MSNBC 50 cal rifle article

Ranb · 26th November 2005, 08:14 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10207205/

From the link;

Joseph King, a terrorism expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said terrorists could use the weapon to take out a plane. "I don't understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do you," King said. "I don't understand any civilian use of it. The only thing it's good for is for military or police application. You can't really hunt with it because it would destroy most of the meat."

This sounds like the silly claim made by Senator Moran that a 50 BMG rifle would leave nothing but hooves and hide if one were to hunt with it. I thought, well, if a guy can be a terrorism expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, then he can't be that stupid. I guess I was wrong.

I wrote to Dr. King asking what evidence he had that these rifles are being used by terrorists in the United States. I also asked him if he made the above hunting claim and if he stood behind it.

While I was polite in my e-mail, I did not expect a reply. I got one later in the evening.

As to my question about criminal use in the United States, he said I should look at PIRA use in Northern Ireland. I was hoping for something more profound than this. After all, terrorist use in NI should not make these rifles illegal to own in the United States.

His experience using 50 caliber rifles was testing them against armor plates, not hunting. He did not say if he stood behind his hunting statement. I sent him another e-mail asking him to clarify his statement in the article. It would be nice to get a direct answer. He is much more direct than most Congresspersons.

Ranb

RandFan · 26th November 2005, 08:25 PM

Uh oh... I feel a gun thread coming on.

I can only dream of some day passing the civil service exam, getting a job as a postman and finally being able to afford a 50 cal BMG. America, the place of dreams.

The Central Scrutinizer · 26th November 2005, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

I wrote to Dr. King asking what evidence he had that these rifles are being used by terrorists in the United States.

Why did you ask him this question, when he made no such claim? At least according to the article.

Do you have some sort of bizarre sexual fetish about this gun? I'm serious. You have posted numerous threads, not about guns or gun control in general, but about this gun specifically. What's the deal?

RandFan · 26th November 2005, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Do you have some sort of bizarre sexual fetish about this gun? I'm serious. You have posted numerous threads, not about guns or gun control in general, but about this gun specifically. What's the deal?

I know that you are not talking to me but I must confess that I honestly have a compulsion to own this rifle. It could have something to do with feelings of powerlessness. It could be a sense of inadequacy. There could very well be a sexual component. I think that whatever drives the compulsion it is complex and includes emotions from our evolutionary past. I also dig the Colt .45, 44 Magnum, 20 gauge shotgun and the M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon.

The Central Scrutinizer · 26th November 2005, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I know that you are not talking to me but I must confess that I honestly have a compulsion to own this rifle. It could have something to do with feelings of powerlessness. It could be a sense of inadequacy. There could very well be a sexual component. I think that whatever drives the compulsion it is complex and includes emotions from our evolutionary past. I also dig the Colt .45, 44 Magnum, 20 gauge shotgun and the M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon.

That's fine, but if it was you, would you start 10 different threads about it?

Ranb · 26th November 2005, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Why did you ask him this question, when he made no such claim? At least according to the article.

Do you have some sort of bizarre sexual fetish about this gun? I'm serious. You have posted numerous threads, not about guns or gun control in general, but about this gun specifically. What's the deal?

Well, he did claim he did not understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do, as well as his claim that terrorists can take out a plane with one. I guess he never heard of recreational shooting. It does not take a long stretch to reason why he is against ownership of these rifles.

I wonder why you and some of the gun control freaks here like to equate guns and sex. I certainly do not. Are you trying to derail this thread? I am trying to make it about Joseph King.

My interest in the 50 BMG rifle arises from the fact that I do own and shoot one. I also know that if I just sit back and watch, we will lose the right to own them, even if they are never used in violent crime. Our nannies in the state and federal governments will decide that we are not to be trusted with a small arm like this. Educating people and talking to my representatives are the best ways I know of to keep my guns and not go to jail.

I can let a bit of personal information out about myself in regards to your inquiry about my so called fetish. Shooting this rifle does not make me feel powerful. In fact, it makes me feel like an inadequate marksman because I am not able to shoot it as well as I think I should. The progress I have made in the last 4 years shooting it has been steady, but very slow. I do find your choice of words f-cking insulting.

Ranb

Ranb · 26th November 2005, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

..... I also dig the Colt .45, 44 Magnum, 20 gauge shotgun and the M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon.

I dig also.

My next high power project may be turning a surplus vulcan 20mm barrel into a single shot rifle. The $200 tax will be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost to just feed the thing.

Ranb

Ranb · 26th November 2005, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

That's fine, but if it was you, would you start 10 different threads about it?

You mean 10 threads just in the past year? I stopped counting at 15 fifty caliber threads.

Ranb

shecky · 26th November 2005, 09:41 PM

Let's pretend that next week, some terrorist manages to take down a airliner in the US with a .50BMG. Would that change your opinion?

I ask this because you've often brought up the point of banning guns despite the lack of crimes committed with such particular guns.

I'm not really fond of that line of reasoning. Isn't that's what got many guns put on the assault weapons list? After all, "everybody knows" gangbangers prefer TEC-9s/MAC-10s/Uzis, etc. Isn't it more reasonable to evaluate any particular gun on it's potential destructiveness rather than it's track record?

The nannies in the state and federal governments long ago neutered anyone's ability to own any serious weapnonry, and continue to do so. I suspect the .50 BMG will generally be spared by the feds, but it may be where the line is drawn.

Ranb · 26th November 2005, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by shecky

Let's pretend that next week, some terrorist manages to take down a airliner in the US with a .50BMG. Would that change your opinion?..... Isn't it more reasonable to evaluate any particular gun on it's potential destructiveness rather than it's track record?
.....I suspect the .50 BMG will generally be spared by the feds, but it may be where the line is drawn.

Bringing down an airliner would certainly alter my opinion in some ways, but I am not naive enough to think that banning any certain gun will prevent future problems.

I think a certain gun's track record is a better way of evaluating how it should be controlled. Stop and think about how people wanted to ban various guns that were new.

The Glock was imagined by some to be a plastic gun made to get through airports screenings, never mind that the polymer frame would show up on an X-ray machine or that the gun was about 80% metal by weight.

Remember the fuss some people made about the 50 S&W revolver? It was dubbed an assault weapon that had no business being in the hands of civilians. It has not been in the news at all, no doubt a big disappointment to the gun control freaks. That monster is too much for almost anyone who wants to get a second round off at the target.

The latest handgun to be vilified is the FN 5.7 pistol. Because one of the five types of ammunition available is designed to penetrate light body armor, it is called a cop killer pistol, never mind that the armor piercing ammo is only supposed to be sold to the police.

A 50 caliber rifle is a pip squeak compared to a bomb. Can anyone tell me what makes them so uniquely dangerous? They are more readily available than more powerful firearms, but this should not make them evil in the eyes of cowards like the Bradys or VPC.

The feds do not draw the line at 50 caliber. They allow 73 caliber (12 gauge) rifles with the same restrictions as smaller rifles. Getting or making a 20 mm (78 cal) rifle just involves an ATF form 1 or 4.

Ranb

Gurdur · 27th November 2005, 12:13 AM

I dunno, no offence, but I detect a certain lack of ambition here. I mean, I always wanted an RPG launcher and RPG's. And sheeesh, if I can make the money, why not a cruise missle too?

fishbob · 27th November 2005, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I can only dream of some day passing the civil service exam, getting a job as a postman and finally being able to afford a 50 cal BMG. America, the place of dreams.

Best one-liner of the year.
You have been nominated for Nov language award.

geni · 27th November 2005, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Gurdur

I dunno, no offence, but I detect a certain lack of ambition here. I mean, I always wanted an RPG launcher and RPG's. And sheeesh, if I can make the money, why not a cruise missle too?

Armed miltia clause. a cruise missile is pretty useless outside the hands of a properly organised militry. You are right about the RPG though. Much better than .50-caliber rifles or even machine guns against amour or helecopters. What you really need is some kind of anti arcraft defence. Just ask the afananies. They were getting hit repeatedly by soviet helecopters untill they got thier hands on some stingers.

RandFan · 27th November 2005, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

That's fine, but if it was you, would you start 10 different threads about it?

Well, the proof is in the pudding isn't it? I haven't started any threads about it.

RandFan · 27th November 2005, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by fishbob

Best one-liner of the year.
You have been nominated for Nov language award.

Thanks Bob.

Gurdur · 27th November 2005, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by geni

a cruise missile is pretty useless outside the hands of a properly organised militry.

You had better read The Moon Goddess And The Son by Donald Kingsbury before attempting that claim.

shecky · 27th November 2005, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Bringing down an airliner would certainly alter my opinion in some ways, but I am not naive enough to think that banning any certain gun will prevent future problems.

That's the whole point. Arguing on the track record, or lack therof, is wrong headed and eventually, a dead end. .22 has got to be one of the most used caliber in crimes, not because of lethality, but ubiquity. Any particular weapon is dangerous because it poses specific threat(s), not because it's commonly used in crimes.

So, if a terrorist did manage to bring down a airliner with a .50 BMG, would you change your mind even if you concede that it might not prevent future problems?

Originally Posted by Ranb

I think a certain gun's track record is a better way of evaluating how it should be controlled. Stop and think about how people wanted to ban various guns that were new.

So you are for gun control after all?

Originally Posted by Ranb

A 50 caliber rifle is a pip squeak compared to a bomb. Can anyone tell me what makes them so uniquely dangerous?

Possibly the same things that make them so attractive to you as a recreational shooter?

Originally Posted by Ranb

The feds do not draw the line at 50 caliber. They allow 73 caliber (12 gauge) rifles with the same restrictions as smaller rifles. Getting or making a 20 mm (78 cal) rifle just involves an ATF form 1 or 4.

Cmon, you know gauge alone is not the deciding factor for extra regulations. Range, projectile energy, and projectile type all factor in. Thus that 12 ga. could be a lame performer at 50 yds with a common load.

Yet stringent ATF rules do seem to keep certain class of weapons out of the hands of criminals, if for no other reason that the bar for obtaining and possessing such weapons is so high. And even IF the .50 BMG is further regulated by the feds, it seems that it would be probably no more so than the 20mm you cite.

Keep in mind, I'm not against the .50 BMG. While your pet gun is possibly on the fringe of the govt's acceptability, it's unlikely that any .50 BMG will ever be common tools of criminals and terrorists. And I have no objection to it's ownership and use by common folks.

Ed · 27th November 2005, 05:52 AM

I have wanted to own a Hotchkiss Mountain Rifle for ages.

Just like it is all. What is it, liberal weinies don't collect anything?

BTW, I think this one is slightly over the line. I am pretty sure it is a "destructive Device" as they define it. It means a stupid special license and permission from my local police chief.

geni · 27th November 2005, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Gurdur

You had better read The Moon Goddess And The Son by Donald Kingsbury before attempting that claim.

Fiction? I preder to rely on what is know in fact. Cruise missiles are not mobile which means they are pretty much useless for a milita style force. They require a large amount of resoucres to mentain and are good for one hit only.

Gurdur · 27th November 2005, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by geni

Fiction? I preder to rely on what is know in fact.

A pity for you, since you then miss out on some good tips.

Quote:

Cruise missiles are not mobile which means they are pretty much useless for a milita style force.

And? So what? For a start, you're the only one talking about a "milita style force"; that is far from being their only possible use.

Quote:

They require a large amount of resoucres to mentain and are good for one hit only.

Again, so what? They can be incredibly useful with that one hit.

The Central Scrutinizer · 27th November 2005, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Well, he did claim he did not understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do, as well as his claim that terrorists can take out a plane with one. I guess he never heard of recreational shooting. It does not take a long stretch to reason why he is against ownership of these rifles.

Yes, except that you said: "I wrote to Dr. King asking what evidence he had that these rifles are being used by terrorists in the United States." But he never made that claim. Why are you asking him a question about something he never said?

Originally Posted by Ranb

I wonder why you and some of the gun control freaks here like to equate guns and sex. I certainly do not. Are you trying to derail this thread? I am trying to make it about Joseph King.

Well, since I own 5 guns, I hardly think I'm a "gun control freak". But you do have some sort of bizarre fetish with this gun. I just figured it might be sexual.

Originally Posted by Ranb

My interest in the 50 BMG rifle arises from the fact that I do own and shoot one. I also know that if I just sit back and watch, we will lose the right to own them, even if they are never used in violent crime. Our nannies in the state and federal governments will decide that we are not to be trusted with a small arm like this. Educating people and talking to my representatives are the best ways I know of to keep my guns and not go to jail.

OK, good for you. Are you similarly concerned about 22 caliber rifles? Or 20 gauge shot guns? If not, why not? If so, why haven't you started 15 threads about them?

Originally Posted by Ranb

I can let a bit of personal information out about myself in regards to your inquiry about my so called fetish. Shooting this rifle does not make me feel powerful. In fact, it makes me feel like an inadequate marksman because I am not able to shoot it as well as I think I should. The progress I have made in the last 4 years shooting it has been steady, but very slow. I do find your choice of words f-cking insulting.

Mephisto · 27th November 2005, 07:00 AM

I LOVE this rifle! I only wish I could afford to own and use one regularly.

It's an intimidating looking piece, and that's probably why most gun control advocates want it banned. Their expertise is limited to "dangerous-looking" weapons and they frequently use terms like semi-automatic and machine gun interchangeably (they're NOT the same thing). Their primary concerns include large magazine capacity (which doesn't matter if it's not accurate like most Tek-9s), flash suppressors, and venting along the barrel.

What most people don't admit is the simple fact that 3,000 people were killed by men with friggin box cutters! Why would they (terrorists) want to purchase a high-profile rifle like this (leaving a paper trail of some sort), lug it to their AO and attempt to use it in a public place without attracting some attention?

If bringing down a plane is really anyone's idea of what can happen with a high-powered weapon why isn't Homeland Security expanding the perimeter around airports?

Gurdur · 27th November 2005, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

.....If bringing down a plane is really anyone's idea of what can happen with a high-powered weapon why isn't Homeland Security expanding the perimeter around airports?

No offence, but that is a bad argument. To show why:
Equally one can retort:
If bringing down a plane is really anyone's idea of what can happen with a box-cutter why aren't the authorities banning all box-cutters from being carried onto the planes?

IOW, there is always a first time. You have a point in that it's unlikely as a weapon to bring down an aircraft ---- except immediately before landing or just after taking off. Most likely it would not bring anything down even then, but it could cause significant damage.

geni · 27th November 2005, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Gurdur

A pity for you, since you then miss out on some good tips.

Evidence?

Quote:

And? So what? For a start, you're the only one talking about a "milita style force"; that is far from being their only possible use.

Yes it is. The US has a professional militry. The armed citenzenry only become an issue once that has lost. We are then looking at chechen and iraq style insergenies. A few lessions can be learned from these show that cruise missiles are inpracticle:

1. The occupying force can occupy any position they like. Thus if something isn't mobile you are going to lose it sooner or latter

2.Unless you have acess to anti aircraft wepons you will take a pounding from the air which means even if you are holding an area they can destory anything of value in it.

3.The vast majority of your force is going to be late teens early twenties who don't know how to operate a cruise missile (they can however lern to use AK-47s and RPG-7s without too much difficulty).

Quote:

Again, so what? They can be incredibly useful with that one hit.

For the amount of rescourse you had to use? Ok first you have to hide an mentain the thing. And of course whatever you are useing to lauch it. Second unless you use it striaght away you are going to have to defend it. Since there is no way you could hide it in a city that means you are going to have to hide it way from population centres. This means that those defending it are your more committed troops who you can't afford to lose. Next you are going to need someone who can program the target computer and launch the thing. Not something that can be done by your run of the mill restiance member.

What do you get in return? You hit one target that wasn't important enough to have protection from cruise missiles availible.

Resitance fighters or whatever you want to call them don't use high tech weaponry. There is a reason for this.

Mephisto · 27th November 2005, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Gurdur

No offence, but that is a bad argument. To show why:
Equally one can retort:
If bringing down a plane is really anyone's idea of what can happen with a box-cutter why aren't the authorities banning all box-cutters from being carried onto the planes?

IOW, there is always a first time. You have a point in that it's unlikely as a weapon to bring down an aircraft ---- except immediately before landing or just after taking off. Most likely it would not bring anything down even then, but it could cause significant damage.

I don't think it's a bad argument at all! I don't know if you've flown in the U.S. since 2001, but they won't even let you bring fingernail clippers or a nail file onboard an airplane, so yes, someone has finally realized the possibility of it happening again.

I think my assertion that airport security perimeters should be expanded if anyone is actually concerned that a high-powered rifle might bring down an airplane is valid - you said it yourself, this weapon wouldn't be able to adequately target an airplane EXCEPT during landing or takeoff.

And WHERE is it that airplanes land and takeoff from?

The Central Scrutinizer · 27th November 2005, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

I don't know if you've flown in the U.S. since 2001, but they won't even let you bring fingernail clippers or a nail file onboard an airplane...

I don't know if you've flown since 2001, but they will let you bring fingernail clippers or a nail file on board an airplane!

http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...d_9_6_2005.pdf

Mephisto · 27th November 2005, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I don't know if you've flown since 2001, but they will let you bring fingernail clippers or a nail file on board an airplane!

http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...d_9_6_2005.pdf

Funny, I've been to Italy once and NYC twice since 2001 and they took nail clippers and a BIC lighter away from my wife. Maybe we just don't look like the garden variety all American couple. It's hell having a dark complexion!

Still, it's all moot since a properly trained person could kill someone with a #2 pencil just as easily as a box cutter.

(edited to add) my point was that obvious weapons (like box cutters) are NOT being allowed on airplanes.

Ranb · 27th November 2005, 08:25 AM

[quote=shecky;1294357].....So, if a terrorist did manage to bring down a airliner with a .50 BMG, would you change your mind even if you concede that it might not prevent future problems?

So you are for gun control after all?

Possibly the same things that make them so attractive to you as a recreational shooter?

Cmon, you know gauge alone is not the deciding factor for extra regulations. Range, projectile energy, and projectile type all factor in. Thus that 12 ga. could be a lame performer at 50 yds with a common load.

.....And even IF the .50 BMG is further regulated by the feds, it seems that it would be probably no more so than the 20mm you cite. .....
QUOTE]

At this time I am not sure what I would decide if a 50 cal rifle was used to down a plane.

I do favor laws that can keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. I do not favor the ones that punish law abiding owners.

I am interested in the 50 BMG rifle only because it something different. It makes little 1/2 inch holes in the target. Small rocks go to pieces when hit. It is challenging to shoot due to the recoil and barrel length.

Actually, barrel inside diameter is the deciding factor in deciding if a gun is a firearm or a destructive device. Take a look at BATFE regulations. The ATF has decided that shotguns up to 10 gauge are acceptable for sporting uses. That is the only reason I can own one without getting the local sheriff's permission and paying a $200 tax. With a common slug load, a good 12 gauge will be lethal and accurate past 100 yards. I watched a marine with an M1 super 90 put five slugs into a 6 inch group at 100 yards from a standing shooting position.

Regulating the 50 BMG as an NFA weapon may greatly reduce it's availability to American civilians. While the $200 tax is a mere nuisance compared to the cost of the rifle, in some areas it is difficult to obtain the local law enforcements signature on the ATF form 4 or 1 to get NFA weapons. As far as I know, only Tennessee has a law requiring local sheriff's to sign ATF forms for anyone allowed to own firearms. Some sheriffs routinely refuse to sign, from what I have heard. I am lucky to have a sheriff that always signs for me.

Ranb

Ranb · 27th November 2005, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Yes, except that you said: "I wrote to Dr. King asking what evidence he had that these rifles are being used by terrorists in the United States." But he never made that claim. Why are you asking him a question about something he never said?

Well, since I own 5 guns, I hardly think I'm a "gun control freak". But you do have some sort of bizarre fetish with this gun. I just figured it might be sexual.

OK, good for you. Are you similarly concerned about 22 caliber rifles? Or 20 gauge shot guns? If not, why not? If so, why haven't you started 15 threads about them?

I answered your first question above.

I did not say you were a gun control freak. I said you and gun control freaks. You would be surprised at the number of gun owners who think that 50 caliber rifles, 8 gauge shotguns, smooth bore pistols, silencers, magazine fed firearms, and other common weapons are illegal or not suitable for civilian use.

I am also concerned about 22 caliber rifles, and have posted about them. I do not recall posting about 20 gauge shotguns. I will do so in the future, just so you can masturbate while reading it.

Ranb

The Central Scrutinizer · 27th November 2005, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

I answered your first question above.

No you didn't. Evasion noted.

Originally Posted by Ranb

I did not say you were a gun control freak. I said you and gun control freaks. You would be surprised at the number of gun owners who think that 50 caliber rifles, 8 gauge shotguns, smooth bore pistols, silencers, magazine fed firearms, and other common weapons are illegal or not suitable for civilian use.

So thinking a weapon should be illegal and/or is not suitable for civilian use makes one a "gun control freak"? Please answer "yes", so I can laugh at you.

Do you sleep with your 50 caliber rifle? Do you masturbate while writing about it? I think so.

Ranb · 27th November 2005, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

No you didn't. Evasion noted.

So thinking a weapon should be illegal and/or is not suitable for civilian use makes one a "gun control freak"? Please answer "yes", so I can laugh at you.

Do you sleep with your 50 caliber rifle? Do you masturbate while writing about it? I think so.

I'll pass. I should have never fed the troll on this thread to begin with. It just de-railed it further.

Ranb

billydkid · 27th November 2005, 09:48 AM

Where did this wacky notion come from that one's choices in life (excluding those that specifically harm others), such as the choice to own a 50 caliber rifle, need to justified in the eyes and minds of others? Someone decides that YOU don't have any legitimate need for a 50 caliber rifle and so you shouldn't be allowed to own one? Does each and everyone of us get to make these choices for other people? I could think of a lot of things you or somebody else doesn't need or have any legitimate use for. Maybe there should be laws enforcing my choices for you.

The Central Scrutinizer · 27th November 2005, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

I'll pass. I should have never fed the troll on this thread to begin with. It just de-railed it further.

Ranb

Evasion noted.

billydkid · 27th November 2005, 11:59 AM

I shouldn't even have to say this since it is so obvious and has been said so many times. Guns laws - laws against owning 50 caliber weapons for example - are only effective at keeping guns out of the hands of those people who are law abiding. How would laws against you and I owning 50 caliber guns keep them out of the hands of terrorists?

RandFan · 27th November 2005, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Do you sleep with your 50 caliber rifle? Do you masturbate while writing about it? I think so.

"That's hot"™. --Paris Hilton

shecky · 27th November 2005, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

How would laws against you and I owning 50 caliber guns keep them out of the hands of terrorists?

I presume they would work by reducing the overall number of such weapons in circulation, making them more expensive and difficult to obtain by anyone. For all we know, the NFA did deter terrorists from using submachine guns, and they opted to use lowly boxcutters, instead.

It is probably a fallacy to say that all crimes will not be stopped by banning any particular weapons, therefore they should not be banned. Why should the law take such a all-or-none stance in the realm of firearms and not elsewhere? That's kind of like saying laws against armed robbery will not stop armed robbery from happening, therefore, armed robbery should not be banned.

Do laws restrict the freedom of good citizens along with the less law abiding? Yes. So do speed limits and stoplights, which keep me from getting to my destination as fast as I wish. Where do you draw the line? Should RPGs and landmines be available over the counter? The right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute. Viewed as such is a setup for disappointment.

Cleon · 27th November 2005, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

"That's hot"™. --Paris Hilton

With that quote, with attribution, you have summed up exactly why firearms should be legal and easily available.

RandFan · 27th November 2005, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by shecky

It is probably a fallacy to say that all crimes will not be stopped by banning any particular weapons, therefore they should not be banned. Why should the law take such a all-or-none stance in the realm of firearms and not elsewhere? That's kind of like saying laws against armed robbery will not stop armed robbery from happening, therefore, armed robbery should not be banned.

But I think most of us would agree that armed robbery is a bad thing. Owning a 50cal BMG isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, there is no evidence to date that it is. Only speculation that it could be for some people.

I think the point is that before you *infringe on the rights of some you should be reasonably certain that it will in fact effectively impact crime. Making armed robbery illegal doesn't infringe on anyone's right that I know of.

*Assuming such a right.

RandFan · 27th November 2005, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

With that quote, with attribution, you have summed up exactly why firearms should be legal and easily available.

Tmy · 27th November 2005, 01:07 PM

Terrorism isnt just planes into buildings.

If I was a terrorist Id like one of these 50 cals! THey are real scary looking (intimidation is big wh terrorists) and powerful. From what I can tell id be useful in putting holes into a polticians home or motorcade.

26th November 2005, 08:14 PM	#1
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,114	MSNBC 50 cal rifle article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10207205/ From the link; Joseph King, a terrorism expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said terrorists could use the weapon to take out a plane. "I don't understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do you," King said. "I don't understand any civilian use of it. The only thing it's good for is for military or police application. You can't really hunt with it because it would destroy most of the meat." This sounds like the silly claim made by Senator Moran that a 50 BMG rifle would leave nothing but hooves and hide if one were to hunt with it. I thought, well, if a guy can be a terrorism expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, then he can't be that stupid. I guess I was wrong. I wrote to Dr. King asking what evidence he had that these rifles are being used by terrorists in the United States. I also asked him if he made the above hunting claim and if he stood behind it. While I was polite in my e-mail, I did not expect a reply. I got one later in the evening. As to my question about criminal use in the United States, he said I should look at PIRA use in Northern Ireland. I was hoping for something more profound than this. After all, terrorist use in NI should not make these rifles illegal to own in the United States. His experience using 50 caliber rifles was testing them against armor plates, not hunting. He did not say if he stood behind his hunting statement. I sent him another e-mail asking him to clarify his statement in the article. It would be nice to get a direct answer. He is much more direct than most Congresspersons. Ranb

26th November 2005, 08:26 PM	#3
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Ranb I wrote to Dr. King asking what evidence he had that these rifles are being used by terrorists in the United States. Why did you ask him this question, when he made no such claim? At least according to the article. Do you have some sort of bizarre sexual fetish about this gun? I'm serious. You have posted numerous threads, not about guns or gun control in general, but about this gun specifically. What's the deal?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

26th November 2005, 08:41 PM	#4
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,398	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Do you have some sort of bizarre sexual fetish about this gun? I'm serious. You have posted numerous threads, not about guns or gun control in general, but about this gun specifically. What's the deal? I know that you are not talking to me but I must confess that I honestly have a compulsion to own this rifle. It could have something to do with feelings of powerlessness. It could be a sense of inadequacy. There could very well be a sexual component. I think that whatever drives the compulsion it is complex and includes emotions from our evolutionary past. I also dig the Colt .45, 44 Magnum, 20 gauge shotgun and the M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

26th November 2005, 08:56 PM	#5
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by RandFan I know that you are not talking to me but I must confess that I honestly have a compulsion to own this rifle. It could have something to do with feelings of powerlessness. It could be a sense of inadequacy. There could very well be a sexual component. I think that whatever drives the compulsion it is complex and includes emotions from our evolutionary past. I also dig the Colt .45, 44 Magnum, 20 gauge shotgun and the M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon. That's fine, but if it was you, would you start 10 different threads about it?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

27th November 2005, 12:13 AM	#11
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875	I dunno, no offence, but I detect a certain lack of ambition here. I mean, I always wanted an RPG launcher and RPG's. And sheeesh, if I can make the money, why not a cruise missle too?
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875

26th November 2005, 08:25 PM	#2
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,398	Uh oh... I feel a gun thread coming on. I can only dream of some day passing the civil service exam, getting a job as a postman and finally being able to afford a 50 cal BMG. America, the place of dreams.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

26th November 2005, 09:05 PM	#6
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,114	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Why did you ask him this question, when he made no such claim? At least according to the article. Do you have some sort of bizarre sexual fetish about this gun? I'm serious. You have posted numerous threads, not about guns or gun control in general, but about this gun specifically. What's the deal? Well, he did claim he did not understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do, as well as his claim that terrorists can take out a plane with one. I guess he never heard of recreational shooting. It does not take a long stretch to reason why he is against ownership of these rifles. I wonder why you and some of the gun control freaks here like to equate guns and sex. I certainly do not. Are you trying to derail this thread? I am trying to make it about Joseph King. My interest in the 50 BMG rifle arises from the fact that I do own and shoot one. I also know that if I just sit back and watch, we will lose the right to own them, even if they are never used in violent crime. Our nannies in the state and federal governments will decide that we are not to be trusted with a small arm like this. Educating people and talking to my representatives are the best ways I know of to keep my guns and not go to jail. I can let a bit of personal information out about myself in regards to your inquiry about my so called fetish. Shooting this rifle does not make me feel powerful. In fact, it makes me feel like an inadequate marksman because I am not able to shoot it as well as I think I should. The progress I have made in the last 4 years shooting it has been steady, but very slow. I do find your choice of words f-cking insulting. Ranb

26th November 2005, 09:07 PM	#7
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,114	Originally Posted by RandFan ..... I also dig the Colt .45, 44 Magnum, 20 gauge shotgun and the M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon. I dig also. My next high power project may be turning a surplus vulcan 20mm barrel into a single shot rifle. The $200 tax will be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost to just feed the thing. Ranb

26th November 2005, 09:22 PM	#8
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,114	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer That's fine, but if it was you, would you start 10 different threads about it? You mean 10 threads just in the past year? I stopped counting at 15 fifty caliber threads. Ranb

26th November 2005, 09:41 PM	#9
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	Let's pretend that next week, some terrorist manages to take down a airliner in the US with a .50BMG. Would that change your opinion? I ask this because you've often brought up the point of banning guns despite the lack of crimes committed with such particular guns. I'm not really fond of that line of reasoning. Isn't that's what got many guns put on the assault weapons list? After all, "everybody knows" gangbangers prefer TEC-9s/MAC-10s/Uzis, etc. Isn't it more reasonable to evaluate any particular gun on it's potential destructiveness rather than it's track record? The nannies in the state and federal governments long ago neutered anyone's ability to own any serious weapnonry, and continue to do so. I suspect the .50 BMG will generally be spared by the feds, but it may be where the line is drawn.

26th November 2005, 11:00 PM	#10
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,114	Originally Posted by shecky Let's pretend that next week, some terrorist manages to take down a airliner in the US with a .50BMG. Would that change your opinion?..... Isn't it more reasonable to evaluate any particular gun on it's potential destructiveness rather than it's track record? .....I suspect the .50 BMG will generally be spared by the feds, but it may be where the line is drawn. Bringing down an airliner would certainly alter my opinion in some ways, but I am not naive enough to think that banning any certain gun will prevent future problems. I think a certain gun's track record is a better way of evaluating how it should be controlled. Stop and think about how people wanted to ban various guns that were new. The Glock was imagined by some to be a plastic gun made to get through airports screenings, never mind that the polymer frame would show up on an X-ray machine or that the gun was about 80% metal by weight. Remember the fuss some people made about the 50 S&W revolver? It was dubbed an assault weapon that had no business being in the hands of civilians. It has not been in the news at all, no doubt a big disappointment to the gun control freaks. That monster is too much for almost anyone who wants to get a second round off at the target. The latest handgun to be vilified is the FN 5.7 pistol. Because one of the five types of ammunition available is designed to penetrate light body armor, it is called a cop killer pistol, never mind that the armor piercing ammo is only supposed to be sold to the police. A 50 caliber rifle is a pip squeak compared to a bomb. Can anyone tell me what makes them so uniquely dangerous? They are more readily available than more powerful firearms, but this should not make them evil in the eyes of cowards like the Bradys or VPC. The feds do not draw the line at 50 caliber. They allow 73 caliber (12 gauge) rifles with the same restrictions as smaller rifles. Getting or making a 20 mm (78 cal) rifle just involves an ATF form 1 or 4. Ranb

27th November 2005, 12:33 AM	#12
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	Originally Posted by RandFan I can only dream of some day passing the civil service exam, getting a job as a postman and finally being able to afford a 50 cal BMG. America, the place of dreams. Best one-liner of the year. You have been nominated for Nov language award.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

27th November 2005, 12:39 AM	#13
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,578	Originally Posted by Gurdur I dunno, no offence, but I detect a certain lack of ambition here. I mean, I always wanted an RPG launcher and RPG's. And sheeesh, if I can make the money, why not a cruise missle too? Armed miltia clause. a cruise missile is pretty useless outside the hands of a properly organised militry. You are right about the RPG though. Much better than .50-caliber rifles or even machine guns against amour or helecopters. What you really need is some kind of anti arcraft defence. Just ask the afananies. They were getting hit repeatedly by soviet helecopters untill they got thier hands on some stingers.

27th November 2005, 02:09 AM	#14
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,398	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer That's fine, but if it was you, would you start 10 different threads about it? Well, the proof is in the pudding isn't it? I haven't started any threads about it.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

27th November 2005, 02:11 AM	#15
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,398	Originally Posted by fishbob Best one-liner of the year. You have been nominated for Nov language award. Thanks Bob.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

27th November 2005, 02:27 AM	#16
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875	Originally Posted by geni a cruise missile is pretty useless outside the hands of a properly organised militry. You had better read The Moon Goddess And The Son by Donald Kingsbury before attempting that claim.
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875

27th November 2005, 02:44 AM	#17
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	Originally Posted by Ranb Bringing down an airliner would certainly alter my opinion in some ways, but I am not naive enough to think that banning any certain gun will prevent future problems. That's the whole point. Arguing on the track record, or lack therof, is wrong headed and eventually, a dead end. .22 has got to be one of the most used caliber in crimes, not because of lethality, but ubiquity. Any particular weapon is dangerous because it poses specific threat(s), not because it's commonly used in crimes. So, if a terrorist did manage to bring down a airliner with a .50 BMG, would you change your mind even if you concede that it might not prevent future problems? Originally Posted by Ranb I think a certain gun's track record is a better way of evaluating how it should be controlled. Stop and think about how people wanted to ban various guns that were new. So you are for gun control after all? Originally Posted by Ranb A 50 caliber rifle is a pip squeak compared to a bomb. Can anyone tell me what makes them so uniquely dangerous? Possibly the same things that make them so attractive to you as a recreational shooter? Originally Posted by Ranb The feds do not draw the line at 50 caliber. They allow 73 caliber (12 gauge) rifles with the same restrictions as smaller rifles. Getting or making a 20 mm (78 cal) rifle just involves an ATF form 1 or 4. Cmon, you know gauge alone is not the deciding factor for extra regulations. Range, projectile energy, and projectile type all factor in. Thus that 12 ga. could be a lame performer at 50 yds with a common load. Yet stringent ATF rules do seem to keep certain class of weapons out of the hands of criminals, if for no other reason that the bar for obtaining and possessing such weapons is so high. And even IF the .50 BMG is further regulated by the feds, it seems that it would be probably no more so than the 20mm you cite. Keep in mind, I'm not against the .50 BMG. While your pet gun is possibly on the fringe of the govt's acceptability, it's unlikely that any .50 BMG will ever be common tools of criminals and terrorists. And I have no objection to it's ownership and use by common folks.
	Last edited by shecky; 27th November 2005 at 02:48 AM.

27th November 2005, 05:52 AM	#18
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	I have wanted to own a Hotchkiss Mountain Rifle for ages. Just like it is all. What is it, liberal weinies don't collect anything? BTW, I think this one is slightly over the line. I am pretty sure it is a "destructive Device" as they define it. It means a stupid special license and permission from my local police chief.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

27th November 2005, 05:56 AM	#19
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,578	Originally Posted by Gurdur You had better read The Moon Goddess And The Son by Donald Kingsbury before attempting that claim. Fiction? I preder to rely on what is know in fact. Cruise missiles are not mobile which means they are pretty much useless for a milita style force. They require a large amount of resoucres to mentain and are good for one hit only.

27th November 2005, 06:30 AM	#20
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875	Originally Posted by geni Fiction? I preder to rely on what is know in fact. A pity for you, since you then miss out on some good tips. Quote: Cruise missiles are not mobile which means they are pretty much useless for a milita style force. And? So what? For a start, you're the only one talking about a "milita style force"; that is far from being their only possible use. Quote: They require a large amount of resoucres to mentain and are good for one hit only. Again, so what? They can be incredibly useful with that one hit.
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875

27th November 2005, 06:33 AM	#21
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Ranb Well, he did claim he did not understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do, as well as his claim that terrorists can take out a plane with one. I guess he never heard of recreational shooting. It does not take a long stretch to reason why he is against ownership of these rifles. Yes, except that you said: "I wrote to Dr. King asking what evidence he had that these rifles are being used by terrorists in the United States." But he never made that claim. Why are you asking him a question about something he never said? Originally Posted by Ranb I wonder why you and some of the gun control freaks here like to equate guns and sex. I certainly do not. Are you trying to derail this thread? I am trying to make it about Joseph King. Well, since I own 5 guns, I hardly think I'm a "gun control freak". But you do have some sort of bizarre fetish with this gun. I just figured it might be sexual. Originally Posted by Ranb My interest in the 50 BMG rifle arises from the fact that I do own and shoot one. I also know that if I just sit back and watch, we will lose the right to own them, even if they are never used in violent crime. Our nannies in the state and federal governments will decide that we are not to be trusted with a small arm like this. Educating people and talking to my representatives are the best ways I know of to keep my guns and not go to jail. OK, good for you. Are you similarly concerned about 22 caliber rifles? Or 20 gauge shot guns? If not, why not? If so, why haven't you started 15 threads about them? Originally Posted by Ranb I can let a bit of personal information out about myself in regards to your inquiry about my so called fetish. Shooting this rifle does not make me feel powerful. In fact, it makes me feel like an inadequate marksman because I am not able to shoot it as well as I think I should. The progress I have made in the last 4 years shooting it has been steady, but very slow. I do find your choice of words f-cking insulting.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

27th November 2005, 07:00 AM	#22
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	I LOVE this rifle! I only wish I could afford to own and use one regularly. It's an intimidating looking piece, and that's probably why most gun control advocates want it banned. Their expertise is limited to "dangerous-looking" weapons and they frequently use terms like semi-automatic and machine gun interchangeably (they're NOT the same thing). Their primary concerns include large magazine capacity (which doesn't matter if it's not accurate like most Tek-9s), flash suppressors, and venting along the barrel. What most people don't admit is the simple fact that 3,000 people were killed by men with friggin box cutters! Why would they (terrorists) want to purchase a high-profile rifle like this (leaving a paper trail of some sort), lug it to their AO and attempt to use it in a public place without attracting some attention? If bringing down a plane is really anyone's idea of what can happen with a high-powered weapon why isn't Homeland Security expanding the perimeter around airports?
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

27th November 2005, 07:04 AM	#23
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875	Originally Posted by Mephisto .....If bringing down a plane is really anyone's idea of what can happen with a high-powered weapon why isn't Homeland Security expanding the perimeter around airports? No offence, but that is a bad argument. To show why: Equally one can retort: If bringing down a plane is really anyone's idea of what can happen with a box-cutter why aren't the authorities banning all box-cutters from being carried onto the planes? IOW, there is always a first time. You have a point in that it's unlikely as a weapon to bring down an aircraft ---- except immediately before landing or just after taking off. Most likely it would not bring anything down even then, but it could cause significant damage.
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875

27th November 2005, 07:20 AM	#24
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,578	Originally Posted by Gurdur A pity for you, since you then miss out on some good tips. Evidence? Quote: And? So what? For a start, you're the only one talking about a "milita style force"; that is far from being their only possible use. Yes it is. The US has a professional militry. The armed citenzenry only become an issue once that has lost. We are then looking at chechen and iraq style insergenies. A few lessions can be learned from these show that cruise missiles are inpracticle: 1. The occupying force can occupy any position they like. Thus if something isn't mobile you are going to lose it sooner or latter 2.Unless you have acess to anti aircraft wepons you will take a pounding from the air which means even if you are holding an area they can destory anything of value in it. 3.The vast majority of your force is going to be late teens early twenties who don't know how to operate a cruise missile (they can however lern to use AK-47s and RPG-7s without too much difficulty). Quote: Again, so what? They can be incredibly useful with that one hit. For the amount of rescourse you had to use? Ok first you have to hide an mentain the thing. And of course whatever you are useing to lauch it. Second unless you use it striaght away you are going to have to defend it. Since there is no way you could hide it in a city that means you are going to have to hide it way from population centres. This means that those defending it are your more committed troops who you can't afford to lose. Next you are going to need someone who can program the target computer and launch the thing. Not something that can be done by your run of the mill restiance member. What do you get in return? You hit one target that wasn't important enough to have protection from cruise missiles availible. Resitance fighters or whatever you want to call them don't use high tech weaponry. There is a reason for this.

27th November 2005, 07:38 AM	#25
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Gurdur No offence, but that is a bad argument. To show why: Equally one can retort: If bringing down a plane is really anyone's idea of what can happen with a box-cutter why aren't the authorities banning all box-cutters from being carried onto the planes? IOW, there is always a first time. You have a point in that it's unlikely as a weapon to bring down an aircraft ---- except immediately before landing or just after taking off. Most likely it would not bring anything down even then, but it could cause significant damage. I don't think it's a bad argument at all! I don't know if you've flown in the U.S. since 2001, but they won't even let you bring fingernail clippers or a nail file onboard an airplane, so yes, someone has finally realized the possibility of it happening again. I think my assertion that airport security perimeters should be expanded if anyone is actually concerned that a high-powered rifle might bring down an airplane is valid - you said it yourself, this weapon wouldn't be able to adequately target an airplane EXCEPT during landing or takeoff. And WHERE is it that airplanes land and takeoff from?
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi Last edited by Mephisto; 27th November 2005 at 07:42 AM.

27th November 2005, 07:47 AM	#26
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Mephisto I don't know if you've flown in the U.S. since 2001, but they won't even let you bring fingernail clippers or a nail file onboard an airplane... I don't know if you've flown since 2001, but they *will* let you bring fingernail clippers or a nail file on board an airplane! http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...d_9_6_2005.pdf
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

27th November 2005, 08:04 AM	#27
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer I don't know if you've flown since 2001, but they *will* let you bring fingernail clippers or a nail file on board an airplane! http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...d_9_6_2005.pdf Funny, I've been to Italy once and NYC twice since 2001 and they took nail clippers and a BIC lighter away from my wife. Maybe we just don't look like the garden variety all American couple. It's hell having a dark complexion! Still, it's all moot since a properly trained person could kill someone with a #2 pencil just as easily as a box cutter. (edited to add) my point was that obvious weapons (like box cutters) are NOT being allowed on airplanes.
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

27th November 2005, 08:25 AM	#28
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,114	[quote=shecky;1294357].....So, if a terrorist did manage to bring down a airliner with a .50 BMG, would you change your mind even if you concede that it might not prevent future problems? So you are for gun control after all? Possibly the same things that make them so attractive to you as a recreational shooter? Cmon, you know gauge alone is not the deciding factor for extra regulations. Range, projectile energy, and projectile type all factor in. Thus that 12 ga. could be a lame performer at 50 yds with a common load. .....And even IF the .50 BMG is further regulated by the feds, it seems that it would be probably no more so than the 20mm you cite. ..... QUOTE] At this time I am not sure what I would decide if a 50 cal rifle was used to down a plane. I do favor laws that can keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. I do not favor the ones that punish law abiding owners. I am interested in the 50 BMG rifle only because it something different. It makes little 1/2 inch holes in the target. Small rocks go to pieces when hit. It is challenging to shoot due to the recoil and barrel length. Actually, barrel inside diameter is the deciding factor in deciding if a gun is a firearm or a destructive device. Take a look at BATFE regulations. The ATF has decided that shotguns up to 10 gauge are acceptable for sporting uses. That is the only reason I can own one without getting the local sheriff's permission and paying a $200 tax. With a common slug load, a good 12 gauge will be lethal and accurate past 100 yards. I watched a marine with an M1 super 90 put five slugs into a 6 inch group at 100 yards from a standing shooting position. Regulating the 50 BMG as an NFA weapon may greatly reduce it's availability to American civilians. While the $200 tax is a mere nuisance compared to the cost of the rifle, in some areas it is difficult to obtain the local law enforcements signature on the ATF form 4 or 1 to get NFA weapons. As far as I know, only Tennessee has a law requiring local sheriff's to sign ATF forms for anyone allowed to own firearms. Some sheriffs routinely refuse to sign, from what I have heard. I am lucky to have a sheriff that always signs for me. Ranb

27th November 2005, 08:41 AM	#29
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,114	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Yes, except that you said: "I wrote to Dr. King asking what evidence he had that these rifles are being used by terrorists in the United States." But he never made that claim. Why are you asking him a question about something he never said? Well, since I own 5 guns, I hardly think I'm a "gun control freak". But you do have some sort of bizarre fetish with this gun. I just figured it might be sexual. OK, good for you. Are you similarly concerned about 22 caliber rifles? Or 20 gauge shot guns? If not, why not? If so, why haven't you started 15 threads about them? I answered your first question above. I did not say you were a gun control freak. I said you and gun control freaks. You would be surprised at the number of gun owners who think that 50 caliber rifles, 8 gauge shotguns, smooth bore pistols, silencers, magazine fed firearms, and other common weapons are illegal or not suitable for civilian use. I am also concerned about 22 caliber rifles, and have posted about them. I do not recall posting about 20 gauge shotguns. I will do so in the future, just so you can masturbate while reading it. Ranb

27th November 2005, 08:59 AM	#30
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Ranb I answered your first question above. No you didn't. Evasion noted. Originally Posted by Ranb I did not say you were a gun control freak. I said you and gun control freaks. You would be surprised at the number of gun owners who think that 50 caliber rifles, 8 gauge shotguns, smooth bore pistols, silencers, magazine fed firearms, and other common weapons are illegal or not suitable for civilian use. So thinking a weapon should be illegal and/or is not suitable for civilian use makes one a "gun control freak"? Please answer "yes", so I can laugh at you. Do you sleep with your 50 caliber rifle? Do you masturbate while writing about it? I think so.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

27th November 2005, 09:30 AM	#31
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,114	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer No you didn't. Evasion noted. So thinking a weapon should be illegal and/or is not suitable for civilian use makes one a "gun control freak"? Please answer "yes", so I can laugh at you. Do you sleep with your 50 caliber rifle? Do you masturbate while writing about it? I think so. I'll pass. I should have never fed the troll on this thread to begin with. It just de-railed it further. Ranb

27th November 2005, 09:48 AM	#32
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	Where did this wacky notion come from that one's choices in life (excluding those that specifically harm others), such as the choice to own a 50 caliber rifle, need to justified in the eyes and minds of others? Someone decides that YOU don't have any legitimate need for a 50 caliber rifle and so you shouldn't be allowed to own one? Does each and everyone of us get to make these choices for other people? I could think of a lot of things you or somebody else doesn't need or have any legitimate use for. Maybe there should be laws enforcing my choices for you.

27th November 2005, 10:06 AM	#33
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Ranb I'll pass. I should have never fed the troll on this thread to begin with. It just de-railed it further. Ranb Evasion noted.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

27th November 2005, 11:59 AM	#34
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	I shouldn't even have to say this since it is so obvious and has been said so many times. Guns laws - laws against owning 50 caliber weapons for example - are only effective at keeping guns out of the hands of those people who are law abiding. How would laws against you and I owning 50 caliber guns keep them out of the hands of terrorists?

27th November 2005, 12:03 PM	#35
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,398	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Do you sleep with your 50 caliber rifle? Do you masturbate while writing about it? I think so. "That's hot"™. --Paris Hilton
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith