ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:40 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Weapon Debate Thread 4: Banning .50 BMG
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 7:15 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
As most of us who possess weapons know, various politicians are pushing to outlaw .50 caliber rifles, often adding the term "sniper rifle" to them in order to make it sound scarier to the media and ignorant public. Their reasoning behind this? You can shoot someone from an extreme distance and the bullets are "armor-piercing", another phrase tossed out to scare the public. Often included are horror-story hypothetical situations with crazed bell tower snipers shooting people through concrete walls, cars, and other obstacles from more than a mile away.

Now what's wrong with that? First off, anyone who pays good money on a .50 cal rifle is going to know what he's doing when he gets it, that's all there is to it. Nobody is going to just plop down some cash and buy one on a whim. And no one, even if they're total idiots, is going to shoot through another object to hit someone unless it's transparent. You can't see the target, so how are you going to hit them? Especially if you're at extreme range already to begin with?

There's no such thing as a "sniper rifle". Grab your dictionary and look up sniper. Under the definition, ANY rifle can be termed a sniper's weapon. My black powder muzzle-loader is a sniper rifle.

Second, they state that it should be banned because it can be used to shoot people at extreme distances. No shit? That's what they were made for. That's what a rifle does. You're not going to use a big-ass gun like that to shoot someone standing two feet away from you, now are you? With my .264 I could shoot someone in the eye from 500 yards. That's not anywhere near the distance I could shoot somebody with a .50 cal or many other guns for that matter, but I'd call that extreme distance. Heck, I'd stencil the words "Reach out and touch someone" on it if it wouldn't make people look at me funny.

Armor piercing, another catch phrase to scare people into voting into illegality. This is the main point they try to use to intimidate the prospective voters, ranting over and over how you can shoot someone wearing body armor, through a cinderblock wall, and other vivid descriptions. Well you know what? My .45-70 shoots through cinderblocks just fine, and it doesn't have the power a .50 BMG possesses. Heck, my little Taurus 9mm automatic pistol will punch right through most body armor at anything under ten yards, and that's just with over-the-counter buy-it-discount-at-Wal-Mart ammunition, not even the good stuff.

They're cracking down on people who own .50 caliber rifles as if they were terrorists. A man bought a .50 BMG hunting rifle, legally, from a gunstore. The store owner had gotten it illegally. The state passed a law making it illegal to own one just a few days after he had bought it. So what happens? They profile him as a terrorist, storm into his house, and arrest him, with a bail of $2.6 million. They still haven't found the rifle.

So... what's your opinion on the whole issue? Should .50 BMG be banned and anyone who owns one treated as a criminal or worse? Are fifty-caliber rifles legitimate weapons for civilians to own? Would you own one if you could, and why? Let's hear it.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 10:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1349
I have a copy of the proposed legislation on my nightstand.
I am very disturbed by it.
I own many rifles (those that the fucking scum of the IRS are not going to be able to force me to sell anyway) that will be classified as illegal under the current wording.
One is a .54 caliber Hawkins rifle. THis is a black power, percussion cap fired rifle that is nearly an antique. The next is a .56 caliber sharps special edition model made in 1889. Another is a shutchzen rifle, caliber .50, black powder, cap fired.
There are several others as well, and I will not bore you with the details.
With the exception of a .50 caliber single shot shilloette rifle (weight is 25 pounds, bench rest only catagory) none could even come close to being used for any kind of terrorist operation. Yet by current language in the bill, these rifles would all become illegal, and possesion would become the equivelent of a terrorist act.
BULLSHIT.
They need to ban specific weapons, such as the Browning M-2 heavy crew served machine gun, or the various .50 cal sniper or military rifles. Not my old frikin black powder hunting rilfes.
The banning of a rifle based soley on its caliber is just plain nuts. MAy the politicians behind this current measure rot in hell (just my casual 2 cents worth).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 11:23 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
I think they're just trying to inch in more and more gun restrictions. .50BMG rifles tend to be much more expensive than the average thug or even drug lord can afford, much less use efficiently. They're usually between 3000-8000$, not counting ammo, which is about 1.50$ a round. Not to mention, how many crimes involving .50BMG rifles have you seen in the news? I can't recall ever having seen any used in crimes.

It's just such a damn effective weapon WHEN USED PROPERLY that the liberals can whip up such horror stories about it. The average punk wouldn't be able to use it properly at all. That shooting through walls stuff is sort of bullshit too, unless if they come up with an x-ray scope too.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2004 4:00 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
aww... I was hoping for a nice little Geneva Convention on small arms debate, not a 'gun laws are stupid, we all agree' thing

just a note to add to MR Dead's: most pre 1900 firearms were in the 10-15mm (.40 to .60cal) range, unless they specifically disregard so called antique or obsolete/hunting calibres (as they would be classified here) then you really are screwed

apart from those evil people who will finally be labelled correctly as terrorists when re-enacting the American Revolt against their rightful colonial masters, George Washington = binLaden, finally a law will be passed to confirm that...

( :P )

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2004 7:04 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Heck, I own a .50 cal blackpowder rifle. A friend of mine owns nothing BUT .50 cal muzzleloaders, most of them quite modern. This is just another bullshit law that they hope they can add more and more stuff in order to eventually disarm the entire American populace, much like Britain and Germany have been trying to do. God help you if you own a pistol over there.

I'm all for keeping automatic weapons and grenade launchers and all that shit out of the hands of criminals, but frankly it ain't happening. Not to mention I'd like to get my hands on some of that just to have fun with it. Plus if the French ever invade, who the heck's gonna chase 'em off the continent if nobody owns guns anymore? The German-Americans?

I'm not a violent person by any means. I've never broken a law in my life. Heck, in all the years I've been driving, the only time I've gotten a ticket is when some security guard gave me a parking ticket because he couldn't see my parking permit on my dashboard and that got dismissed. But the day they send the stormtroopers in to take away my rights and what I rightfully own is the day the shit hits the fan.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:00 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
So, I'm not a big gun person. I do enough hunting to know a breech-loader from my boxers, but I'm not a collector or anything, right? Even so, I can see where everyone's coming from on the "this law sucks" front. Still, I gotta ask--antiques I can understand, but the hell does anybody want a modern .50BMG for? Hunting? Get a nice scope, you can park on one mountain, shoot a deer across a valley, drive over, and pick it up. Whoopee. So I guess I can't see why anyone bought 'em in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:24 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
why have a .50BMG rifle? why hunt with a rifle at all? why hunt even?

some people are gun people, some people, often the same ones, are hunters, many are neither, it's very often these peopel who seem to get a kick out of regulating away the hobbies/lifestyles of others, ones that they, not being gun/hunting ppl feel are worthless: "why do people like guns/hunting? there is no reason i can think of, therefore it's not a violation of their rights to stop them doing this meaningless thing is it?"

in the end it's a bit of a "why let anyone do anything not required for the absolute minimum passsage of their lives"

and as for Terrorists getting hold of these (the criminal angle is well covered already) I'll note that the Irish terror groups found it far easier to get a hold of arms from foreign sources, ie South Africa (loyalist) Libya and America (republican) than it was to steal/buy legal guns, even with the then less tight regulations here

anyway, next gun debate?

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 6:23 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Next gun debate: Why I hate my country's gun laws so much :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2004 3:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Though I am not much of a pro-gun I agree that alot of the laws banning particular types of guns, especially this bloody law, are baseless sensational publicity schemes.

I have no problem with people having any variety of weapon (with the possible exception of missile launchers) for recreational use. I just think there should be more extensive screening for who can get and sell said weapons. I have never known it to be essential for someone to obtain a toy quickly (though I don't spend much time around small kids).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group