The cry against "sniper" rifles is starting to come in congress.

[tfbit]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I hope for the sake of gun freedoms in the US that the weapon that is being used is a nice brown hunting rifle + scope, available at any sporting goods store that carries firearms.

That way a bunch of gun-grabbing liberals look like idiots.

Viper GTS

God forbid sniper rifles become illegal like automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons are not illegal. You need a federal license to own one. That means fingerprints on FBI files. That means sh|tloads of money each year to have one. But you also need a house or storage unit to keep the automatic weapons in that is deemed safe to the community by the feds.

I know a man who owns his own security company and has a Browning Automatic Rifle.

nik

Sorry, but it does not mean sh|tloads of money each year to have one (unless you are using it a lot). All it takes is the FBI background checks, the availability of a weapon to purchase, and a one time purchase of a federal tax stamp (I think $200 but I may be more now). Some states may have their own fees, but that is how it is in Oregon.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

There is still plenty recognizable left if you get hit in the chest with a 50 BMG round. You're almost certainly dead, but its not like it makes a person explode. Go easier on the video games.

It was a bit of an exaggeration, but a .50BMG does create a catastrophic wound channel unless the target is at extended ranges of 800 yards or more away, where the energy and velocity begins to readily drop-off. At shorter distances, out to 400 yards or so, a .50BMG can nearly tear a human torso in two, leaving it attached only by several inches of ribs and soft tissue. At any rate, it leaves a big f-cking hole when it exits.

True, but you can stll recognize their head, as it isnt damaged by a chest shot. That was my point.

 

[tcsenter]

Sorry, but it does not mean sh|tloads of money each year to have one (unless you are using it a lot). All it takes is the FBI background checks, the availability of a weapon to purchase, and a one time purchase of a federal tax stamp (I think $200 but I may be more now). Some states may have their own fees, but that is how it is in Oregon.

Many states have gone behind the federal law and made NFA firearms illegal to own with the exception of curio and relics, Michigan being one example.

What he may have been referring to is that a typical entry level NFA firearm can run on average a couple thousand dollars. Machine gunning is not a poor man's hobby.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Sorry, but it does not mean sh|tloads of money each year to have one (unless you are using it a lot). All it takes is the FBI background checks, the availability of a weapon to purchase, and a one time purchase of a federal tax stamp (I think $200 but I may be more now). Some states may have their own fees, but that is how it is in Oregon.

Many states have gone behind the federal law and made NFA firearms illegal to own with the exception of curio and relics, Michigan being one example.

What he may have been referring to is that a typical entry level NFA firearm can run on average a couple thousand dollars. Machine gunning is not a poor man's hobby.

Well, maybe not an initially poor man's hobby...

 

[Chubs]

Originally posted by: Tominator
One very pertinant fact.

You cannot change a person'r fingerprint. You CAN change a firearm's so-called 'fingerprint.'

We DO NOT fingerprint an individual until he is suspected and charged with a crime or must pass certain security investigations.

If we NEED fingerprints of individuals why have we not started a national database of every person falling under US law? Afterall look at the crimes it could solve!

Looks to me like someone is all too ready to give up our right to privacy!:|

Yeah! In fact, I say we stop registering and tracking all dangerous materials. Who needs to keep track of the various strains of anthrax? Who needs to keep track of nuclear material? After all, tracking these materials violates their owners right to privacy! And it's already been proven that criminals and dangerous people can get access to these anyway! So, what's the point?

Ok, enough sarcasm.

We DO NOT fingerprint people because PEOPLE have the fundamental right to privacy. We DO NOT track most of the things that people own because most of the THINGS that people own are not considered dangerous materials. We do track THINGS that have the potential to cause great harm.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Chubs

Originally posted by: Tominator
One very pertinant fact.

You cannot change a person'r fingerprint. You CAN change a firearm's so-called 'fingerprint.'

We DO NOT fingerprint an individual until he is suspected and charged with a crime or must pass certain security investigations.

If we NEED fingerprints of individuals why have we not started a national database of every person falling under US law? Afterall look at the crimes it could solve!

Looks to me like someone is all too ready to give up our right to privacy!:|

Yeah! In fact, I say we stop registering and tracking all dangerous materials. Who needs to keep track of the various strains of anthrax? Who needs to keep track of nuclear material? After all, tracking these materials violates their owners right to privacy! And it's already been proven that criminals and dangerous people can get access to these anyway! So, what's the point?

Ok, enough sarcasm.

We DO NOT fingerprint people because PEOPLE have the fundamental right to privacy. We DO NOT track most of the things that people own because most of the THINGS that people own are not considered dangerous materials. We do track THINGS that have the potential to cause great harm.

How many of those things that we "track" are tied to a Constitutional right?