Arnold Bans .50 Calibre Rifle in California

[obd]

Well, its official. Arnold Schwarzineger, Republican of California, has just inacted a ban on the .50 BMG sniper rifle in because it can easily be used by terrorists in assasinations and can even shoot down pasenger liners. The round is powerful enough to penetrate most body armor and is a severe threat in the hands of a trianed terrorist to both high value individuals and aircraft.

Interestingly, southern guns rights advocates who supported Bush's patriot act, which takes away American freedoms in the name of defense against terror, have come out on full attack of this bill which they fear will snowball into a ban on all types of high powered long range sniper rifles.

Interesting indeed. I guess conservatives dont give a damn about defense against terror when it gets in the way of gun ownership.........despite the fact that terrorists have already used sniper rifles to strike fear accross wide swaths of America and virtually shut down local economies!!!!

I wonder if the NRA is gonna put Arbold on "the list" ? Well at least this means he definately wont be getting the Republican nomination for president!! hehehe. After all, protecting the .50 BMG round from government regulation just shot up to a higher degree of importance than even Jesus Christ in the conservative agenda.

Goodbye Arnold! No, you wont be back.

[walford]

What next, is Ah-nolt going to outlaw the minigun? What is this country coming to?
http://www.peerfear.org/download/t2-minigun.jpg

[plodey]

Go Arnie! p-)

[Geezah]

Interesting indeed. I guess conservatives dont give a damn about defense against terror when it gets in the way of gun ownership.........despite the fact that terrorists have already used sniper rifles to strike fear accross wide swaths of America and virtually shut down local economies!!!!

What....you mean terrorists have used the .50 to shoot down an air liner???? :cantbeli:

Get a life, there is not one recorded case where a .50 has been used by terrorists Stateside.

Just out of curiousity where have "sniper rifles" been used by terrorists over here(and don't use Malvo as an example, I want foreign)?

As far as defense against terror, isn't that why I own firearms,


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[HooyahCQB]

That was going to happen anyway. It's a shame, yes, but it's understandable. I don't believe citizens need a .50 BMG to protect their homes or to hunt with, but it would be hell-a-lot of fun to have. I haven't looked into it much, but if the police departments are also banned from the round, then well, that sucks.












Random thought:

The ACLU - fighting for everybody's rights, but YOURS

[budgie]

What....you mean terrorists have used the .50 to shoot down an air liner???? :cantbeli:

Get a life, there is not one recorded case where a .50 has been used by terrorists Stateside.

Just out of curiousity where have "sniper rifles" been used by terrorists over here(and don't use Malvo as an example, I want foreign)?




Geezah, Circa 2001: "Pfff - use an airliner to collapse an office tower? Don't be ridiculous...when has that ever been done?"

[Opening Batsman]

Good on him, I hope he bans some more while he is at it.

[walford]

Good on him, I hope he bans some more while he is at it.Don't worry none of our bullets will make it down under. You are perfectly free to have your own policies with respect to armed law-abiding citizens in your country. The US has no ambition to interfere.

[Opening Batsman]

Good on him, I hope he bans some more while he is at it.Don't worry none of our bullets will make it down under. You are perfectly free to have your own policies with respect to armed law-abiding citizens in your country. The US has no ambition to interfere.

<looks confused> This has nothing to do with Australia.

[Kilgor]

I really dont see the need why a civilian needs a rifle of that size.

:roll:

[Sayeret]

That was going to happen anyway. It's a shame, yes, but it's understandable. I don't believe citizens need a .50 BMG to protect their homes or to hunt with, but it would be hell-a-lot of fun to have. I haven't looked into it much, but if the police departments are also banned from the round, then well, that sucks.

I agree with you, I don't really see what's the point in having a .50 BMG. One thing I noticed was that you can buy a silencer in the US if you have a permit. I never really understood what was the point of that, though.

[walford]

<looks confused> This has nothing to do with Australia.Precisely.

[MEGR]

They are expensive. The cheapest I've seen a .50 cal is at around 10k.

A guy at the range was firing an X-frame today.. 5$ a shot.. That thing was a beast.

[Opening Batsman]

<looks confused> This has nothing to do with Australia.Precisely.

Then why the hell did you start talking about Australia!? rofl

[Kilgor]

because its a change from france :P

[Opening Batsman]

because its a change from france :P

I suppose he just can't help it, we are so brilliant. :)
Out of curiosity, what is that in your avatar?

[Kilgor]

mike moore

[HooyahCQB]

That is a guy named Fattfvkkher eating a tub of Mexico's finest.









Oh, and Walford's point it- well, he told you, but you don't understand.

[walford]

Then why the hell did you start talking about Australia!?Because you're an Australian saying that you're glad that a US Governor is banning a type of weapon in his state and expressing hope that he bans more.

I could understand expressing opinions about US policy that has an effect outside of our borders. As an American, I have no opinion to offer about Australian gun laws.

[Dennis G]

This is one of you most moronic posts obd! What a pathetic sheep!

[Opening Batsman]

Then why the hell did you start talking about Australia!?Because you're an Australian saying that you're glad that a US Governor is banning a type of weapon in his state and expressing hope that he bans more.

I could understand expressing opinions about US policy that has an effect outside of our borders. As an American, I have no opinion to offer about Australian gun laws.

Well you see, in Australia we have a worldly view of things and like to have opinions on things even if they don't directly impact on us, because we care about the rest of the world, not just what affects us. But you wouldn't understand that.

[FallenAngel]

The ban affects all .50 cal weapons....including the IMI Desert Eagle in .50AE. However, AFAIK, it does not ban the sell of .50 ammo or parts. So, technically, you could but a DE in 44 mag and then change out the barrels.

I see this as an appeasement tactic to the lefties. As stated above, .50 cal rifles are expensive as hell-- almost prohibitively so. I don't know how many people in CA own such weapons, but I'm better maybe two or three dozen max. and the law doesn't affect them at all. It simply says no more such weapons would be sold in CA.

just my $.02

[Pralix]

That was going to happen anyway. It's a shame, yes, but it's understandable. I don't believe citizens need a .50 BMG to protect their homes or to hunt with, but it would be hell-a-lot of fun to have. I haven't looked into it much, but if the police departments are also banned from the round, then well, that sucks.


Random thought:

The ACLU - fighting for everybody's rights, but YOURS
:roll:

There are a lot of things that can be purchased out there that people really don't "need". Do most of the people who buy a big SUV really "need" it? They will never take it off-road or use it for what it was intended. Do you really want the government to say what you "need" or not. It is only the beginning. This is just a step in the wrong direction.

Civilian ownership of arms is in the Constitution. There are no implicit restrictions listed saying that you can't own a .50 rifle.


Well, the state may not have banned the police from using the, but the major manafacturer has. Barrett will not sell or service any .50 BMG guns from any governmental agency in the state of California.

If they want to ban a certain type of gun for civillian ownership there is no reason for the police to be able to use it either. The law in CA now says that you can't own a .50 BMG weapon so theyu don't exist as a threat to police anymore. The police don't need theirs now either.

[walford]

EDIT: grammar

Well you see, in Australia we have a worldly view of things and like to have opinions on things even if they don't directly impact on us, because we care about the rest of the world, not just what affects us. But you wouldn't understand that.Not too patronizing eh? OK, Now I must give the long answer -- if not for your sake, then for that of others.

I certainly can offer opinions upon foreign gun control laws with respect to the effect that it has upon personal crimes in comparison to countries having different legal approaches.

I have indeed participated in discussions here and elsewhere considering different countries' crime statistics [and different jurisdictions within the US] and how they correlate to gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. In other words, I have taken a hard look at the facts surrounding this issue.

Part of what has been found is that different nations have differing socio-cultural relationships with firearms. I would not advocate that a country not having a strong cultrural tradition of private gun ownership to begin doing so.

I would have to study the Australian data on this issue and have not. I therefore have enough intellectual honesty to say that I would not presume to say that Australia should begin widespread gun ownership if your people have gotten along fine without it.

Apparently you have not considered the numerous objective studies showing an inverse relationship between legal gun ownership and violent personal crime in the US. In other words, to advocate civil unilateral disarmament for Americans is to also tacitly advocate more of us becoming fodder for thugs. For that I take offense.

I most certainly would not offer any congratulations for Australia adopting gun legislation [that would be more compatible with American culture] to the detriment of the Australian people.

Perhaps you should not presume to know what someone you hardly know is capable of understanding.

[HooyahCQB]

That was going to happen anyway. It's a shame, yes, but it's understandable. I don't believe citizens need a .50 BMG to protect their homes or to hunt with, but it would be hell-a-lot of fun to have. I haven't looked into it much, but if the police departments are also banned from the round, then well, that sucks.


Random thought:

The ACLU - fighting for everybody's rights, but YOURS
:roll:

There are a lot of things that can be purchased out there that people really don't "need". Do most of the people who buy a big SUV really "need" it? They will never take it off-road or use it for what it was intended. Do you really want the government to say what you "need" or not. It is only the beginning. This is just a step in the wrong direction.

Civilian ownership of arms is in the Constitution. There are no implicit restrictions listed saying that you can't own a .50 rifle.


Well, the state may not have banned the police from using the, but the major manafacturer has. Barrett will not sell or service any .50 BMG guns from any governmental agency in the state of California.

If they want to ban a certain type of gun for civillian ownership there is no reason for the police to be able to use it either. The law in CA now says that you can't own a .50 BMG weapon so theyu don't exist as a threat to police anymore. The police don't need theirs now either.


I think you misunderstood, bud. I'm not against gun ownership at all. I love firearms. I was trying to understand the other side when I talked about 'need'. What I mean is that I support the right to possess firearms, but I can understand the fears of the other side. Hope this helps

[Geezah]

If I'm correct, they also added .50+ muzzle loaders to the ban, so all those history buffs that have ASSault Muzzle Loaders are up Sh!t Creek.

One step closer to the bad guys gaining total control :cantbeli:

[big_les]

If I'm correct, they also added .50+ muzzle loaders to the ban, so all those history buffs that have ASSault Muzzle Loaders are up Sh!t Creek.

One step closer to the bad guys gaining total control :cantbeli:

I doubt that. Even if they've somehow inadvertantly done so, I would have thought an appeal by those with an interest would sort things out.

As for the 'bad guys', as long as they don't outlaw kitchen foil, at least our thoughts will be safe.

[martinexsquaddie]

.50 cal rifles were banned in the UK last year but as there were only a couple of ranges you could use one on anyway I don't think there was much of an outcry. I imagine most people thought they were illegal as hell anywhere.
surely there's a reasonable limit to what civillians should own.
submachine guns
fully automatic rifles
machine guns
grenade launchers
mortars and rpgs
.50 cal rifles that weigh over 25lb fall more into a crew sized weapon
are all the sort of things most people would consider should be restricted

[Geezah]

What....you mean terrorists have used the .50 to shoot down an air liner???? :cantbeli:

Get a life, there is not one recorded case where a .50 has been used by terrorists Stateside.

Just out of curiousity where have "sniper rifles" been used by terrorists over here(and don't use Malvo as an example, I want foreign)?




Geezah, Circa 2001: "Pfff - use an airliner to collapse an office tower? Don't be ridiculous...when has that ever been done?"

Yes.......I remember the planes were hijacked and flown into the WTT but the antis used the excuse that a .50 could take an airliner down as one of the reasons to ban them.

So again, is there any documeneted proof that a .50 has ever been used to take down a plane?

[oldsoak]

I somtimes wonder whether there isnt some middle ground. If you want to play with the exotic, yes you can, but you cant take it home with you kinda thing.

[Hyper]

This .50 cal ban is pointless and only punishes law abiding citizens.

Any potential terrorist can go to any of the other states to legally buy a .50 cal and simply drive across state lines in CA to perform their illegal acts.

The next arguement would be that a terrorist could use a shotgun to cause harm......gonna ban that too???

THIS ONLY PUNISHES LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!!! :cantbeli:

Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study
Contact(s):
Gary Mauser, Professor
Simon Fraser University, Tel (604) 291-3652
Email: Gary_Mauser@sfu.ca



Release Date: November 27, 2003

Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia,
Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to
a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England
and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.
“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the
availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting
access to firearms,” says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon
Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced
firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to
examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country
has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide
rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the
rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime
increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps
the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed
handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have
passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states
where citizens can get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all
these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In
all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable
improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the
countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past
20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15
per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales
increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996
has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the
total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing
again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the
past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed
robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500
million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun
registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to
justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax
money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over
the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the
violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to
register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by
the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are
included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us
from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather
than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.


Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy
organization based in Vancouver, with offices in Calgary and Toronto.

[Geezah]

If I'm correct, they also added .50+ muzzle loaders to the ban, so all those history buffs that have ASSault Muzzle Loaders are up Sh!t Creek.

One step closer to the bad guys gaining total control :cantbeli:

I doubt that. Even if they've somehow inadvertantly done so, I would have thought an appeal by those with an interest would sort things out.

As for the 'bad guys', as long as they don't outlaw kitchen foil, at least our thoughts will be safe.

You may be correct, I'm still looking, I know I heard something rumored a while back about trying to ban them, so be patient.

http://www.binarystorage.net/clients/flashbunny/pics/musketban.jpg
p-)

[Geezah]

I somtimes wonder whether there isnt some middle ground. If you want to play with the exotic, yes you can, but you cant take it home with you kinda thing.

There is no middle ground when the antis and libs want to take away our rights, seeing as we now have the majority in the House and Senate the days of compromising are done.

[SHAM]

Interesting indeed. I guess conservatives dont give a damn about defense against terror when it gets in the way of gun ownership.........despite the fact that terrorists have already used sniper rifles to strike fear accross wide swaths of America and virtually shut down local economies!!!!

What....you mean terrorists have used the .50 to shoot down an air liner???? :cantbeli:

Get a life, there is not one recorded case where a .50 has been used by terrorists Stateside.

Just out of curiousity where have "sniper rifles" been used by terrorists over here(and don't use Malvo as an example, I want foreign)?

As far as defense against terror, isn't that why I own firearms,


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Indirectly Irish Americans supplied .50 calliber sniper rifles to the IRA which used them to kill british troops in northern ireland. If the .50 caliber sniper rifle hadnt been available in the states then these troops could quite possibly still be alive.

[Geezah]

Interesting indeed. I guess conservatives dont give a damn about defense against terror when it gets in the way of gun ownership.........despite the fact that terrorists have already used sniper rifles to strike fear accross wide swaths of America and virtually shut down local economies!!!!

What....you mean terrorists have used the .50 to shoot down an air liner???? :cantbeli:

Get a life, there is not one recorded case where a .50 has been used by terrorists Stateside.

Just out of curiousity where have "sniper rifles" been used by terrorists over here(and don't use Malvo as an example, I want foreign)?

As far as defense against terror, isn't that why I own firearms,


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Indirectly Irish Americans supplied .50 calliber sniper rifles to the IRA which used them to kill british troops in northern ireland. If the .50 caliber sniper rifle hadnt been available in the states then these troops could quite possibly still be alive.

So IF(which is a big word) the terrorists hadn't been supplied with .50 rifle, they wouldn't have killed the British troops because they only intended to use the .50 rifle? right.

Still no evidence of terrorists using them to shoot down air liners?

[Argyll]

Unless you own one and are affected by this ban ...............what's the big fukcing deal?

[Federalist]

Hey, I think Arnold is on to something! We should ban flying planes into skyscrapers to avoid another 9/11! I think I've made my point. Liberal logic... :cantbeli:

[Federalist]

Unless you own one and are affected by this ban ...............what's the big fukcing deal?

It's just another small step towards taking away all our weapons. :bash:

[SHAM]

Interesting indeed. I guess conservatives dont give a damn about defense against terror when it gets in the way of gun ownership.........despite the fact that terrorists have already used sniper rifles to strike fear accross wide swaths of America and virtually shut down local economies!!!!

What....you mean terrorists have used the .50 to shoot down an air liner???? :cantbeli:

Get a life, there is not one recorded case where a .50 has been used by terrorists Stateside.

Just out of curiousity where have "sniper rifles" been used by terrorists over here(and don't use Malvo as an example, I want foreign)?

As far as defense against terror, isn't that why I own firearms,


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Indirectly Irish Americans supplied .50 calliber sniper rifles to the IRA which used them to kill british troops in northern ireland. If the .50 caliber sniper rifle hadnt been available in the states then these troops could quite possibly still be alive.

So IF(which is a big word) the terrorists hadn't been supplied with .50 rifle, they wouldn't have killed the British troops because they only intended to use the .50 rifle? right.

Still no evidence of terrorists using them to shoot down air liners?

Quite true, hence my use of the words "these troops could quite possibly still be alive".
Sorry i cant help you with the shooting down air liners. But if there was would it matter to you? i dont think so.

[Federalist]

I want to know if anyone can tell me of a single international terrorist attack in the last 50 years which was not committed by Muslims. So should we ban them? rofl

[SHAM]

Thats not even funny, not even sarcastic. :roll:

[Baboonass]

I want to know if anyone can tell me of a single international terrorist attack in the last 50 years which was not committed by Muslims. So should we ban them? rofl


http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/attacksearch.cfm?REQUESTTIMEOUT=500

Start here.

[Geezah]

Interesting indeed. I guess conservatives dont give a damn about defense against terror when it gets in the way of gun ownership.........despite the fact that terrorists have already used sniper rifles to strike fear accross wide swaths of America and virtually shut down local economies!!!!

What....you mean terrorists have used the .50 to shoot down an air liner???? :cantbeli:

Get a life, there is not one recorded case where a .50 has been used by terrorists Stateside.

Just out of curiousity where have "sniper rifles" been used by terrorists over here(and don't use Malvo as an example, I want foreign)?

As far as defense against terror, isn't that why I own firearms,


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Indirectly Irish Americans supplied .50 calliber sniper rifles to the IRA which used them to kill british troops in northern ireland. If the .50 caliber sniper rifle hadnt been available in the states then these troops could quite possibly still be alive.

So IF(which is a big word) the terrorists hadn't been supplied with .50 rifle, they wouldn't have killed the British troops because they only intended to use the .50 rifle? right.

Still no evidence of terrorists using them to shoot down air liners?

Quite true, hence my use of the words "these troops could quite possibly still be alive".
Sorry i cant help you with the shooting down air liners. But if there was would it matter to you? i dont think so.

Shoulda.........Woulda........Coulda, IF the IRA wasn't at that spot on that day they would be alive, it's not a good example to use.
Now IF a .50 had been used to bring down an airliner then that would give the antis/libs abit more credibility, but they're trying to give examples of reasons why it should be banned even though they've never been used the way they tried to imply.

Air liners, oil refineries, these just haven't happened.

All that was used on 9/11 were some religious nuts with box cutters(Stanley knives).

[Saranof]

Unless you own one and are affected by this ban ...............what's the big fukcing deal?

It's just another small step towards taking away all our weapons. :bash:

Oh, and what would happen next?
The GREAT GOVERMENT TAKEOVER!!1
Of course, as we all know, the banning of big and dangerous wepaons that are NOT for personal protection is just a step on the way for the evil governemt (controlled by zio, uhm, commi, uhm, LIBERALS!) to take over our fine country.
All their explanations like "they have no practical use" are just lies!!1
And shock my bollocks if I'm wrong.

[Federalist]

Without guns owned by citizens, we would still be a British colony, so stick your head back in your a** and STFU. :fork:

[Nordic Fire]

Of course, as we all know, the banning of big and dangerous wepaons that are NOT for personal protection is just a step on the way for the evil governemt
Don't bother with it. It's like arguing about religion with a christian fundamentalist. No matter how much contrary evidence there is to their silly claims, they still won't reconsider the (in)validity of their their dogma.

Meanwhile, us Swedes, Finns and the most of the free world will just have to keep on living "under the oppression by evil governments", because we aren't allowed to bear .50 calibre machine guns for home defence. Funny thing, though - I've never had to defend my home in the first place. I just wonder why that is...

[obd]

Dennis G wrote: "This is one of your most moronic posts ever! Pathetic Sheep".

No Dennis G, it is you who are the pathetic sheep. Sorry.

Arnold "The ***** Grabber" Schwarzenegger has banned the .50 calibre for security reasons........Sorry but I just think thats hialrious because it just about kills any and every chance of him getting the Republican nomination. To think that a bullet could be the difference between a presidential nomination and failure of a political career just amazes me and indicates what kind of people Republicans are in the first place.

Its ironic b/c the .50 calibre really has no place in private hands anyway!! Its a freakin heavy machine gun round for chirsts sake!!! Not only that, the Barrett .50 BMG was designed as an anti-materiel rifle. It used to say that in there press releases!!! Of course they now market it as a "serious sporting rifle" but thats rediculous. There is absllutely no defense at all for owning a rifle of that destructive capacity.

Some people have commented "well its never been used before to shoot down aircraft".

That may be true, but airliners had never been flown into buildings before Sept 11.

Either way, the military, in its own litereature, states the the .50 calibre sniper rifle can be used to easily immobilize helicopters and aircraft through single shots!!! That alone should tell you that the .50 is a clear threat to high value targets and should be banned.

I wonder where supporters of the .50 calibre anti materiel round draw the line??? Do they also believe that private citizens with the resources should be allowed to own apache gunships and use them on private ranges? Should a private citizen own a RPG-7 ??? Where is the line between the rediculous and the reasonable drawn I'd like to know? When do fat ass chain smoking uneducated pigs whose only pleasure in life is going out to the range with AKM's and AR-15 and shooting rusted car hulks decide that a certain weapons is "just a little too much" for civilian hands? I wonder how many of these yokels who argue the .50 calibre is protected by the consitution can even recite the Bill of Rights in the first place!!!!

Another question: The .50 calibre has indeed been used by the IRA as a highly effective means of killing British soldiers wearing body armor from long ranges. If you pay attention to the news, the Al Sunnah Army of Iraq already stated it would begin operations against US citizens in America to "give Americans a tast of what Iraqi's civilians go through" and hte .50 calibre would be an almost perfect platform with which to wage terror. In addition, Al Queda could also EASILY get thier hands on them in America and use them to wreak havoc on the nation. Can you imagine what would happen if 40-50 teams of snipers began coordinated attacks acorss America?? granted thats alot.........but just imagine 20 then, or 10, or even 5. Remmember what ONE SNIPER TEAM did??? They shut down a large part of New England!!! People were afraid to go to work, to gas up thier cars, to take a walk, to let thier kids go to school.

I honestly shudder to think what Lee Malvo and John Mohamed would have been able to do had they access to a .50 calibre instead of a scoped carbine. If they had a .50 calibre they might still be running around blowing people to pieces today!!! Obviously they were both good shots......they rarely missed thier targets and from ranges of 200-300 yards on some victims with a carbine. Now thats not remarkable but it certainly qualifies as deadly accurate enough!!

I support Arnold decision to ban the .50 calibre BMG round and the rifle that fires it. Its vital to keep that kind of destructive weapons out of the civilian sector. It is a military round. It was NEVER designed to be a "sporting" bullet. The .50 BMG was designed for one reason and one reason alone: War. Not hunting. Not longe range sport shooting. It was designed to kill and destroy high value targets!!!

Sure, compaines have now offered "sport tailored" .50 BMG rounds but thats after the fact.

Granted, there must always be a carefull balance between freedom and security and I am the type of person who always leans towards freedom over security but in the case of the .50 calibre round there really just isnt any argument for owning such a dangerous weapon. The round was designed for military use and for soldiers in war and that is exactly where it should stay!!! Im all for hunting and sport shooting. Heck I own a few rifles myself.........but a .50 cal is just beyond reasonable civilian ownership. I would not support people being allowed to own an armed attack chopper, mount and minigun on thier pickup and dive it around town, own an RPG launcher etc........so I cant support a weapon like the .50 cal being in civilian hands.

What I do find amusing however is this: I will bet anyone here money that the banning of this bullet has just destroyed ANY and ALL chances of Arnold EVER winning the Republican nomination. All the old hillbillies and militia nuts who form the backbone of the Republican party will now refuse to vote for the man! HAHAHAH. Poor Arnold. Arnold, let this be a lesson to you: The religious right may not care if you ******ly harassed women in your past, they dont care if you smoked pot or did steroids, they dont even care that you ******ly assaulted women!!! But **** with thier "right" to own high calibre military weapons and you have just crossed the "moral" line in the sand!! ROFMAO.

[Geezah]

I support Arnold decision to ban the .50 calibre BMG round and the rifle that fires it. Its vital to keep that kind of destructive weapons out of the civilian sector. It is a military round. It was NEVER designed to be a "sporting" bullet. The .50 BMG was designed for one reason and one reason alone: War. Not hunting. Not longe range sport shooting. It was designed to kill and destroy high value targets!!!


What does sport or hunting have to do with the 2nd Amm?

Where have these firearms been used to bring down air liners.

And just an FYI, Arnuld is a RINO, so don't kid yourself.

Amazing, the libs care so much about how Arnuld alledgely fondled some ****ies, but they never showed the same concern when Clinton had his cigars up some girls privates in the White House.

Man, you libs just do my head in :cantbeli:

[Argyll]

Can someone explain to me the reasons for owning a 12.7mm(.50) over a 7.62mm(.308) or a 5.56(.222)rifle again please,because I'm fukced If I know why it's deemed neccesary for ones protection? :roll:

What next a twin mounted 20mm Oerlikon pedestal mounted on the roof for rodent control?

Fukc even better why not just lay AP mines in your garden,providing all your friends with a map of where they are?

There are only 2 groups who should feel the need for .50 inch Rifles,that's the Military and the Police!!

[Federalist]

Of course, as we all know, the banning of big and dangerous wepaons that are NOT for personal protection is just a step on the way for the evil governemt
Don't bother with it. It's like arguing about religion with a christian fundamentalist. No matter how much contrary evidence there is to their silly claims, they still won't reconsider the (in)validity of their their dogma.

Care to give some examples of Christian fundamentalists "silly claims"?

[Geezah]

Of course, as we all know, the banning of big and dangerous wepaons that are NOT for personal protection is just a step on the way for the evil governemt
Don't bother with it. It's like arguing about religion with a christian fundamentalist. No matter how much contrary evidence there is to their silly claims, they still won't reconsider the (in)validity of their their dogma.

Meanwhile, us Swedes, Finns and the most of the free world will just have to keep on living "under the oppression by evil governments", because we aren't allowed to bear .50 calibre machine guns for home defence. Funny thing, though - I've never had to defend my home in the first place. I just wonder why that is...

I'm sure if you guys were told you couldn't produce any more ****, you guys would get your nickers in a twist?

[Dennis G]

My brother is into shooting .50s I like'em but they are too expensive so I dont own any.

My Brother has been a long time member of http://www.fcsa.org/

[Nordic Fire]

I'm sure if you guys were told you couldn't produce any more ****, you guys would get your nickers in a twist?
Are you really sure you want to get into a ***-is-bad-guns-are-good debate?

[Geezah]

Can someone explain to me the reasons for owning a 12.7mm(.50) over a 7.62mm(.308) or a 5.56(.222)rifle again please,because I'm fukced If I know why it's deemed neccesary for ones protection? :roll:

What purpose does owning 7.62X39 or 5.56/.223 firearms do me, I wouldn't use them for home defense but I enjoy shooting them.



What next a twin mounted 20mm Oerlikon pedestal mounted on the roof for rodent control?

Fukc even better why not just lay AP mines in your garden,providing all your friends with a map of where they are?

Now your being silly.



There are only 2 groups who should feel the need for .50 inch Rifles,that's the Military and the Police!!

Why because you say so, if there's no need for me to own 7.62X39 or 5.56/.223 firearms, then judging by your way of thinking I shouldn't?

Just an FYI that everyone wants to ignore,

Amendment II - Right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(Infringe [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.)

[Nordic Fire]

Care to give some examples of Christian fundamentalists "silly claims"?
Sin, hell, heaven, god, ... there's plenty.

[SHAM]

Its nice to see the european coming out in arnold.

[Baboonass]

Can someone explain to me the reasons for owning a 12.7mm(.50) over a 7.62mm(.308) or a 5.56(.222)rifle again please,because I'm fukced If I know why it's deemed neccesary for ones protection? :roll:



There are only 2 groups who should feel the need for .50 inch Rifles,that's the Military and the Police!!


Here's one reason for civilian ownership of the .50.


"FCSA has published a quarterly periodical, Very High Power since 1986, which serves as its voice and clearing house for technological development related to the sporting uses of the .50 BMG. The FCSA and the manufacturing sector maintain a liaison with the military and law enforcement and have made significant contributions to the information base of both."


Technology advances when more than one manufacturer competes for the same product.

Take for example the Armalite AR-15. It won the military contract over other vendors. The Armalite had to keep up with consumer demand or loose the contract to another vendor, hence the M-16, M-727, and M-4. The more recent .50 cal SASR rifles are leaps and bounds above the first .50 cal SASR rifles, mainly becasue of civilian demand for vendors to produce better .50 cal systems for sporting use.

The same can be said for most military equipment.

The argument as of why someone would need this, or do you really need a weapon like this can go anywere. Why own a car/motocycle that goes 200 MPH? Do you really need it?

While we are at chipping away some of constitutional rights, why not take away some of the more extreme news publications? After all, what purpose does it serve?

[Geezah]

I'm sure if you guys were told you couldn't produce any more ****, you guys would get your nickers in a twist?
Are you really sure you want to get into a ***-is-bad-guns-are-good debate?

I'm not saying **** is bad ;) , but I'm sure if the Guberment over there outlawed it, a few people would be somewhat upset?

Are there any anti-**** organisations over there?

[Argyll]

"FCSA has published a quarterly periodical, Very High Power since 1986, which serves as its voice and clearing house for technological development related to the sporting uses of the .50 BMG. The FCSA and the manufacturing sector maintain a liaison with the military and law enforcement and have made significant contributions to the information base of both."


Is this not what Military R&D departments are for?

Geezah.......don't get me wrong,I love shooting as well,but I live in a country that means I can't,so I take as much out of live fire training as I can whilst in country.

I'm sure Arnie didn't wake up one morning,***** in one hand,and the Constitution in the other and decide that he was going to ban the .50 in his State,would this not have been debated in public,for the act to have been passed?

As for the twin 20's.......why not....you got something against Oerlikon? ;)

[Baboonass]

Is this not what Military R&D departments are for?





Sure, but military R&D is not nearly as effective as mass consumer feedback. This can only happen with a variety of different rifle venders competing for buisness. This in turn forces the vendor to constantly upgrade their product.

Without competion, there's very little motivation for the vendor to risk improvment. Improvment costs money.

[Argyll]

I guess it's logical and makes a lot of sense!.....I can go with that,mind you it matters not to me,I'm not from California!! ;)

[obd]

On the contrary Geezah, it amazes me how Conservatives were so pissed at Clinton for his affair and yet they shrugg off the fact that Arnold:

1. Was never born in the US and Consitutionally should not be allowed to run as president

2. Admitted to ****** assault on several women

3. Admitted to felony drug use (aka steroids and weed)

4. AWOL from Austrian Army

5. Still can barely speak English

6. Banned the .50 calibre in California (no doubt the WORST thing he has EVER done in Conservatives minds)


I just love that.....but it fits very neatly with the whole Footbal, War, Weed, Whores, and Jesus hypocricy in the forst place..........

Speaking of which, the same Bible belt area of America that protested so loudly when they had to see Janet Jacksons ****y (oh what a TRAGEDY for morality!!!! haha) is the same demographic making up the majority of ratings on the super sleez show "Desperate Housewives".......which just makes me laugh to no end........

Seems to my the "bible belt" is the most immoral, most backward, least educated, most conservative area of the entire country!!! Oh and they love thier Desperate Housewives too. I think the average southern viewwer spends more time watching Desperate Housewives per week than in church.....and they call themselves the "moral center" of America. HA! What a load............

[obd]

Hey Matchanu!! Here is an idea. Lets sell the F-22 to the civlian sector!! After all, civilians would help Lockheed Martin and others to develope the "user friendliness" of the avionics systems!!!! Right?

Jeez, I see your point man, but that still doesnt apply, or make the case for, giving super high powered weapons to civilians.........

The .50 bmg was made for the military. It was designed for war. Thats where it should stay: On the Battlefield. Not in the back of peoples trucks and under thier beds!

[Sayeret]

Of course, as we all know, the banning of big and dangerous wepaons that are NOT for personal protection is just a step on the way for the evil governemt
Don't bother with it. It's like arguing about religion with a christian fundamentalist. No matter how much contrary evidence there is to their silly claims, they still won't reconsider the (in)validity of their their dogma.

Meanwhile, us Swedes, Finns and the most of the free world will just have to keep on living "under the oppression by evil governments", because we aren't allowed to bear .50 calibre machine guns for home defence. Funny thing, though - I've never had to defend my home in the first place. I just wonder why that is...

I'm sure if you guys were told you couldn't produce any more ****, you guys would get your nickers in a twist?

How does **** kill people though or have the potential to kill people. People don't need .50 calibre sniper rifles, so that's why they should be banned.

[obd]

Better idea, lets give civilians nuclear warheads!! I mean, if companies producing them had to compete on the civlian market why I bet they would come up with far more powerul nukes.........hey Ibet they would even design a "neighbor nuke" so you could nuke your neighbor without destroying his poperty.......and then you could take it for yourself!! Imagine the military implications!!!! Wow, what a great idea.

**** while Im on it, lets just free up the entire US military arsenal to the civilian sector in the name of product improvement!!!

Aircraft carriers, B-2 bombers, Mk 19 grenade laucnhers, M1 Tanks, Bradley IFV's.........oh man....Im seeing a bonanza for military equipment improvement!!!!!

[Geezah]

Of course, as we all know, the banning of big and dangerous wepaons that are NOT for personal protection is just a step on the way for the evil governemt
Don't bother with it. It's like arguing about religion with a christian fundamentalist. No matter how much contrary evidence there is to their silly claims, they still won't reconsider the (in)validity of their their dogma.

Meanwhile, us Swedes, Finns and the most of the free world will just have to keep on living "under the oppression by evil governments", because we aren't allowed to bear .50 calibre machine guns for home defence. Funny thing, though - I've never had to defend my home in the first place. I just wonder why that is...

I'm sure if you guys were told you couldn't produce any more ****, you guys would get your nickers in a twist?

How does **** kill people though or have the potential to kill people. People don't need .50 calibre sniper rifles, so that's why they should be banned.

How many **** stars have died from STDs or are addicted to drugs, how many **** stars have died becuase of their job?
While we're on the what we need thing, we don't NEED **** we want it.

[Geezah]

Geezah.......don't get me wrong,I love shooting as well,but I live in a country that means I can't,so I take as much out of live fire training as I can whilst in country.

Then why would is it so bad to be able to go to the range in Scotland and shoot at paper targets, can you be trusted to own firearms?



I'm sure Arnie didn't wake up one morning,***** in one hand,and the Constitution in the other and decide that he was going to ban the .50 in his State,would this not have been debated in public,for the act to have been passed?


Arnuld is Guvernor of Kommiefornia, so when it comes to gun rights they go out of the window and as far as public debates on our firearm rights, very seldom do they advertise. But these days it comes down to whoever has the most amount of money and making sure the ones that believe in the Consitution(the whole thing not parts of it) get into positions of power. That's why I send the NRA money and that's why people like Tom Daschle are out of a job woot
Thank God for the internet because as soon as something happens nearly all gun nuts know about it.

[Geezah]

On the contrary Geezah, it amazes me how Conservatives were so pissed at Clinton for his affair and yet they shrugg off the fact that Arnold:

1. Was never born in the US and Consitutionally should not be allowed to run as president

2. Admitted to ****** assault on several women

3. Admitted to felony drug use (aka steroids and weed)

4. AWOL from Austrian Army

5. Still can barely speak English

6. Banned the .50 calibre in California (no doubt the WORST thing he has EVER done in Conservatives minds)


I just love that.....but it fits very neatly with the whole Footbal, War, Weed, Whores, and Jesus hypocricy in the forst place..........

Speaking of which, the same Bible belt area of America that protested so loudly when they had to see Janet Jacksons ****y (oh what a TRAGEDY for morality!!!! haha) is the same demographic making up the majority of ratings on the super sleez show "Desperate Housewives".......which just makes me laugh to no end........

Seems to my the "bible belt" is the most immoral, most backward, least educated, most conservative area of the entire country!!! Oh and they love thier Desperate Housewives too. I think the average southern viewwer spends more time watching Desperate Housewives per week than in church.....and they call themselves the "moral center" of America. HA! What a load............

You never did answer these questions?

What does sport or hunting have to do with the 2nd Am?

Where have these firearms been used to bring down air liners.

And just an FYI, Arnuld is a RINO, so don't kid yourself.

obd, why is it so hard to respect the The Bill of Rights?

Amendment II - Right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(Infringe [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.)

[Sabre]

Hi Geezah, it's 23:58 here so I'm not going to re-run old ground with you again! ;)


I'm sort of coming round to the 'what's the point in banning certain weapons in the US' argument. Not because I think they should be in the hands of the public, but because they ARE in the hands of the public. Banning guns in a country so chocked full of them would send them underground and on the black market. they couldn't be controlled and more criminals would have them than civvies.

I don't think that the situation in the US can be compared with that in other, less gun-friendly western nations. Here, there haven't been many guns in the public ownership, or criminal ownership. A ban on firearms therefore doesn't result in a vast swathe of illegal, unregulated guns floating around the country. There isn't really a 'gun culture' (although if you go to some areas and among certain groups, you may think there was :roll: ) in the UK, it's been a while since the Iles were rocked by conquering armies, pacifying the natives by force. There is no romanticism of gun ownership and skill present in the media and public consciousness. So most people think that the firearms ban is a good thing.


Geezah wrote:

Argyll wrote:

Geezah.......don't get me wrong,I love shooting as well,but I live in a country that means I can't,so I take as much out of live fire training as I can whilst in country.


Then why would is it so bad to be able to go to the range in Scotland and shoot at paper targets, can you be trusted to own firearms?

It wouldn't be; perhaps there should be government-run ranges where you have to keep your weapon, but are free to come and shoot as much as you want. But there is no need to keep one in your house.

I think Argyll can be trusted with a firearm, after all the Queen trusted him with one for some time. I would like to think I could be trusted with one, as the Queen has trusted me with one for a while now. I wouldn't mind having a nice, bolt action hunting rifle and taking part in some deer culls. It would be quite enjoyable. But the fact is it isn't allowed, and for good reason. I accept this and so does Argyll, not wanting to put words in his mouth. The only way I continue to shoot is through the army, but I'm not training to put holes in bits of paper (which is rather boring) but to put holes in some Muj's with a gucci bit of kit-the purpose for which it was intended.


Anyway, just out of interest, I was wondering what the deal is with the 2nd ammendment.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It isn't grammatically correct, but then it is bit of legislature drawn-up over 200 years ago and I don't know the convention for legal text back then. But does it not tie-in gun ownership to the requirement to serve in "A well regulated militia"? Why would the Militia be referred to if this wasn't the case?

I know that the definition of the 'Militia' was stated as something like "all men between the ages of 17-??...and women serving in the national guard" in the early 1900's and has now changed (to include all citizens over 17? and not serving in the military or national guard??)

Could you please inform me of the correct association of citizen gun ownership with service in the militia as stated in the 2nd ammendment and the current definition of the militia, or any previous/original definitions.

Cheers.

[FallenAngel]

6. Banned the .50 calibre in California (no doubt the WORST thing he has EVER done in Conservatives minds)

Actually, the worst thing he has ever done is marry a Kennedy IMHO. ;)

[NicNZ]

It never ceases to amaze me how fragile the United States is as a nation in the minds of so many of its citizens; so many people in the US have a special kind of paranoia that the US Government will become despotic and tyrannical and that this danger is real enough to justify their owning all manner of weapons (.50cal sniper rifles, etc.) It is a phenomenon really quite unheard of in other developed nations.

[Opening Batsman]

I know that the definition of the 'Militia' was stated as something like "all men between the ages of 17-??...and women serving in the national guard" in the early 1900's and has now changed (to include all citizens over 17? and not serving in the military or national guard??)

Could you please inform me of the correct association of citizen gun ownership with service in the militia as stated in the 2nd ammendment and the current definition of the militia, or any previous/original definitions.

I was also wondering as to the whereabouts of the 'militia'.

[FallenAngel]

I know that the definition of the 'Militia' was stated as something like "all men between the ages of 17-??...and women serving in the national guard" in the early 1900's and has now changed (to include all citizens over 17? and not serving in the military or national guard??)

Could you please inform me of the correct association of citizen gun ownership with service in the militia as stated in the 2nd ammendment and the current definition of the militia, or any previous/original definitions.

I was also wondering as to the whereabouts of the 'militia'.

As of 2003:

US CODE, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311: Militia Composition and Classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Section 312: Militia Duty: exemptions:

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States,
the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on
active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission
of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards
of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant
in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is
exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the
conscientious holding of that belief is established under such
regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person
is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be
noncombatant.

It's also not likely to change any time soon since only an act of Congress or Supreme Court precedence can change Federal Law and with the exception of quartering troops in private homes, the 2nd Amendment is the LEAST contested Amendment to the constitution.

[walford]

Anyone know what the Founding Fathers were referring to when they used the word 'militia'? Hint: pre-dated actual founding of this country -- no government soldiers yet.

The True Meaning of the Second Amendment (http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/2ndamend/2nd.html)

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Anti-gun propaganda falsely insists that the Second Amendment only guarantees the "right" of States to have a National Guard. An examination of the language used in the eighteenth century by the Framers of the Constitution clearly shows our Founding Fathers intended to protect a birthright that properly belongs to every individual citizen of the United States.

Well-Regulated This term has nothing to do with regulation by government officials. In the eighteenth century, "well regulated" meant an efficient or properly running mechanism. In a military context, it referred to a standard of training and preparedness which we now call "combat readiness."

Militia In Colonial times, the Militia consisted of local units made up of every male citizen of military age capable of bearing arms to defend his home, family and community. Special units not composed of all citizens, like the modern National Guard, were referred to as a "select corps" or a "select militia." An early draft of the Second Amendment defined the Militia as being "composed of the body of the People, trained to Arms." Today, whether they are aware of it or not, all citizens capable of bearing arms that do not belong to the regular armed forces or the National Guard are members of the Militia.

Right The Second Amendment does not protect the right of States to have a National Guard. The Declaration of Independence says governments are formed to secure the unalienable rights of all men and that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. States don't have rights; people do.

Keep Colonial Militia members were required to own military type muskets with bayonets and a supply of ammunition. They kept these weapons in readiness in their homes, not in public armories. The American Revolution started when the Royal Governor of Massachusetts marched his Redcoats out of Boston and tried to confiscate the private arms belonging to Militia members at Lexington and Concord.

Arms Arms are weapons kept for private self defense or to fulfill the civic duty of every able bodied citizen to be a part of the Militia. The Second Amendment was not written to only protect the right to own hunting guns. It was written to protect the right of the entire body of the people to own military type firearms. So-called "assault weapons," which were banned by the Congress and President Clinton, are the very type of guns our Founding Fathers intended to protect from Government restrictions. Write or call your elected representatives and demand your rights be restored. Demand Repeal of the "Assault Weapons" Ban.

"Since a well trained combat ready Militia, composed of all citizens capable of bearing their private arms in concert for their common defense, is necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the individual citizen to acquire, possess and carry military small arms." ~ The Second Amendment Translated Into 20th Century Language

[Virus]

Hey Matchanu!! Here is an idea. Lets sell the F-22 to the civlian sector!! After all, civilians would help Lockheed Martin and others to develope the "user friendliness" of the avionics systems!!!! Right?

Jeez, I see your point man, but that still doesnt apply, or make the case for, giving super high powered weapons to civilians.........

The .50 bmg was made for the military. It was designed for war. Thats where it should stay: On the Battlefield. Not in the back of peoples trucks and under thier beds!

Sir, sorry to break this to you, but the F-22 is not an "arm," protected by the Constitution, it is an airplane. And civilians can buy jets like that, like migs and ****, but there are seperate restrictions on flying those. And I also dont consider a nuclear weapon an "arm." There should be limits, I dont see why we should have access to modern military systems, ala stinger, or a patriot system.. Small arms though, is what should be protected. But thats just my personall opinion....and oh yah, I WANT A RPG-7, GIMME ONE ROMAN!!
Oh and I doubt anyone who owns a .50 is going to keep it under their bed :D, probably in a safe since they are usually exspensive. silly..

[Argyll]

If it's the constitutional right to have a "well armed Militia",then why not send these "Militia's" into warzones?
Lets see them out in Iraq,when the rounds start coming back up range then!!

It's funny how so many people state that the UN is outdated,but this act in the constitution isn't?.........double standards or what?

Sabre........well said!!

I think we all know that today's Militia is the National Guard,not like the hicks from a bad Steven Segal movie!! ;)

[walford]

If it's the constitutional right to have a "well armed Militia",then why not send these "Militia's" into warzones?Upon reviewing the Federalist Papers, it is clear that the purpose of the militias is to protect the people from being victimized by criminals and/or oppressed by their own government, not deployed overseas.

The police are not security guards. They would like to deter crime by establishing a visible presence, but fully acknowledge that we citizens are ultimately obliged to secure our own self-defense.

I have already said that societies wherein the criminals and law-abiding alike do not tend to possess firearms would not benefit from gun ownership.

In the United States however, our criminals are indeed heavily armed and will not disarm because their potential victims are prohibited such weapons. To ask our law-abiding citizens to disarm unilaterally in the face of that circumstance is as absurd as it seems.

[Virus]

And no, the National Guard is not a militia, they are an organized military force controlled by the government.

[martinexsquaddie]

oh I don't know I can definitly see a market for warriors and bradleys I mean what could be safer for the school run?. plus you get to intimidate landcruiser's and even Humvee owners.
even THEM in basra learned a souped up discovery does not have right of way when confronted by a Warrior :)

[Kilgor]

6. Banned the .50 calibre in California (no doubt the WORST thing he has EVER done in Conservatives minds)

Actually, the worst think he has ever done is marry a Kennedy IMHO. ;)


rofl

[Satyr]

So because it is written in the second amendment, then it just has to be that way? Nobody thinks that perhaps the Second Amendment is a bit outdated and needs to be revisioned a bit?

[BarkingSquirrel]

The whole "terrorists will use it to shoot down planes" deal is a crock. Terrorists wouldn't spend $10,000 on a rifle when they can make a $50 bomb.

[Sabre]

Cheers Argyll, but I'm not done yet! ;)

I'm trying to construct a logical assessment of what the 2nd ammendment actually means.

@FallenAngel:

Thank you, so here we have the definition of the militia as of 2003:

MALES: able-bodied and aged 17-45, not only US citizens but those who have made a declaration of intent to be a citizen.

(I'm not sure what section 313 of title 32 refers to, but it merits investigation. sounds like a specific exemption, as section 312 refers to militia duty exemption)

FEMALES: Members of the National Guard, no one else.


This is the current state of play. It is the law.

What needs to be determined is why the 'militia' is refered to in the 2nd ammendment, if the real meaning of it is for ALL citizens to be armed? If the intention was for an armed citizens' militia to be on standby, then does this mean that ONLY the militia are permitted to bear arms?

That would mean that only men who are 'able-bodied' (not the disabled or ill) between 17 and 45 could bear arms. It would also include anyone meeting these requirements who weren't actually citizens, but 'intended to be so' (even if they just hopped over from Iran/Afghanistan?) No women, unless they served in the NG would be allowed weapons either.


@ Walford:


Anti-gun propaganda falsely insists that the Second Amendment only guarantees the "right" of States to have a National Guard.

I am in no way saying this, the definition of the 'militia' as of 2003 defines it as something other than the NG, a select body of the public (including certain members of the NG), but not a blueprint for the NG itself in any way.


An examination of the language used in the eighteenth century by the Framers of the Constitution clearly shows our Founding Fathers intended to protect a birthright that properly belongs to every individual citizen of the United States.

It is difficult to prove intent over 200 years after the fact, but some attempt should be made to do this and look at the reasons for writing the 2nd ammendment. As to whether the 'birthright' belongs to every citizen, or only citizens of the US, well that depends on how the militia is tied in with weapon ownership as I've postulated above (love that word ;) )


Well-Regulated This term has nothing to do with regulation by government officials. In the eighteenth century, "well regulated" meant an efficient or properly running mechanism. In a military context, it referred to a standard of training and preparedness which we now call "combat readiness."

I agree entirely apart from the word 'nothing'. There is always some element of central control, otherwise the colonial armies would never have had the organisation to defeat the King's men.

As for 'combat readiness', that is a modern term that refers to troops in an organised army or reserve force who have reached that state through training delivered by a centrally-dictated training programme. This is a government (federal or state, in the case of NG) controlled process. Back in the 1770's, the 'regulation' of the militias was not such as it is now, but did involve centralised training and drills and a willingness to take and obey orders from the leadership.


Militia In Colonial times, the Militia consisted of local units made up of every male citizen of military age capable of bearing arms to defend his home, family and community. Special units not composed of all citizens, like the modern National Guard, were referred to as a "select corps" or a "select militia."

Fair enough, this makes sense.


An early draft of the Second Amendment defined the Militia as being "composed of the body of the People, trained to Arms."

Trained to arms, does this not imply a form of regulated training?


Today, whether they are aware of it or not, all citizens capable of bearing arms that do not belong to the regular armed forces or the National Guard are members of the Militia.

This is quite incorrect, as we have seen above. The militia does not include ALL citizens, it does not specify a capability to bear arms, but rather that the individuals must be 'able-bodied'; implying a need for a basic standard of fitness and health (definately NOT everyone). It does exclude those in the regular armed forces apart from those not on active duty, it does not exclude the NG, in fact it defines the female component as solely those women in the NG and most likely all male members between 17 and 45 would be included as well.


Right The Second Amendment does not protect the right of States to have a National Guard. The Declaration of Independence says governments are formed to secure the unalienable rights of all men and that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. States don't have rights; people do.

True, it does not refer to the NG. The NG and the militia are two separate entities, who happen to include some of the same people. (think of a venn diagram ;) )

The 2nd ammendment does mention the "security of a free state". It refers to the security of the nation, the state as an entity, but doesn't mention the security of the people. Of course, as shown above, the state exists to secure the rights of the people. Doesn't this mean, then, that the reason for the militia and the bearing of arms is to protect the state (and by doing so, protect yourself) against an outside threat? I should think that the foremost threat in the minds of the founding fathers was not the risk of a despotic tyrrany rising in new country they run and created through their ideals of freedom and liberty, but rather the large collection of British troops in the dominion of Canada on their northern border. These troops did indeed invade (war of 1812?) and proved them right.


Colonial Militia members were required to own military type muskets with bayonets and a supply of ammunition. They kept these weapons in readiness in their homes, not in public armories.

Exactly, militia members. Not the general populace. These are the 'well-regulated' individuals defined as the militia who are 'trained to arms'.


The American Revolution started when the Royal Governor of Massachusetts marched his Redcoats out of Boston and tried to confiscate the private arms belonging to Militia members at Lexington and Concord.

These arms were held in 'caches' or 'dumps' in the Concord area, not individually in private homes. Lexington was the site of the first contact between British troops, intending to remove these weapons caches, and the 'minutemen' militia.


Arms Arms are weapons kept for private self defense or to fulfill the civic duty of every able bodied citizen to be a part of the Militia. The Second Amendment was not written to only protect the right to own hunting guns. It was written to protect the right of the entire body of the people to own military type firearms. So-called "assault weapons," which were banned by the Congress and President Clinton, are the very type of guns our Founding Fathers intended to protect from Government restrictions. Write or call your elected representatives and demand your rights be restored. Demand Repeal of the "Assault Weapons" Ban.

This takes some liberties (putting it mildly) in its interpretation of the term 'arms'.

Surely 'arms' at the time of writing refers to the weapons of the day. Muskets were used by the military and by civilians as hunting weapons. Also used were blunderbusses/shotguns etc and pistols.

I'm not saying that only muskets etc should be allowed, but to claim that the founding fathers intended that the populace should be armed with 'assault rifles' is a tad far fetched. Surely they were looking at the situation of the time, where many of the people were 'frontiersmen' who got their meat through hunting the abundant game in the surrounding lands, or at the very least supplemented thier diet with game shot for sport with their own muskets. So why not ensure these people keep their muskets and continue to hunt, but also call on them to defend the country as they had done when they fought for its freedom? The difference then between the fully equiped British professional soldier, and the volunteer militiaman, was very little in terms of equipment. In fact, the major difference in terms of the armies was guns (large field pieces), the colonials finally getting on even terms with the aid of french-supplied guns. But to compare a civvy with an m16 with a modern soldier with all his training and technological support...well one needs look no farther than Iraq. The situation has changed from the 1770's.

If anyone has read through all that, thanks for your time!

[Geezah]

Cheers Argyll, but I'm not done yet! ;)

I'm trying to construct a logical assessment of what the 2nd ammendment actually means.


There's no need, the powers that be have already declared that the 2nd gives the people the individual right to keep and bear arms, and not as a militia.
I don't know where people get off trying to say that the militia is the National Guard, if that's the case why the hell is my old roommate in Iraq at the moment?
Here you go, for those that think they know,


Wholly apart from this interpretive principle, this argument also rests on an incomplete understanding of the preface's language. Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out. The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms.


Link (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2c)

And more,


B. "To Keep and Bear Arms"

The "right of the people" that the Second Amendment secures is a right "to keep and bear Arms." As the previous subpart showed, those who hold the right are, according to the text, "the people" - individuals - not the government or even the militia. The phrase "to keep and bear Arms" is consistent with this conclusion: The phrase "keep . . . Arms" reinforces it, (45) and the phrase "bear Arms" is not inconsistent with it.

1. "To Keep . . . Arms."

In eighteenth-century English, an individual could "keep arms," and keep them for private purposes, unrelated to militia duty, just as he could keep any other private property, and the phrase was commonly used in this sense. For example, in Rex v. Gardner (K.B. 1738), a defendant charged with "keeping a gun" in violation of a 1706 English statute (which prohibited commoners from keeping specified objects or "other engines" for the destruction of game) argued that "though there are many things for the bare keeping of which a man may be convicted; yet they are only such as can only be used for destruction of the game, whereas a gun is necessary for defence of a house, or for a farmer to shoot crows." The court agreed, reasoning that "a gun differs from nets and dogs, which can only be kept for an ill purpose." (46) The Court of Common Pleas six years later treated Gardner as having "settled and determined" that "a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family," (47) and in 1752 the King's Bench reiterated that "a gun may be kept for the defence of a man's house, and for divers other lawful purposes." (48) The same usage appeared in an earlier prosecution of a man for "keeping of a gun" contrary to a statute that barred all but the wealthy from privately owning small handguns. (49)

William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in the decade before the American Revolution, was the leading legal authority in America at the Founding, wrote, without any reference to the militia, of "person[s]" who are "qualified to keep a gun" and are "shooting at a mark," apparently on their own property. (50) He also noted that certain persons could not "keep arms in their houses," pursuant to a statute that used "keep" to signify private ownership and control over arms, wherever located. (51) Colonial and early state statutes similarly used "keep" to "describe arms possession by individuals in all contexts," including requiring those exempt from militia service (such as the over-aged) to "keep" arms in their homes for both law enforcement and "the defense of their homes from criminals or foreign enemies." (52) At the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in 1788, Samuel Adams proposed an amendment prohibiting Congress from "prevent[ing] the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms," indicating ownership by individuals of private arms. (53) And that State's Supreme Court, in a libel case soon after the Founding, likened the "right to keep fire arms" to the freedom of the press, both being individual but not unlimited rights - the former not protecting "him who uses them for annoyance or destruction." (54) The basic dictionary definition of "keep" -"[t]o retain" and "[t]o have in custody"- was consistent with this specific meaning. (55)

In short, the phrase "keep arms" was commonly understood to denote ownership of arms by private citizens for private purposes. When that phrase is read together with its subject - "the right of the people" - the evidence points strongly toward an individual right. Had the Constitution meant not to protect the right of the whole "people" to "keep" arms but instead to establish a "right" of the States or of only the members of their militias to store them, presumably it would have used different language. (56)

2. "To . . . Bear Arms."

To "bear" was, at the Founding as now, a word with numerous definitions - used with great "latitude" and "in very different senses," as Samuel Johnson noted in his dictionary. (57) Its basic meaning was simply to "carry" or "wear" something, particularly carrying or wearing in a way that would be known to others, such as in bearing a message, bearing another person, or bearing something as a mark of authority or distinction. (58) As a result, "bear," when taking "arms" as its object, could refer to multiple contexts in which one might carry or wear arms in this way. (59) It is true that "bear arms" often did refer to carrying arms in military service. (60) But the phrase was not a term of art limited to this sense. Arms also could be "borne" for private, non-military purposes, principally tied to self-defense. For example, an early colonial statute in Massachusetts required every "freeman or other inhabitant" to provide arms for himself and anyone else in his household able to "beare armes," and one in Virginia required "all men that are fittinge to beare armes" to "bring their pieces" to church. (61)

There are also several examples closer to the Founding. In 1779, a committee of eminent Virginians including Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, charged with revising the new State's laws, authored a bill penalizing any person who, within a year of having violated a restriction on hunting deer, "shall bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty." This bill demonstrates that to "bear a gun" was not limited to "performing military duty." James Madison submitted this bill to the Virginia legislature in 1785. (62) Many early state constitutions, including some written before the Founding (Pennsylvania's and Vermont's) and one written a month after Secretary of State Jefferson declared the Bill of Rights ratified (Kentucky's), protected an individual right to "bear arms" in "defense of himself and the State" or in "defense of themselves and the State," indicating that a person might be said to "bear arms" in self-defense. (63) A 1780 opinion of London's Recorder (the city's legal adviser and the primary judge in its criminal court) on the legality of a private self-defense association acknowledged "the rights of the people of this realm to bear arms, and to instruct themselves in the use of them, collectively," albeit within limits. (64) In a newspaper commentary published in major cities after Madison introduced the Bill of Rights in Congress, a friend of his wrote that the proposed Second Amendment would "confirm[]" the people's "right to keep and bear their private arms." (65) Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, paraphrased as a "right to bear arms" the right of English "subjects . . . [to] have arms for their defence," an individual right not tied to service in the militia. (66) Finally, other examples of contemporaneous uses of "bear arms" to denote actions of individuals appear in cases from the early 1800's up to the Civil War, discussed below in Part IV.B.

The Minority Report issued by twenty-one delegates of the Pennsylvania Convention that ratified the Federal Constitution in late 1787 illustrates the various uses of the phrase at the time, including both the right of private "bearing" and the duty of "bearing" for the government in the militia. The report recommended amending the Constitution to recognize "[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game" and also urged exemption from militia service for those "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms." Although the Minority Report was a product of Anti-Federalists, who had lost at that convention and who lost the battle over ratifying the Constitution, we are unaware of any contemporaneous criticisms that this widely circulated document misused language in giving such senses to the phrase "bear arms." (67)

In sum, although "bear arms" often referred to carrying or wearing arms in connection with military duty, it was not limited to such a meaning. When, as in the Second Amendment, those words are used in conjunction with "keep arms," which commonly did refer to private action, and the whole phrase "to keep and bear Arms" is used in the context of a "right of the people," (68) we conclude that the core, operative text of the Amendment secures a personal right, which belongs to individuals. We next consider whether the Amendment's prefatory language requires a different conclusion.


Link (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2b)

[Geezah]

So because it is written in the second amendment, then it just has to be that way? Nobody thinks that perhaps the Second Amendment is a bit outdated and needs to be revisioned a bit?

As you feel that the 2nd is outdated, maybe you could go over the rest of the BoR and point out other areas that need to be updated?
I'm all for restricting the 1st Am for Libs and Dems what do you think?


THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Geezah]

I think Argyll can be trusted with a firearm, after all the Queen trusted him with one for some time. I would like to think I could be trusted with one, as the Queen has trusted me with one for a while now.

Isn't that a bit unfare, so if the Queen entrusted you with a firearm then only those select few should be allowed to own them?

[Baboonass]

Hey Matchanu!! Here is an idea. Lets sell the F-22 to the civlian sector!! After all, civilians would help Lockheed Martin and others to develope the "user friendliness" of the avionics systems!!!! Right?

Jeez, I see your point man, but that still doesnt apply, or make the case for, giving super high powered weapons to civilians.........

The .50 bmg was made for the military. It was designed for war. Thats where it should stay: On the Battlefield. Not in the back of peoples trucks and under thier beds!

The aeronautics industry has it's own competition amongst each other. The cost to produce a prototype fighter aircraft to bid for a military contract is astronomical. These industries can afford to hire the nessesary personal to design, develop, build, test, evaluate, and redesign as nessesary. Besides, much technology for development of new aeronautical systems are within the civilian sector. Your argument is like comparing apples to oranges.

.50 cal rifles are not a high demand item per say. Its basically for a select few who have the time money and space to shoot these weapons. In California, there are precious few places to shoot a .50 anyway, I can only think of one off hand.

I can really only speak of my own experience here about the knowledge I have gained from the civilian sector about .50 cal shooting. There is a certain amount of time I can spend shooting a .50 within a platoon workup schedual. Any aditional information gathered from guys who shoot far more than I do is very benificial.

Anyway, This is only a single point within a larger argument. I really don't see what the big deal is about a .50 cal. It just has the capability to shoot farther than smaller calibers. The rifle is nothing without a skilled shooter to weild it. The idea that you can shoot down a helo or jet liner with a .50 is just plain silly. I've been in the craft for a decade, there's a very slim chance of hitting a flying object at distance, pretty much imposible. The agument you used earlier about destroying airplanes with a .50 was when they were on the ground, not airborne.

[Satyr]

So because it is written in the second amendment, then it just has to be that way? Nobody thinks that perhaps the Second Amendment is a bit outdated and needs to be revisioned a bit?

As you feel that the 2nd is outdated, maybe you could go over the rest of the BoR and point out other areas that need to be updated?
I'm all for restricting the 1st Am for Libs and Dems what do you think?



I wouldn't know about the others, all im saying is that it sounds like the 2. amendment is outdated since there is all this fuzz about it. Looks to me like there are two very split oppinions about the 2. amendment and it seems like on of the main arguments the pro gun side has is It's written in the 2. amendment and therefore it should be that way!". Not the best argument if you ask me ;).

Does anyone know who wrote this?


The True Meaning of the Second Amendment

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Anti-gun propaganda falsely insists that the Second Amendment only guarantees the "right" of States to have a National Guard. An examination of the language used in the eighteenth century by the Framers of the Constitution clearly shows our Founding Fathers intended to protect a birthright that properly belongs to every individual citizen of the United States.

Well-Regulated This term has nothing to do with regulation by government officials. In the eighteenth century, "well regulated" meant an efficient or properly running mechanism. In a military context, it referred to a standard of training and preparedness which we now call "combat readiness."

Militia In Colonial times, the Militia consisted of local units made up of every male citizen of military age capable of bearing arms to defend his home, family and community. Special units not composed of all citizens, like the modern National Guard, were referred to as a "select corps" or a "select militia." An early draft of the Second Amendment defined the Militia as being "composed of the body of the People, trained to Arms." Today, whether they are aware of it or not, all citizens capable of bearing arms that do not belong to the regular armed forces or the National Guard are members of the Militia.

Right The Second Amendment does not protect the right of States to have a National Guard. The Declaration of Independence says governments are formed to secure the unalienable rights of all men and that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. States don't have rights; people do.

Keep Colonial Militia members were required to own military type muskets with bayonets and a supply of ammunition. They kept these weapons in readiness in their homes, not in public armories. The American Revolution started when the Royal Governor of Massachusetts marched his Redcoats out of Boston and tried to confiscate the private arms belonging to Militia members at Lexington and Concord.

Arms Arms are weapons kept for private self defense or to fulfill the civic duty of every able bodied citizen to be a part of the Militia. The Second Amendment was not written to only protect the right to own hunting guns. It was written to protect the right of the entire body of the people to own military type firearms. So-called "assault weapons," which were banned by the Congress and President Clinton, are the very type of guns our Founding Fathers intended to protect from Government restrictions. Write or call your elected representatives and demand your rights be restored. Demand Repeal of the "Assault Weapons" Ban.

"Since a well trained combat ready Militia, composed of all citizens capable of bearing their private arms in concert for their common defense, is necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the individual citizen to acquire, possess and carry military small arms." ~ The Second Amendment Translated Into 20th Century Language

[Geezah]

I don't think that the situation in the US can be compared with that in other, less gun-friendly western nations. Here, there haven't been many guns in the public ownership, or criminal ownership. A ban on firearms therefore doesn't result in a vast swathe of illegal, unregulated guns floating around the country.

I beg to differ, please explain the following numbers?


East Gun crime 2003 (% increase on 2002) Source: Home Office
Essex............................148(+50%)
Hertfordshire.................139(+101%)
Northamptonshire..........107(+95%)
Bedfordshire....................86(+5%)
Cambridgeshire...............57 (+12%)
Norfolk............................36(+38%)
Suffolk............................28(+87%)



Alarm growing over gun imports

In 1994, a detective with the Flying Squad was wounded after one of two armed robbers he was pursuing fired a reactivated Czech-made Skorpion machine gun at him.

It is thought to be the first time that a reactivated weapon had been used in London.

The fact that it was manufactured in Eastern Europe is also significant.

Senior law enforcement officers had already warned the countries of the former Soviet bloc were a veritable arms bazaar, with millions of ex-military weapons in circulation.

The Balkan conflicts of the mid-1990s generated another glut of weaponry ripe for the black market and frequently destined for Western Europe.

In Albania, with a population of three and a half million, there were said to be four million guns.

In 1997 alone, more than 650,000 firearms were seized.

No-one can be sure how many others have found their way to the UK over the years.

And it is not just the volume of weaponry which is causing alarm.

Disguise

The National Criminal Intelligence Service - one of the participants at Friday's summit - has alerted police forces to the ingenuity with which Eastern European gun manufacturers have disguised their products.

A gun made to look like a mobile phone has been found in London.

Others designed as key rings are intended to avoid airport security.

Guns resembling screwdrivers, cigarette packets and pens have all turned up in the UK.

To try to identify the source of these guns and track the ways in which they are trafficked across Europe, NCIS set up the National Firearms Tracing Service.

It already liaises with other police and intelligence agencies within the European Union and with Interpol and it is possible that it may be asked to take on extra tasks as a result of the summit.

The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, told a conference at Lancaster House a month before Christmas that the Balkans was the "gateway to Europe for organised criminals".

For the gangs, smuggling weaponry is more of a sideline than a main source of profit.

The really big money lies in drug trafficking, smuggling illegal immigrants and running vice rings.

But NCIS believes that established routes across Western Europe are probably also used to bring in small quantities of firearms as well.

And if, as a result of the government's package of measures, guns already in the UK become scarcer, the Balkan gangs will have a bigger incentive to try to make up "the shortfall " by smuggling.

But the Balkans is only one part of the equation.

'Immense task'

Nine out of ten firearms used by criminals in the UK have been manufactured abroad.

Recent recoveries include weapons from Argentina, Australia, South Africa, Israel, Croatia and Switzerland.

And one of the underworld's most active armourers, convicted in 1999, concentrated on converting legally imported MAC-10 sub machine guns from the United States.

With weapons also brought in by post, parcel couriers and ordered through the internet, the challenge for the law enforcement agencies is self-evidently immense.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2644233.stm)

For a country that doesn't have many illegal firearms it sure has quite a few?




There isn't really a 'gun culture' (although if you go to some areas and among certain groups, you may think there was :roll: ) in the UK,


A 17-year-old boy has been found in possession of a military assault rifle, one of the most deadly weapons ever discovered in criminal hands, police said today.
The teenager was arrested in London in connection with the discovery of a powerful AR-15 rifle. It has state-of-the-art laser projector targeting and 100 rounds of "full metal jacket" bullets capable of piercing body armour and cars.
The find follows warnings by Scotland Yard of a dangerous escalation of gun wars in the capital as rival armed gangs battle for control of rackets such as drugs, prostitution and fraud.
One detective said today: "This is a highly destructive and frightening piece of equipment. It is heavy-duty armoury with bullets capable of travelling through buildings. It could have caused real devastation in the wrong hands.
"It has a laser aiming device which can place a red dot on the forehead of a target from hundreds of yards away. The only time most people see these are in Hollywood movies. This is the first time a weapon of this kind has been recovered in London."
Forensic tests are being carried out to find out if it has been used in any illegal shootings. The Chinese-made Type CQ rifle, capable of firing up to 950 rounds a minute, is accurate to a distance of 600 yards. It can fire single shots or bursts.
Terry Gander, editor of Jane's Infantry Weapons, said: "This rifle will quite easily punch through body armour, doors, and the bodywork of cars. It can blast very big holes. I wouldn't want to contemplate it falling into untrained hands."
AR-15s can be bought for about £2,000 on the black market and there are a number of US-based websites offering them for sale.
City of London police recovered the rifle from the boot of a stolen car after a raid at an east London address. A 17-year-old youth and a 61-year-old man were arrested and later released on police bail.
Police also revealed today that two 9mm Army handguns stolen from a barracks in Wiltshire had fallen into the hands of Yardie gangsters in London. Four people, one of them a soldier based at Larkhill, are due to appear in court this week in connection with the theft.
One of three civilians also charged was based at Porton Down, the chemical and biological weapons defence site in Wiltshire.
The handguns, along with 13 shotguns, went missing from a building protected by an alarm system and locked gates.
At the time, police suspected the cache was stolen for use by underworld criminals and the find in London appears to confirm this.
They were found in pristine condition and had not been used. The two handguns were discovered in a cache of weapons hidden by a Yardie gang known as African Crew. Four members of the African Crew were jailed at the Old Bailey last Wednesday in connection with firearms and drugs offences,
The AR-15 was smuggled into the UK from China but police say it will be impossible to trace its origins.
Early models of the AR-15, known in military circles as the M16, were used by the US military in Vietnam. However, they were plagued with problems and kept jamming.
Over the years it has been modified and is now one of the most reliable and accurate weapons on the market. Well over seven million AR-15/M16 series rifles and carbines have been produced,
The most popular weapons used by organised criminals, including Yardie gunmen, are the 9mm Browning automatic or Glock 17 handguns. The "spray and pray" Uzi or Mach 10 sub-machineguns are also sought after.
There has been an alarming rise in the number of Yardie-style shootings in the capital this year.
A recent report revealed that criminal use of guns in London has reached alarming levels because of a "phenomenal growth" in the illicit trafficking of weapons.


Amazing, Jungle and gun crime who would have thought?

Garage and gun crime, just look at So Solid crew?

Link (http://www.crackcocaineincamden.co.uk/pages/crack%20cocaine%20news/news%20pages/0300/0204.htm)




There is no romanticism of gun ownership and skill present in the media and public consciousness. So most people think that the firearms ban is a good thing.

Most people think a gun ban is a good idea because the media are constantly talking about the negative side of firearm ownership, and because of the negative side it fuels the underground scene and the mystic that goes with owning one. It's a catch 22
I used to think a ban was good(when I lived in the UK) because I never looked at the fact that the ban did little to get the firearms off the street!

[Geezah]

So because it is written in the second amendment, then it just has to be that way? Nobody thinks that perhaps the Second Amendment is a bit outdated and needs to be revisioned a bit?

As you feel that the 2nd is outdated, maybe you could go over the rest of the BoR and point out other areas that need to be updated?
I'm all for restricting the 1st Am for Libs and Dems what do you think?



I wouldn't know about the others, all im saying is that it sounds like the 2. amendment is outdated since there is all this fuzz about it. Looks to me like there are two very split oppinions about the 2. amendment and it seems like on of the main arguments the pro gun side has is It's written in the 2. amendment and therefore it should be that way!". Not the best argument if you ask me ;).

But freedom of speech was written into the 1st Am, and like I said I don't like the Libs or Dems having that freedom, don't you think that is abit outdated as well?

If you're going to adjust one you may as well adjust them all?

[Satyr]

So because it is written in the second amendment, then it just has to be that way? Nobody thinks that perhaps the Second Amendment is a bit outdated and needs to be revisioned a bit?

As you feel that the 2nd is outdated, maybe you could go over the rest of the BoR and point out other areas that need to be updated?
I'm all for restricting the 1st Am for Libs and Dems what do you think?



I wouldn't know about the others, all im saying is that it sounds like the 2. amendment is outdated since there is all this fuzz about it. Looks to me like there are two very split oppinions about the 2. amendment and it seems like on of the main arguments the pro gun side has is It's written in the 2. amendment and therefore it should be that way!". Not the best argument if you ask me ;).

But freedom of speech was written into the 1st Am, and like I said I don't like the Libs or Dems having that freedom, don't you think that is abit outdated as well?

If you're going to adjust one you may as well adjust them all?

Yea well, you as a person might think that, but thats because you're a retard then. But to answer your question, yes if the entire population feels that one amendment is wrong then i dont see why it shouldnt be changed. Just because its written by the first president or who ever wrote it doesnt make it right.

[Geezah]

So because it is written in the second amendment, then it just has to be that way? Nobody thinks that perhaps the Second Amendment is a bit outdated and needs to be revisioned a bit?

As you feel that the 2nd is outdated, maybe you could go over the rest of the BoR and point out other areas that need to be updated?
I'm all for restricting the 1st Am for Libs and Dems what do you think?



I wouldn't know about the others, all im saying is that it sounds like the 2. amendment is outdated since there is all this fuzz about it. Looks to me like there are two very split oppinions about the 2. amendment and it seems like on of the main arguments the pro gun side has is It's written in the 2. amendment and therefore it should be that way!". Not the best argument if you ask me ;).

But freedom of speech was written into the 1st Am, and like I said I don't like the Libs or Dems having that freedom, don't you think that is abit outdated as well?

If you're going to adjust one you may as well adjust them all?

Yea well, you as a person might think that, but thats because you're a retard then. But to answer your question, yes if the entire population feels that one amendment is wrong then i dont see why it shouldnt be changed. Just because its written by the first president or who ever wrote it doesnt make it right.

I'm just using your arguement that the 2nd Am is outdated, so if that's the case then they all must be considering they were written at the same time?

[Argyll]

Unless you own a .50 cal and live in California,why are you all getting your knickers in a twist? :roll:

[obd]

Hey Geezah, your entire **** star analogy is abslutely false. As a matter of fact, **** Stars (at least in America) have a far far far far lower accurance of STD's and drug use than the general population!!!!! In fact, its statistically safer to have *** with a **** star than a random girl you meet in a bar!

Now, I cant speak for **** around the world or anything, but in America it is regulated. Most **** stars submit to frequent STD checks and many use condoms. The industry itself has been very good about self-regulaiton.

There is also the simple matter than **** stars do not endanger the population. You cant use a **** star to take down an airliner and I dont believe I've ever heard of a **** star terror attack!

[BigBaribal]

look what's happening in South Africa with a commie government in charge:
gangsters armed; honest citizen disarmed!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1384059,00.html

[obd]

Oh and to all those saying that using a .50 calibre rifle to take down an airliner is "preposterous" as they would just use a bomb instead I say this:

Somebody probably would have argued airliners would never be used to take down a building! Why waste all that time training suicide pilots and thn have the high probablity of them being stopped by passengers/security etc when you could just do what they tried in 1996: car bomb that almost worked!!!! But yet they DID use aircraft and to great effect.

Here are some perfect reasons why Al Queda would prefer a .50 calibre rifle over a bomb.

1. A .50 calibre rifle would open up all kinds of options to the terrorist. They could strike from a wide range around the airport. Notice numerous residential areas around virtually every airport in the US. A terrorist could easily purchase or rent and apartment near an ariport to monitor flights and strike them down with a .50 calibre from almost infinite positions. It would be VERY difficult to defend against.

2. US Security is so focused now on a bomb or weapon getting aboard an airliner and they have also made cockpit entry more difficult. Perhaps a terrorists, seeing this difficulty of using old tactics, would prefer somethin new.

3. Not all .50 caliber rifles are expensive. In fact, there are many sold under $10,000 which Im sure a terrorist would consider a small price to pay for the tactical versatility it gives.

4. The military itself classifies the .50 calibre as a "anti materiel rifle" capable of destroying or causing massive damage to a wide range of equipment from ground radars, air traffic control towers, parked aircraft, aircraft in flight, vehicles, etc. So the very idea that some of you are dubious about the possibility of a .50 calibre being used ot shoot down an airliner really does surprise me as the military itself has conducted studies and concluded its a highly viable tool for that very purpose!!!!!!

5. A .50 calibre sniper team being turned on a civilian population would likely strike far far more terror than a series of small bombs. Remmember the fear in New England when Malvo and Mohamed were sniping people with a punny Bushmaster .223 carbine. Imagien the effect of a .50 calibre round cutting kids in half and blowing people heads off from long enough range where the shot was not even heard amongst the general sounds of traffic and people. Imagine the economic damage a .50 could cause. A terrorist could even launch rounds into the control rooms of nuclear reactors from far outside thier "security zones". Imagine what a few well placed shots there could do! That would not be good. Al Queda has shown an ability to study US instalations and acquire classified information such as schematics. Now I know nothing about nuclear reactors and contol rooms but perhaps they are susceptible to a .50 calibre armor piercing incindiary round.............something to worry about at the least.


So this is why I say ban the .50 calibre. It is a military round designed for a military purpose. It has no place in the hands of civilians. It is for war and the battlefield and thats where it should stay!!!! It crosses the line between the reasonable and the absurd. There is absolutely no need to own this rifle. It makes an awefull home defense weapons, its highly expensive, its heavy, and it is so massively overpowered for ANY American big game that there is no hunting argument either!!!! Somehow I think the ultra small band of .50 cal sport shooters is just going to have to live with it! After all, they are patriotic Americans right!!! They can give up a weapon they dont really need to help fight terror cant they??? Cant they?? Dont they want to help fight terror??? Or is that only when it doesnt get in the way of thier wants????

[Geezah]

Hey Geezah, your entire **** star analogy is abslutely false. As a matter of fact, **** Stars (at least in America) have a far far far far lower accurance of STD's and drug use than the general population!!!!! In fact, its statistically safer to have *** with a **** star than a random girl you meet in a bar!

So you're telling me that no-one has been exploited because of some form of ****?



Now, I cant speak for **** around the world or anything, but in America it is regulated. Most **** stars submit to frequent STD checks and many use condoms. The industry itself has been very good about self-regulaiton.


US **** film-makers face shutdown

The American ****ographic film industry is facing a possible two-month shutdown after two performers tested positive for HIV, the virus that can cause Aids.

The California-based industry is worth billions of dollars a year and is said to be more profitable than Hollywood.

It is now being urged to suspend filming so that dozens of performers who came into contact with the infected actors can be tested for HIV.

The proposed shutdown could cost the industry tens of millions of dollars.

Quarantined

Over a thousand **** actors are tested for HIV every three weeks by the Adult Industry Healthcare Foundation.

Earlier this week the screening process returned a postive test for a well-known actor, the first such result for a performer since 1999.

The dozens of other perfomers who had recently come into contact with him are now reported to have been quarantined and will not be working until they test negative for HIV.

Any ban would be voluntary but some in the industry say it is in the interests of both producers and performers to eliminate HIV infection in a business where condoms are rarely used.

Those affected must now wait two months to see how far infection has spread, but it is feared some production could still continue underground.

There is a wider debate at present over taste and decency in the American media which is becoming an issue in election year.

The **** industry will not want to draw more attention from politicians keen to advocate greater regulation of their activities.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3632379.stm)



There is also the simple matter than **** stars do not endanger the population. You cant use a **** star to take down an airliner and I dont believe I've ever heard of a **** star terror attack!

And there is no proven case of a .50 being used either, now a box cutter that's different.

[walford]

Does anyone know who wrote this?
The True Meaning of the Second AmendmentWhat difference does it make? The piece stands on its own. It is an analysis that was not offered as an authoritative source. I do not agree with it entirely, but found it to be a good counter to the arguments that the 2nd Amendment is all about the National Guard.

I could go through the trouble of finding the passages in the Federalist Papers that explicate the reasoning behind the ultimate drafting of the 2nd Amend, quoting them, providing analysis by constitutional legal scholars and historians, etc. etc.

Perhaps I will do that later and post it on my website, but for this venue such efforts would not be appropriate.

[Geezah]

Oh and to all those saying that using a .50 calibre rifle to take down an airliner is "preposterous" as they would just use a bomb instead I say this:

Somebody probably would have argued airliners would never be used to take down a building! Why waste all that time training suicide pilots and thn have the high probablity of them being stopped by passengers/security etc when you could just do what they tried in 1996: car bomb that almost worked!!!! But yet they DID use aircraft and to great effect.

Here are some perfect reasons why Al Queda would prefer a .50 calibre rifle over a bomb.

1. A .50 calibre rifle would open up all kinds of options to the terrorist. They could strike from a wide range around the airport. Notice numerous residential areas around virtually every airport in the US. A terrorist could easily purchase or rent and apartment near an ariport to monitor flights and strike them down with a .50 calibre from almost infinite positions. It would be VERY difficult to defend against.

2. US Security is so focused now on a bomb or weapon getting aboard an airliner and they have also made cockpit entry more difficult. Perhaps a terrorists, seeing this difficulty of using old tactics, would prefer somethin new.

3. Not all .50 caliber rifles are expensive. In fact, there are many sold under $10,000 which Im sure a terrorist would consider a small price to pay for the tactical versatility it gives.

4. The military itself classifies the .50 calibre as a "anti materiel rifle" capable of destroying or causing massive damage to a wide range of equipment from ground radars, air traffic control towers, parked aircraft, aircraft in flight, vehicles, etc. So the very idea that some of you are dubious about the possibility of a .50 calibre being used ot shoot down an airliner really does surprise me as the military itself has conducted studies and concluded its a highly viable tool for that very purpose!!!!!!

5. A .50 calibre sniper team being turned on a civilian population would likely strike far far more terror than a series of small bombs. Remmember the fear in New England when Malvo and Mohamed were sniping people with a punny Bushmaster .223 carbine. Imagien the effect of a .50 calibre round cutting kids in half and blowing people heads off from long enough range where the shot was not even heard amongst the general sounds of traffic and people. Imagine the economic damage a .50 could cause. A terrorist could even launch rounds into the control rooms of nuclear reactors from far outside thier "security zones". Imagine what a few well placed shots there could do! That would not be good. Al Queda has shown an ability to study US instalations and acquire classified information such as schematics. Now I know nothing about nuclear reactors and contol rooms but perhaps they are susceptible to a .50 calibre armor piercing incindiary round.............something to worry about at the least.


So this is why I say ban the .50 calibre. It is a military round designed for a military purpose. It has no place in the hands of civilians. It is for war and the battlefield and thats where it should stay!!!! It crosses the line between the reasonable and the absurd. There is absolutely no need to own this rifle. It makes an awefull home defense weapons, its highly expensive, its heavy, and it is so massively overpowered for ANY American big game that there is no hunting argument either!!!! Somehow I think the ultra small band of .50 cal sport shooters is just going to have to live with it! After all, they are patriotic Americans right!!! They can give up a weapon they dont really need to help fight terror cant they??? Cant they?? Dont they want to help fight terror??? Or is that only when it doesnt get in the way of thier wants????

Show me where it's been used, don't tell me it could be, show me where it has!?



Now I know nothing

The above says it all.

[Baboonass]

Oh and to all those saying that using a .50 calibre rifle to take down an airliner is "preposterous" as they would just use a bomb instead I say this:


At close range, it could be done, but then it could also be done with a smaller caliber weapon as well.

Here are some perfect reasons why Al Queda would prefer a .50 calibre rifle over a bomb.

Perfect?

1. A .50 calibre rifle would open up all kinds of options to the terrorist. They could strike from a wide range around the airport. Notice numerous residential areas around virtually every airport in the US. A terrorist could easily purchase or rent and apartment near an ariport to monitor flights and strike them down with a .50 calibre from almost infinite positions. It would be VERY difficult to defend against.

To that, it would be pretty much impossible to defend against, but then why a .50? why not a .308? why not a flock of birds? Hitting a flying aircaft at distance with a bolt action weapon? the math alone in that calculation makes it pretty much a fart in the wind. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. The laser thing seems pretty popular now, I guess we should ban those as well useing your logic.

2. US Security is so focused now on a bomb or weapon getting aboard an airliner and they have also made cockpit entry more difficult. Perhaps a terrorists, seeing this difficulty of using old tactics, would prefer somethin new.

Like SAMs? or lasers? it's already happening.

3. Not all .50 caliber rifles are expensive. In fact, there are many sold under $10,000 which Im sure a terrorist would consider a small price to pay for the tactical versatility it gives.

You must be pretty wealthy to think 10,000 isn't that expensive. Besides, a rifle is not going to make someone a sniper, it takes far more than that to make precision shots. Would it be benificial for a terror group to investigate this possiblity? maybe, but easier, cheaper, and more simple options are more readily available.

4. The military itself classifies the .50 calibre as a "anti materiel rifle" capable of destroying or causing massive damage to a wide range of equipment from ground radars, air traffic control towers, parked aircraft, aircraft in flight (only in machine gun form, not SASR), vehicles, etc. So the very idea that some of you are dubious about the possibility of a .50 calibre being used ot shoot down an airliner really does surprise me as the military itself has conducted studies and concluded its a highly viable tool for that very purpose!!!!!!

Only for parked aircraft, not for airborne aircraft. If you are talking about a M-2 Browning .50 cal machine gun, then yes, not the SASR, or civilian long range rifle.

5. A .50 calibre sniper team being turned on a civilian population would likely strike far far more terror than a series of small bombs. Remmember the fear in New England when Malvo and Mohamed were sniping people with a punny Bushmaster .223 carbine. Imagien the effect of a .50 calibre round cutting kids in half and blowing people heads off from long enough range where the shot was not even heard amongst the general sounds of traffic and people. A .50, not being heard? have you ever heard a .50? Imagine the economic damage a .50 could cause. A terrorist could even launch rounds into the control rooms of nuclear reactors from far outside thier "security zones". Imagine what a few well placed shots there could do! That would not be good. The scenrio you are talking about has already been addressed, it's not a factor. Al Queda has shown an ability to study US instalations and acquire classified information such as schematics. Now I know nothing about nuclear reactors and contol rooms but perhaps they are susceptible to a .50 calibre armor piercing incindiary round So..where they going to get that? It's not something you get on the civilian market, so it realy doens't fit here now does it?.............something to worry about at the least.





The rest of you post is babble.

A more probable scenerio is a few terrorists with illegaly purchased firearms opening fire in a school yard or mall. It is highly doubtfull a terror group is going to purchase a weapon leagly unless they were trying to make a point, (Eco-terror groups, Ultra-liberal groups, etc..).

I'm not going to say that a scenerio like you decribed is not probable, it is, but then so are many others that involve far less inocuous equipment. We could ban everything tommorrow and still have a terror threat. They will always find a way to accomplish their tasks.

[Federalist]

Care to give some examples of Christian fundamentalists "silly claims"?
Sin, hell, heaven, god, ... there's plenty.

So you think these are silly just because you say so? Give me some reasons.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

s******......Mmmm.. I can remember all the posters who cheered on Arnie when he won now one or two of them are on the defensive, Republican gun control f*ckin funny if you ask me. I think there are more than a few right wingers in government who do not want an armed public probably the same ones who do not like personal encryption and privacy for anyone other than themselves.

[Geezah]

s******......Mmmm.. I can remember all the posters who cheered on Arnie when he won now one or two of them are on the defensive, Republican gun control f*ckin funny if you ask me. I think there are more than a few right wingers in government who do not want an armed public probably the same ones who do not like personal encryption and privacy for anyone other than themselves.

I don't think I ever cheered him on, I knew from the start he was a RINO, and the current firearm law he signed in place was to keep the liberal antis happy.

As far as other RINOs, Gubernor Taft is another example but he swayed to the pressure of the masses and had to follow through on a promise he made both times he was elected.

[Para]

I am not against gun ownership, but just what would you use a .50 for. If used for hunting the round would go straight threw target and carry on for quite a distance endangering any one out in the surrounding area, now would you want to take responsibility for that person injuries or death. So that just leaves shooting on the range, well thats fine but you can do all of that with a much smaller caliber weapon than a .50.

[sergey31]

I am not against gun ownership, but just what would you use a .50 for. If used for hunting the round would go straight threw target and carry on for quite a distance endangering any one out in the surrounding area, now would you want to take responsibility for that person injuries or death. So that just leaves shooting on the range, well thats fine but you can do all of that with a much smaller caliber weapon than a .50.


This really gets under my skin.
Why anyone does needs to justify if I can own and shoot .50 at my range, and Yes there is a difference when you shoot .50 and .308 and who are you or any other pussy liberal to regulate this??????
Why regular citizens need AK 47?
Why people need semi-auto shotguns with detachable magazines?
Why people need .50
WHY IS YOUR F*&^*&^ BUISINES to intrude on other peoples interests and hobby ?????????????????????

[Geezah]

I am not against gun ownership, but just what would you use a .50 for. If used for hunting the round would go straight threw target and carry on for quite a distance endangering any one out in the surrounding area, now would you want to take responsibility for that person injuries or death. So that just leaves shooting on the range, well thats fine but you can do all of that with a much smaller caliber weapon than a .50.

It's not about hunting, it's about wanting to own them, doesn't matter if we need them or not.
Hell, if we talk about needing things, my friends back home don't need to drink or snort copius amounts of cocaine but they want to.

[SHAM]

Whats to stop him banning all guns in cali next? what i mean is..can he do it on his own?

[Geezah]

Whats to stop him banning all guns in cali next? what i mean is..can he do it on his own?

I don't think he would bring it to the table, he didn't create the .50 ban. But I know for a fact that a few people would be out of a job when they come up for renewal if they tried it.

[Sabre]

Geezah:

I never said gun crime isn't increasing in Britain. It is and it's a cause for concern. There are illegally held weapons in the country and some are used in crimes.

My comment about 'going to certain areas' was meant to illustrate this. Amongst certain groups it is becoming increasingly popular to possess a firearm. Increase in gun crime corresponds to an increase in popularity amongst these groups of cultural trends that 'glamourise' the possession and even the use of firearms. (I'm remaining rather sickingly PC about this)

I definately don't see that the solution to this problem is to allow such people to own a gun legally.



As to the 2nd ammendment, I never said the militia was the NG (you seem to have implied this in your comment below a quote of my post, I have said that it definately isn't)

I was running out of time on my post as I needed to meet with my consultant supervisor at 3:00, but I was going to go on to examine the relationship between the 'to keep and bear arms' part and the militia bit.

I was then going to suggest that the 'armed populace' was the basis from which the 'militia' was/would be drawn if needed. It would then follow that the populace would need to be armed in order for those raising the militia to have an armed body to 'choose from' so to speak.




Isn't that a bit unfare, so if the Queen entrusted you with a firearm then only those select few should be allowed to own them?

That isn't what I meant, I was just saying that I would think those who have military training could be trusted with a firearm. I wasn't saying that only they should. If firearms are restricted, then they are restricted for all (except select groups who need them professionally).


I will agree that the 2nd ammendment does seem to allow for unrestricted private ownership of firearms, because of the necessity for a milita to ensure the security of a free state.

The argument then follows that 'is the ammendment up to date'? Is a militia 'necessary for the security of a free state', now that the state has the world's most extensive and well-equipped fighting force?

Food for thought?

[Geezah]

Geezah:

I never said gun crime isn't increasing in Britain. It is and it's a cause for concern. There are illegally held weapons in the country and some are used in crimes.

My comment about 'going to certain areas' was meant to illustrate this. Amongst certain groups it is becoming increasingly popular to possess a firearm. Increase in gun crime corresponds to an increase in popularity amongst these groups of cultural trends that 'glamourise' the possession and even the use of firearms. (I'm remaining rather sickingly PC about this)

I definately don't see that the solution to this problem is to allow such people to own a gun legally.


I don't either(because currently the Brits wouldn't except it) but I believe that by revisiting laws that allow law abiding citizens the ability leagally to kick the ****e out of would be intruders is a step in the right direction.
But illegally owned firearms is a major problem in the UK and as you can see the majority of arms are not procured from the States.



As to the 2nd ammendment, I never said the militia was the NG (you seem to have implied this in your comment below a quote of my post, I have said that it definately isn't)

I just threw that in there because others had made the comment.



I was running out of time on my post as I needed to meet with my consultant supervisor at 3:00, but I was going to go on to examine the relationship between the 'to keep and bear arms' part and the militia bit.

I was then going to suggest that the 'armed populace' was the basis from which the 'militia' was/would be drawn if needed. It would then follow that the populace would need to be armed in order for those raising the militia to have an armed body to 'choose from' so to speak.

From my earlier post you can see that the powers that be believe otherwise, but feel free to examine all you want.




Isn't that a bit unfare, so if the Queen entrusted you with a firearm then only those select few should be allowed to own them?

That isn't what I meant, I was just saying that I would think those who have military training could be trusted with a firearm. I wasn't saying that only they should. If firearms are restricted, then they are restricted for all (except select groups who need them professionally).

I haven't recieved any formal training, persay, apart from my concealed carry class/test, but allot of what I have learned is common sense and tit bits I've recieved from family, friends and friends that are ex-military.
I think that if someone(anyone) has recieved instruction in the safe handling of a firearm(and can own a firearm legally) I see no reason why that trust should only be restricted to military?



I will agree that the 2nd ammendment does seem to allow for unrestricted private ownership of firearms, because of the necessity for a milita to ensure the security of a free state.

You're agreeing with yourself then, because that's not how the powers that be see it? The right to bear arms is an individual right.


[
The argument then follows that 'is the ammendment up to date'? Is a militia 'necessary for the security of a free state', now that the state has the world's most extensive and well-equipped fighting force?

Food for thought?

I think you're focusing far to much on the militia part, it's almost like you think that that is the core of the 2nd Am?

[FallenAngel]

Whats to stop him banning all guns in cali next? what i mean is..can he do it on his own?

Technically....not really. It would have to be proposed as a bill in the state legislature (which is like congress, but on a state rather than federal level) and it would be voted on by both the lower and upper houses by our duely elected representatives who, in theory, should vote the way most of the people in their district want them to vote rather than their own personal feelings (although this doesn't always happen. The whole giving-liscenses-to-illegals fiasco was clear proof of the legislature acting against the will of the majority). If the bill is passed in both upper and lower houses, it goes to Arnold for the final OK. He can however, choose not to sign it or veto it.

The other way is to create a petition where an intrest group must gather X00,000 number of signatures from registered voters in the state. If they meet this goal, the bill is put on the next ballot for voting on by the people.

The problem is that more and more it seems, the courts in California are setting the law, not the people. The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is based in San Fransisco and is without a doubt the most shameless example of a left wing court if there ever was one.

[FallenAngel]

@FallenAngel:

(I'm not sure what section 313 of title 32 refers to, but it merits investigation. sounds like a specific exemption, as section 312 refers to militia duty exemption)



Section 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

[Sabre]

You're agreeing with yourself then, because that's not how the powers that be see it? The right to bear arms is an individual right.

Of course, that is the status quo.


I think you're focusing far to much on the militia part, it's almost like you think that that is the core of the 2nd Am?

Perhaps, but it is in there for a reason. If they simply wanted two separate issues, then why not have the 2nd ammendment as 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed', then stick in another ammendment (a 'new' 3rd) stating 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, shall be formed'?

The fact that the two are in the same statement suggests some correlation, does it not? Although there is not a direct dependance of the right to bear arms on the necessity of the militia, there appears not to be a contrary statement of independance. I suppose it just comes down to your own interpretation, the powers that be plumped for the 'independant' option.

[Geezah]

You're agreeing with yourself then, because that's not how the powers that be see it? The right to bear arms is an individual right.

Of course, that is the status quo.


I think you're focusing far to much on the militia part, it's almost like you think that that is the core of the 2nd Am?

Perhaps, but it is in there for a reason. If they simply wanted two separate issues, then why not have the 2nd ammendment as 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed', then stick in another ammendment (a 'new' 3rd) stating 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, shall be formed'?

The fact that the two are in the same statement suggests some correlation, does it not? Although there is not a direct dependance of the right to bear arms on the necessity of the militia, there appears not to be a contrary statement of independance. I suppose it just comes down to your own interpretation, the powers that be plumped for the 'independant' option.

Me thinks, you did not read my post on page 6 ;)


1. "To Keep . . . Arms."

In eighteenth-century English, an individual could "keep arms," and keep them for private purposes, unrelated to militia duty, just as he could keep any other private property, and the phrase was commonly used in this sense. For example, in Rex v. Gardner (K.B. 1738), a defendant charged with "keeping a gun" in violation of a 1706 English statute (which prohibited commoners from keeping specified objects or "other engines" for the destruction of game) argued that "though there are many things for the bare keeping of which a man may be convicted; yet they are only such as can only be used for destruction of the game, whereas a gun is necessary for defence of a house, or for a farmer to shoot crows." The court agreed, reasoning that "a gun differs from nets and dogs, which can only be kept for an ill purpose." (46) The Court of Common Pleas six years later treated Gardner as having "settled and determined" that "a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family," (47) and in 1752 the King's Bench reiterated that "a gun may be kept for the defence of a man's house, and for divers other lawful purposes." (48) The same usage appeared in an earlier prosecution of a man for "keeping of a gun" contrary to a statute that barred all but the wealthy from privately owning small handguns. (49)

William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in the decade before the American Revolution, was the leading legal authority in America at the Founding, wrote, without any reference to the militia, of "person[s]" who are "qualified to keep a gun" and are "shooting at a mark," apparently on their own property. (50) He also noted that certain persons could not "keep arms in their houses," pursuant to a statute that used "keep" to signify private ownership and control over arms, wherever located. (51) Colonial and early state statutes similarly used "keep" to "describe arms possession by individuals in all contexts," including requiring those exempt from militia service (such as the over-aged) to "keep" arms in their homes for both law enforcement and "the defense of their homes from criminals or foreign enemies." (52) At the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in 1788, Samuel Adams proposed an amendment prohibiting Congress from "prevent[ing] the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms," indicating ownership by individuals of private arms. (53) And that State's Supreme Court, in a libel case soon after the Founding, likened the "right to keep fire arms" to the freedom of the press, both being individual but not unlimited rights - the former not protecting "him who uses them for annoyance or destruction." (54) The basic dictionary definition of "keep" -"[t]o retain" and "[t]o have in custody"- was consistent with this specific meaning. (55)

In short, the phrase "keep arms" was commonly understood to denote ownership of arms by private citizens for private purposes. When that phrase is read together with its subject - "the right of the people" - the evidence points strongly toward an individual right. Had the Constitution meant not to protect the right of the whole "people" to "keep" arms but instead to establish a "right" of the States or of only the members of their militias to store them, presumably it would have used different language. (56)

[Haiw]

Why does the second ammendment always come up in gun discussions. As far as I know it was meant to defend against an oppresive take-over government or invader. So far it looks to me like most of you just take it as an excuse for private gun ownership for your own pleasure. :|

[Sayeret]

Why does a civilian need a .50 calibre sniper rifle when they could use a 5.56mm or 7.62mm one?

[Geezah]

Why does a civilian need a .50 calibre sniper rifle when they could use a 5.56mm or 7.62mm one?

Why do you all have to use need as the reason to own one, when you only give us what we need, we're one step closer to living under a repressive regime.

People want to own them, so they do!

[Geezah]

As far as I know it was meant to defend against an oppresive take-over government or invader.

did you just read the first post then jump to the end?

[Haiw]

Well whichever way you put it it was meant to allow civilians to defend themselves, right? Now since when does someone feel like they can't defend themselves anymore because they can't use a .50 anymore?

[Cambridge Rabbit]

I'm not surprised. This type of look-good, feel-good legislation is popular in despotic, third world cesspools like California.

[NicNZ]

Hmm why not apply an apparently simple test, like the following:

1. Does the item in question pose a risk to the public good?

If yes,

2. Does the item in question confer some benefit to the public good that warrants keeping the item accessible to the public?

If yes, let the item stay. If no, remove it from public hands.

Constitutional Courts and Supreme Courts around the world apply similar tests to this. Under that test, items such as kitchen knives, craft-knives, and hunting rifles are kept accessible to the public. The test does suggest that there is no sense keeping .50cal sniper rifles in the public hands and indeed most firearms would seem best kept away from the general public. Thus most developed nations limit most types of firearms. Arguments for self-defence and, in the US particularly, the constitution, only go so far in establishing a good reason to keep public access to such weapons.

[Sabre]

1. Does the item in question pose a risk to the public good?

If yes,

2. Does the item in question confer some benefit to the public good that warrants keeping the item accessible to the public?

If yes, let the item stay. If no, remove it from public hands.

One would need to include the third step of:

3. Does the benefit of said item outweigh the potential risk.

The answers to such questions would of course be subjective, for example:

Performing the test on public gun ownership:

My answers: 1: Yes 2: Yes 3: No

Geezah's (possible) answers: 1: Yes 2: Yes 3: Yes

Back to square one! ;)

[Geezah]

Well whichever way you put it it was meant to allow civilians to defend themselves, right? Now since when does someone feel like they can't defend themselves anymore because they can't use a .50 anymore?

So you would only give us pea shooters right?

[5jumpchump]

So 50.cal is too much for civilians to handle huh ODB ? Just how many people have been killed with a 50. cal ? 1,000 ? 50 ? 3 people ? No ?
So what's the problem then . We are going to ban a rifle on the ASSUMPTION that terrorists MIGHT use it to shoot down planes helicopters and what not ? Sorry but I don't buy it . If it were going to be a tactic I think it would have been used already . And to fear "trained terrorists" lol , what a joke . We all here have seen many videos of insurgents , freedom fighters , terrorists and fanatical fighters , mercenaries and the like shooting at American and coalition troops . I can't remember not even one video of these asshats shooting a rifle correctly . It's always from he hip or over the head , held sideways like a lame ass rap video screaming Allah and not hitting a dam thing . Their training , if you must call it that ,
is laughable at best . Besides Al Quada has a big bloody nose these days , they need to pull off a spectacular attack with thousands of deaths .
Anyhow if we are going to ban unnecessary stuff lets ban unnecessary stuff that kills TENS OF THOUSANDS Americans year in and year out .
OMG what kills so many people - cars accidents . 55,000 people a year die on the road . So how would you like if I told YOU that since there are so many deaths a year YOU have to turn your car into the government and pick up you new car that only goes 30 miles per hour ? No more nitrous , no more engine upgrades , all cars will have the lil thing you breath in to make sure your not drunk . And if you don't turn your car in on time you get arrested and thrown in jail for a few years . Just keeping America safe bro , enjoy
woot

[Haiw]

Well whichever way you put it it was meant to allow civilians to defend themselves, right? Now since when does someone feel like they can't defend themselves anymore because they can't use a .50 anymore?

So you would only give us pea shooters right?
Where did I say that? To be honest I can't really give a damn what you do and don't use, I just find it odd that the 2nd amendment gets pulled out everyone wants to buy one type of guns while at the same time just allowing all other guns just the same. Since when is anything below a .50 a pee shooter?

[Opening Batsman]

Well whichever way you put it it was meant to allow civilians to defend themselves, right? Now since when does someone feel like they can't defend themselves anymore because they can't use a .50 anymore?

So you would only give us pea shooters right?

For some of you, I wouldn't even let you have them. p-)

[janush]

c'mon.. 50cal is overkill for civilian use.....the deer will die from a far more economical 45cal round too

[Geezah]

c'mon.. 50cal is overkill for civilian use.....the deer will die from a far more economical 45cal round too

Why does everyone have to reference hunting when talking about firearm ownership?????
I own guns and I don't fucting hunt, so please get off this hunting tip :cantbeli:

[Geezah]

Well whichever way you put it it was meant to allow civilians to defend themselves, right? Now since when does someone feel like they can't defend themselves anymore because they can't use a .50 anymore?

So you would only give us pea shooters right?

For some of you, I wouldn't even let you have them. p-)

Judging by the list below there isn't much you would let people own over in good ol civilised Australia :cantbeli:


Crime Prevention

Prohibited weapons are weapons that are considered totally inappropriate for general possession or use because they are exclusively offensive in nature. Such weapons cannot be imported, manufactured, sold, possessed or carried.

A person may have access to a prohibited weapon only if she or he has obtained an Approval from the Chief Commissioner of Police, or falls within an Exemption made by the Governor in Council.

The penalties for breeching The Control of Weapons Act 1990 include a fine of up to $12,000 or six months imprisonment.
The following items are prohibited weapons:

1. "Sword", being a thrusting, striking or cutting weapon with a long blade having 1 or 2 cutting edges and a hilt.

2. "Crossbow", being a type of bow fixed transversely on a stock grooved to direct a dart, bolt or arrow and being, in particular:
(a) a "Pistol Crossbow", being a crossbow that is reasonably capable of being carried or concealed about the person and of being raised and discharged by one hand; and

(b) a "General Category Crossbow", being a
crossbow that is not a pistol crossbow.
3. "Flick knife", being a knife designed or adapted so that the blade is concealed when folded or recessed into the handle and which opens by gravity or centrifugal force or by any pressure applied to a button, spring or device in or attached to the handle of the knife.

4. "Dagger", being a sharp pointed stabbing instrument (other than an oyster knife), ordinarily capable of being concealed on the person and having:
a flat blade with cutting edges (whether serrated or not serrated) along the length of both sides; or
a needle-like blade, the cross section of which is elliptical or has 3 or more sides, but not including instruments such as swords or bayonets.

5. "Knuckle knife", being an open or exposed blade or similar instrument attached to a handle that is designed or adapted to be held between the knuckles (including the device commonly known as the "Urban Pal Knife").

6. An article that is designed to include a concealed knife or sword blade, including but not limited to:
a belt or similar article designed or adapted to hold a knife, dagger or similar instrument so that the presence of the knife, dagger or similar instrument is concealed or disguised as part of the belt or similar article when it is worn (for example an article known as the "Bowen Knife Belt");
a "swordstick", being a cane, stick or similar article designed or adapted to hold the blade of a sword so that it is concealed from view until withdrawn from the cane, stick or article;
a riding crop designed or adapted to hold a blade or spike so that it is concealed from view until withdrawn from the crop.

7. "Butterfly knife", being a knife with a 2 piece handle that folds together to cover both edges of the blade whether the blade is serrated or not serrated.

8. "Double-end knife", being a knife that has the appearance of 2 overlapping curved blades joined together so as to form an ellipse shape.

9. A knife that is designed or adapted so that the blade is concealed by a plastic, wooden or metal sheath which retracts into the handle of the knife by gravity or centrifugal force or by any pressure applied to a button, spring or device in or attached to the handle of the knife (including the knife commonly known as the "Black Eagle Knife").

10. "Push knife" or similar device designed as a weapon that consists of a single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike of any material that has a handle fitted transversely to the blade or spike and allows the blade or spike to be supported by the palm of the hand so that stabbing blows or slashes can be inflicted by a punching or pushing action.

11. "Trench knife" or similar device that consists of a single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike of any material that is fitted with a handle made of any hard substance that can be fitted over the knuckles of the hand of the user to protect the knuckles and increase the effect of a punch or blow, or that is adapted for such use.

12. "Throwing blade", being a knife or axe of any material that is designed or modified to be thrown.

13. "Ballistic knife", being a device or instrument designed or adapted to fire or discharge a knife, dagger or similar instrument by mechanical, percussive or explosive means.

14. "Non-metal/ceramic knife", being a knife, blade or spike of which no part is metallic, excluding plastic cutlery.

15. "Blow gun", being a blow pipe or similar device or instrument designed to propel an arrow, dart or similar projectile by air expelled from the mouth.

16. A dart designed to be projected from a blow-gun or similar device.

17. A hunting sling or slingshot designed or adapted to be used with an arm brace which fits or rests on the forearm to support the wrist from the tension of the elastic material used to propel the projectile (including the device commonly known as the "Saunders Falcon Hunting Sling").

18. A catapult, shanghai or hunting sling (without arm brace described in item 16) that is manufactured and intended for commercial distribution.

19. A dart projector (for example, an article commonly known as the "Darchery Dartslinger") or any similar device that is manufactured and intended for commercial distribution.

20. A slingshot that is manufactured and intended for commercial distribution.

21. An article designed or adapted to discharge oleoresin capsicum spray.

22. An article designed or adapted to emit or discharge an offensive, noxious or irritant liquid, powder, gas or chemical so as to cause disability, incapacity or harm to another person.

23. An article designed or adapted to emit an electric current into a human body for the purposes of incapacitation or injury.

24. An acoustic anti-personnel device that is designed to cause permanent or temporary incapacity or disability, or to otherwise physically disorientate a person.

25. "Shark Dart" or any other similar device that is designed to expel, on or after contact, any gas or other substance capable of causing bodily harm.

26. "Extendable baton", being a baton designed or adapted so that the length of the baton extends by gravity or centrifugal force or by any pressure applied to a button, spring or device in or attached to the handle of the baton.

27. "Knuckle-duster", being a device or instrument designed or adapted to be worn across a knuckle or knuckles of the hand, finger, fingers or thumb so as to:
increase the force or impact of a punch or blow when striking another person with that hand, finger, fingers or thumb; or
protect the knuckle or knuckles from injury when striking another person with that hand, finger, fingers or thumb.

28. "Weighted glove", being a glove or any other similar article designed or constructed to be used as a weapon (including a fingerless glove) that has weighted material sown into it to increase the effect of a punch or blow.

29. "Studded glove", being a glove or any other similar article designed or constructed to be used as a weapon (including a fingerless glove), that has a number of raised studs or spikes made of a hard substance and positioned over the back of the glove to increase the effect of a punch or blow.

30. A mace or any other similar article capable of causing injury that consists of a club or staff fitted with a flanged or spiked head, other than a ceremonial mace made for and used solely as a symbol of authority on ceremonial occasions.

31. A flail or any other similar article that consists of a staff or handle that has fitted to one end, by any means, a freely swinging striking part that is armed with spikes or studded with any protruding matter.

32. A whip with metal lashes.

33. A cat o'nine tails with knotted lashes.

34. A hand-held battery-operated article commonly known as a "laser pointer" designed or adapted to emit a laser beam with an accessible emission limit of greater than 1 mW.

35. An article that consists of a baton or stick constructed in such a way that it can be unscrewed or broken so as to form two or more parts joined by chain, rope or cord, including the martial arts weapons known as "Baton-chucks" or "Bo-chucks".

36. A scythe or sickle shaped article designed as a weapon that has a fixed or folding blade, and which may or may not have a chain attached, including the martial arts weapon known as "Kama".

37. An article consisting of a chain, rope or cord with a wooden or metal baton, stick or rod attached at each end, including the martial arts weapons known as "Kasari-Fundo", "Kusari-Fundo" and "Manrikigusari".

38. A stick or rod of any material designed as a weapon to be applied to the pressure points of the human body, including the martial arts weapon known as "Kubotan".

39. An article designed to be attached to, or worn on the hands or feet, that has claws attached, including the martial arts weapons known as "ninja climbing claws", "ninja hand claws" and "ninja foot claws".

40. An article that consists of two sticks, rods or batons joined by a cord, rope or chain including the martial arts weapon known as "Nunchaku".

41. "Sai" or "Jitte", being a short, tapered, metal rod, dull at the point, with flared metal ****gs guarding the handle.

42. An article consisting of a curved blade pointed at both ends with a handle attached to the middle, including the martial arts weapon known as "Suan Ywe Gou".

43. An article consisting of a blade or blades with cord, rope or chain attached for the purpose of enabling the blade to be thrown and retrieved, including the martial arts weapon known as "Shoge", "ninja Kyokeysu-Shoge" or "Kyotetsu Shoge".

44. "Throwing star", being a sharpened star-shaped article designed for throwing, including the martial arts weapon known as "Surikan", "Suriken" or "Shaken" (including where the throwing star is attached to a belt-buckle).

45. An article consisting of a handle and an edged blade, joined by chain or a combination of chain and metal pieces or steel rods, designed to be used as a whip, including the martial arts weapon commonly known as "Chinese whip", "whip spear", "7 piece iron chain", "9 piece iron chain", "Bian Tzu Chiang" or "Lien Tzu Chiang".

46. The martial arts weapon known as a "Butterfly Sword".

47. The martial arts weapon known as a "Tonfa".

[Geezah]

Well whichever way you put it it was meant to allow civilians to defend themselves, right? Now since when does someone feel like they can't defend themselves anymore because they can't use a .50 anymore?

So you would only give us pea shooters right?
Where did I say that? To be honest I can't really give a damn what you do and don't use, I just find it odd that the 2nd amendment gets pulled out everyone wants to buy one type of guns while at the same time just allowing all other guns just the same. Since when is anything below a .50 a pee shooter?

Okay, I realize that you're having trouble understanding the whole Bill of Rights thing, but here we go again.
The 2nd Am applies to the individual right to keep and bear arms, so to say it always gets pulled out is stupid, we are allowed to own firearms because of the 2nd Am, now does it make sense? :cantbeli:

[Ballistic]

I like guns, enjoy shooting them, but who the frigg needs a .50 cal rifle ?? Good on ya Arnie.

[usm2b]

woot woot woot YEAHHH!!!!! Whats that noise you ask? Well, its the terrorists crying because they can no longer use or buy 50's in Cali! Chalk one up for us in the war on terrorism. He and Bush should get together......They might even make a law prohibiting terrorists from flying on airlines or commiting acts of terror in the states. What a victory.....what a victory!

[MEGR]

I like guns, enjoy shooting them, but who the frigg needs a .50 cal rifle ?? Good on ya Arnie.

I'm against what Arnold did. However, .50s in general cost a lot of money. Like 10k. Your everday joe can't just get one very easily.

[Danzer]

So because it is written in the second amendment, then it just has to be that way? Nobody thinks that perhaps the Second Amendment is a bit outdated and needs to be revisioned a bit?

Agreed..it's written like uhm..ages ago..besides..i question if it's legit..native americans never signed it..


*runs for cover*

p-)

[Geezah]

I like guns, enjoy shooting them, but who the frigg needs a .50 cal rifle ?? Good on ya Arnie.

You need to breathe oxygen, you need food and water to survive, you don't need to own a .50 but people want to.

Australians don't need barbies but they want them.

Want want want want want, get it.

[janush]

hbut hey...now you have less hipperdy hoppers waving around desert eagle's in cali :D

[HooyahCQB]

I :hug: Geezah! :lol:


Come on people now,
Cry on your brotha
everybody get togetha,
try to- love one-another right now...

And on another note:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/HooyahCQB/obnOob.jpg

[BarkingSquirrel]

Hahaha

[joe mama]

are tonfa's really banned in australia? correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't a tonfa basically a stick with a smaller stick sticking out to one side a bit? maybe i'm thinking of the wrong weapon...basically they look similar to the night sticks some police departments use, right?

so now sticks are banned? give me an f'ing break...

By the way, the .50 ban is just another feel good waste of time - criminals and terrorists don't go down to Joe's Rod and Gun and submit their info for (at a minimum) the instant federal background check and, if the state they're in requires it, show their license to carry, firearms permit, etc. They're criminals and terrorists, they don't give a damn if the law says something is banned, they don't follow laws! All this does is stop a law abiding citizen from purchasing a .50. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't Ted Kennedy's cars killed more people than the rifles this ban is aimed at?

[Geezah]

are tonfa's really banned in australia? correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't a tonfa basically a stick with a smaller stick sticking out to one side a bit? maybe i'm thinking of the wrong weapon...basically they look similar to the night sticks some police departments use, right?

so now sticks are banned? give me an f'ing break...

Yes......sticks are banned in civilised Australia




By the way, the .50 ban is just another feel good waste of time - criminals and terrorists don't go down to Joe's Rod and Gun and submit their info for (at a minimum) the instant federal background check and, if the state they're in requires it, show their license to carry, firearms permit, etc. They're criminals and terrorists, they don't give a damn if the law says something is banned, they don't follow laws! All this does is stop a law abiding citizen from purchasing a .50. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't Ted Kennedy's cars killed more people than the rifles this ban is aimed at?

I don't know why it's so hard for the Euros and Libs to get this, all they care about is saying "you can't hunt with it, so why do you need it" :cantbeli:

[walford]

By the way, the .50 ban is just another feel good waste of time - criminals and terrorists don't go down to Joe's Rod and Gun and submit their info for (at a minimum) the instant federal background check...I don't know why it's so hard for the Euros and Libs to get this, all they care about is saying "you can't hunt with it, so why do you need it"It is not as if the .50 cal ban is going to accomplish anything. It has already been pointed out how expensive it is. Likely the danger posed by such a weapon would be more easily fulfilled by something else -- an RPG, for example or a remote-controlled explosive. They are illegal of course, but then what they are trying to do -- kill Americans -- is already illegal anyway. So likely they won't care whether they are using prohibited weapons.

My concern when a new ban introduced is that it will whet the appetite for more -- as is exemplified by a quote from the first page of this thread:

Good on him, I hope he bans some more while he is at it.Gun rights advocates are well-aware of many in the American elites who shere this mentality. That is why they raise objection to these bans that do nothing to protect the public, but do everything to undermine law-abiding citizens right to self-defense [which is the main purpose of the 2nd Amend].

[Geezah]

By the way, the .50 ban is just another feel good waste of time - criminals and terrorists don't go down to Joe's Rod and Gun and submit their info for (at a minimum) the instant federal background check...I don't know why it's so hard for the Euros and Libs to get this, all they care about is saying "you can't hunt with it, so why do you need it"It is not as if the .50 cal ban is going to accomplish anything. It has already been pointed out how expensive it is. Likely the danger posed by such a weapon would be more easily fulfilled by something else -- an RPG, for example or a remote-controlled explosive. They are illegal of course, but then what they are trying to do -- kill Americans -- is already illegal anyway. So likely they won't care whether they are using prohibited weapons.

My concern when a new ban introduced is that it will whet the appetite for more -- as is exemplified by a quote from the first page of this thread:

Good on him, I hope he bans some more while he is at it.Gun rights advocates are well-aware of many in the American elites who shere this mentality. That is why they raise objection to these bans that do nothing to protect the public, but do everything to undermine law-abiding citizens right to self-defense [which is the main purpose of the 2nd Amend].

As always you hit the nail on the head, but I wonder just how many of the antis, euros and libs will miss it completely?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

By the way, the .50 ban is just another feel good waste of time - criminals and terrorists don't go down to Joe's Rod and Gun and submit their info for (at a minimum) the instant federal background check...I don't know why it's so hard for the Euros and Libs to get this, all they care about is saying "you can't hunt with it, so why do you need it"It is not as if the .50 cal ban is going to accomplish anything. It has already been pointed out how expensive it is. Likely the danger posed by such a weapon would be more easily fulfilled by something else -- an RPG, for example or a remote-controlled explosive. They are illegal of course, but then what they are trying to do -- kill Americans -- is already illegal anyway. So likely they won't care whether they are using prohibited weapons.

My concern when a new ban introduced is that it will whet the appetite for more -- as is exemplified by a quote from the first page of this thread:

Good on him, I hope he bans some more while he is at it.Gun rights advocates are well-aware of many in the American elites who shere this mentality. That is why they raise objection to these bans that do nothing to protect the public, but do everything to undermine law-abiding citizens right to self-defense [which is the main purpose of the 2nd Amend].

As always you hit the nail on the head, but I wonder just how many of the antis, euros and libs will miss it completely?
Just for the record "me".

[joe mama]

walford, i'm going to disagree with you slightly, but not in a bad way - i don't think the writers of the constitution intended the 2nd amendment to protect rights relating to self defense - i think they would think the right of the people to have arms for self defense (from criminals, wild animals, etc) is just like the right to have arms for hunting, collecting, target shooting for fun, etc - it's like the right to have a shovel. it would be blindingly obvious that if you want a shovel, as a tool, or as a interestingly shaped piece of metal and wood, or as an eating utensil, or any other use that doesn't affect other people, of course no one should have a problem with that. i think their intention was to protect the physical means the people would possess to fight to overthrow an oppressive government - as many of them had just finished doing!

in the first amendment, among other things, they attempt to protect free expression and free press - two intellectual tools that can be used to say things like "no taxation without representation", "king george is a tyrant", "the patriot act is unconstitutional" and get people thinking and voting to change things (unless they want things to stay the same). in the second amendment they attempt to protect the physical tools that allow change when the people running the system won't respond to the peaceful means the first amendment tries to protect.

[walford]

walford, i'm going to disagree with you slightly, but not in a bad way - i don't think the writers of the constitution intended the 2nd amendment to protect rights relating to self defense...Actually we do not disagree, I was merely emphasizing a point. In the Federalist papers, the future Constitutional Framers discussed at length how people are born with the right to secure their own self-defense -- be it from criminals or the government.

This has been tested in court to also mean that citizens actually have not only a right but a RESPONSIBILITY to protect themselves. There was a case wherein local police were sued by the family of someone who was murdered, alleging that the victim warned the police of his/her fears but failed to protect. The court ruled that the police are not obligated to act as security guards if a crime has not been committed. The people must protect themselves.

Also remember that there was a significant cadre amongst the Framers who objected to the drafting a Bill of Rights because they wanted it understood that any rights that are not spelled out are to be assumed belonging to the people. They were very much concerned that attempting to list our rights would amount to the assumption that those not there are not covered.

[joe mama]

i see your point, we're really pretty much on the same page on this...

[Durandal]

I like guns, enjoy shooting them, but who the frigg needs a .50 cal rifle ??

I do.

[AlexNenadic]

I like guns, enjoy shooting them, but who the frigg needs a .50 cal rifle ??


Ahem, you don't need any of your guns either.

Since the .50 should be banned because it is a "military round used for war", lets go ahead and ban 7.62mm NATO, and 5.56mm NATO, and don't forget 9mm Para. Even 45 ACP goes, they are all used by the military.

Once you start down this road, where do you stop?

50 caliber rifles are not the ideal terrorist weapon that the fearmongers would lead you to believe, there are much cheaper alternatives for sniping. Anything from 7.62mm NATO to 338 Lapua Magnum will do just fine, for both killing people and taking down airliners.

Malvo didn't even use a "sniper rifle", he and the other asshat used a simple AR15. Some time ago somebody kept taking potshots at cars on a highway in the US with a 38 cal pistol. For the longest time the media called these "sniper attacks". :roll:

This ban is only meant to make people feel better, it certainly won't prevent a sniper attack by terrorists, if in fact that is what they decide to do.

[Abolith]

I like guns, enjoy shooting them, but who the frigg needs a .50 cal rifle ??


i do and have several guns in the .50 cal range even have a .54 AND i shoot them on a regular basis.

[HooyahCQB]

SCUBA diving is dangerous. Let's ban it.
Skydiving is dangerous. Let's ban it.
Walking accross the street is dangerous. Let's ban it.

[walford]

Malvo didn't even use a "sniper rifle", he and the other asshat used a simple AR15. Actually when they were caught, they were found with the Bushmaster (http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976432629.htm) model XM15-E2S amongst a few other items (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/30/sniper.shootings/).
http://images.gunsamerica.com/upload/976432629-1.jpg
BTW, no assault weapons ban will take these mediocre quality long irons off the street.

[maundy]

I just read the first 5 pages of this thread and I gotta say some things.

The 2nd amendment was put in place for the protection of the people. If you wish to own a firearm for ANY reason you should not have to justify it. The 2A says nothing about owning a gun for sporting purposes at all.

If you feel you want to own a firearm for self defence, hunting, sport shooting or in case of invasion/tyranny, good luck to you. The 2A was put in place to guarantee the freedoms of the citizens.

There are militias in the USA. Private citizens who meet up on weekends and practice survival techniques and train in military manouvers as well as weapons handling.

Again, you do not have to have a reason to own a firearm in that country. It is your RIGHT. If someone tries to take that away from you, you should fight back.

Nukes, F-22's should be available to who wants them. Mohammed the taxi driver hasn't got enough money to buy a nuke, but if he did, he would be able to get one illegally anyway.

So I'll sum it up here: You should not need a reason to own any kind of weapon in the USA. It is your right to defend yourself and your homeland and be armed to the teeth in case you one day need to. The constitution says nothing about hunting or shooting paper.

If you want a .50 cal for target shooting, hunting, collecting or preparing for a civil war or invasion, GOOD FOR YOU. You should be allowed to. If you want a M60, again, it's your right. You should be allowed to own one.

I live in Sydney. A place where we have very strict gun control. And rising amounts of gun crime.

[maundy]

Also, you cannot just pick up a rifle and be proficient with it. It takes much training. If I gave you a .50 right now you probably wouldn't be able to hit a human sized target at 800m. Lets forget about moving targets.

Also, a sniper can snipe with a cheap old bolt action. All you have to do is hide and take shots without being detected to be a 'sniper'.

So, yeah.

[HooyahCQB]

I agree.





The police exist "to protect" us, but when have you seen police show up before the crime happened? Citizens should have the right to be armed for self defense. A .50 cal might work for rural areas.

:lol:

[Geezah]

I just read the first 5 pages of this thread and I gotta say some things.

The 2nd amendment was put in place for the protection of the people. If you wish to own a firearm for ANY reason you should not have to justify it. The 2A says nothing about owning a gun for sporting purposes at all.

If you feel you want to own a firearm for self defence, hunting, sport shooting or in case of invasion/tyranny, good luck to you. The 2A was put in place to guarantee the freedoms of the citizens.

There are militias in the USA. Private citizens who meet up on weekends and practice survival techniques and train in military manouvers as well as weapons handling.

Again, you do not have to have a reason to own a firearm in that country. It is your RIGHT. If someone tries to take that away from you, you should fight back.

Nukes, F-22's should be available to who wants them. Mohammed the taxi driver hasn't got enough money to buy a nuke, but if he did, he would be able to get one illegally anyway.

So I'll sum it up here: You should not need a reason to own any kind of weapon in the USA. It is your right to defend yourself and your homeland and be armed to the teeth in case you one day need to. The constitution says nothing about hunting or shooting paper.

If you want a .50 cal for target shooting, hunting, collecting or preparing for a civil war or invasion, GOOD FOR YOU. You should be allowed to. If you want a M60, again, it's your right. You should be allowed to own one.

I live in Sydney. A place where we have very strict gun control. And rising amounts of gun crime.

As much as I want to agree with you I must be fair and say that I believe in the following,

Amendment II - Right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(Infringe [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.)

[MEGR]

When I get the money, I'm going to get an M82 and shoot cans with it. Oorah!!!!exclaimation point

[usm2b]

F*ck 50's......Im savin for a MOAB woot

[MEGR]

MOAB.. Yes. That could destroy alot of cans.

[walford]

...Nukes, F-22's should be available to who wants them. Mohammed the taxi driver hasn't got enough money to buy a nuke, but if he did, he would be able to get one illegally anyway...Although I generally agree with your other positions, I have to differ with you on that point. The US military pays millions to private companies to develop weapons systems for its use only. One of the purposes of military espionage is to spare the rival the R&D expense. No one else is entitled to purchase these weapons -- neither private individuals nor foreign powers. I do not want North Korea to have any B-2s loaded with ALCMs and am glad to sacrifice my ability to raise the funds to buy one to prevent that.

This is similar to the complaint by some that the US government keeps secrets from its citizens. There is certainly potential for abuse, but I would rather be deprived the information about certain technologies and contingency plans if it also means that our enemies will also be denied such knowledge.

Insofar as nukes and other WMDs are concerned, our government is treaty bound not to proliferate the materials needed to produce them. Fortunately they are not widely available [although the engineering plans are]. As soon as the likes of OBL obtains fissile material, he will use them.

Private citizens are also banned from owning such weapons as full-auto machine guns, mortars, RPG, etc. In some cases they can be owned with a background check and license. I have no problem with that. I do not think that it is proper for people to anonymously own weapons that are capable of killing hundreds at a single squeeze of a trigger. It does not threaten our freedom for these restrictions to exist.

[maundy]

Like what I mean is, if you make it legal doesn't mean everyone will be able to get it.

For example, if you could own missles and whatever, if they are under patent/contract you won't be able to get them. I can't see governments selling their top of the line stuff to be exploited and replicated the world over.

So if it was legal to own a nuke in the USA, it would be hard to get one. Materials for one, and the lab for another would not be easy to come by to make them, as the government surely wouldn't sell them.

I mean, someone with billions to spare on these kinds of things will get them anyway by breaking the law. Making it legal isn't going to stop people doing something, or make it easier/cheaper to do. Nukes would not spring up overnight in everyone's gun cabinet if they were made legal.

If someone wants a mortar, good luck to them. Same with a grenade. Just let them know that the bloke down the road is probably armed up also, and if he tries anything stupid it will all be over in a matter of minutes.

If everyone was armed, violent crime would disappear. Think about it.

[walford]

If everyone was armed, violent crime would disappear. Think about it.On this part, we are in agreement. We may differ on the specific weapons, however...
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.crusader-howitzer.991020.jpg

[maundy]

Do you personally know anyone who could afford one of them?

See what I mean? Just because it's legal doesn't mean everyone will be able to have one.

[MEGR]

There are people in the US who have Tank collections.

[HooyahCQB]

If everyone was armed, violent crime would disappear. Think about it.On this part, we are in agreement. We may differ on the specific weapons, however...
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.crusader-howitzer.991020.jpg

rofl

[walford]

There are people in the US who have Tank collections.Yes, but it is regulated. Private individuals own WWII warbirds also. And I don't think that the ammo is allowed for either.

There seems to be an advocacy for anonymous unregulated ownership of any and all weapons. Perhaps some clarification is needed on this point.

[usm2b]

There are people in the US who have Tank collections.Yes, but it is regulated. Private individuals own WWII warbirds also. And I don't think that the ammo is allowed for either.

There seems to be an advocacy for anonymous unregulated ownership of any and all weapons. Perhaps some clarification is needed on this point.

damn....i had a witty remark, but your statement is covered on all the points I was about to bash you on....

[walford]

damn....i had a witty remark, but your statement is covered on all the points I was about to bash you on....Oh bash away. You wouldn't be the first...
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=33164&highlight=

[obd]

Devgru, I have a question: You seem completely and utterly obsessed with Randy Coulter. Is that normal? Im just interested. I have noticed you seem to collect shirtless pics of the guy. Do you have a secret desire to be just like him? Here's an idea, why dont you fight him? Now THAT would be fun to watch!!!!

[obd]

Also, people seem to ignore the all important "WELL REGLATED" phrase regarding militia in the 2nd Amendment. Hmmm, now I wonder what that means and why the founders of the consitution wanted to REGULATE militia??

Simple: Because armed militia are both a threat to and a security for FREEDOM. If you allow citizens to run around with M-60's and such than you are negating your own justification: to secure freedom and rights. Armed militia are a threat to others rights. They are just as capable of tyranny and oppression as a government if not more so considering the well know terrorist groups in America who mascarade as "freedom militia's". One such militia was guilty of supporting the worst home grown terror strike in America history: Oaklahoma City

[obd]

There is only one kind of militia still in existence in America: Diseased skinhead Christian fundementalist terrorists Hitler lover high school drop outs (if even that educated) retards whose only focus in life is hate and paranioa.......... They are more dangerous than any foreign terror group b/c they are well armed and entrenched and have a much more developed nation wide network. Their goals are just as nefarious, if not more so, than Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden seeks to destroy US power abroad. These Christian militia's seek to destroy us from within. As far as Im concerned, we face a double threat from radical Islam and radical Christianity and that threat has been proven by terrorist strikes and plots from both:

Example: 1. Worst terror strike in US history = radical Islam (WTC)
Example 2. Second worst terror strike in US History = radical Christianity (Oaklahoma City)

The brave men and women of the FBI have been fighting these militia terrorist scum a long long time. The FBI has stopped many of their terrorist plots against the American people.

[maundy]

One thing you appear to be ignoring is that the right to bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.

By well regulated perhaps it is saying you should be organised with some friends and well prepared and trained to use what equipment you have.

The part that says the people, that would imply free citizens, those not serving in the military of any kind. Therefore every American has the RIGHT to bear arms which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It wouldn't make much sense to put in the constitution that the military has the right to bear arms, would it?

If you go back to the original context of the 2A, it was designed for people to have guns accessible to them in case they one day need to repel an invasion again. Wage guerilla war and all that.

If you don't like guns you don't have to own one. Or you can come join me in Australia with our very strict firearm ownership regulations. Forget the fact our violent crime rate is HIGHER than yours, or that gun crime is on the rise here and we are defenceless. But yeah, come down here and be a subject, rather than a citizen.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

There are people in the US who have Tank collections.
Yeah same here in the UK.

[Durandal]

There are militias in the USA. Private citizens who meet up on weekends and practice survival techniques and train in military manouvers as well as weapons handling.

And in most States, these groups are illegal.

Your points on the 2nd Amendment are quite true though. And I agree, nothing makes me more ill than some idiot that thinks THEY or the government has the right to think I do not NEED something.

[Durandal]

Hmmm, now I wonder what that means and why the founders of the consitution wanted to REGULATE militia??

I love it when some idiot brings this up.

I'll take this one.

First let's quote the 2nd...


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


(Italicized words or phrases are to point out the key terms in the Amendment. These terms such as "right" or "rights" and "people" are found throughout the Bill of Rights).

Let's get down to business then.

The 2nd Amendment tackle TWO items. A militia and a "right". Not one or the other, but both.

Define Regulated. In the 2nd Amendment its an adjective, not a verb, so...


1. regulated (vs. unregulated) -- (controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law; "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature")
2. ordered, orderly, regulated -- (marked by system or regularity or discipline; "a quiet ordered house"; "an orderly universe"; "a well regulated life")


The portion of this Amendment says there is a need for a regulated militia. Initially there was a great fear for having a standing Federal Army, so militias were considered to be the backbone. The regulation dealt with training, age groups, who had to participate and who was exempt. Much of this is handled at a State level. All States to this day STILL have Amendments or Laws (if not contained within the State's Constitution) defining militias.

Lots of arguments went round and round by our founding forefathers in regards to the reliance on the militias as the core fighting force for the United States (military force being purely of a defensive nature at that point). They came to a conclusion that a standing army, a Federal Army, was necessary for several reasons, the main one being that economically speaking, a region simply could not drop what it was doing and have all the money makers....the local economy, go off to war and possibly die, together, wreaking havoc on a town or county's economy. They also understood that a professional army was more capable than a militia.

That is not to say that militias were not required OR used. Many times militias were called out from the 1780s to the 1870s to deal with any of a number of threats to local communities across the nation.

In modern days, the militia is defined by a Supreme Court ruling a LONG time ago:

The Naval Reserve.
The Regular Militia. (Defined as the National Guard now)
The Irregular Militia. (Defined as the general population)

And I think we can all agree this amounts to a regulation. The Regular Militia and Naval Reserves certainly are, and at a State level (as it should be) guns are regulated. Sometimes the laws are Statewide, like here in Kentucky (the laws are the same regardless of where you live in the State). Sometime laws are handled at a local level (like across the river in Ohio where Cities have different laws that the State or County).

So we have the regulation...in some cases, probably FAR too much and in other cases a confusing mess of laws where driving 40 miles in a single State brings you into out of and back into compliance).

Regulation, however, is simply the first part of the Amendment. The second part of the Amendment deals with a right of the people. One that shall not be infringed.

We can define these if necessary, but we are all smart people here, so I feel little need to.

Understand this though. The definition of "people", "right" and "infringement" s no different than in the other amendments. These are key words found throughout the Bill of Rights. Key words that make understanding the Constitution MUCH easier. The founding forefathers were geniuses when it came to word usage and define a code for interpretation of rights.

Which always annoys me when people try to somehow pass this Amendment off as something different than than any of the others. As if in the clause "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" the word "people" or "right" has some sort of different meaning than in the 2nd Amendment.

So lets boil it down to something those anti-gun nuts will understand:

The 2nd Amendment established that the "people" will regulate militias and that those same "people" have the "RIGHT" to own firearms.

Nothing about what firearms can and cannot be owned. Nothing about the regulation of private ownership. Not a damn thing.

WE, the people of the United States are the bosses of our government. Not the other way. We NEED to understand this. Our government is NOT supposed to be a body that rules us. They answer to us, or should, and no one else. This is not Europe where the governments are not for the people by the people, but a number of ruling bodies designed to guide and nurture the population...provide for it.

You have to understand that or you will NEVER understand American government...or at least what it was intended to be.

[Dennis G]

Well said, Durandal!!

[Durandal]

Well said, Durandal!!

:)

[Geezah]

Well said, Durandal!!

:)

I 2nd that, bout time someone came in and kicked obd in the nuts p-)

[Geezah]

For those of you Stateside, check out 60mins, they're doing a piece on the .50.

[Geezah]

Well I expected nothing less from 60mins and true to form they were biased, but to their credit they had Ronnie Barrett on plus the VPCs Tom Diaz.

Ronnie was on top form and advised that to date none of his rifles have been used criminally and all other rifle calibers should aspire to gain that type of reputation.

Now Tom Diaz on the other hand kept on talking about how they could be used by criminals and terrorists, not that they ever have been?
Even the Federal Guberment don't see an immediate threat to airliners over here,
Here's a quote from the VPC website,

Subsequent VPC studies have exposed the ability of these armor-piecing rifles -- which are accurate over a mile -- to attack bulk fuel tanks and other high-value targets from a distance, as well as their ability to destroy commercial aircraft. The VPC has also detailed their criminal use in the United States.

Link (http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,574665,00.html)

Criminal use, what the hell are they talking about, how can there be criminal use when there is no recorded use of a .50 by criminals, it stands over 5' tall so it's a bit hard to conceal under a jacket :cantbeli:

One thing they should have touched on was for how long have they been selling these to the civilian market and then compare that to the number of crime comitted with them, I think once they do that the stupid fuks might wake up...........hang on a minute, no they won't :roll:

Another feel good law that has the potential to affect other States, doesn't make sense, alchohol kills more people but that's still available.

Quote of the day, hopefully all those bad gangbangers in LA will now take notice of the RINO that won't be back,

"California has once again confirmed its status as a bellwether state in preventing gun violence. Today's action not only protects the police and public, but stops the sale of a confirmed tool of terrorists. We look forward to other states, and eventually the U.S. Congress, following its lead."

[Durandal]

Criminal use, what the hell are they talking about, how can there be criminal use when there is no recorded use of a .50 by criminals, it stands over 5' tall so it's a bit hard to conceal under a jacket :cantbeli:

Confiscated from criminals. Not used by criminals but confiscated in drugs busts or kiddie **** rings, or when they burned down a compound with women and children inside.

Stuff like that.

But yep, they have never been used in a crime to date.

I agree with you man. The VPC is loony as a toon.

[Geezah]

Criminal use, what the hell are they talking about, how can there be criminal use when there is no recorded use of a .50 by criminals, it stands over 5' tall so it's a bit hard to conceal under a jacket :cantbeli:

Confiscated from criminals. Not used by criminals but confiscated in drugs busts or kiddie **** rings, or when they burned down a compound with women and children inside.

Stuff like that.

But yep, they have never been used in a crime to date.

I agree with you man. The VPC is loony as a toon.

I'm not so sure I agree, to use "criminal use" implies that already convicted criminals have them, but I've yet to see any records that prove that claim.

Now Waco, the Feds said that one was fired at them from the compound. Never did see what it hit if there was one at all, I find it hard to believe and thinkthat the FEds need to justify murdering all those women and children.

[Durandal]

Now Waco, the Feds said that one was fired at them from the compound. Never did see what it hit if there was one at all, I find it hard to believe and thinkthat the FEds need to justify murdering all those women and children.

I heard about that years ago. The FBI had anti-Barret Barret teams out looking for them, but never shot or were shot at.

There was a book called "Cold Zero" about the FBI HRT snipers that discussed it as well.

I think the government should also pass a law preventing us from getting hang nails and falling down stairs. Maybe make hammer and nails illegal too. Maybe electricity and pools? What about concrete?