine. Now it'd be pretty hard to hit a plane in flight with a single shot, but getting one just as it lands, or takes off from a long distance wouldn't be.
As someone else said though, this isn't the most efficient way to bring a plane down.
These could also be used to disable vehicles, as the round will go right into a car's engine, whereas the average deer rifle won't.
A .50 caliber is completely bad-ass.

a .50 cal round will damage a jet engine. However, it won't cause catastrophic failure, fire, or complete loss of power, unless the pilot is very unlucky or the shooter is on God's team.

Wouldn't a couple of rounds in the Cockpit wreck havoc?

Wouldn't a trained sniper be able to do it? Just asking, I'm not in favor of banning those weapons.
Only if you managed to kill the flight crew, but they are rather small targets moving at 100+ kts so I think it would be a tad hard.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: Tabb
:thumbsup:

I have yet to see a reason why anyone needs to own a gun. Let alone a .50 Caliber anti-matter weapon.

I need to own a gun.

OWNED!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
1. Nobody needs a gun like that. Period. You can't use it for hunting, unless you're hunting dinosaurs. It will blow away most any currenty mammal.
2. If someone, for whatever reason, feels they need to buy one of these, they should be able to. They should simply be strictly regulated, like automatic weapons are now.
3. Anyone who thinks you can't bring a plane down with one of these is crazy. This round won't just pierce the skin of an aircraft, it will go right through the engine. Now it'd be pretty hard to hit a plane in flight with a single shot, but getting one just as it lands, or takes off from a long distance wouldn't be.
As someone else said though, this isn't the most efficient way to bring a plane down.
These could also be used to disable vehicles, as the round will go right into a car's engine, whereas the average deer rifle won't.
A .50 caliber is completely bad-ass.

a .50 cal round will damage a jet engine. However, it won't cause catastrophic failure, fire, or complete loss of power, unless the pilot is very unlucky or the shooter is on God's team.

Wouldn't a couple of rounds in the Cockpit wreck havoc?

Wouldn't a trained sniper be able to do it? Just asking, I'm not in favor of banning those weapons.
Only if you managed to kill the flight crew, but they are rather small targets moving at 100+ kts so I think it would be a tad hard.

Maybe in a head on shot during takeoff, but the followup shot would have to damn quick as the plane's course and speed would likely change quite a bit with the pilot dead.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
3. Anyone who thinks you can't bring a plane down with one of these is crazy. This round won't just pierce the skin of an aircraft, it will go right through the engine. Now it'd be pretty hard to hit a plane in flight with a single shot, but getting one just as it lands, or takes off from a long distance wouldn't be.
As someone else said though, this isn't the most efficient way to bring a plane down.
These could also be used to disable vehicles, as the round will go right into a car's engine, whereas the average deer rifle won't.
A .50 caliber is completely bad-ass.

You are shockingly ill informed. Yes, the .50 BMG is an amazing round (look up it's muzzle energy, it's absolutely unreal) but it's been the subject of quite a few urban myths (particularly the ability to shatter or penetrate engine blocks).

http://www.keepandbeararms.com...IBViewItem.asp?ID=2762

Viper GTS

 

[JulesMaximus]

"They can pierce the skin of an aircraft," said Daniel R. Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a central supporter of the law. "It could be used to shoot down an airplane. And we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it."

Last time I bought a gun you must prove that you are a citizen and they do a background check on you.

WTF???

This is a completely bogus argument.