MSNBC 50 cal rifle article - Page 2

RandFan · 27th November 2005, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

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.

Nah, there is just too much crap under the kitchen sink that could do so much more damage.

Freakshow · 27th November 2005, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

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.

How would you use the look of the weapon to intimidate people? Intimidation is important, I agree. And in some situations, the looks of a weapon can intimidate people. But only when the victim (might be a victim of theft, kidnapping, etc., but not necessarily murder) actually sees the weapon to get intimidated by it. How would terrorists use the looks of the weapon to intimidate? Through some videotape? There are much more intimidating things they can do...such as holding someone down and beheading them. That's more intimidating to me than seeing a terrorist holding a big cool-looking gun.

And I would question whether or not outlawing this particular gun in the US would prevent terrorists from getting their hands on equally or more powerful weapons, either in the US or in foreign countries. A lot of weapons that are illegal in the US are readily available in other countries in the world.

Mephisto · 27th November 2005, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

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.

Hear! Hear!

I think gas-guzzling Hummers are currently being used by terrorists to keep us dependant on foreign oil. We should ban them!

Freakshow · 27th November 2005, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Hear! Hear!

I think gas-guzzling Hummers are currently being used by terrorists to keep us dependant on foreign oil. We should ban them!

The scary thing is...some people say that, and aren't kidding.

The Central Scrutinizer · 27th November 2005, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Hear! Hear!

I think gas-guzzling Hummers are currently being used by terrorists to keep us dependant on foreign oil. We should ban them!

My dad just bought one. He'll pick it up on Tuesday. I didn't know he was a terrorist!!

Ranb · 27th November 2005, 05:29 PM

I received a second reply from Dr. King about the article in my first post. He is of the opinion that when Americans supply rifles to the PIRA, then they are involved in terrorism. He thinks this is a good example of why they should be banned or controlled by the NFA of 1934, I disagree.

He did not confirm or deny his quote about these rifles ruining all of the meat if used for hunting. Disappointing. I'm rather certain he is not foolish enough to believe this nonsense, so I put him up there with others who will lie to promote gun control. Someday they might learn that the truth works better.

I invited Dr. King to take a look at the forum. Would be interesting to see him defend his statements here.

Ranb

Tmy · 27th November 2005, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Freakshow

How would you use the look of the weapon to intimidate people? .

Well theres the whole video footage of the terrorists wh guns pointed at hostage move. Pointing a .22 at the guy just doesnt have the same effect.

Freakshow · 27th November 2005, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Well theres the whole video footage of the terrorists wh guns pointed at hostage move. Pointing a .22 at the guy just doesnt have the same effect.

I guess I can see where that would effect some people. I just have too much experience with guns to be intimidated by the way they look.

I might think it is cool looking, but I wouldn't think it was more dangerous because of the way it looks. Sort of like a car. Cars can look cool, but that doesn't tell you how fast they are.

(Other than the obvious of being able to identify certain models, but that's not what I mean. I think you know here I'm coming from.)

Tmy · 27th November 2005, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Freakshow

I guess I can see where that would effect some people. I just have too much experience with guns to be intimidated by the way they look.

I might think it is cool looking, but I wouldn't think it was more dangerous because of the way it looks. Sort of like a car. Cars can look cool, but that doesn't tell you how fast they are.

(Other than the obvious of being able to identify certain models, but that's not what I mean. I think you know here I'm coming from.)

Ok fill me in. Whats the pros of this 50 cal? Whats is designed to do and would tha be useful to a terrorist?

Like poking big holes in the Senators car. Or blasting thru some "bulletproof" glass.

Freakshow · 27th November 2005, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Ok fill me in. Whats the pros of this 50 cal? Whats is designed to do and would tha be useful to a terrorist?

Like poking big holes in the Senators car. Or blasting thru some "bulletproof" glass.

What does that have to do with it LOOKING intimidating? I thought we were talking about its appearance. Have we switched topics now to its capabilities? If so, that's okay. But at least let me know.

Tmy · 27th November 2005, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Freakshow

What does that have to do with it LOOKING intimidating? I thought we were talking about its appearance. Have we switched topics now to its capabilities? If so, that's okay. But at least let me know.

I was 1/2 joking about the looks. Appearences dont mean squat. Im more conceerned on what damage the thing could cause. A big ol 50 cal like that sure would poke big holes in stuff.

Freakshow · 27th November 2005, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

I was 1/2 joking about the looks. Appearences dont mean squat. Im more conceerned on what damage the thing could cause. A big ol 50 cal like that sure would poke big holes in stuff.

Ah, ok. Got it.

Sorry for being too dense there. But I have talked to many people that do actually get very caught up in the appearance of weapons when considering whether or not they should be banned. It scares me that those people actually vote.

I think that in terms of the potential damage terrorists can do with various methods, a .50 cal sniper rifle is WAY down on the list of my concerns. They worry me much more with what they can do with small arms (which are more concealable) and a bunch of hostages. Or home-made explosives. Or home-made chemical weapons (like the sarin used in Tokyo.) Or professional explosives and chemical weapons, gained through illegal means. Or sabotage of aircraft or other mass transit. There are much more significant areas in which we should focus our efforts. The .50 cal is a very small concern to me, when compared to other options they have.

Tmy · 27th November 2005, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Freakshow

I think that in terms of the potential damage terrorists can do with various methods, a .50 cal sniper rifle is WAY down on the list of my concerns. They worry me much more with what they can do with small arms (which are more concealable) and a bunch of hostages. Or home-made explosives. Or home-made chemical weapons (like the sarin used in Tokyo.) Or professional explosives and chemical weapons, gained through illegal means. Or sabotage of aircraft or other mass transit. There are much more significant areas in which we should focus our efforts. The .50 cal is a very small concern to me, when compared to other options they have.

Pretty much all that other stuff you mentioned is illegal or controled.

And you dont think a 50 cal sniper is a concearn for our politicians? Who do you think is going to be on the other end of the scope. THEM!

hey does the thing punch thu armour-ish plating and bullet proof glass? Is it designed for sniping ?

Freakshow · 27th November 2005, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Pretty much all that other stuff you mentioned is illegal or controled.

And you dont think a 50 cal sniper is a concearn for our politicians? Who do you think is going to be on the other end of the scope. THEM!

hey does the thing punch thu armour-ish plating and bullet proof glass? Is it designed for sniping ?

Yes, it was designed to be a sniper rifle. Has an effective range of over a mile. It can go through some light armor, and it can go through bullet-resistant (no such thing as "bullet-proof") glass. But, since there is only bullet-resistant glass, there are varying levels of weapons that will go through it. Some bullet-resistant glass (it usually isn't actually glass, BTW) can stop small handguns, while being vulnerable to larger ones. Or some can stop just about any handgun, while being vulnerable to rifles. And there's always the possibility of just firing multiple shots at the same place. You'll sometimes get through after a few shots.

Body armor/vests are the same way. A kevlar vest will stop many handgun rounds. But it won't stop a rifle, such as a .308. But you can get body armor that has a ceramic plate in it, that will stop one shot from a rifle. Don't count on it stopping 2. It isn't something that you would wear under your clothing. It is something used by tactical teams. Some vests have a metal plate over the heart, but I'm not sure off the top of my head what sort of rifle round you could expect that to stop.

My point here is...there is a whole wide range of weapons, their capabilities, and how they can be used. It isn't so black and white such that one weapon can be vilified, with some sort of false security that banning it will make life so much better. The issue is more complex than that.

If a terrorist wants to take out a politician, they don't need a .50. They can do it rather easily with a .308. That's a pretty common sniper round. A good sniper wouldn't have much trouble taking someone out from 1000 yards (or more), with a .308.

Tmy · 27th November 2005, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Freakshow

If a terrorist wants to take out a politician, they don't need a .50. They can do it rather easily with a .308. That's a pretty common sniper round. A good sniper wouldn't have much trouble taking someone out from 1000 yards (or more), with a .308.

But would a .308 be able to pierce a car door or sumthin? It seems that this gun is designed to be an assassins tool. Rather than be a hunter's rifle or some other non sinister use.

Im actually for the 2nd amendment. I think its fine for people own guns (even thought I dont have one.) But none of our rights are absolute.

Ed · 27th November 2005, 07:40 PM

Also, a .50 is not exactly quiet, nor small. I could not imagine the skill it would take to hit the piolet of a moving airplane at any kind of distance. I think that a suicide bomber would have a much, much greater chance of taking out a plane by running into it on takeoff and exploding himself. And hollywood aside, I would use a .30-06 way before I would dick around with a .50 anything. For one thing, .30-06 is a very common round. Buying a box of those, even if you are wearing a turbin, would not arouse much notice. A .50 BMG round is another kettle of fish entirely. And where, exactly, does one practice? With a .30-06 you can hide in plain sight at any rifle range. No one would notice. A .50 would gather some attention though I guess you could go into the mountains but if a cop or fish and wildlife officer happens along just showing some interest, the jig would be up.

Freakshow · 27th November 2005, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

But would a .308 be able to pierce a car door or sumthin? It seems that this gun is designed to be an assassins tool. Rather than be a hunter's rifle or some other non sinister use.

Im actually for the 2nd amendment. I think its fine for people own guns (even thought I dont have one.) But none of our rights are absolute.

Oh, I agree that none of our rights are absolute. I wouldn't be in favor of people being able to buy nukes at Wal Mart.

Most sniper rifles were, until relatively recently in warfare, just hunting rifles. Even now that the construction may be different (but they are still very similar), they often use the same rounds. You can go and buy the same bullets to shoot deer with a hunting rifle, as you would a politician with a sniper rifle.

Yes, a .308 would go through a car door, as long as it didn't hit one of the supporting beams that keeps the door from collapsing in accidents. But you wouldn't want to shoot through the door, anyway. You would want to shoot through the glass. And a .308 would go right through a car window. Why would you want to shoot through the glass? Well...glass is see-through, after all.

You can see what you are aiming for.

Ed · 27th November 2005, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

But would a .308 be able to pierce a car door or sumthin? It seems that this gun is designed to be an assassins tool. Rather than be a hunter's rifle or some other non sinister use.

Im actually for the 2nd amendment. I think its fine for people own guns (even thought I dont have one.) But none of our rights are absolute.

A .308 could go thru a number of doors if they were lined up. I recall reading somewhere that a .30-06 could penetrate 10" of oak. I know that a pipsqueak .357 magnum will shatter a cement block.

I would make a small wager that an arrow with a field point from my 60lb. compound bow would clear a car door if it missed the struts.

Tmy · 27th November 2005, 07:45 PM

Ok. You have a choice tween a .308 and a 50. Why would you choose 50? In what situation would itbe the better gun?

Ed · 27th November 2005, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Ok. You have a choice tween a .308 and a 50. Why would you choose 50? In what situation would itbe the better gun?

A million miles away from a secure position against a stationary target..

Tmy · 27th November 2005, 07:51 PM

So the thing is basically only good at whacking politicians from a safe distance. Hmmmm wonder why they want to make it illegal.

Ed · 27th November 2005, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

So the thing is basically only good at whacking politicians from a safe distance. Hmmmm wonder why they want to make it illegal.

You could hunt or more likely target shoot.

You should know from personal observation that politicions move around too much to be good targets. Also, if that is the only use, why do we not see more dead politicians? Is there, in fact, any evidence from anywhere that anyone of note was ever sniped by one of these things?

Elind · 27th November 2005, 08:16 PM

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.

Why don't you just suggest a rational compromise, like having some safeguards that such weapons are only used and controlled by people who can be trusted, like you?

You could serialize it. You could provide samples of a fired bullet (projectile). You could take out insurance that would cover any damage caused, and you could verify that it was stored in a secure safe, and you could, as you presumably already have, show that you are of good character etc.

Sure this would cost a bit, but tell us how much it costs for each round you fire?

Tmy · 27th November 2005, 08:20 PM

Always better to be proactive. No one ever flew planes into our buildings before 911. Wouldntve been nice if we coverd our bases before that happend.

If you can imagine it, it can happen. Hell JFK got whacked. And lots of people are being shot and killed in Iraq by all sorts of weapons.

Not that I really think the old "terrorists can use it" line holds much water. I guess the analysis is more the pros of having this thing for target practice (which seems to be all its good for) vs. the damage it could cause in the wrong hands.

Ranb · 27th November 2005, 10:32 PM

So much for keeping this on topic. It was supposed to be about Joseph King and the MSNBC article. The Central Scrutinizer couldn't keep the sex off of his brain and nearly everyone else wants the same old issues we posted about in the other threads.

Originally Posted by Elind

Why don't you just suggest a rational compromise, like having some safeguards that such weapons are only used and controlled by people who can be trusted, like you?

You could serialize it. You could provide samples of a fired bullet (projectile). You could take out insurance that would cover any damage caused, and you could verify that it was stored in a secure safe, and you could, as you presumably already have, show that you are of good character etc.

Sure this would cost a bit, but tell us how much it costs for each round you fire?

So would this rational compromise result in any gain for myself or other gun owners? Or would it just be an empty promise that once we registered our rifles that we could not have them taken away? I'm sure that setting up psychological evaluations for potential gun owners may be even more expensive than owning 50 caliber rifles.

The rifle already has a serial number. I'm quite certain that no insurance company is willing to let me buy insurance to cover any damage I do as the result of a criminal act. Knowing that very few people fire these large rifles from anything but the prone or bench positions, it is extremely unlikely that they ever cause property damage from overshooting a berm. I have read about shooters setting property on fire from shooting tracer and incendiary ammo, but it is rare and not restricted to 50 caliber rifles.

As far as I know, no police department has ever made an arrest or solved a crime based on a ballistics catalog from new firearms sales. They have spent much money on it in some places, but no cigar so far. If anyone knows anything different, let me know.

I spend between $0.75 and $2.50 per cartridge. This is for one of the cheaper $3000 rifles. If I wanted to compete at the world class level, I would be spending the full $2.50 per round, after giving up about $6000.00 for the rifle and $1200.00 for a scope. I'm not too happy about being required to pay for other people's neurosis.

Given the currant state of affairs, there is no amount of money that will make the sport of high power shooting safer. It has already been demonstrated to be a sport with very low risk.

Ranb

Ed · 28th November 2005, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Always better to be proactive. No one ever flew planes into our buildings before 911. Wouldntve been nice if we coverd our bases before that happend.

Yes, we can live in a riskless society. If you consider what that would mean, would you want to?

Quote:

If you can imagine it, it can happen. Hell JFK got whacked. And lots of people are being shot and killed in Iraq by all sorts of weapons.

JFK got wacked by a rifle that few would use even for hunting our domesticated white tailed CT deer. If someone wants to pop someone else (I won't worry about politicians to the exclusion of everyone else) they will do it. And I don't particularly see why ammonium nitrate couldn't be used as a suicide bomb substance. There is no real defence against a murderer that will give his own life to achieve his purpose. Fertilizer is a common place. This is a far simpler and surer way of killing anyone that a baddy wants to kill than a .50 or any other firearm for that matter. So we know they can do it yet we get diverted about .50 rifles. The gun grabbers think we are stupid and they have reason to.

Mephisto · 28th November 2005, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

I received a second reply from Dr. King about the article in my first post. He is of the opinion that when Americans supply rifles to the PIRA, then they are involved in terrorism. He thinks this is a good example of why they should be banned or controlled by the NFA of 1934, I disagree.

He did not confirm or deny his quote about these rifles ruining all of the meat if used for hunting. Disappointing. I'm rather certain he is not foolish enough to believe this nonsense, so I put him up there with others who will lie to promote gun control. Someday they might learn that the truth works better.

I invited Dr. King to take a look at the forum. Would be interesting to see him defend his statements here.

Ranb

The biggest problem with ANY weapon (from the latest box cutters to shoulder-launched rockets is that they'll be up for sale somewhere that we (Americans) won't be able to control whose hands they end up in. I seriously doubt that these weapons will attract terrorists - they're more of a precision weapon as opposed to the tactics most terrorists use. Of course that might change, but not likely.

Regarding the meat, even if it punched a nice little hole in a game animal it still wouldn't be a good hunting rifle - the ammunition is too expensive. Besides, other than the pure novelty, what hunter would need to shoot an animal from 1,000 meters away?

It's interesting how so many "terrorist experts" have popped up since 9/11. Where do they get their credentials. Where do they get their training?

billydkid · 28th November 2005, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Ok fill me in. Whats the pros of this 50 cal? Whats is designed to do and would tha be useful to a terrorist?

Like poking big holes in the Senators car. Or blasting thru some "bulletproof" glass.

Sportsman typically use them for ultra long range target shooting competition and ultra long range recreational target shooting. That, specifically, is what they are used for. There are many people who are devotees (sp) of the 50 caliber and spend a lot of money and effort to be able to enjoy that kind of shooting. You may not think it is fun or necessary, but then no one is insisting that you participate in this activity. This cartridge has been around for many, many years and is originally a machine gun cartridge. It was adopted for recreational shooting by enthusiasts of long range target shooting.

Ed · 28th November 2005, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

It's interesting how so many "terrorist experts" have popped up since 9/11. Where do they get their credentials. Where do they get their training?

Because their careers prior to 9/11 were terrible.

Ranb · 28th November 2005, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

.....Regarding the meat, even if it punched a nice little hole in a game animal it still wouldn't be a good hunting rifle - the ammunition is too expensive. Besides, other than the pure novelty, what hunter would need to shoot an animal from 1,000 meters away?.....

Whether or not the 50 BMG is well suited to hunting is not the point. Dr. King lied to promote his own gun control agenda.

It would be good on game at less than 1000 yards of course. Ammunition can be loaded to a lower velocity to reduce meat damage. I have personally loaded 50 BMG ammo to a power level less than that of a 30-06.

Ranb

Mephisto · 28th November 2005, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

Because their careers prior to 9/11 were terrible.

That, and the fact that running Arabian horse shows offers very little prestige or intrigue.

Ed · 28th November 2005, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

That, and the fact that running Arabian horse shows offers very little prestige or intrigue.

Unless you are a Czarina.

Mephisto · 28th November 2005, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Whether or not the 50 BMG is well suited to hunting is not the point. Dr. King lied to promote his own gun control agenda.

It would be good on game at less than 1000 yards of course. Ammunition can be loaded to a lower velocity to reduce meat damage. I have personally loaded 50 BMG ammo to a power level less than that of a 30-06.

Ranb

Oh, you're quite right, I just wanted to expose the probability that he would exclaim it useless for hunting. I was only suggesting that the initial cost was somewhat prohibitive, of course I couldn't see owning this weapon without having reloading equipment to support it. Either way, I think this rifle falls more into the realm of long-range silhouette shooters than hunters who could achieve the same goal with a lighter, less-expensive weapon that was easier to shoot.

Mephisto · 28th November 2005, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

Unless you are a Czarina.

Who knows, Michael Brown may be a better Czarina than he was a Director of FEMA (which, I guess, wouldn't take much). I hope this thread doesn't get derailed completely and grow a tangent to the "Sex With Horses" thread.

Ed · 28th November 2005, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

I hope this thread doesn't get derailed completely and grow a tangent to the "Sex With Horses" thread.

You, young man, have a perverted mind. I suffer from a rare form of Tourettes Syndrome wherein I type non sequitors that are related the ligustic elaboration of the word "Caesar". You took my disability and bent it to your sick ends. Have you no shame? In Europe you would probably have broken some law about making me feel bad.

Mephisto · 28th November 2005, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

You, young man, have a perverted mind. I suffer from a rare form of Tourettes Syndrome wherein I type non sequitors that are related the ligustic elaboration of the word "Caesar". You took my disability and bent it to your sick ends. Have you no shame? In Europe you would probably have broken some law about making me feel bad.

I guess it would be moot to admit to playing violent video games and enjoying horror movies then . . . I'm already a social terrorist.

Mark · 28th November 2005, 08:43 AM

Question for the gun nuts: where do you draw the line on personal ownership of weapons? Is there one? Are functioning tanks OK for private citizens to have? Missles? Suitcase nukes?

Is there anything you would object to?

This is not a rhetorical question. Technology will be providing you guys with better, more lethal toys all the time. Is there a limit?

RandFan · 28th November 2005, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Mark

Question for the gun nuts: where do you draw the line on personal ownership of weapons? Is there one? Are functioning tanks OK for private citizens to have? Missles? Suitcase nukes?

Is there anything you would object to?

This is not a rhetorical question. Technology will be providing you guys with better, more lethal toys all the time. Is there a limit?

I'd love to answer the question but sadly I don't consider myself a gun nut. A bit irrational perhaps.

Mark · 28th November 2005, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'd love to answer the question but sadly I don't consider myself a gun nut.

And yet you didn't object to someone else's use of the term gun control freaks. Hmmm...

Cleon · 28th November 2005, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Mark

Question for the gun nuts: where do you draw the line on personal ownership of weapons? Is there one? Are functioning tanks OK for private citizens to have?

Dude.

Link
Link

and of course...

Link

27th November 2005, 01:24 PM	#41
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by Tmy 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. Nah, there is just too much crap under the kitchen sink that could do so much more damage.
	__________________ 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, 04:11 PM	#43
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by billydkid 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. Hear! Hear! I think gas-guzzling Hummers are currently being used by terrorists to keep us dependant on foreign oil. We should ban them!
	__________________ "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, 05:14 PM	#45
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,266	Originally Posted by Mephisto Hear! Hear! I think gas-guzzling Hummers are currently being used by terrorists to keep us dependant on foreign oil. We should ban them! My dad just bought one. He'll pick it up on Tuesday. I didn't know he was a terrorist!!
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

27th November 2005, 06:05 PM	#47
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Originally Posted by Freakshow How would you use the look of the weapon to intimidate people? . Well theres the whole video footage of the terrorists wh guns pointed at hostage move. Pointing a .22 at the guy just doesnt have the same effect.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

27th November 2005, 06:52 PM	#49
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Originally Posted by Freakshow I guess I can see where that would effect some people. I just have too much experience with guns to be intimidated by the way they look. I might think it is cool looking, but I wouldn't think it was more dangerous because of the way it looks. Sort of like a car. Cars can look cool, but that doesn't tell you how fast they are. (Other than the obvious of being able to identify certain models, but that's not what I mean. I think you know here I'm coming from.) Ok fill me in. Whats the pros of this 50 cal? Whats is designed to do and would tha be useful to a terrorist? Like poking big holes in the Senators car. Or blasting thru some "bulletproof" glass.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

27th November 2005, 03:39 PM	#42
Freakshow 526a0118ae8c43594f3cfdcabb3274ed Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,319	Originally Posted by Tmy 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. How would you use the look of the weapon to intimidate people? Intimidation is important, I agree. And in some situations, the looks of a weapon can intimidate people. But only when the victim (might be a victim of theft, kidnapping, etc., but not necessarily murder) actually sees the weapon to get intimidated by it. How would terrorists use the looks of the weapon to intimidate? Through some videotape? There are much more intimidating things they can do...such as holding someone down and beheading them. That's more intimidating to me than seeing a terrorist holding a big cool-looking gun. And I would question whether or not outlawing this particular gun in the US would prevent terrorists from getting their hands on equally or more powerful weapons, either in the US or in foreign countries. A lot of weapons that are illegal in the US are readily available in other countries in the world.

27th November 2005, 04:54 PM	#44
Freakshow 526a0118ae8c43594f3cfdcabb3274ed Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,319	Originally Posted by Mephisto Hear! Hear! I think gas-guzzling Hummers are currently being used by terrorists to keep us dependant on foreign oil. We should ban them! The scary thing is...some people say that, and aren't kidding.

27th November 2005, 05:29 PM	#46
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,097	I received a second reply from Dr. King about the article in my first post. He is of the opinion that when Americans supply rifles to the PIRA, then they are involved in terrorism. He thinks this is a good example of why they should be banned or controlled by the NFA of 1934, I disagree. He did not confirm or deny his quote about these rifles ruining all of the meat if used for hunting. Disappointing. I'm rather certain he is not foolish enough to believe this nonsense, so I put him up there with others who will lie to promote gun control. Someday they might learn that the truth works better. I invited Dr. King to take a look at the forum. Would be interesting to see him defend his statements here. Ranb

27th November 2005, 06:09 PM	#48
Freakshow 526a0118ae8c43594f3cfdcabb3274ed Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,319	Originally Posted by Tmy Well theres the whole video footage of the terrorists wh guns pointed at hostage move. Pointing a .22 at the guy just doesnt have the same effect. I guess I can see where that would effect some people. I just have too much experience with guns to be intimidated by the way they look. I might think it is cool looking, but I wouldn't think it was more dangerous because of the way it looks. Sort of like a car. Cars can look cool, but that doesn't tell you how fast they are. (Other than the obvious of being able to identify certain models, but that's not what I mean. I think you know here I'm coming from.)

27th November 2005, 06:54 PM	#50
Freakshow 526a0118ae8c43594f3cfdcabb3274ed Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,319	Originally Posted by Tmy Ok fill me in. Whats the pros of this 50 cal? Whats is designed to do and would tha be useful to a terrorist? Like poking big holes in the Senators car. Or blasting thru some "bulletproof" glass. What does that have to do with it LOOKING intimidating? I thought we were talking about its appearance. Have we switched topics now to its capabilities? If so, that's okay. But at least let me know.

27th November 2005, 07:00 PM	#51
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Originally Posted by Freakshow What does that have to do with it LOOKING intimidating? I thought we were talking about its appearance. Have we switched topics now to its capabilities? If so, that's okay. But at least let me know. I was 1/2 joking about the looks. Appearences dont mean squat. Im more conceerned on what damage the thing could cause. A big ol 50 cal like that sure would poke big holes in stuff.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

27th November 2005, 07:06 PM	#52
Freakshow 526a0118ae8c43594f3cfdcabb3274ed Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,319	Originally Posted by Tmy I was 1/2 joking about the looks. Appearences dont mean squat. Im more conceerned on what damage the thing could cause. A big ol 50 cal like that sure would poke big holes in stuff. Ah, ok. Got it. Sorry for being too dense there. But I have talked to many people that do actually get very caught up in the appearance of weapons when considering whether or not they should be banned. It scares me that those people actually vote. I think that in terms of the potential damage terrorists can do with various methods, a .50 cal sniper rifle is WAY down on the list of my concerns. They worry me much more with what they can do with small arms (which are more concealable) and a bunch of hostages. Or home-made explosives. Or home-made chemical weapons (like the sarin used in Tokyo.) Or professional explosives and chemical weapons, gained through illegal means. Or sabotage of aircraft or other mass transit. There are much more significant areas in which we should focus our efforts. The .50 cal is a very small concern to me, when compared to other options they have.

27th November 2005, 07:13 PM	#53
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Originally Posted by Freakshow I think that in terms of the potential damage terrorists can do with various methods, a .50 cal sniper rifle is WAY down on the list of my concerns. They worry me much more with what they can do with small arms (which are more concealable) and a bunch of hostages. Or home-made explosives. Or home-made chemical weapons (like the sarin used in Tokyo.) Or professional explosives and chemical weapons, gained through illegal means. Or sabotage of aircraft or other mass transit. There are much more significant areas in which we should focus our efforts. The .50 cal is a very small concern to me, when compared to other options they have. Pretty much all that other stuff you mentioned is illegal or controled. And you dont think a 50 cal sniper is a concearn for our politicians? Who do you think is going to be on the other end of the scope. THEM! hey does the thing punch thu armour-ish plating and bullet proof glass? Is it designed for sniping ?
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

27th November 2005, 07:24 PM	#54
Freakshow 526a0118ae8c43594f3cfdcabb3274ed Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,319	Originally Posted by Tmy Pretty much all that other stuff you mentioned is illegal or controled. And you dont think a 50 cal sniper is a concearn for our politicians? Who do you think is going to be on the other end of the scope. THEM! hey does the thing punch thu armour-ish plating and bullet proof glass? Is it designed for sniping ? Yes, it was designed to be a sniper rifle. Has an effective range of over a mile. It can go through some light armor, and it can go through bullet-resistant (no such thing as "bullet-proof") glass. But, since there is only bullet-resistant glass, there are varying levels of weapons that will go through it. Some bullet-resistant glass (it usually isn't actually glass, BTW) can stop small handguns, while being vulnerable to larger ones. Or some can stop just about any handgun, while being vulnerable to rifles. And there's always the possibility of just firing multiple shots at the same place. You'll sometimes get through after a few shots. Body armor/vests are the same way. A kevlar vest will stop many handgun rounds. But it won't stop a rifle, such as a .308. But you can get body armor that has a ceramic plate in it, that will stop one shot from a rifle. Don't count on it stopping 2. It isn't something that you would wear under your clothing. It is something used by tactical teams. Some vests have a metal plate over the heart, but I'm not sure off the top of my head what sort of rifle round you could expect that to stop. My point here is...there is a whole wide range of weapons, their capabilities, and how they can be used. It isn't so black and white such that one weapon can be vilified, with some sort of false security that banning it will make life so much better. The issue is more complex than that. If a terrorist wants to take out a politician, they don't need a .50. They can do it rather easily with a .308. That's a pretty common sniper round. A good sniper wouldn't have much trouble taking someone out from 1000 yards (or more), with a .308.

27th November 2005, 07:31 PM	#55
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Originally Posted by Freakshow If a terrorist wants to take out a politician, they don't need a .50. They can do it rather easily with a .308. That's a pretty common sniper round. A good sniper wouldn't have much trouble taking someone out from 1000 yards (or more), with a .308. But would a .308 be able to pierce a car door or sumthin? It seems that this gun is designed to be an assassins tool. Rather than be a hunter's rifle or some other non sinister use. Im actually for the 2nd amendment. I think its fine for people own guns (even thought I dont have one.) But none of our rights are absolute.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

27th November 2005, 07:40 PM	#56
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Also, a .50 is not exactly quiet, nor small. I could not imagine the skill it would take to hit the piolet of a moving airplane at any kind of distance. I think that a suicide bomber would have a much, much greater chance of taking out a plane by running into it on takeoff and exploding himself. And hollywood aside, I would use a .30-06 way before I would dick around with a .50 anything. For one thing, .30-06 is a very common round. Buying a box of those, even if you are wearing a turbin, would not arouse much notice. A .50 BMG round is another kettle of fish entirely. And where, exactly, does one practice? With a .30-06 you can hide in plain sight at any rifle range. No one would notice. A .50 would gather some attention though I guess you could go into the mountains but if a cop or fish and wildlife officer happens along just showing some interest, the jig would be up.
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, 07:40 PM	#57
Freakshow 526a0118ae8c43594f3cfdcabb3274ed Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,319	Originally Posted by Tmy But would a .308 be able to pierce a car door or sumthin? It seems that this gun is designed to be an assassins tool. Rather than be a hunter's rifle or some other non sinister use. Im actually for the 2nd amendment. I think its fine for people own guns (even thought I dont have one.) But none of our rights are absolute. Oh, I agree that none of our rights are absolute. I wouldn't be in favor of people being able to buy nukes at Wal Mart. Most sniper rifles were, until relatively recently in warfare, just hunting rifles. Even now that the construction may be different (but they are still very similar), they often use the same rounds. You can go and buy the same bullets to shoot deer with a hunting rifle, as you would a politician with a sniper rifle. Yes, a .308 would go through a car door, as long as it didn't hit one of the supporting beams that keeps the door from collapsing in accidents. But you wouldn't want to shoot through the door, anyway. You would want to shoot through the glass. And a .308 would go right through a car window. Why would you want to shoot through the glass? Well...glass is see-through, after all. You can see what you are aiming for.
	Last edited by Freakshow; 27th November 2005 at 07:42 PM.

27th November 2005, 07:43 PM	#58
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Tmy But would a .308 be able to pierce a car door or sumthin? It seems that this gun is designed to be an assassins tool. Rather than be a hunter's rifle or some other non sinister use. Im actually for the 2nd amendment. I think its fine for people own guns (even thought I dont have one.) But none of our rights are absolute. A .308 could go thru a number of doors if they were lined up. I recall reading somewhere that a .30-06 could penetrate 10" of oak. I know that a pipsqueak .357 magnum will shatter a cement block. I would make a small wager that an arrow with a field point from my 60lb. compound bow would clear a car door if it missed the struts.
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, 07:45 PM	#59
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Ok. You have a choice tween a .308 and a 50. Why would you choose 50? In what situation would itbe the better gun?
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

27th November 2005, 07:47 PM	#60
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Tmy Ok. You have a choice tween a .308 and a 50. Why would you choose 50? In what situation would itbe the better gun? A million miles away from a secure position against a stationary target..
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, 07:51 PM	#61
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	So the thing is basically only good at whacking politicians from a safe distance. Hmmmm wonder why they want to make it illegal.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

27th November 2005, 08:03 PM	#62
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Tmy So the thing is basically only good at whacking politicians from a safe distance. Hmmmm wonder why they want to make it illegal. You could hunt or more likely target shoot. You should know from personal observation that politicions move around too much to be good targets. Also, if that is the only use, why do we not see more dead politicians? Is there, in fact, any evidence from anywhere that anyone of note was ever sniped by one of these things?
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, 08:16 PM	#63
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	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. Why don't you just suggest a rational compromise, like having some safeguards that such weapons are only used and controlled by people who can be trusted, like you? You could serialize it. You could provide samples of a fired bullet (projectile). You could take out insurance that would cover any damage caused, and you could verify that it was stored in a secure safe, and you could, as you presumably already have, show that you are of good character etc. Sure this would cost a bit, but tell us how much it costs for each round you fire?

27th November 2005, 08:20 PM	#64
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Always better to be proactive. No one ever flew planes into our buildings before 911. Wouldntve been nice if we coverd our bases before that happend. If you can imagine it, it can happen. Hell JFK got whacked. And lots of people are being shot and killed in Iraq by all sorts of weapons. Not that I really think the old "terrorists can use it" line holds much water. I guess the analysis is more the pros of having this thing for target practice (which seems to be all its good for) vs. the damage it could cause in the wrong hands.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

27th November 2005, 10:32 PM	#65
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,097	So much for keeping this on topic. It was supposed to be about Joseph King and the MSNBC article. The Central Scrutinizer couldn't keep the sex off of his brain and nearly everyone else wants the same old issues we posted about in the other threads. Originally Posted by Elind Why don't you just suggest a rational compromise, like having some safeguards that such weapons are only used and controlled by people who can be trusted, like you? You could serialize it. You could provide samples of a fired bullet (projectile). You could take out insurance that would cover any damage caused, and you could verify that it was stored in a secure safe, and you could, as you presumably already have, show that you are of good character etc. Sure this would cost a bit, but tell us how much it costs for each round you fire? So would this rational compromise result in any gain for myself or other gun owners? Or would it just be an empty promise that once we registered our rifles that we could not have them taken away? I'm sure that setting up psychological evaluations for potential gun owners may be even more expensive than owning 50 caliber rifles. The rifle already has a serial number. I'm quite certain that no insurance company is willing to let me buy insurance to cover any damage I do as the result of a criminal act. Knowing that very few people fire these large rifles from anything but the prone or bench positions, it is extremely unlikely that they ever cause property damage from overshooting a berm. I have read about shooters setting property on fire from shooting tracer and incendiary ammo, but it is rare and not restricted to 50 caliber rifles. As far as I know, no police department has ever made an arrest or solved a crime based on a ballistics catalog from new firearms sales. They have spent much money on it in some places, but no cigar so far. If anyone knows anything different, let me know. I spend between $0.75 and $2.50 per cartridge. This is for one of the cheaper $3000 rifles. If I wanted to compete at the world class level, I would be spending the full $2.50 per round, after giving up about $6000.00 for the rifle and $1200.00 for a scope. I'm not too happy about being required to pay for other people's neurosis. Given the currant state of affairs, there is no amount of money that will make the sport of high power shooting safer. It has already been demonstrated to be a sport with very low risk. Ranb

28th November 2005, 04:56 AM	#66
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Tmy Always better to be proactive. No one ever flew planes into our buildings before 911. Wouldntve been nice if we coverd our bases before that happend. Yes, we can live in a riskless society. If you consider what that would mean, would you want to? Quote: If you can imagine it, it can happen. Hell JFK got whacked. And lots of people are being shot and killed in Iraq by all sorts of weapons. JFK got wacked by a rifle that few would use even for hunting our domesticated white tailed CT deer. If someone wants to pop someone else (I won't worry about politicians to the exclusion of everyone else) they will do it. And I don't particularly see why ammonium nitrate couldn't be used as a suicide bomb substance. There is no real defence against a murderer that will give his own life to achieve his purpose. Fertilizer is a common place. This is a far simpler and surer way of killing anyone that a baddy wants to kill than a .50 or any other firearm for that matter. So we know they can do it yet we get diverted about .50 rifles. The gun grabbers think we are stupid and they have reason to.
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.

28th November 2005, 05:46 AM	#67
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Ranb I received a second reply from Dr. King about the article in my first post. He is of the opinion that when Americans supply rifles to the PIRA, then they are involved in terrorism. He thinks this is a good example of why they should be banned or controlled by the NFA of 1934, I disagree. He did not confirm or deny his quote about these rifles ruining all of the meat if used for hunting. Disappointing. I'm rather certain he is not foolish enough to believe this nonsense, so I put him up there with others who will lie to promote gun control. Someday they might learn that the truth works better. I invited Dr. King to take a look at the forum. Would be interesting to see him defend his statements here. Ranb The biggest problem with ANY weapon (from the latest box cutters to shoulder-launched rockets is that they'll be up for sale somewhere that we (Americans) won't be able to control whose hands they end up in. I seriously doubt that these weapons will attract terrorists - they're more of a precision weapon as opposed to the tactics most terrorists use. Of course that might change, but not likely. Regarding the meat, even if it punched a nice little hole in a game animal it still wouldn't be a good hunting rifle - the ammunition is too expensive. Besides, other than the pure novelty, what hunter would need to shoot an animal from 1,000 meters away? It's interesting how so many "terrorist experts" have popped up since 9/11. Where do they get their credentials. Where do they get their training?
	__________________ "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

28th November 2005, 06:04 AM	#68
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	Originally Posted by Tmy Ok fill me in. Whats the pros of this 50 cal? Whats is designed to do and would tha be useful to a terrorist? Like poking big holes in the Senators car. Or blasting thru some "bulletproof" glass. Sportsman typically use them for ultra long range target shooting competition and ultra long range recreational target shooting. That, specifically, is what they are used for. There are many people who are devotees (sp) of the 50 caliber and spend a lot of money and effort to be able to enjoy that kind of shooting. You may not think it is fun or necessary, but then no one is insisting that you participate in this activity. This cartridge has been around for many, many years and is originally a machine gun cartridge. It was adopted for recreational shooting by enthusiasts of long range target shooting.

28th November 2005, 06:15 AM	#69
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Mephisto It's interesting how so many "terrorist experts" have popped up since 9/11. Where do they get their credentials. Where do they get their training? Because their careers prior to 9/11 were terrible.
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.

28th November 2005, 06:22 AM	#70
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,097	Originally Posted by Mephisto .....Regarding the meat, even if it punched a nice little hole in a game animal it still wouldn't be a good hunting rifle - the ammunition is too expensive. Besides, other than the pure novelty, what hunter would need to shoot an animal from 1,000 meters away?..... Whether or not the 50 BMG is well suited to hunting is not the point. Dr. King lied to promote his own gun control agenda. It would be good on game at less than 1000 yards of course. Ammunition can be loaded to a lower velocity to reduce meat damage. I have personally loaded 50 BMG ammo to a power level less than that of a 30-06. Ranb

28th November 2005, 07:28 AM	#71
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Ed Because their careers prior to 9/11 were terrible. That, and the fact that running Arabian horse shows offers very little prestige or intrigue.
	__________________ "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

28th November 2005, 07:32 AM	#72
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Mephisto That, and the fact that running Arabian horse shows offers very little prestige or intrigue. Unless you are a Czarina.
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.

28th November 2005, 07:32 AM	#73
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Ranb Whether or not the 50 BMG is well suited to hunting is not the point. Dr. King lied to promote his own gun control agenda. It would be good on game at less than 1000 yards of course. Ammunition can be loaded to a lower velocity to reduce meat damage. I have personally loaded 50 BMG ammo to a power level less than that of a 30-06. Ranb Oh, you're quite right, I just wanted to expose the probability that he would exclaim it useless for hunting. I was only suggesting that the initial cost was somewhat prohibitive, of course I couldn't see owning this weapon without having reloading equipment to support it. Either way, I think this rifle falls more into the realm of long-range silhouette shooters than hunters who could achieve the same goal with a lighter, less-expensive weapon that was easier to shoot.
	__________________ "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

28th November 2005, 07:36 AM	#74
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Ed Unless you are a Czarina. Who knows, Michael Brown may be a better Czarina than he was a Director of FEMA (which, I guess, wouldn't take much). I hope this thread doesn't get derailed completely and grow a tangent to the "Sex With Horses" thread.
	__________________ "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

28th November 2005, 07:50 AM	#75
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Mephisto I hope this thread doesn't get derailed completely and grow a tangent to the "Sex With Horses" thread. You, young man, have a perverted mind. I suffer from a rare form of Tourettes Syndrome wherein I type non sequitors that are related the ligustic elaboration of the word "Caesar". You took my disability and bent it to your sick ends. Have you no shame? In Europe you would probably have broken some law about making me feel bad.
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.