California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 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.

The round the rifles in question are chambered in is the .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun) round. It is named this because the first weapon ever to use is was the M1921 .50 Browning Heavy Machine Gun.

There are a number of NFA legal .50 BMG machineguns in civillian hands, not to mention the post-sample guns that Class III dealers can own.

.50 BMG ammo is not subject to any restrictions different from any other ammo and is readily obtainable.

 

[Grunt03]

That right, we do not want our hard working, honest civilians buying these weapons the correct way.
This way we can focus on the criminals, they seem to have better guns anyway....

This should not surprise anyone, anywhere. California does thing that make no sence at all, they are a bad example to go by.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
one day, texas will invade and you won't be able to stop us!

All we have to do is show you a bar of soap and that would stop you dead in your tracks

 

[UbiSunt]

Quote:

The round the rifles in question are chambered in is the .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun) round. It is named this because the first weapon ever to use is was the M1921 .50 Browning Heavy Machine Gun.

There are a number of NFA legal .50 BMG machineguns in civillian hands, not to mention the post-sample guns that Class III dealers can own.

.50 BMG ammo is not subject to any restrictions different from any other ammo and is readily obtainable.



Thanks, but I wasn't asking about the ammo. And yeah a Class III dealer may own a .50 cal but they are very closely monitored by the government who has the right to inspect their gun vault whenever they feel, and you better believe their papers and their guns are in order. My point is that the article is misleading by stating the guns being banned were a

50-caliber BMG, or Browning machine gun rifle [m1921]

when that was not the case.

 

[jessieqwert]

Just figured I'd add another tidbit of knowledge to the discussion. I just finished re-reading Jarhead which is the story of a Marine sniper in the Gulf War during desert storm. As the OP indicates this was the first war that the US military/marines had use of the Barret .50 cal. The author of the book pointed out that although he had this extremely powerful rifle, Geneva Conventions prevented him from shooting people with it. Of course he also pointed out the irony that he was allowed to shoot a vehicle which could lead to the death of all the occupants.

On another note, don't the snipers in Rainbow Six use a .50 cal on people?

 

[bharok]

wow a republican banning a gun
never would have thought of that
:thumbsup:

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: bharok
wow a republican banning a gun
never would have thought of that
:thumbsup:

Social liberal
Fiscal conservative

 

[RadeonGuy]

Thats just what i need a ban on a gun that costs at least a thousand dollars because terrorist are going to snipe pilots in air a couple thousand feet high

 

[0roo0roo]

its on 60 minutes now.

 

[Yossarian451]

Originally posted by: zakee00

Originally posted by: Yossarian451My point is just that there is no real danger from these, just as ther is little danger that someone is going to buy a formula 1 race car and drive it down the highway at 300mph.

O_M_G i laughed so hard reading this thread. you guys are funny as hell. 'specially that guy and his "anti-mater" weapon. LMAO! if you dont know ANYTHING about guns, dont even post here. when is the retarded government going to learn that my dads .416 weatherby magnum will kill someone AS GOOD as a .50 cal? there is no DEGREE of death, if someone is DEAD then they are DEAD. sorry for caps lol. as said earlier, if someone wants to kill someone else, and puts theyre mind to it, there is NO_WAY to stop them. just like there is NO_WAY to stop terrorists. you can hinder them, but not stop them. if they dont get what they want, they will always be terrorists.

Right, when you look at the real danger posed by basically any gun it is the same. Then it comes down to factors of user's ability and quality. But the average deer rifle poses more of a threat for assisinations and killings because of being readily availible and they pack enough to get the job done. To try to justify banning them because of any additional threat is just to say that the lawmakers are watching too much damn TV, thats right parents its not your children's minds who have been corrupted by TV but your elected legislature. To make it worse they keep trying to strech the senarios to include so near inhuman acts like shooting a plane down with a rifle, when we know that terrorist groups like the basque separatists just buy missles. Yet there are still hundreds of unaccounted soviets ordinances capable of doing such things and we go after an obscure and unplausible weapon. The government just needs to stop trying to do PR with the laws and solve some real problems.

 

[0roo0roo]

well it would be less of an issue if we actually bothered tracking who buys these. on 60 minutes they said they lowered the time the data is in the database to 24 hours...eh?

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well it would be less of an issue if we actually bothered tracking who buys these. on 60 minutes they said they lowered the time the data is in the database to 24 hours...eh?

There shouldn't be any tracking on who buys these....that's a step towards confiscation....in this country we have something called the second amendment........50's don't shoot "Magic Bullets" they follow all the laws of physics just like every other round. It's getting so ridiculous in this country that they are taking away our rights over the loss of 3,000 lives on 9/11. Check out my thread where I go into detail about how 9,000 Americans are dieing daily anyways.......

But the crux of my argument towards you is this: Have you ever shot a .50? Has anyone ever shot a .50 at you? In fact have you even seen a .50 in person? .........Move along please.......

 

[Zebo]

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.

Exactly. The second amendment is not about "only hunting guns" it's about the last resort to stopping governemnt tyranny. They've already gone too far with registration, so they know who to hunt first in thier police state. The main reason Iraq is so hard to subjegate is an armed populus. I'd hate to be like the french where the nazis rolled over in two hours.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well it would be less of an issue if we actually bothered tracking who buys these. on 60 minutes they said they lowered the time the data is in the database to 24 hours...eh?

While I don't necessarily agree with keeping records, that news came as a shock to me. Of all the people, why would John Ashcroft, one of the biggest threats to our Constitutional rights since J. Edgar Hoover, who is so concerned with tracking and finding terrorists no matter what the cost, why would he be the one to actually reduce a government database tracking firearms purchasers? Just seems so out of character for him.

 

[DivideBYZero]

BAN

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
BAN

If I was a mod, I would.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
BAN

If I was a mod, I would.

Me?

 

[BentValve]

What a waste of human energy..Califoria is one fvcked up state. I am glad I dont live there.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
BAN

If I was a mod, I would.

Hi, P&N? You seem to be missing a Moron...

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
BAN

If I was a mod, I would.

Hi, P&N? You seem to be missing a Moron...

I posted in here because every single thread in P&N turns out exactly the same way with little in the way of actual discussion.

Sue me.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
BAN

If I was a mod, I would.

Hi, P&N? You seem to be missing a Moron...

Stop posting for the sake of plusing up your postcount.

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: K1052

.50 BMG ammo is not subject to any restrictions different from any other ammo and is readily obtainable.

the only .50 BMG ammo I know of that is restricted is the Raufoss explosive tipped ammo.

 

[Phoenix86]

How many crimes have been committed with a .50BMG?

How many planes (military included) have been brought down (in air) with a .50BMG?

Do the benefits (benefits=answer to above ?s) of banning this weapon outweight the costs (constitutional, and other uses listed in thread)?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
How many crimes have been committed with a .50BMG?

How many planes (military included) have been brought down (in air) with a .50BMG?

Do the benefits (benefits=answer to above ?s) of banning this weapon outweight the costs (constitutional, and other uses listed in thread)?

But...but...Terrorism! Terrorists could use it! Think of the children!

 

[jlee]

there is no DEGREE of death, if someone is DEAD then they are DEAD.

"'Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, there's only one thing you can do - go through his clothes and look for loose change."

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Nice, another law that does nothing good.

An example of gun laws in action, lets count the felonies:
Two felons bought automatic (1) firearms (2), and got some body armor and went into a Bank of America and proceeded to rob (3) them at gunpoint (4), in the process proceeded to shoot at the cops (5 and 6). Cops eventually killed one, while another shot himself (7).

Looks like the gun laws really helped out on that one, yet the anti-gun crowd uses that as an example of why they need MORE laws.

#1: automatic firearms are already banned
#2: felons are not allowed to possess firearms
#3: robbing a bank is illegal (duh)
#4: armed makes it worse
#5: resisting arrest
#6: attempted murder (add one for each person they shot at?)
#6.5: ...of a cop.
#7: suicide (yep, there's laws against it. Who's going to jail?)

So what happened? They added laws restricting who can get the body armor. GREAT! They would've just added one more to the list.

IIRC, it's also a felony to wear body armor when committing a crime.

As for shooting down an airplane, what commercial airliners fly at 2500 meters!? I didn't think that the government was too worried about the private sector..a Cessna ran into a building in Orlando a while back, and there was barely a hole.

As for the carry/defense issue..just pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault (felony) -- if a CCW-carry civilian draws a weapon without just cause, they're facing a felony. Vise versa, a CCW carrier (at least in FL) is authorized to use deadly force to stop a violent felony from occuring, and aggravated assault (e.g. a robber pointing a firearm at someone) is a violent felony. For those who are scared of trained civilians carrying firearms, learn to duck (or move to NYC or DC, where violent crime is high and CCW permits are almost, if not impossible to obtain).