California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually, the high court could strike it for violation of the "Negative" Commerce Clause.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Red DawnBill, 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.

So you don't consider a junkie pointing a gun at someone's head to be "imminent danger"?

If the "perp started shooting", that is NOT imminent danger, that is called TOO LATE.

If a criminal was pointing a gun at your wife, you wouldn't shoot the criminal?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DT4K
.

If a criminal was pointing a gun at your wife, you wouldn't shoot the criminal?

Only if I had the drop on him. However if I were to walk into a convenience store right iin the middle of a holdup and I had a concealed weapon I wouldn't start blasting away.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: 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?

umm no, my experteseeeee comes from having hands-on experience with the weapon. and i have no idea why al queda hasent tried to shoot one down, yet.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DT4K
.

If a criminal was pointing a gun at your wife, you wouldn't shoot the criminal?

Only if I had the drop on him. However if I were to walk into a convenience store right iin the middle of a holdup and I had a concealed weapon I wouldn't start blasting away.

So would you wait for him to shoot your wife, or would you fire first, assuming you could pull out your gun without him seeing it.

If you would fire first, then are you saying you would only do it if it was someone you cared about?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: 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?

umm no, my experteseeeee comes from having hands-on experience with the weapon. and i have no idea why al queda hasent tried to shoot one down, yet.

A couple pounds of Semtex is far more effective.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DT4K
.

If a criminal was pointing a gun at your wife, you wouldn't shoot the criminal?

Only if I had the drop on him. However if I were to walk into a convenience store right iin the middle of a holdup and I had a concealed weapon I wouldn't start blasting away.

So would you wait for him to shoot your wife, or would you fire first, assuming you could pull out your gun without him seeing it.

If you would fire first, then are you saying you would only do it if it was someone you cared about?

I already answered that question in my previous post

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: 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.

Every heard of the black market?

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: 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.

Every heard of the black market?

Then it's likely not legal anyway. You just proved a point: people will get something they want, no matter what

 

[Howard]

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

Bullsh1t. Coating the "heads" with moly (MoS2?) won't do jack to the ballistic coefficient.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

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.

As another North Dakotan, consider yourself disowned...

Seconded!

Originally posted by: TallBill
Shoot, the Government supplies mine!

They supply mine, too.

Originally posted by: TallBill
Ok, what would a police officer do? Probably shoot? You do realize that I'm a military police officer right? And that I'd pretty much be an off duty cop with a concealed carry permit.

Just a little FYI, although you probably know this already, but you aren't legally considered LE in any capacity in the civilian world unless you're actively dealing with one of your own. I work with a number of Military POs, perhaps you should become a Reserve Officer with a local PD or county SO when you get back if you want to have jurisdiction. Several of our Reserves are doing exactly that while being active military right now.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: 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.

Every heard of the black market?

Then it's likely not legal anyway. You just proved a point: people will get something they want, no matter what

MS Word!

 

[squirrel dog]

1. who would want one?
2.who could afford to shoot it?
3.where would you shoot it?

 

[UbiSunt]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but the article states

50-caliber BMG, or Browning machine gun rifle, a single-shot weapon widely used not only by law enforcement officers

Last time I checked the term "machine gun" only applies to fully automatic weapons. This is obviously a bolt-action .50 cal being described, you have to open the chamber and reload manually on these babies, therefore the article is exagerrating/lying to make the bill appear reasonable. Fully-automatic .50 cals have never been legally obtained by civilians, at least as far as I know. Further, .50 cal ammo is very difficult to obtain and usually very closely monitored.

 

[shortylickens]

Squirrel dog actually asked some intelligent questions (mostly by keeping them simple and straight-forward) and I'll try to answer them.

1. Me. Or anyone else who wants to take advantage of their rights before they get taken away. If they'll ban a gun that isnt commiting crimes, sooner or later they'll get around to the really dangerous guns. Small pistols that can be carried around and are actually more lethal in the close-quarters urban environment.

2. Most people. They just might not feel like it. I used to target shoot with a .40 S&W. 18 cents a shot adds up quickly. Thats the cheapest, even if you go buy 10,000 rounds of surplus ammo. My new .22 only costs me a penny a shot, if I buy enough at one time.
If you moved from a luxury SUV to a mid-size SUV (as an example) you could afford to should many rounds of .50 BMG. They're not made of gold or silver. You can pick them up for 1 to 5 dollars apiece, depending on where and how many you get. Still too pricey for many of us.

3. This is more complicated. I am stationed in the Mojave Desert and we have plenty of ranges to fire the heavy stuff. But other than some open land in Montana, Texas and Alaska I would say its pretty difficult.

 

[RaiderJ]

Since when does a terrorist care about laws? Much less Californian laws.....

 

[lobadobadingdong]

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.

I was thinking the same thing. you'd have to hit the plane at just the right angle tho a .30-06 would blast right through the side of it, and nosler rounds can still penitrate body armor. bans on guns never work.

 

[hysperion]

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.

I own $15,000 in rifles and am planning on purchasing the Barret M107 (50cal m82 with leupold) which is 10K sometime this year. There should be no restrictions on Arms for law-abiding citizens in this country. I'm buying one because being in the military I like to enjoy in private what I do in the military aka shooting rifles. If you enjoy rifle shooting and you've never shot a .50 you're missing out.

Most of the people scared of full auto weapons are ignorant on them. Full auto on assault rifles is retarded to use for killing people. Why do you think they removed it on all the new military rifles? You don't hit anything! Three round burst is basically meant to lay down suppressing fire and keep the enemies head down. Semi-auto is much more accurate and is generally what isused for killing people. There has been like 2 crimes from owners of legally registered machine guns and none from .50 cals.

In response to the comment about cannons- cannons are ordinance not arms. Why cant' we keep the discussion to Arms. Arms are carried and are generally seen as the current service rifle in use. AKA M4A1 or M16. However, a .50 cal is also considered a Arm. In case you didn't know they are always banning rifles of higher size. At one point 25mm was legal- then .50 cal became the highest legal size....Now it's .49 (at least in CA). If they actually made .49cal rounds and firearms they would be almost no different then a .50.

The whole point is Criminals don't follow the F-N laws anyways so lets put them in jail, castrate them so they gain better temperment like we do with dogs, then let them sit and think about it for a LONG time.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
i hate gun laws but i really don't see why anybody would need something like this

Well, noone here NEEDS you so maybe you should be banned?

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: hysperion

I own $15,000 in rifles and am planning on purchasing the Barret M107 (50cal m82 with leupold) which is 10K sometime this year. There should be no restrictions on Arms for law-abiding citizens in this country. I'm buying one because being in the military I like to enjoy in private what I do in the military aka shooting rifles. If you enjoy rifle shooting and you've never shot a .50 you're missing out.

Most of the people scared of full auto weapons are ignorant on them. Full auto on assault rifles is retarded to use for killing people. Why do you think they removed it on all the new military rifles? You don't hit anything! Three round burst is basically meant to lay down suppressing fire and keep the enemies head down. Semi-auto is much more accurate and is generally what isused for killing people. There has been like 2 crimes from owners of legally registered machine guns and none from .50 cals.

In response to the comment about cannons- cannons are ordinance not arms. Why cant' we keep the discussion to Arms. Arms are carried and are generally seen as the current service rifle in use. AKA M4A1 or M16. However, a .50 cal is also considered a Arm. In case you didn't know they are always banning rifles of higher size. At one point 25mm was legal- then .50 cal became the highest legal size....Now it's .49 (at least in CA). If they actually made .49cal rounds and firearms they would be almost no different then a .50.

The whole point is Criminals don't follow the F-N laws anyways so lets put them in jail, castrate them so they gain better temperment like we do with dogs, then let them sit and think about it for a LONG time.

Okay, so now you can't buy another gun to add to your five-figure collection. Are your rights being "trampled on?" I find it difficult to see how your life would change unless you have some sort of inordinate attachment to a .50 caliber rifle, which would be considered odd in any case. Is it REALLY that big a deal? Honestly...

I also find your comments on criminals to be quite disturbing as well, ironically enough, lacking in any sort of coherent notion of what "rights" truly are. Maybe you should carefully reconsider your position and see how your attitude against lawbreakers plays into it. Just a thought.

 

[mwtgg]

*groan*

To the people talking about rockets (thanks for reminding me hysperion)...

Originally posted by: Vic
WINNER! :beer:

The well-regulated militia btw is the common men, allowed to keep arms and to train themselves in the use of arms (not the national guard or any other professional or semi-professional military). In other words, the regular citizens, those same brave men who helped the Founding Fathers win the Revolutionary War, aka citizen soldiers, the same ones that were also considered indispensible in America winning WWII.

In general, "arms" are defined as those weapons that the common military infantry would carry on their persons; rifles, pistols, swords, etc. Grenades are considered to be explosives, which are ordinance. Cannons were not considered to be arms in Revolutionary War times, but artillery, and today that would include mortars, rpgs, nukes, tomahawk cruise missiles, etc.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: 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.

If you shoot at the ground you've done one thing. Proven he had no intent to kill you- otherwise why were you shooting at the ground? The only time you should ever point a weapon at someone or even pull one out- is if your putting 1 in the head and 2 in the chest or more due to stress. If they turn and run beforehand, you don't shoot them in the back obviously. But shooting at the ground is the dumbest thing you can do. You don't use guns to "scare" people.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: hysperion

I own $15,000 in rifles and am planning on purchasing the Barret M107 (50cal m82 with leupold) which is 10K sometime this year. There should be no restrictions on Arms for law-abiding citizens in this country. I'm buying one because being in the military I like to enjoy in private what I do in the military aka shooting rifles. If you enjoy rifle shooting and you've never shot a .50 you're missing out.

Most of the people scared of full auto weapons are ignorant on them. Full auto on assault rifles is retarded to use for killing people. Why do you think they removed it on all the new military rifles? You don't hit anything! Three round burst is basically meant to lay down suppressing fire and keep the enemies head down. Semi-auto is much more accurate and is generally what isused for killing people. There has been like 2 crimes from owners of legally registered machine guns and none from .50 cals.

In response to the comment about cannons- cannons are ordinance not arms. Why cant' we keep the discussion to Arms. Arms are carried and are generally seen as the current service rifle in use. AKA M4A1 or M16. However, a .50 cal is also considered a Arm. In case you didn't know they are always banning rifles of higher size. At one point 25mm was legal- then .50 cal became the highest legal size....Now it's .49 (at least in CA). If they actually made .49cal rounds and firearms they would be almost no different then a .50.

The whole point is Criminals don't follow the F-N laws anyways so lets put them in jail, castrate them so they gain better temperment like we do with dogs, then let them sit and think about it for a LONG time.

Okay, so now you can't buy another gun to add to your five-figure collection. Are your rights being "trampled on?" I find it difficult to see how your life would change unless you have some sort of inordinate attachment to a .50 caliber rifle, which would be considered odd in any case. Is it REALLY that big a deal? Honestly...

I also find your comments on criminals to be quite disturbing as well, ironically enough, lacking in any sort of coherent notion of what "rights" truly are. Maybe you should carefully reconsider your position and see how your attitude against lawbreakers plays into it. Just a thought.

Yes, my rights are being trampled on. I have the right to bear arms. I find it odd that you read posts on an internet forum and spend your time responding to them about a topic you care little about. If you do care about it then your following comments are mindless drivel to try and provoke me. I won't take your flamebait troll.

 

[w00t]

so gay...

 

[ElFenix]

one day, texas will invade and you won't be able to stop us!