Posted on 09/11/2002 6:48:26 AM PDT by boris
The point is, government starts with "resonable" laws as a way to start the process, not end it. California mandated that automatic weapons be registered - and then a few years later used the registration to confiscate those weapons from law-abiding citizens. The average gang-banger or the average terrorist, for that matter, isn't going to bother with one of these 50 caliber weapons - they're not very concealable. And, of course, outlawing them will do nothing to solve anything, so the government will a couple of years later propose another ban of, say, handguns. And then that won't work, and there will be yet another ban of shotguns and hunting rifles. Tyranny by incrementalism. That's why it's best to not even let the process start, especially when the process has absolutely NOTHING to do with the problem "justifying" the action.
At $2.50 a shot, I bet it would not be very many. If the Los Angeles gangs began carrying .50 caliber BMG rifles, it would chew up all their crack profits in a matter of weeks.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
So are many of the higher power hunting rifles when loaded with FMJ bullets. The old .30-06 or 8mm Mauser will punch a nice little hole through 3/8 inch AR plate. It sounds really cool too.
Glad to hear that. I'm in favor of short-sleeved shirts, too. I'm also a supporter of our right to keep and bear arms. Maybe my Kentucky public school education wasn't so bad after all...
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Two problems with the above line: 1.) The 2nd Amndment isn't about hunting, and 2.) ALL bullets are piercing bullets... they don't do much good otherwise...
You come off sounding like a Libertarian trying to justify illegal drugs when you want piercing bullets.
See above...
As far as most guns, I don't care at all.
Apparently, you do, since ALL guns use piercing bullets...
The automatic type, piercing bullets do bother me.
See above, again... duh...
The sniper kind should go to liscences qualified hunters and re-sale should be the same as well. Those have too much potential to kill folks in a terrorists hands.
More problems, here... 1.) A sniper rifle means it's really really accurate... those are the ONLY kind to have, imho... an innaccurate rifle is as useless as a liberal on welfare... 2.) You can kill a man with a rolled-up magazine... All it takes is a hard jab in the throat - so, by your logic, we should license those as well, right? I mean , what if terrorists got a hold of a buncha copies of Riflemen Magazine? The Carnage! The horror!
Just how I feel. I'm just one person though.
Ooh.... 'It's just how I feel'... how liberally sensitive you are...
I'm all for the NRA and the right to bare arms.
Good... wear short sleeves all you want, but leave my right to keep and bear arms alone, ok pal?
Wouldn't qualify a bazooka or cannon under that right either though.
I know lots of guys who own cannons, and go out into the desert to have fun with other cannon owners... They should be shot on sight right? Luckily, since you want to ban 'piercing' bullets, they will just bounce off...
At $2.50 a shot, I bet it would not be very many. If the Los Angeles gangs began carrying .50 caliber BMG rifles, it would chew up all their crack profits in a matter of weeks.
You're shopping at the wrong place :)
$199-Can of 150 rounds FMJ
$250-FULL CAN OF 150 rounds. - TRACER
www.ammoman.com is a good place to shop :)
Most firearms and cartridges were designed for military use; using your strenuous logic, nearly any caliber of firearm could be banned. But as long as it fits in with your own narrow, provincial experience, it's okay, right?
BTW, I see .50BMG shooters all the time, AND NONE OF THEM ARE SHOOTING AT PEOPLE. So, it appears your stupid little assessment of the merits of .50BMG rifles is off the mark, wouldn't you admit?
Most firearms and cartridges were designed for military use; using your strenuous logic, nearly any caliber of firearm could be banned. But as long as it fits in with your own narrow, provincial experience, it's okay, right?
BTW, I see .50BMG shooters all the time, AND NONE OF THEM ARE SHOOTING AT PEOPLE. So, it appears your stupid little assessment of the merits of .50BMG rifles is off the mark, wouldn't you admit?
Of course they are... anyone who doesn't follow basic, common-sense safety procedures would never be welcomed...
If you want to hunt with that in a forrest, you might have a problem with law enforcement though.
As I said before, the second amendment ain't about hunting. So, that's irrelevent...
Just have to be ballanced.
The only way to be balanced is if civilians have access to the same hardware the gov't does... as it stands now, there is a serious inbalance -so, are you REALLY sure you want balance?????
Armor piercing bullets are an issue. A need for that exact type of bullet in every hunters gun is probably BS I am sure.
Why are they an issue? Because criminals might get them? That argument is a joke - criminals don't follow the laws - that's why they are criminals...
Most types of guns are not an issue.
All types of guns are an issue for gun-grabbers... they just go after certain types first, then the next type, then the next... etc... until we all have single shot .22s (which would then be called sniper rifles, and they'd take those as well)
For me I see just a few things I wouldn't go for. Autimatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and sniper/hunting rifles should IMO be issued to those with proper training and permits to hunt.
Leaving the armour-pierceing bullets aside, it already IS legal to own automatic weapons, provided you have the right license and pay the appropriate fees...
Who would determine what the 'proper training' is, in order to buy a hunting rifle? The gov't? That proposal would be the single biggest single violation of the second amendment that one could think of, short of banning all weapons...
Those three things are my few issues at this time.
And let me guess, as soon as those 'issues' are resolved, you'll just find other 'issues at this time' right?
Just yesterday I would have said NO sniper rifles and then a hunter pointed out that is what most hunter use, so that made good sense, I change my position as I did above to that issue.
Basically, you got told what an idiotic position you had, so you changed it to a different idiotic position... I see no change - I see a person who knows absolutely zilch about guns, the second amendment, and seems to be afraid that people out there are armed...
But ya know what? Those same people you are trying to 'regulate' because you fear them and have no trust in them, are the same ones who will be saving your ass if we ever have conflict on our soil - think about that...
If I said, "Bulls**t", would you get offended?
Armor peircing bullets will kill cops.
Any kind of bullet can kill a cop - bulletproof vests are not infallible, and people don't always aim at center mass... So we better ban ALL bullets, post-haste!!!!!!
Sniper rifles not in the hands of a qualified hunter could end up in the hands of a terrorist these days.
First off, define 'qualified'??? you still havne't answered me as to WHO would make that determination as to WHO is qualified...
Automatic weapons are just plain crazy for the common man.
In YOUR opinion - provide some facts to back up that assertion...
That is my view, the rest I have no problem with. I am not anti gun, just against that little bit I mentioned.
That 'little bit' makes you anti-gun... too bad you can't see that... I resent the fact that you are so eager, and willing, to sell out our rights just so you can feel safer - maybe if you had some guns, and learned how to use them safely, you wouldn't need to do that...
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.