Posted on 05/29/2005 11:43:58 PM PDT by John Filson
Liberal girly men raping our right to keep and bear arms...one caliber at a time.
Arnold Swartzanegger is the biggest girly man of them all, being minipulated...controlled by the communist demoncrats in California. Proof positive that Moderate = weak and spineless.
"A Senate report said that a bullet from a .50-caliber rifle, even at 1.5 miles, crashes into a target with more energy than a bullet fired at point-blank range from Dirty Harry’s famous .44 Magnum."
Boy the Senate is taking on a lot more responsibility than in years past. Choosing the judiciary, making decisions for the President, and now, firearms experts. I wish I had that report along with a few pages of the Koran as I am fresh out of TP.
This company was discussed on FR not long back:
http://www.serbu.com/
Their single shot is in the $2k range and they have plans for a semi that they say will be around $3k.
Still a bit pricy for me but doesn't keep me from wanting one like yesterday!
Sorry, I mistakenly wrote "group" instead of "practical first shot accuracy". Too late at night, I guess.
The Barrett's recoiling barrel might make for large groups, though, and 1.5 MOA might be about right, at that. Might not, too.
Normal loss of zero could give a first shot 90% "circular area probable" of 48 inches at 3,000 yards, or worse, also. It is rare to see a scope hold a zero much better than 1 MOA through motor transport even over a short period in my experience. Maybe they have better scopes and mounts.
So was interested in talking with guys with first hand Barrett experience. Where does the bullet fully stabilize? You single load, right? What changes gave the greatest increase in accuracy? What made you lose it? Do you notice Coriolis effect? That sort of stuff.
My son is a Marine and he just sent a 30 second video of him firing one of these babies over in Israel. Unlike the NYC targets at 300 yards the Marines start at 600 yards. When you hit someone with this they stay down.
"Koresh was wacked"----What made the situation so dangerous was Janet Reno was also "wacked".
Actually, NO! If they can afford'em, they can have'em. There IS no "size restriction" in the Second Amendment. Private citizens in the past have owned heavy artillery (cannon) and the Navy equivalent of battleships in the past, with no detrimental results.
Don't you have a large border problem that needs your attention? The overly quick response to a truth you do not wish to accept, is telling. There are in the US of A established standards of control of nuclear weapons that have allowed this country to have them for 60 years without any accidents or even very noteworthy incidents.
The controls involve two highly trained and certified individuals to launch or have access, as well as the President of the United States or his living replacement, and there are others concerning security of the weapons that need more people than any private person under the financial status of George Soros, would find extremely difficult to implement.
As long as the required standards of control and use are maintained, there should not be a problem should there, however, because of the nature of the controls it would be extremely difficult and nearly financially impossible, for private individuals in the USA to meet the standards, so your whole line of reasoning is meant more as a gotcha than reality.
Anything the military has, a private citizen should be able to have, providing the standards of established control can be met in the case of nuclear weapons and the ICBM delivery vehicles. You may not regard the "government" as a potential problem, and I don't either as long as righteous people are at the helm, but the Founding Fathers were well aware that righteous people and government are not necessarily synonymous.
The Founders, knew what it was like to be up against a government, out gunned and out manned it was not a fun experience, and hence the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Although originally this was understood. The need to spell out the Bill of Rights, put it down on paper making things more difficult in this age of document dissection.
The M60 variant you saw is a combat engineer vehicle (CEV) with the main gun replaced with a short barrel gun for blasting through fortifications at close range. Utter overkill in that situation.
Way back in the early 60's my brother bought a 20mm Lahti and several hundred rounds of ammo.Now THAT was a powerful weapon.How times have changed-no permits required back then.
Do you have a source for this info?
Iris7,
I can't speak specifically about the Barrett 82A1 @ 2000 yds, but I have personally consistantly hit bowling pins at 1000 yds.Rig was a Maadi-Griffin with a 10X Tasco Super Sniper scope. Admittedly, this is not a military rig and is tuned for target work, complete with $4/ round target ammo, but my point is that the accurracy required to hit a man sized target at 2000 yds is certainly physically possible.
That said, I've been told that the 82A1 is not a particularly accurrate piece due to it's semi-auto nature. The military also utilizes single-shot .50s for long range work,
As to the question of whether civilians should be allowed to own/posess any and all military weapons, I'd like to put forth an argument I've never seen offered before.
The 2nd states ".......keep and BEAR arms.....".Webster's
defines the pertinant definition of "BEAR" as; (and I quote)
"1. to carry; transport"
Again, that is the only definition Webster offers that is pertinant to the usage of the word "bear" in the Second Amendment.
It seems that the FedGuv may actually have a basis for forbidding their subjects from owning/ possessing any arm that cannot be "borne" (carried).
That said, I am personally in favor of the citizenry's posession of destructive devices. I do think there have to be reasonable limits, but they should not be so low as to prevent the citizenry from being a viable threat to the Fedguv.
Papertyger, could you please direct me to the portion of the Constitution that states "You can't have a private army according to the Constitution". I had always thought the "militia" was origionally envisioned to be comprised of nothing but private citizens.
"...this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it.""
How come thse guys never have to actually back up what they say(claim)?
Many opponents of this weapon being available to the public point to its being a military grade weapon. THAT is the reason that it SHOULD ALWAYS be available to the public. Sure ban the howitzers etc but banning this gun is going too far. WE may one day need it to throw off any oppressors who may come along.
Would that include suitcase nukes?
I think that the ONLY reason these politicians are scared of the .50 is that it will defeat an armored limo's armor.
Craven cowards.
For everyone but me.........
On the other hand, the militia part would indicate they wanted citizens to be able to own military weapons. Of course the two views might not be completely in conflict. They might have intended for individuals to own arms appropriate for individual use. Many military arms require group use.
You are ALMOST right. Everything I've read about WACO says that these were tank recovery vehicles that had booms, not guns, short-barreled or otherwise. They were like, or similar to, the vehicle w/boom that was used to help pull down Saddam's statue in Baghdad.
The booms on the vehicles at WACO were used (possibly modified, but I can't remember) to bash through the wooden structure and pump in whatever gas (CS if I remember right) they were using against the men, women, and CHILDREN inside. This gas was forced in as a mist (which I read, was highly flammable in that form) through the boom of the vehicles.
And thus began the wholesale slaughter of largely innocent civilians by our own government jack-booted thugs, led by Clinton, Reno, and the rest of the criminals in charge at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.