Honolulu PD, NRA Square Off On Rifle Debate

KITV-4 (Hawaii) ^ | 2/22/08 | n/a

[Eric in the Ozarks]

If you follow the .50 roundup, that would be the eventual result. That’s the gun grabbers’ real agenda.

[Andonius_99]

Well said, GS!

[A Strict Constructionist]

Read his about page, he says he will Protect and defend...

Obviously he is selective about what he will protect and defend.

[PapaBear3625]

Other than the pure excitement of shooting such a weapon, does this gun have any legitimate purpose for civilian use? I would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase.

"Being fun to shoot" IS a "legitimate" purpose. The big issue is once you have people taking upon themselves the task of deciding "legitimate" or "worthy" purposes, then no firearm is safe. Your scoped hunting rifle becomes a "sniper weapon". Your semi-auto handgun or rifle is an "assault weapon", etc, etc.

[Beagle8U]

“The socialist believe you can buy a gun on the internet.
You are repeating their propaganda.

You still need to visit an FFL and get a background check”

I’ll S A Y IT A G A I N F O R Y O U R E A L S L O W..

You can buy them online and have them shipped to a local dealer. They do the simple transfer paper that takes less than 5 min. Most of them charge $20 for that.

Do you think you are buying a $1000 rifle from that dealer for $20 ? Or from the online dealer you gave the $1000 to?

It doesn’t matter that the local HWD store only has a couple single shot shotguns for sale, you can buy anything you want online and have it shipped to the local HWD as long as they agree and have FFL.

[A Strict Constructionist]

“Perhaps you’re mistaking freedom of speech with a guaranteed friendly audience. A common trait amongst the liberal and weak minded.”

Well said. They never believe in debate just capitulation to their demands.

[SoldierDad]

1) I’m not a liberal - I just made a personal observation which did not have the intent to advocate any new laws regarding gun ownership. Just because I personally do not see the need to own a weapon such as the one from this article, doesn’t mean I’m advocating it’s ban (advocating a ban is an overt act and not an opinion).

2) I have not been scared away. I did, however, have work to do, and needed to be away for a while.

[SoldierDad]

I do see how silly yours is.

[tonysamm]

“I would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase.”

Unfortunately you haven’t read the Bill of Rights. Theres no description needed for the type of arms the people can own.

You are the fodder that anti-gunners feed on. Once 50 cal. rifles are banned then it will be 458 cal, then 45 cal., the 38 and so on. Don’t delude yourself that anything given to anti-gunners will satisfy them except a total civilian gun ban.Watch California for the future of our gun rights.

[mamelukesabre]

My personal opinion of the 50 cal is that it is of limited use by civilian militia and so a ban on them would not be very damaging to the purpose of the second ammendment. BUt I don’t see why we should give up something like 50 cal rifles without getting something back in exchange. In the event of an armed uprising against the government, most of the fighting will occur in densely populated cities. Fully automatic assault rifles and machine pistols and grenade launchers are more useful. One could make the argument that in the rural areas the 50 would be invaluable. Well, maybe so, but the government has tanks and helicopters. A man with a barret 50 is no match against a tank or helicopter. And in a rural setting, there’s no hiding from a tank or a helicopter.

[Abundy]

So, you wish to try and compare the late 1700’s with today? Wow. No small stretch for use of logic there. Yeah, there’s no difference today compared to during the 1700’s. Our nation is just the same today as it was back then. We have no problems with border security or illegal immigrants today. We have no enemies which, coming here legally, would then want to be able to purchase weapons that could be used against civilian populations simply for the sake of creating terror. You can justify your position all you want using anedotes from the 1700’s, but that doesn’t mean you have a valid argument in today’s world. You perhaps might also have made a comment that in the late 1700’s the only people allowed to vote were property owners. But, you left that part out. You could also have reported the fact that today almost anyone can find a way to purchase a firearm, but in the 1700’s the only people that had the money to buy the types of weapons you speak of were either property owners or those with the skills to make their own. Not much of a comparison between then and now, now that you take a closer look.

Right now the binding law, absent a constitutional amdment, is as I have described.

You have provided an argument in support of an amendment to the constitution to limit the scope of the second amendment.

Try to figure out how our form of government is supposed to work.

[petertare]

Huh?? Are you serious? Spoofing, right?

Yes, a 50 is a long range weapon. And a knife is and has been far more deadly at close range. Got any large kitchen knives?

Have you been to the range out there on the east end of Oahu? Seen any killers warming up for a nights work?

Why would you penalize someone for legal, and non harmful recreational activity? A 50 generates a lot of foot pounds of energy (about 16000); so does a boat.

[RJL]

There is nothing we have that can withstand this. If you look at an armored car, those things have a half-inch of steel. These can go through 1 inch of steel at a thousand yards," HPD Major Gregory Lefcourt said.

I always know that they're worried about my safety when their first concern is an attack on armored cars and limos.

[SoldierDad]

So, you wish to discuss me and my comments without the courtesy of a ping? It was my understanding that when you talk about someone and their comments that protocol was to ping them. Perhaps I was mistaken about that.

I will protect and defend - this country - from enemies both foriegn and domestic. My comment regarding this particular weapon was just an opinion - not meant to be taken as a desire to ban any firearm from civilian ownership - including this one. Hey, if you wish to and can afford to own it, buy it. I’m not on any overt campaign to rid firearms from this country. But, I do advocate that firearms be owned and used by people who will not abuse them. I’d hope others would feel the same way. If you see this as backing away from my original comment, then, I guess it is. I’m capable of admitting my original post was not as well thought out as I could have made it.

[Dead Corpse]

Hypocrisy amongst that those who are dead wrong on this issue is not that unusual.

[SoldierDad]

Allow me to restate my position. I advocate the ownership of firearms by people who will use them responsibly and respectfully. I do not advocate gun ownership for people convicted of a violent criminal act.

My original comment was poorly thought out, and I’ll admit to that.

[Manly Warrior]

Your personal page indicates that you will “support and defend”- just what is it that you will suport and defend?

The constitution? That includes the 2nd Amendment, an enumerated right of the people. The teeth of this republic are contained therein; the only power to resist tyranny of government is for the people to be able to prevent it, just as our forefathers stated in so many words.

The 2A, therefore, does not apply merely to any sporting use, but certainly the military use of arms in keeping our government in check-any government, and for common defense and security (read anti-crime).

Okay, the 50 cal BMG is a powerful round, one that was developed for use in a heavy machine gun back in 1928 by John M Browning.

Indeed this caliber is effective out past 1000 yards, as are most high powered rifles of lessor caliber.

The idea that a 50 can “shoot down” an aircraft with a few shots is ridicuclous-thousands of archived accounts of WW2 with the M2 50 cal prove that it is indeed a rarity to knock down even a light aircraft with a few hundred rounds-shot to hit ratios exceed 2000 rounds-this during wartime with experienced gunners....

Also, “penetrate 1 inch of steel at 1000 yards”? Not likely. Mil spec standarads for 50 AP indicate the ability to penetrate .5 inch armor plate at a mere 200 yards, not anywhere close to 1” at a grand.

Your son uses or is involved in the use of M107 50 cal sniper rifles in the 10th Mtn, what does he think? Is the big 50 a wonder gun? Not in my rather extensive experiences. It just provides additional stand-off range to protect our ground forces while they do they heavy lifting.

Just what would constitute an appropriate level of power/range suitable for civilian use? A 22, a 30 cal, a 45 cal????? Is not the militia “the whole of the people, except for a few public officials” (Militia Act of 1792)?

Who cares about suitability for civilian uses, just what is a civilian use??

Barret Firearms, one of the largest makers of 50 cal rifles (over 3000 made for the US Army alone) now refuses to sell or service his rifles to any agency in the state of CA et al simply because he knows the deal-guns for the government, but not the people is a formula for oppression.

As to the good Gen from the HI National Guard; since when does the military engage in politics? Not done-poor form, shame on the him!! He should stick to just the facts, not his opinions. If this bill passes, then he will have to find other sources for his arsenal of 50s, as Ronnie Barrett should follow through and cancel his dealing with the state guard or LEAs. I hear Russia is making a knock-off 12.5 mm heavy rifle, the people of Murfreesboro, TN would appreciate it if they still can make the rifles for the state of HI....

Disarming the America people is the only step required to completely abbrogate the US Constitution-which is just what many in government(s) desire.

Admiral Yamamoto (sp-sorry if I butchered it) said about the Attack on the US at Pearl- “I think all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant”, and when asked about invasion of the US, he is quoted as stating “ It would fail, there is a rifle behind every blade of grass”.

Civilian ownership and the bearing of arms IS the deterrent to most hazards our country faces.

God Bless

[Tijeras_Slim]

I advocate the ownership of firearms by people who will use them responsibly and respectfully.

If by this, you mean law abiding citizens (I have a problem with "civilians" somehow being a separate class.) I withdraw my prior criticism.

[from occupied ga]

In the event of an armed uprising against the government, most of the fighting will occur in densely populated cities. Fully automatic assault rifles and machine pistols and grenade launchers are more useful. One could make the argument that in the rural areas the 50 would be invaluable. Well, maybe so, but the government has tanks and helicopters. A man with a barret 50 is no match against a tank or helicopter

Againt a MBT you're right a .50 is useless, but against low performace aircraft hmg rounds are effective. The ZPU series caused a lot of helicopter havoc in Viet Nam. Further, police forces don't usually have MBTs they have things like M113s that are vulnerable to .50 rounds - particularly to SLAP rounds

[SoldierDad]

I have posted that I errored in my original comment. I do not advocate the banning of firearm ownership. I reacted to the article without fully thinking, and I offer my apology for that.