AB 2222

California Legislative Digest ^ | 27 February 2002 | Assembly Member Koretz and The Usual Suspects

[Ajnin]

Whatever dude...

[45Auto]

You simply don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this issue. You have not read the ACLU position paper on the 2nd, otherwise you'd know how ignorant you are. I don't think you are going to have a very good time here at FR unless you are a masochist.

[45Auto]

I see you want to play "the spoiler"; won't work. We've come up against your kind before; do your homework and stop merely regurgitating the crap from the HCI web site.

[KEVLAR]

You must be reading from the VPC website. Congress settled this more recently, 1985 I believe.

[Noumenon]

What price are you willing to pay to realize your perfect world?

[45Auto]

O.K. I'll give you a chance. Go to the following URl from the U S 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and read the entire court opinion from the case "USA v Emerson", then we'll chat via FR e-mail.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm

[GhostofWCooper]

Sorry, but, 4 miles? LOL! What are you going to aim at 4 miles away? You can't even see a car sized target at that distance. I was a weapons control system mechanic in the AF, familiar with 20mm cannon ballistics. The 20mm was accurate and powerful at about 2000 yards. (1 nautical mile). A fifty caliber is best at no more than 1000 yards, about 2/3 of 1 mile. At 4 miles it would have the trajectory of a rainbow.
Max practical range: about 1 mile. Sure it might carry further, with very little power and no real accuracy. 4 miles is a loonngg way, bud.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about sport hunting or target practice, either. If you dislike the American way of life, well, you know where you can go. About anywhere else. It's a big world, with many places that outlaw firearms. Each one demonstrates its fear of its own people.
Wonder why?

[AAABEST]

I regard gun ownership as a restricted right, rather than an unlimited right.

You have not a single idea about the meaning of the word "right". A right is something we're born with, they are not granted by anyone. Even an animal has the "right" to protect it's life, it's family, it's home and it's territory.

I ususally don't even bother arguing anymore with people like yourself. How absurd it is to think that certain "special" people can be selected by other "special" people to be allowed to defend themselves.

Why is it that you think certain persons lives are more important than others?

Why is it you feel that uniformed government employees are will somehow use a weapon in a more moral fashion than your next door neighbor or yourself?

I honestly have no patience for such an asinine and elitist thought process.

[techcor]

Bump so I can catch you getting toasted later. I mean seriously this place knows the 2nd Amendment better than almost any other. Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is soooo woeful. But at least you're polite so hopefully your flaming wont be too viscious. But to make a point , how many peoply have been killed by this .50 caliber weapon? One isn't it?

[JRandomFreeper]

I think guns are only good for putting a man six feet in hole. They are necessary for fighting terrorists etc, so the military should them. But I think 50 caliber are a bit excessive for gopher hunting.

Guns are used many times every year to save people from criminals. Usually, displaying a weapon is enough to get a criminal to stop. Many times, no shot is ever fired, but the crime is averted.

I'm glad you think they are ok for the military to have. Does that mean the reservist can buy his own AR-50 and keep it at home?

Usually, prarie dogs are the noxious pest of choice for long distance shooters. It doesn't matter whether they get hit with an .18 caliber bullet fired at almost a mile per second, or a .50, at 2600 ft/second. They always explode.

/john

[STD]

Who You calling Bro?

[Fred Mertz]

Self-reference bump. I need to check this thread later to see if you've been converted and assimilated, Tembraugh.

[45Auto]

One man's absurd weapon is another man's toy. Where do you draw the line? Anyway, I think you're a shill for the Brady Boob and her ilk; so unless you intend to educate yourself on this issue (you can start by spending a few hours reading the Emerson decision at the URl I gave you) you won't find many friends here.

[onedoug]

They're wrong.

This is the Bill Of Rights. I wouldn't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, any more than I'd go blasting someone for no reason. Yet speech, arms, rights under accusation, etc, are otherwise essentially inviolable...or should be, if this is America.

What's more, an armed citizenry through the Second Amendment, undergirds and buttresses the rest of the Bill Of Rights.

I think I'd just rather die - in a gunfight, I guess - rather than ever surrender my weapons on first principles.

The Japanese Admiral Yamamoto once remarked: "We could never invade America. There'd be a sniper behind every blade of grass."

[GhostofWCooper]

Hold it right there! The States granted the feds some power when they ratified the Constitution. The feds have usurped and finagled the gigantic chokehold they now enjoy.

No fifty caliber rifle can destroy a tank or armored personnel carrier, not even at point blank range. The way you describe it, why, the Army doesn't need howitzers or 150mm tank guns. Why, the soldier with his little peewee .50 could wipe out a regiment. The .50 has been replaced by much heavier weaponry since WW II. This is plain silly, and I'm not going to discuss it with anyone as ignorant of ballistics as to believe any of this.

Disrupter alert!