I've just heard CA legislature voted to ban .50 cals

[CarinKaryn]

got this news via email, don't have verification yet. Hope it's not wrong. Next stop, the grope-inator's desk for signing. I do think that, in spite of his other many faults, ah-nold will sign.

Good news, everyone!

[movonne]

1. What are .50 cals????

[MrBenchley]

4. .50 Caliber "rifles"

basically smal cannons, ideal for shooting an airliner sitting on a runway, a nuclear power plant, a propane storage tank, etc.

Carolyn Maloney of New York has a proposal to ban them across the country...which sounds like a pretty good thing.

"New York, NY—The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today joined Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) in calling for a federal ban on 50 caliber, anti-armor sniper rifles. Fifty caliber sniper rifles can penetrate armor plating, pierce rail cars carrying toxic chemicals, and destroy aircraft. Currently being used by U.S. troops in Iraq, 50 caliber sniper rifles are accurate at distances of more than a mile, yet under federal law are sold in the United States with fewer restrictions than a standard handgun. The guns have already been banned in Los Angeles, CA, and Contra Costa County, CA. In March 2004, the New York State Assembly voted to ban the weapons statewide. "

http://www.vpc.org/press/0408ny50.htm

There's no reason for these things to be on the civilian market.

[Worst Username Ever]

6. Just the rifles, or the desert eagles too? n/t

[goju]

9. Doesnt matter

California is leading the charge down the slippery slope. It wont take much more propaganda to fool the rest of the frightened, ignorant masses that 50 cal pistols are a menace too, then 50 cal muzzleloaders, and hell, if 50 cals are a menace, why not ban .45's too? All 30 cals are next..... Wont take them too long before the feds come knocking on doors confiscating everything that the constitutional controllers deem "unnecessary" or "overly frightening". Glad I dont live there anymore.

[MrBenchley]

13. Yeah, it would be a tragic shame

if ordinary law abiding citizens didn't have to worry about fuckwits with guns running around...

[ROC]

14. I think you have the idea....

[Vladimir]

22. One can only hope... n/t

[goju]

24. So, is a complete gun ban your goal?

[Vladimir]

27. No, not as such

i don't actually have a totally formed opinion on the subject, but I am likely to be in favour of most gun regulation. I guess you could put my position down as supporting the British model of gun control, FWIW, but this is broadly speaking.

[UpsideDownFlag]

110. oh, jesus.

people are gun-grabbers for wanting to get rid of hand-cannons that could take out terrorist targets.

[slackmaster]

147. Sad to see someone so thoroughly taken by propaganda

"Hand cannon"?

"Terrorist targets?"

"gun-grabbers"?

Can we not agree to simply call things by their proper names and avoid all the emotional overhead and non-constructive hype?

Here, read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2289277

[MrBenchley]

12. The bill is AB 50

you can download the text here...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_50&sess=CUR&house=B&author=koretz

[RoeBear]

50. serious question...

Please give a serious reply. I scanned the CA law, it proposes to ban
the "50 caliber BMG cartridge" and rifle. As others have mentioned as soon as it is signed into law there will be a 49 caliber cartridge invented. How do you propose to stop this?

[LibLabUK]

51. 49 caliber cartridge invented

Depends on the demand, doesn't it.

Is the .50BMG a widely used round, is there the demand to satisfy the costs of developing a new calibre?

It could be that market-forces will aid the spirit of the legislation (that is keeping large calibre weapons out of private hands).

[RoeBear]

52. Are you trying to be funny?

"It could be that market-forces will aid the spirit of the legislation"

Here is the complete definition of a 50.BMG:

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.

These are already available:

[LibLabUK]

53. Errr..

Maybe you should actually read what I posted.

Despite your fantasies to the contrary, businesses only generally make products for which they are likely to make a profit.

If the ban on .50 cal rifles goes ahead, and there is not significant demand for a .49 cal rifle, then there will be no .49 cal rifles.

Therefore market-forces (of which I'm no great fan) will enforce the spirit of the law.

[RoeBear]

54. Just like the...

...AW bill of 1994 stopped the gun industry from making slight changes and continuing to sell post-ban guns?

The profit motive for 50's is there now. Are you saying because this only affects CA that the manufacturers wouldn't make a model just for them?

[LibLabUK]

55. .

" Are you saying because this only affects CA that the manufacturers wouldn't make a model just for them?"

Yup. Is the market in California really big enough to support the development of an entirely new calibre?

[RoeBear]

56. So is this a reason...

...not to make it a federal ban?

The ole unintended consequences thing.

[LibLabUK]

60. Nope...

I was just commenting on the Ca ban.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

137. The market in California

was big enough for one of the major AR-15 manufacturers to make a single shot version of the AR-15 to get around the ban. DPMS was the manufacturer.

http://www.dpmsinc.com/specialty_rifles.html

It's the 4th rifle down on that page.

Hell, someone even cooked up some pump action AKs for California as well. Top of the list at this link.

http://www.centuryarms.com/store/

So yes, I think it is reasonable to assume that there would be enough of a market to make a "wildcat" of the 50 BMG. All that would need to happen for reloaders is for someone to make bullets, barrels and a set of dies to neck the .50 BMG case down for a .499 bullet. Then they would be back in business.

[MrSandman]

145. .406 Chey Tec...n/t

[MrSandman]

146. Correction:

.408 Chey Tac

[enfield collector]

104. so handload your own and seat the bullet high in the case. result

overall length is now 5.55" instead of 5.54" and by definition the bullet is no longer a .50BMG



Here is the complete definition of a 50.BMG:

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.

[slackmaster]

73. The demand will be there, I guarantee it

The biggest unintended consequence of this bill will be to spur interest in large-caliber long-range target rifles.

Here's another unintended consequence: Ronnie Barrett, charman of Barrett Firearms, has pledged that if California bans civilian sales of .50 BMG firearms his company will refuse to sell anything to California police departments, and will refuse to repair the Barrett rifles already owned by the Los Angeles PD and others.

[Vladimir]

75. Good to see gun companies exibiting

their civic spirit...

[slackmaster]

76. California represents about 10% of the consumer gun market

FYI

[Vladimir]

77. Which has exactly nothing to do with my point... n/t

[slackmaster]

78. I like ice cream

n/t

[Vladimir]

80. cookies and cream is my favourite... n/t

[MrBenchley]

79. Isn't it?

Long past time there were congressional hearings into the practices of this corrupt industry.

[Vladimir]

82. Gun companies should be required by law

to sell to the state, at market price of course, and continue upkeep of weapons that they have sold if the company remains in business. In fact, I cannot believe that they aren't.

[slackmaster]

86. There is no Constitutional basis for such a requirement

All power to the almighty State, eh Vladimir?

I'll give you an 'A' for creativity, but it really sounds like something that could happen only in a classical "police state" like the Stalinist era in the USSR.

I don't believe many USAmericans would want to go there. Too bad the lessons of history are forgotten so quickly.

[Vladimir]

88. Well of course there is no constitutional basis

but then again there was no constitutional basis for many a cause which resulted in the amendment of the constitution. Its not a document set in stone and never to be changed you know...

the rational is of course trivially simple, being that no company operating within a democratic state should be able to hold this democracy to ransom. Because that, oh master, is called fascism.

[slackmaster]

90. Your analogy falls flat on its face

Neither the state nor the LAPD really needs .50 BMG rifles. The state can always set up its own factories or buy the rifles from other manufacturers. Ronnie Barrett is looking out for the interests of his investors and employees. It's called doing business in a free market economy.

If a company had a monopoly on, say, petrolium or some other material critical to national defense that might be a different matter.

[Vladimir]

94. Yeah, looking out for their interest

by saying that he is willing to lose the company some business unless the democratic apparatus of government bends to his whim. Its called blackmail...

[slackmaster]

95. Your definition of "blackmail" seems rather novel

Please explain how one of dozens of manufacturers of similar items exercising its right to refuse to do business with someone constitutes blackmail.

Would it be blackmail if your neighborhood video store refused to let you rent a particular movie?

Would it be blackmail if a restaurant refused to seat and serve you?

You can always go somewhere else.

[LibLabUK]

97. Umm

"he is willing to lose the company some business"

Isn't that against the law?... a company director has a duty towards the shareholders to always do what's in the best interests of the company. By choosing to not trade in the way that he isn't he in breach of that duty.

[slackmaster]

136. Not against any law I'm aware of

First of all, Barrett's company is privately owned. Mr. Barrett only has to answer to himself and any investors who have an interest in the firm. But even if it was a public stock corporation he as CEO has the authority to refuse to do business with anyone.

It's his judgement that refusing to do business with California law enforcement agencies is the right thing to do. He's a savvy business person, and he's also personally committed to the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. If he believes that putting pressure on the CA state government to not pass a bill that would cut over 10% of his potential consumer market is the best interests of his business and supportive of his philosophy, it's perfectly within the scope of his power to do that.

...a company director has a duty towards the shareholders to always do what's in the best interests of the company. By choosing to not trade in the way that he isn't he in breach of that duty.

If you were an investor in Barrett and you felt that his actions were not in the company's best interests you would have a dog in the fight. As things stand now, you don't.

[ROC]

5. and what kind of .50 cals?

[MrBenchley]

2. Amen to that!

[FeebMaster]

3. Surely it won't be signed by a pro-gun Republican

like the governator!

[CO Liberal]

7. Can the Dems Over-Ride a Veto in California?

:shrug:

[FeebMaster]

10. I don't know

but I doubt they'll have to.

[MrBenchley]

26. You know, it's interesting to see, isn't it?

Supposedly gun control people have to be "pragmatic" and not mention the actual platform of the party out loud for fear of alienating some fucknut in Yokelville who fears John Kerry and Dianne Feinstein are going to bust down his door and take away his penis, er , gun....

But our trigger-happy chums have no compunction in trying to pretend a Democratic victory is a failure of some sort, just because it deprives the pathetic weenies of one of their lethal toys.

[FeebMaster]

28. Of course the gun control crowd has to rely

yet again on one of those pro-gun Republicans to sign their new gun control law.

But out gun-grabby chums have no compunction in trying to pretend that a Republican victory is actually a Democratic victory as long as more gun control gets passed.

[goju]

29. Yeah, funny aint it

They have no problem sucking up to any right wing rapist nazi if it will get one gun off the street. How cheap can they sell their soul and how fast can they sell it, if only to take those nastly little guns away from citizens? Its shameful how easy their "values" are bought and sold.

[FeebMaster]

33. Yeah the gun control crowd is a laugh a minute. (nt)

[MrBenchley]

32. Gee, wasn't that because Darrell Issa got the ELECTED governor recalled

Of course, Issa couldn't run himself...because he got photographed at a gun show posing with a swastika that was there.

"that a Republican victory is actually a Democratic victory"
Who wrote the bills, feeb? Oh yeah, Democratic legislators.

[FeebMaster]

34. It's Darrell Issa's fault that the governator

is probably a gun grabber and will soon prove it to the world? If you want AB50 signed and the governator signs it, what's the problem? There's no pleasing you folks.

[MrBenchley]

35. Tell us, feeb, do you doubt Grey Davis would have signed this?

"There's no pleasing you folks"
Gee, I'm pleased as punch this is going through...and can't wait until Maloney gets it put through on the national level and President Kerry signs it into law.

[FeebMaster]

37. Oh he probably would have

but he isn't the governor of California anymore.

[MrBenchley]

38. Yeah, we know....

you, on the other hand, seem to pretend that it made some sort of difference....

[FeebMaster]

41. Huh?

[slackmaster]

142. Good question

It requires a 2/3 vote just as in Congress.

As for this bill, it was passed by a razor-thin margin in a reprehensible parliamentary move referred to as "ghost voting" in which members change their vote after it has been recorded. In this case the bill lost by two votes, then the puppeteers who control things instructed a couple of Assembly members to change their votes.

[MrBenchley]

144. And here's slack trying to pretend the Democrats passing the bill

did something underhanded....

Nice to see the RKBA crowd's consistent....

[Endangered Specie]

42. Damn, I never thought Id hear someone...

sound happy about having Der Groppenfuhrer in power on this board.

[MrBenchley]

43. Feeb's only complaint about the Republicans ever

is that they aren't screwloose ENOUGH to suit...

[FeebMaster]

45. That's not true.

That's only one of my complaints about them.

[FeebMaster]

44. Happy?

What on earth sounds happy in what I said?

[Endangered Specie]

46. It reads that way, esp the "!", unless it is some form of sarcasim...

But Im not sure how it could be, Id expect Die Groppenfuhrer to be pro-gun.

[FeebMaster]

48. Yes it was sarcasm.

Id expect Die Groppenfuhrer to be pro-gun.

I wouldn't.



On further reflection, some happiness may have bled through to my post. I find it uproariously hilarious when Republicans pass gun control. For one thing, that means gun grabbers had to rely on Republicans, who are allegedly pro-gun, to get the legislation they want passed. For another, I love to point out to Republicans the gun grabbiness of the Republicans they vote for. Most of them still think Reagan was pro-gun for chrissake. Maybe they can get the constitution amended so the governator could be the next Reagan. I don't know if he could pull it off, though, he's not nearly as good an actor as Reagan was.

[Catch22Dem]

8. That's bullshit

How is a decent red-blooded american supposed to shoot quail or dove without a .50cal?

</SARCASM OFF>

Great news if you ask me!

ON EDIT: For those that don't know, there'd be nothing left if a .50cal hit a bird.

[goju]

11. Easy

You drive to nevada, buy a 50 cal, drive back and shoot all the quail you want. All the airplanes too. And locomotives. And everything else the VPC tells you what is a likely target for a 50 cal :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

15. And thus we see the need for Maloney's bill

no matter how loudly our trigger-happy chums scream and spout gibberish....

[MrSandman]

16. How about helicopters and satellites?

[enfield collector]

18. or you buy a .499 cal

watch for those next. or is that "skirting" the law.

[Romulus]

17. next on the block - .30-06 "vestbusters" (eom)

[goju]

19. Yep

wait till the brainsurgeons over at the VPC and the brady crusade find out snipers use mostly 30 cals, then what?

[TheRovingGourmet]

20. This should solve California's high crime rate.

[goju]

21. Oh it will

Clearly they will now be safe from terrorists attacking airplanes and such. :eyes:

[TheRovingGourmet]

23. It is illegal for terrorists to be in California so your response

is irrelevant. Banning fifty caliber guns will ensure that all Californians will get a good education so they can get good jobs.

[goju]

25. Silly me

I never read that on the VPC website, but its gotta be there somewhere. Surely they wouldnt leave out the tastly little "jobs and education" ploy in their crusade, would they? Nah, Ill go check again ;)

[thomas82]

30. Well AHHHRNOLD

will lose alot of votes if he bans 50 cals (hes a repub so who gives a F***). All that means is they will create a 49.9 caliber to take its place. I fear Kalifornia will be a British like society unwilling to fight for their rights. This is fine as we need a refuge for all the people that piss their pants from fear from seeing a gun. They can all sing Kumbayai and smoke dope or whatever.
Tom

[thomas82]

31. Also

Their will be preban 50 cals so they wont be going anywhere. When the are damaged or worn out they will be replaced with new 50 cals with preban serial #'s.
Tom

[Vladimir]

36. British uwilling to fight for their rights?

you may wish to read some history books soon. I suggest you commence around 1939 and work your way to 1945 for starters. After that you might want to look up something called the Magna Carta. If you succeed in both these tasks, the road ahead will be clear...

[MrBenchley]

39. Some of our trigger-happy chums here

seem to equate a gun fetish and raging paranoia with rights. I apologize for their boorish ignorance.

[thomas82]

40. well I should have stated

Gun rights. my bad, If the British would have worked harder to keep their rights they would not have such restrictive gun laws.
Tom

[Endangered Specie]

47. Oh I think the British have fought for Gun rights...

specifically, the right to not have to worry about you or your family getting SHOT by some loon with a gun.

File that one under "life" in life liberty and pursuit of hapiness.

[LibLabUK]

49. Hmmm

"If the British would have worked harder to keep their rights they would not have such restrictive gun laws."

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH... gasp...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Let's see... We're a constitutional monarchy with a democratically-elected representative bicameral legislature. Hardly a good basis for totalitarian rule.

On August 19, 1987 in the Berkshire town of Hungerford a man (Michael Ryan) shot 32 people, killing 17 of them including his own mother, before turning the gun on himself. His weapons of choice were all LEGALLY-HELD and included a semi-automatic AK-47.

The Firearms (Ammendment) act of 1988 banned the ownership of centre-fire semi-automatic rifles and restricted the use of other firearms with a capacity of more than two shots.

On Thursday March 14, 1996 a man (Thomas Hamilton) entered a primary school (school for children aged between 4 and 11 years) and proceeded to shoot 31 children and four teachers, killing sixteen pupils and one teacher with LEGALLY-HELD handguns. He was carrying 2 semi-automatic pistols, 2 revolvers and 743 rounds of ammunition. In the 3-4 minutes in which the massacre occured he expended 105 rounds from his Browning Hi-Power, before killing himself witha single shot from one of his two Smith and Wesson .357 revolvers.

The Firearms (Ammendment) act of 1997 (which came into force in 1998) banned the ownerdship of centre-fire handguns and expanding ammunition. It also toughened the rules regarding who could possess a firearms or shotgun certificate. (Link)

The Firearms (Ammendment) act of 1997 was a central manifesto promise of New Labour in their election campaign of 1997. They were elected with a majority of 179 seats. It was a landslide.

To say that the British people didn't work hard enough to preserve their right to bear arms is blatantly false. These two massacres were enough for the British people to decide that the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic rifles was too great a risk to their right to life.

[RoeBear]

57. Have you heard this theory?

The reason that modern British society is so anti self defense now is that a large percentage of the (for lack of a better term) brave men sacrificed themselves for their country during WWI & WWII leaving behind GWB types to run the country.

[Vladimir]

59. That is the funniest and at the same time dumbest

thing I have heard in a very long time.

[MrBenchley]

61. Gee, wouldn't the corollary to that be

that the reason we have so many dickless weenies with gun fetishes running around in THIS country now is because we lost so many real men during Korea and VietNam? (snicker)

It's always entertaining and telling what pops out of our pro-gun democrats' mouths, ain't it?

[Vladimir]

62. Well after Iraq its only going to get worse...

I wonder why the effect only started in the 20th century though... must be something in the water.

[MrBenchley]

64. Incidentally...

over on the gun nut on-line klavern "thehighroad.org" there's actually an essay by some idiot claiming that John Kerry deliberately let the Viet Cong wound him superficially 35 yrears ago so that he would have Purple Hearts during his sinister campaign now to unseat God's Own Pinhead.

The problem with appealing to the lowest common denominator is that there's no bottom limit.

[Vladimir]

65. You can't cure stupid n/t

[MrBenchley]

66. All you can do is point it out and jeer...

[LibLabUK]

67. But there are palliative treatments... :)

Preventing them from harming others..

[Vladimir]

68. ROTFL!! n/t

[RoeBear]

99. Who said I was quoting a ...

...a pro-gun Democrat?

[MrBenchley]

101. Whoever said you quoted anyone else?

I'm sure we can all see why you'd want to claim authorship of that bit of wisdom for yourself (tee hee hee)....

It's instructive and telling what popped out of YOUR mouth, roe...as always. Just as it is with so many other of your trigger-happy compatriots.

[LibLabUK]

63. Whoa..

"The reason that modern British society is so anti self defense now..."

Modern British society is "anti-self-defence"?

I don't think we are. Let's clear a couple of things up for all time.

• There was never a universal legal right to carry a weapon for self-defence in the UK.
  
  
• Firearms (excluding shotguns) in civilian hands were rare
  
  
• Handguns in civilian hands were rarer still
  
  
• In the UK, you have a right to defend yourself, others and property with "reasonable force"
  
  
• In the UK, if you commit a crime (be it murder, manslaughter or G.B.H.) in the course of defending yourself, others or property you will stand trial for that crime
  

"...is that a large percentage of the (for lack of a better term) brave men sacrificed themselves for their country during WWI & WWII leaving behind GWB types to run the country."

I've never heard this argument before and I'm not sure what you point is exactly.

[Romulus]

70. LibLab - could you explain

why "reasonable force" in the UK does not include pepper spray? :shrug:

[LibLabUK]

71. Hmm...

"why "reasonable force" in the UK does not include pepper spray?"

It is an offence to carry any item for the sole purpose of self defence. However, everyday items like umbrellas, keys and torches can be used to defend yourself, if you should need to.

Mace and pepper sprays are illegal in Britain. It is an offence to possess, sell or buy them. -Metropolitan Police website

To be honest I'm not sure on that one...

The reason stun guns are ilegal here is that they were primarily used by criminals in muggings and sexual assaults, and possession of them now carries the same penalties as for possession of a handgun.

It's possible the same was the case for pepper spray.

People have a totally different attitude here towards crime and saftey...

[Romulus]

72. Thanks (eom)

[thomas82]

107. So if

I shoot a criminal who enters my house to try and kill or rape my wife I go to jail?

Boy that sucks. If you are happy with your laws great, sorry that would not fly here in the USA.

I enjoy the fact if someone enters my house with the intent on harming my family (ARMED) he will die. hopefully he wont be in the living room as blood is very difficult to get out of the carpet.

Tom

[Vladimir]

115. A wife, sadly, is far more likely to be raped or killed by her husband n/t

[thomas82]

129. So chances are?

I will rape my wife before an intruder?

Im glad you cleared that up I will throw all my guns in the trash tommorow.

Thanks for the advice Mcfly.
Tom

[Vladimir]

131. Sadly yes, the chances are considerably

higher that a woman will be raped by her husband or a friend than that she will be raped by an intruder.

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994)

i make that a 68% to 32% chance against 'stranger danger'. Not that it isn't a danger, just that when you consider that its almost equal to the chance of being raped by your hubby or bf, giving said hubby or bf guns with which to keep the evil bad guys away may not be such a hot plan...

[MrBenchley]

58. Unfortunately here in the states

We've got a corrupt industry setting public policy through the Republican party...and a small but loud horde of crazed neurotics who try to pretend that sensible actions to improve public safety are some threat to liberty...

[thomas82]

108. hmmmm

Your country has two shootings and instead of punishing the criminals you punish everyone else? that make sense doesn't it?? NOT!!

That would be like banning swords for a few people committing crimes with swords oh wait..Australia is already doing that?? perhaps the sheep are scared again.

When you say the people choose to outlaw the guns, was it brought to a vote?

From your explanation on why semi autos are banned would be like saying: mad man enters bar and beats 10 people to death using a base ball bat.

Now because of this Baseball bats are banned.

Sorry Lib the UK way of thinking makes no sense to me, but its your country do what you wish.
Tom

[Columbia]

69. You know I never did want a .50 cal rifle before

But I guess I might as well get one now while I can.

Any recommendations?

[slackmaster]

74. ArmaLite AR-50 or an entry-level Barrett

You can get one for under $3,000. Add the better part of another $1,000 for an entry-level scope.

Order one as soon as you can. Production lines are slow on those items, and demand is going to be very high until the ban takes effect.

Unless the Governator vetoes the bill, that is.

Here's me trying out a tripod-mounted AR-50 at a shoot in Nevada last year:

http://members.cox.net/southparkmilitia/images/guns/AR-50_+_hippie.jpg

[Worst Username Ever]

85. Have you ever fired a barrett light 50?

AMAZING. When my cousin fired it next to me, the concussion felt like someone punched me in the face. The minimum on the scope was 500 yards. Huh.

Helps to have an uncle in the san diego FBI ;-)

[slackmaster]

87. Yes, I fired one of the "short"-barrelled Serbus

(edited to correct brand name)

Mark Serbu makes some nice rifles at very reasonable prices.

A group of .50 BMG shooters gathers at the Angeles Shooting Range roughly every other month. I fired a Barrett "carbine" from the shoulder, just missing a 500-yard plate. Although I missed the target because of fear, the recoil was less unpleasant than a 3-inch Magnum 12-gauge shotgun IMO.

The muzzle brake of that rifle has "Have a nice day" engraved on the business end.

:evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

81. Well that'll stop those darn terrorists

Oh yeah, there will still be 49 other states where they can buy .50 BMG rifles, not to meniton the whole international illegal gun market.

California really NEEDS to spend millions of dollars implementing and enforcing a law that has no foreseeable protective effect on public safety.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

:dunce:

[MrBenchley]

83. "there will still be 49 other states"

Funny...wasn't the argument from the "pro gun democrats" against federal gun control legislation that it ought to be left to the states?

Guess we can see now what a piece of shit that argument always was.

"not to meniton the whole international illegal gun market."
Good thing the irresponsible lunatics at Barrett put these guns on the civilian market, eh?

[LibLabUK]

84. Hehe...Barrett

"Good thing the irresponsible lunatics at Barrett put these guns on the civilian market, eh?"

More than that, they sold directly to the Taliban and anyone else who would pony up.

If their weapons are used by terrorists, they ARE directly responsible.

[slackmaster]

89. Yeah, just like General Motors is responsible

For the use of a Chevrolet Caprice as an unregistered sound suppressor by the DC "snipers".

:dunce:

[LibLabUK]

91. Umm..

Apples and oranges.

If you sell something to known sponsors of terrorism, you are responsible for what they use it for.

I guess you think personal responsibility stops at the corporation's reception desk.

[MrBenchley]

93. Slack wants to pretend

that gun manufacturers haven't been scrambling to get themselves a disgraceful special immunity from liability laws that General Motors seems curiously able to muddle along without.

But then he would probably also tell you the gun industry needed that immunity to protect itself from "frivolous" lawsuits...such as the ones by those wacky jokesters, Chicago and New York City.

[slackmaster]

96. Gun manufacturers and car manufacturers sell through dealers

It's really the same kind of transaction, except gun dealers are licensed by the federal government and have to comply with a lot more laws and regulations.

[MrBenchley]

98. Except Barrett sold directly TO Osama

and then when the VPC publicized that FACT, tried to pretend that the CIA had authorized the transaction (it had not).

http://www.vpc.org/studies/roofcont.htm

[LibLabUK]

100. Oopsy!

I can just see their new advertising campaign:

BARRETT ARMS, we sell big-ass guns to anyone! (...except the LAPD)

[MrBenchley]

102. LOL!

And you know if only I were a little more polite, I'd win some of these whoopsters over to my side (snicker).

[slackmaster]

143. Have you seen Mr. Barrett's response to the Bin Laden accusations?

...What is the truth? Well, during the 1980’s it must be remembered that the U.S. was supporting the Afghanistan “freedom fighters” or Mujahedeen in their fight against the Russian invaders. As part of the U.S. initiative, various types of small arms, ammunition and even anti-aircraft Stinger missiles were given to these “freedom fighters” in support of their cause. In retrospect we can say that we learned too late that our former friends would become our enemies, and yes, our troops now face the very weapons our government supplied the opposition.

So how did the Mujahedeen buy this equipment from U.S. companies? Did they walk up to the manufacturer of the Stinger missile, say they were from Afghanistan, hated Russians, and needed a few Stinger missiles to knock some of their planes out of the sky? Certainly not. Officials of the US government either sent them missiles from their own stock or arranged the sale through the current manufacturer. The latter was the case for the Barrett rifles, but Mr Diaz omitted these facts. If cognizant U.S. Government officials request the support of an arms manufacturer in such cases, should we to dispute their judgment?...

http://www.barrettrifles.com/news/ltr_laden.htm

[MrBenchley]

92. Let's hope they are held so

sometime in the future...

[skippythwndrdog]

114. Using your logic

Boeing (I believe they were Boeing products)is responsible for 9-11. Try again.

[thomas82]

128. Exactly

So is Kalifornia going to ban 747/767 airliners now? Gotta keep them out of terrorist hands you know. Don't worry Kali there is always Greyhound and Amtrak.
Tom

[thomas82]

130. Aren't 50 cal

Rifles sold in Britain? they must be safe to the be sold in the good ole UK right?
FREE

[Romulus]

103. nice to see the extremists exposed

Running roughshod over the target-shotting community, the CAL legislature has decided to outright ban .50 cal target rifles, and not even give the present owners the opportunity to register them with the state as a moderate control option.

Even the VPC isn't as anti-gun-owner on this issue:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/rooffive.htm

A Rational Plan of Action

The Violence Policy Center proposes the following strategy for dealing with the deadly consequences that are certain to follow this cynical gun-industry marketing campaign.


Add 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles to the National Firearms Act

Congress should immediately amend federal law to bring .50BMG rifles under the National Firearms Act. This action would subject these weapons to the same regimen of registration, background checks, and taxation to which other weapons of war, such as machine guns and destructive devices, are currently subjected.

There should be no "grandfathering" of existing weapons to exempt them from the law, and any grace period for registration should be very short. America must know who besides Osama bin Laden possesses these deadly tools of assassination and terror.

[MrBenchley]

105. Yeah, those Democratic liberal and moderate extremists...

Good thing theRKBA cause has swell people like Alan Keyes and Ted Nugent to step up and denounce them, eh?

[MrBenchley]

106. Way to go, Democrats! Here's some links...

* People would face major new restrictions to buy military-style .50 caliber BMG rifles in California. AB50, by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, passed the Assembly 41-31 and goes to the governor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/25/financial1858EDT0149.DTL


"The state Legislature approved a ban on high-powered .50-caliber rifles this week that would far exceed the restrictions on the weapon enacted by Contra Costa County last spring.
If signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the bill likely would pre-empt Contra Costa's ordinance, which bans the sale of the weapons in the unincorporated county, and end the legal battle brewing over the new law.
"It would probably knock out Contra Costa's ordinance and, assuming the county would repeal the ordinance, we'd drop the lawsuit," said Chuck Michel, the attorney representing the coalition of gun-rights advocates suing the county. "

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10671~2362719,00.html

By the way, Chuck Michel filed that lawsuit on First Amendment grounds, not Second Amendment grounds.Do you think that was a typo? Do you think that was because he forgot about that individual rights thing? Or do you think that he knew exactly what dishonest shit that claim is?

And here's what sane people think about this lethal toy...

"Here's a fun fact to keep you up at night: It is perfectly legal — and so easy any deranged lunatic can do it — to buy a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle, one of the 5-foot monsters used by American forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and a lot of places you would rather not know about (the California Legislature is now considering AB50, which would ban the sale of .50-caliber rifles in the state). It's even easier to purchase armor-piercing ammunition for the gun. Put them together and you have one of the world's most devastating standoff weapons, capable of ventilating a head of state at a mile's distance, or even taking out one very large Lincoln.
Everybody needs a hobby."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/valley/la-hy-neil25aug25,1,1397116.story?coll=la-editions-valley

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

138. I love this wording

* People would face major new restrictions to buy military-style .50 caliber BMG rifles in California.

Weee! Military-style .50 BMGs! Wait, there is only 1 military style .50 BMG and the rest aren't even close to what is used by the military? Bah, doesn't matter...

Military-style .50 BMGs! Military-style .50 BMGs! Blowing up satellites! Shoots through 24 rail cars legnth-wise! Assassination and terror! Armor Piercing Sniper Rifles with Explosive Bulelts! ARGGGG!

(/sarcasm)

[UpsideDownFlag]

109. they can have my 50 calibers when they pull them out of

my COLD...DEAD...HANDS!

(sarcasm off- but that does seem to be the flavor here)

seriously folks- how can trying to minimize the amount of thumb-sized bullets flying around be a bad thing?

[FeebMaster]

111. I hadn't realized there were many thumb sized bullets

flying around. Could you post some links to news stories about this dangerous business?

[UpsideDownFlag]

112. a fifty caliber bullet

is about the size of a thumb. well, my thumb, anyway. logically, the more guns of that nature that there are, the more bullets are capable of being fired...also known as flying thru the air.

[FeebMaster]

113. Yes I understand that .50 caliber means half an inch.

You implied that they were flying around and this situation needed to be minimized. Surely you could link to some news stories where .50 caliber bullets are flying around causing harm.

[UpsideDownFlag]

116. story links arent needed- its empirical knowledge that a thumbsized bullet

does damage and should be frigging controlled.

perhaps you have a story of a 50 cal NOT causing harm when it hit someone?

[FeebMaster]

117. Perhaps you have a story of a .50 caliber bullet hitting someone. (nt)

[UpsideDownFlag]

118. page thru benchley's "guns in the news" files.

the burden of proof isn't on me.

[FeebMaster]

119. That's an interesting way of saying

"I can't find any stories of people being shot with a .50 caliber rifle."

[UpsideDownFlag]

120. its an indirect way of saying "i have better things to do"

like, say, comb my hair, or nap. i am not going to try and convince a supposed progressive that his arguments are backed up by wingers.

[FeebMaster]

121. Oh I'm sorry.

"its an indirect way of saying "i have better things to do""

I misspoke. What you really meant to say was "There are no stories about people being shot with .50 caliber rifles to link to."


"i am not going to try and convince a supposed progressive that his arguments are backed up by wingers."

Oh and a half assed attempt at guilt by association to go with it. I've seen better, but I guess you're new here. Of course, that has nothing to do with these alleged .50 caliber projectiles flying around hurting people that you can't seem to provide evidence of.

[MrBenchley]

122. A new low point for someone who has had a long succession of them...

Tell us, feeb, if I don't bother to give you a link to a story saying somebody could die if they ingest cyanide, are you going to pretend it's a harmless food additive?

[FeebMaster]

123. I know you have at least one link

to a story about a .50 caliber rifle being used in the commission of a crime. Maybe you should help JibJab out. Of course, no one was shot with it, so I don't think it counts in this case.

[MrBenchley]

124. Gee, feeb...jib-jab's doing fine on his own...

"Of course, no one was shot with it"
Long as you don't count any of the people who was shot....but why let facts get in your way at this point, feeb? There's no reason for you to interrupt your unbroken record of silliness and horsecrap with a fact.

[FeebMaster]

125. Huh?

"Long as you don't count any of the people who was shot....but why let facts get in your way at this point, feeb? There's no reason for you to interrupt your unbroken record of silliness and horsecrap with a fact."

Well how many were shot then? Post a link for us telling about all of those people being gunned down by the .50 caliber scourge.

Funny that I'm asking for facts and you're trying to claim that I'm ignoring them.

[MrBenchley]

126. So you are claiming it's a food additive....

Ask Jackney Sneeb to give you the links, feeb....I've seen your tired schtick too many times to bother with it.

[FeebMaster]

127. Food additive?

We're talking about .50 caliber rifles here, specifically people shot by them. Your random reference to cyanide had nothing to do with anything, besides it was five posts ago. Try to keep up.



Ask Jackney Sneeb to give you the links, feeb....I've seen your tired schtick too many times to bother with it.

It warms my heart to see a Jackney Sneeb reference. It's been so long. It's not like you ever bothered to deal with my "schtick" in the first place. Why would I expect you to suddenly change your behavior?

[slackmaster]

132. You're mixing apples and oranges

its (sic) empirical knowledge that a thumbsized bullet... ...does damage...

Nobody will dispute that fact. Apple.

...and should be frigging controlled.

That is your opinion. Orange.

[UpsideDownFlag]

133. its apples and common sense.

or so I would think.

[slackmaster]

134. My common sense doesn't agree with your common sense

So I propose that we do the civil thing and agree to disagree.

[UpsideDownFlag]

135. agreed. n.t,

[MrSandman]

139. What about the ...

8.60 x 70 mm?

1500 ft/lbs of kinetic energy at 1200 meters.

Comparable ballistic path to the .50 BMG.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

140. Take your facts and begone!

You'll only complicate simple matters!

:evilgrin:

[MrSandman]

141. Should I have tried to put a spin...

on those facts, or is evidence needed?