Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Honolulu PD, NRA Square Off On Rifle Debate
KITV-4 (Hawaii) ^ | 2/22/08 | n/a

Posted on 02/25/2008 8:38:35 AM PST by kiriath_jearim

A battle is brewing between the Honolulu Police Department and the Hawaii Rifle Association over a proposed ban of a high-powered sniper rifle.

KITV's Catherine Cruz reported that the 50-caliber rifle is dubbed the most powerful rifle on the market today, and the HPD said it is their worst nightmare. That is why they said they want it out of civilian hands.

It's a weapon that's long been used by the military and law enforcement, but in most states, a person can buy it over the Internet or from a gun store, which is making law enforcement uneasy.

"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.

The rifle can fire 10 rounds in 10 seconds, and the bullets can travel for miles, police officials said.

They said that a shot fired from the rooftop at police headquarters could precisely hit a target at the state Capitol, four-tenths of a mile away.

The National Guard calls the weapon a threat to homeland security.

"It does concern us -- shooting down airplanes four miles distances," Hawaii National Guard Gen.Gary Ishikawa said.

The National Rifle Association said that a ban would infringe on the right to bear arms. It argued that the weapon hasn't ever been used in a crime in the islands.

"We haven't had any incidents of robbers at banks or terrorist shooting airplanes -- it just doesn't happen," HRA member Mark Plischke said.

But police said they don't want to wait until then.

They said the proposed ban will die in the judiciary committee if they don't get enough public support for the bill.

The rifles are outlawed for civilian use in California, New Jersey and New York.

The HRA maintained that their members use it for hunting or eradicating goats. Others users of the rifle said they enter long range firing competitions

The rifle is so powerful that it has been banned from the Kokohead Firing Range, range officials said. The rifle is only allowed at military ranges, which are off limits to civilians.

It is also very expensive. One rifle will fetch about $8,000, officials said.

There are 125 registered owners of the high-powered rifle in the state, with 90 owners living on Oahu.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: 50bmg; bang; banglist; hawaii; hi; nra; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 401-415 next last
To: Abundy
AMEN to you Abundy! When the second amendment was ratified civilian could own anything they could afford.
61 posted on 02/25/2008 9:18:14 AM PST by 2001convSVT ("People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

More innocents have been killed by LEOS than by 50s.


62 posted on 02/25/2008 9:19:13 AM PST by NoLibZone (If the Clinton years were so great for the libs why is Obama doing so well?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
Move to a commie country. It won't be available for purchase and you can be happy. Please don't foist your foolishness on the rest of us.
63 posted on 02/25/2008 9:21:56 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

W/E


64 posted on 02/25/2008 9:23:40 AM PST by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: rickomatic

I take deer with mine...


65 posted on 02/25/2008 9:25:40 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (ENERGY CRISIS made in Washington D. C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

-—and it took an average of 12000 rounds of .50 BMG to do so —both in the Pacific and European theaters of war—


66 posted on 02/25/2008 9:25:45 AM PST by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim
When the Marxist’s Dimocrats have the White House and Congress controlled together, January of 09 by the way, they will start passing little laws here and bigger ones there, to go around the 2d Amendment. They will do everything they can to unarm us or make it impossible to even purchase ammo for guns. Like a box of 40 cal shells costs $20.00, would probably be taxed by $100.00 and cost you $120.00 per box. They would tax us out of our minds on our ammo. Just another little law to take away more freedoms.
67 posted on 02/25/2008 9:26:02 AM PST by RetiredArmy (Obama: NOT the next JFK. He is the NEXT STALIN!!!! Wake up America!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

“THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS...SHALL...NOT...BE...INFRINGED.”

Pretty easy concept to understand. You, as a “soldier dad” should understand that.

The Constitution says NOTHING about “civilian use”, “sporting use”, or ANY use other than what a firearm is intended for. It does NOT say “the right to keep only the arms WE feel are acceptable.”

It was written for the AGES, not the DAY. And almost EVERY State Constitution has a keep and bear arms clause in it. Look them up. New Jersey is an exception, and the Dems that control Jersey use it to their advantage fanatically, even though they violate the Federal Constitution (read that: BREAK THE LAW OF THE LAND) with impunity.

“Sporting use” came from 1930’s Nazi gun laws which the Dems (the previous Senator Dodd) copied in 1968 (look it up on JPFO.org).

They’re crying about the .50 now; next it’ll be the .30 caliber weapons. Then smaller and smaller. They already have their playbook written.

The way LEOs and Pols view a FREE MAN’s RIGHT to own firearms is critical. They either view you as a SUBJECT or as a Free citizen. They do NOT deserve to hold office if they don’t recognize you as a free citizen with unalienable rights, PERIOD. If they are afraid of YOU, you need to worry about THEM havening ANY power over you.

They are public servants; they work for YOU, and they should be reminded of it at every opportunity. And thrown out of office poste haste if they forget it.

Men DIED for this right; we should not give it up cheaply.


68 posted on 02/25/2008 9:26:57 AM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment is Non-Negotiable and NOT subject to Polling Data)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NFHale
The way LEOs and Pols view a FREE MAN’s RIGHT to own firearms is critical. They either view you as a SUBJECT or as a Free citizen. They do NOT deserve to hold office if they don’t recognize you as a free citizen with unalienable rights, PERIOD. If they are afraid of YOU, you need to worry about THEM havening ANY power over you.

Pretty much puts it in a nutshell.

Bump!

69 posted on 02/25/2008 9:29:06 AM PST by beltfed308 (Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase.

Fine, don't buy one. After you ban this, then a scoped .30 will be the next thing for the squeemish to wet themselves over. Don't buy into the "legitimate purpose for civilian use" crap. If I want one that should be enough in a free country.

70 posted on 02/25/2008 9:29:14 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NFHale

Bump!


71 posted on 02/25/2008 9:30:38 AM PST by MacDorcha (Arm yourself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: 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.


72 posted on 02/25/2008 9:31:21 AM PST by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: NFHale; Joe Brower

Spot on, well said!


73 posted on 02/25/2008 9:32:39 AM PST by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*RWVA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
Well, then, I want my F-22. I want to be able to own an Abrams tank. I want to have a battleship or an Aircraft Carrier. Because, according to the logic being applied here, the only way I, or anyone else, can legitimately claim my 2nd amendment right is to have weapons which can be used to defend myself (and others) from our Government, and the only way in which to be able to defend ourselves from that Government is to have the same weapons they have as a civilian. I have a hard time with that logic.

You have a hard time with that logic because you are ignorant of history.You CAN own an Abrams tank, if you can afford one. And as far as a battleship or aircract carrier? Maybe you should spend a little more time reading US History, and less time spouting ignorance on the internet. During the early years of our Republic private ships were indeed armed with "guns" better known as cannon. Ever hear the term "privateer"? Completely legal privately owned warships. It wasn't until blssninnies like you started to wet your pants over law abiding citizens arms ownership that it became a popular belief that the only reason to own weapons was for "sporting purposes".

Sorry if this sounds unkind. But I and many others are about fed up with your kind. You have NO right to champion the depravation of our God given rights. Read the founding fathers, then come back here and tell us if you still feel this way.
74 posted on 02/25/2008 9:33:10 AM PST by rickomatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

I gotta think it would be useful to plug Rocky Mountain antelope, high-range mountain goats (mentioned above, I assume), moose, wapiti and other high-strung animals.


There is not much left to salvage after that shot is taken.


75 posted on 02/25/2008 9:33:31 AM PST by BOATSNM8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
So, you wish to try and compare the late 1700’s with today? Wow. No small stretch for use of logic there.

Cool...the 1st ammendment only protects quill pens and printing presses from that era. Nice logic.

76 posted on 02/25/2008 9:33:33 AM PST by beltfed308 (Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Illegals got you down?

Immigrants who are still loyal to enemy causes too?

Read my tagline!


So... common sense has an experation date, eh?

Ecclesiastes 1:9-14


77 posted on 02/25/2008 9:34:35 AM PST by MacDorcha (Arm yourself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
Well, if you have a back yard big enough I sure support your right to park an aircraft carrier in it - as long as it’s OK with the homeowner’s association.

One of them .50s is a little hard to whip out from under the seat and take a shot as you drive down the street.

I get an extra $8,000 and I’d like one. But then I’d have to get a bigger gun safe.

78 posted on 02/25/2008 9:37:30 AM PST by PeteB570 (NRA - Life member and Black Rifle owner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

I feel the same way about Corvettes. What do people want them for anyway? The pure excitement?


79 posted on 02/25/2008 9:38:03 AM PST by 4yearlurker (We are the vehicles and God is the driver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
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.

First, I don't remember the Constitution saying anything about legitimate purposes.

Secondly, the .50 BMG has been used in competitive 1000 yard events for many years.

80 posted on 02/25/2008 9:38:24 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 401-415 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson