Barrios for bar on 'killer' weapons (another gun grabbing clymer pops up)

http://www.dailyfreepress.com ^ | Wednesday, March 16, 2005 | Steve Macone

[freepatriot32]

most politicians a lot of rinos included will not be happy until they turn this country unto mid 70's cambodia and hire all of their friends and family on as the american Khmer rouge

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Wonder Warthog]

""We hold dog owners responsible when their dogs bite. We hold bar owners responsible for selling drinks after last call. Why are we even having this discussion?" she said."

I guess Sheriff Andrea Cabral is so stupid that she doesn't realize that the above comment is actually IN FAVOR of allowing ownership. After all, we don't prevent people from owning dogs just because a tiny minority of dogs might bite.

[CPOSharky]

...rifle capable of disabling aircrafts.

Barrios, who chairs the Joint Committee on Public Safety, said the .50 caliber rifle - a weapon capable of firing a five and a half inch round...

I thought "aircraft was the plural of "aircraft."

The .50 caliber rifle fires the whole "five and a half inch round" all that far?

[mountn man]

Lets see, the legitimate effective range of a .50 is about 2500 meters, unless the plane is just taking off or landing 2500 meters is a very small opportunity to hit the plane. Add to that traveling at 200 miles an hour, or more, and you'd have to be Carlos Hathcock with an awful lot of luck, to hit anything vital. Not to mention the fact that at an airport there are all types wind conditions to take into effect.
Granted the capabilities of the gun might be to shoot 2500 yards at sub moa, but it still needs a person to aim it and fire it. Now that is the trick. There are VERY FEW people in the military who can HONESTLY say they could do that. VERY FEW.

[Puppage]

a "cop killer" handgun

Wouldn't "minority baby without legs killer" handgun elicit more media attention? /sarcasm

[FreeKeys]

A javelin is capable of disabling an aircraft taking off or landing.

[freepatriot32]

Wouldn't "minority baby without legs killer" handgun elicit more media attention?

LOL shhhhhhh be carefull your going to give them ideas for thier next headline

[freepatriot32]

ping

[aspiring.hillbilly]

"...a rifle capable of disabling aircrafts." In WWII the 50 cal ma-duce machine gun, used in an anti-aircraft role, took hundreds of rounds of automatic fire using tracers, and most aimed shots will miss, to disable even the slow moving single engine prop driven aircraft of the day. Now this bozo thinks a single shot rifle , although firing the same cartridge, no tracers, is going to be deadly against modern jets with multiple engines and redundant systems for just about every flight function. This is nonsense. Theoretically one in a hundred-thousand lucky shot can bring down an airliner, however nobody can get off a fraction of that many shots from a rifle while the target is in view. This is a smokescreen for the purpose of banning yet another Constitutionally protected arm.

[TigersEye]

Barrios, who chairs the Joint Committee on Public Safety, said the .50 caliber rifle - a weapon capable of firing a five and a half inch round...

I hate to break this to you, Jarrett, but what your wife has been telling you is 5 1/2 inches is only about 3/4" on a Stanley tape measure.

[Dead Corpse]

That does it...

I say we take off, nuke the sight from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

We need to make these idiot, gun grabbing, sh*t-wits go away. One way or another.

[aspiring.hillbilly]

ROFLMAO

[freepatriot32]

lol exactly

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Thank you. To persue this logic would mean all dogs should be banned.

[rellimpank]

---by chance, I was reading a book of little known facts about WW2 last night which indeed had the figure of approximately 12000 rounds of .50 BMG ammo per kill on German fighter planes--this was also the case in the Pacific war--

--interesting also was that German ack-ack expended about 12000 rounds per hit on Allied bombers---

[gridlock]

So much stupidity, so little time...

"Police put their lives on the line every day to keep our streets safe and they deserve the best protection we can give them. It's a common sense safety measure," Barrios said at a Tuesday Statehouse press conference. "It's time for Massachusetts to put homeland security and pubic safety first. Eternal vigilance, I suppose, is the price of living in a country that recognizes the second amendment."

More people have been killed by their own governments (by a factor of about 10,000) than have been killed by terrorists in the last 100 years. Homeland security and public safety is secured by the citizenry.

U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) issued a statement in support of Barrios' bill.

"How can the gun lobby possibly think these terrorist weapons should be on the market?" the statement read. "They should stop being so selfish. Societies put the health, welfare and safety of its citizens first. That's what community is all about."

Societies that have put the health, welfare and safety of citizens first have been the worst offenders when it comes to killing their own people. After all, what were the whole Communist and Socialist movements about, but putting the health, welfare and safety of citizens first. Only it never seems to work out that way in the end. This is obvious to everyone, except Senator Kennedy.

Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea Cabral, who spoke at the press conference, said that it is only because gun makers have money that the topic remains up for debate.

Yes. If they were poorly funded they would have been run to ground long ago...

(Cabral continues...) "We hold dog owners responsible when their dogs bite. We hold bar owners responsible for selling drinks after last call. Why are we even having this discussion?" she said.

Holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun crimes would be like holding the dog breeder responsible for a bite, not a dog owner. And an agressive dog is an inherently dangerous item. A gun never goes off to kill anybody all by itself.

I guess one could make the argument that somebody who intentionally breeds a very dangerous dog is negligent. But if somebody manufactured a gun that spontaneously went out and shot people, I dare say he would be held to account as well.

As far as the bar owner selling drinks after the last call, he would be in violation of his license. That is a licensing matter, nothing more. I would imagine that the criminal who uses his handgun in a crime would lose his handgun license as well, would he not?

[Travis McGee]

"...the .50 caliber rifle - a weapon capable of firing a five and a half inch round into a target outside the George Sherman Union from Danielsen Hall..."

The politician is an idiot, and the reporter can't write clearly. Apparently, the dreaded 5.5" long projectile is only a danger to "targets outside the George Sherman Union from Danielson Hall."

Idiots, both of them.

[gridlock]

She sure looks like she's having fun!

[Dead Corpse]

Wouldn't you? I'd love to own my very own GAU...