Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
N.J. considers outlawing powerful .50-caliber gun
foxnews.com — New Jersey is looking to become the second state to outlaw a powerful gun that critics say can be used by terrorists to shoot down an airliner. "We can wait for the first time mayhem occurs in our country before we ban civilian sale of these weapons,"
djm0ther- 535 diggs
- digg it
- jcblitz, on 10/12/2007, -13/+185I'm sure terrorists are all using legally purchased and registered weapons so yeah, this should work wonderfully.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -12/+138I just wish we could cut all the "terrorist" crap out of our politics. 19 guys took over a bunch of planes with box cutters. They ran them into buildings (or tried to). We can't get rid of box cutters or planes. And there are 200 million other ways to kill people.
So can we just agree that effective terrorists are few and far between? Maybe the best defense against terrorism is not pissing off the Entire Planet? What really stops terrorist attacks is leads to legitimate law enforcement folks from people who don't hate us. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+76This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I hate politicians.
"Terrorists organize using the Internet, cell phones, and other methods of communication. They also incite hatred through speeches at mosques and protest rallies. We can wait for the first time mayhem occurs in our country before we ban civilian use of free speech." - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42If you want to shoot down an airliner, you can lob a goose out of an airgun too... Just as effective and probably less incriminating evidence.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -31/+13I don't care if its used by terrorists or not. A .50 caliber weapon is for the average hunter who wants to disintegrate an animal.
/sarcasm - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -20/+116"A .50 caliber weapon is for the average hunter who wants to disintegrate an animal."
How about for the average patriot who wants to retain the only safeguard against government going bad? - BigHeadOne, on 10/12/2007, -9/+75@nepawoods
Agreed. People forget the right to bear arms is in order to overthrow a tyrannical government. In the 18th century, muskets were cutting edge. Whatever our country's military has access to, the people should have access to in order to keep them in check. That was the intent of the constitution, not hunting or home defense.
I admit this leads to other social concerns, but who really cares...humanity is doomed anyway on a long enough timeline.
NUKES FOR EVERY CHILD. - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -35/+9@nepawoods
I read this argument all the time, but it seems that the average patriots and gun owners are the strongest supporters of war criminals, who also don't give a ***** about the US laws and constitution, that are in the US government now. - welk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'm sure no terrorists come from out of state either.
- technogenius, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19I don't think we should ban the gun, even though no one in North America needs one.
The only real reason one would need this kind of gun is for:
A- Killing an elephant
B- Killing something very dead
On a matter of principal though it shouldn't be banned, .50 cals are a lot of fun to shoot. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24The article says this is a ban on all .50 caliber guns because of their incredible impact power (indicating they are referring only to rifles); however, traditional single-shot rifles are exempt from the law. Most of the .50 cal rifles I've seen are single-shot, so it seems to me that this law is actually intended to ban .50 caliber handguns, which are less powerful than a 30.06 rifle. Also, anyone who owns a .50 cal before the law goes into effect would be exempt, so go pick up a Desert Eagle or a Raging Bull.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33@techno - They are used in long range competition shooting. There is no reason to ban any firearm, but it doesn't stop them from trying. This is the first reason California is of no interest to me for a place to live.
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+57How about this. There has never been a crime committed in the US with a .50 caliber weapon. They are so big, they are just inefficient for almost any type of crime. A terrorist would have better luck with an RPG.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20I surely hope the the state of NJ, nor any of its government agencies, have any Barrett firearms that they use. They will no longer get service from Barrett if they pass this law, same as California. He refuses to service them.
- Johnwelby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25"A .50 caliber weapon is for the average hunter who wants to disintegrate an animal."
Or maybe you are hunting during the black powder season and want to hunt animal the size of deer and up?
A .50 caliber weapon does the job fine, and it doesn't disintegrate the animal. - bflfab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@jjesusfreak01
Good point, RPGs are likely cheaper too.
You can pick one up on the middle east black market for less than $300. A .50 caliber (BMG, not black power) rifle is almost always $1000+ - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22So has a 50 cal rifle ever been used to injure anyone in the commission of a crime in the US?
I'm thinking no.
Fear-mongering. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31"The only real reason one would need this kind of gun is for:
A- Killing an elephant
B- Killing something very dead"
C- Recreational distance target shooting.
D- Competetive target shooting.
E- Hobbyist collecting. - halik, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Most insightful comment you can make...dugg
- hcker2000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15If they can take over planes with box cutters why spend $1,000-$10,000 on a rifle? Sure you might be able to shoot a plain down with one when they are landing. Thats true of almost any rifle.
The best thing to do is keep a two mile zone where no one is allowed around the airport. Monitor that zone for any one who is not supposed to be there. Of course there is always the problem of them setting up in the parking lot and shooting the airplanes.
In the end terrorists do not legally buy weapons. The same goes for murders, robbers, etc. Weapons that are used for that kind of thing are made by the people doing the aforementioned things or they are bought out side the country and brought in.
If they really want to take down a plain they will just strap some explosives on an R/C plain with a modified (more powerful) transmitter/receiver and a camera and just fly it into the plane. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@"So has a 50 cal rifle ever been used to injure anyone in the commission of a crime in the US? "
No, but from my understanding there is an outbreak of Samurai ronin attacks in the UK.
Seriously folks... Even if you could afford and had a desert Eagle handgun or .50 machine gun you aren't going to rob a friggin bank with it. It is too impractical and if you had one you could get more money selling it than committing crime with it. - Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2@nepawoods
I would love to see you and your .50cal up against 50 FBI or CIA agents that try to come get you. The fact is, a .50cal gun would no more protect you from the police or government then a slingshot would. You may take a few out along the way, but you would eventually go down like the Waco people did a while ago. The only real thing that takes down corrupt governments is a large force of civilians. A big gun is just going to get you shot first.
As far as hunting, there is no hunting use for these types of guns. Their only use is for show or collection.
Why are American gun fanatics so interested in getting high powered guns? - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"keep a two mile zone where no one is allowed around the airport"
That could be rather difficult and cost probably close to several billion dollars. There are many airports with the runway very close to a major hiway or interstate.
SEATAC outside of Seattle has a hiway run through a tunnel under the runway. The Chicago airport is so close to the freeway that you could literally hit a plane by throwing a rock on its way in. The one in West Palm in Florida is about the same. - jimcavoli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8May I also add that while you could shoot at an airplane with a .50, you can also use anything else you want (e.g. RPG). Besides, the terrorists will most definitely go through the process to legally get their guns, right?
My God. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30"Why are American gun fanatics so interested in getting high powered guns?"
I have no interest in obtaining any .50 caliber (of any variety) firearms. You are confusing opposition to unnecessary and dishonestly-supported government restriction of a firearm with a desire to obtain said firearm. This is a common gun grabber mistake. - MikeFromAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The article suggests that .50 cal weapons are bad because they could shoot down an airplane. Even if that is true, isn't that even more reason civilians should have access to them. Maybe if some of the people in the WTC had had .50 cal rifles on 9/11, they could have shot down the hijacked airplanes before they hit the buildings....
- OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17I am sick of the Government using Terrorism as the catalyst to deplete all of our rights - given to each of us by the founding fathers. Right now you could generate enough electricity from the spinning of our founding fathers to keep us all supplied for a thousand years. Enough is enough. I love the rights we have even if I do not exercise all of them I know that they are there and available to me. Banning any GUN or Bullet is a strict violation of our rights! New Jersey is not the voice of the people. Guns and other weapons will always be available to the criminal elements as they do not use legal methods to get these weapons! All the bans do is prevent Law Abiding Citizens from defending themselves. After 9/11, Iraq, and Katrina, I have zero trust in our government (national and local ) to be there for me when I need it. This is the same country that allows criminals that get hurt while committing crimes to have lawsuits against the very people they were looking to victimize. Enough is enough - NO TO ANY GUN BAN in any state. I will be to sole judge of what is right for me - NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
ANY GUN BAN IS TANTAMOUNT TO TREASON AND WILL SPARK A NEW REVOLUTION.
Digg me down or digg me up I really don't care but ban my weapons and I will personally take you out! G-d Bless America! - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The terrorists wouldn't be such a damned threat if NORAD would just do it's ***** job.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>"A .50 caliber weapon is for the average hunter who wants to disintegrate an animal."
s/animal/gungrabber
Where can I get me a .50 cal? - wacki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Number of terrorist acts in America which have used a .50 cal rifle? Zero.
This law sounds like it's going to be really effective. /sarcasm - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I'd be in favor of this gun not being banned, IF we could up the education level of people, and the quality of psychiatric care in this country, so that every few weeks there isn't some crazy nutjob going on a shooting spree.
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"I'd be in favor of this gun not being banned, IF we could up the education level of people, and the quality of psychiatric care in this country, so that every few weeks there isn't some crazy nutjob going on a shooting spree."
How many shooting sprees have involved a .50 caliber gun of any kind? - jimbo100, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Nixonrichard: you don't live in the UK do you?
if you hate politicians in America then you would want to KILL all the UK politicians.
no seriously, they're that bad. - nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wait a minute. I hear a lot of talk about sacrificing freedoms, privacy, and the need for exponetially expanding executive powers in order to maintain security in this country. But I'm betting that a lot of the same people who are ok with all of that are the same ones that aren't willing to consider a ban on one kind of weapon a sacrifice for security, but an infringement on their liberties.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -12/+138I just wish we could cut all the "terrorist" crap out of our politics. 19 guys took over a bunch of planes with box cutters. They ran them into buildings (or tried to). We can't get rid of box cutters or planes. And there are 200 million other ways to kill people.
- newbee70, on 10/12/2007, -7/+57Ah, you see the light too!. I'm glad that someone see's all these dangerous guns. Next we will
get the dang cars Too! we need to protect everyone against anything that might harm them.
Then we are gonna go for the throat, no red meats, nothing that can be used for either good or
bad.- netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -55/+7...Cept you use a car for driving around, a gun for killing things. a .50 caliber gun's a bit big for hunting deer, don't you think?
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45@netdroid
In America, more cars kill people yearly than guns do. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+48"a .50 caliber gun's a bit big for hunting deer, don't you think?"
the "arms" referred to in the second amendment are not intended to kill deer, and if you don't plan to eat what you kill, no gun is too big. - Scratchula, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25netdroid9,
I use my ultralight composite-stock .50 caliber rifle for deer hunting. (Granted, it's a black powder rifle and not a military-grade centerfire machine gun).
This law is nothing but an attempt to set the precedent in order to "tweak" the law in the future. They'll want to ratchet down the number that comes before the word "caliber" until it reaches about 16 or so. Then the gun-grabbing assholes will be happy. Anyone with a brain stem will oppose this legislation and others of its ilk. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"They'll want to ratchet down the number that comes before the word "caliber" until it reaches about 16 or so. Then the gun-grabbing assholes will be happy."
No, they'll ratchet it down to .38. Then they'll ban .22LR for being too potentially concealable and too deadly and dangerous at close range, without enough long range to have a "legitimate sporting purpose" and work their way back up. - Scratchula, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@dimensio,
Good point, I hadn't considered that clever strategy. I used the number 16 because one of my other favorite rifles is a Savage .17 HMR (rimfire) which I am convinced could make an effective sniper rifle at a range of under 300 yards or so. - blogger1947, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@netdroid, and you others who even remotely agree with him/her/it:
If the government banned every item that people did not "need," very little merchandise would be left. Wal-Mart would probably go out of business, as well as all the automobile dealers, "party" stores, book shops, etcetera.
At the root of things, a human needs a source of food; a source of water; a place to defecate and urinate; shelter from the elements; a means of evading or protecting himself from predators. Everything else is a toy... - over90, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0I love how everyone claims guns are needed to overthrow the government. The reality is everyone is too pussy to do anything about it even if the government went bad. Just look at Iraq. It was overflowing with guns, but noone bothered to take down Saddam Hussein.
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -10/+71Ah, gun grabbers and the ".50 BMG rounds can take down an airplane" lie.
Gun grabbers have no facts, and no staticstics that support their agenda, so they have to fearmonger through lying.- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -6/+88Birds can and HAVE taken down airplanes, yet they sell them at PetCo!
- redfox2600, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33@nixonrichard
That is why we need to shutdown these terrorist animal pet stores and detain all of birds within them. One less bird on the streets is a safer tomorrow for America. - Surefoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21"Supporters argue the guns are inappropriate for civilian use because they can fire armor-piercing rounds that can penetrate and ignite chemical plants, refineries and rail tank cars. The guns, which resemble large hunting rifles, are accurate up to 1 1/2 miles."
Looks like a great idea for a Mythbusters episode. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Looks like a great idea for a Mythbusters episode."
They've used a .50 cal rifle before, but I think they just shot at buster to see if he would fly back . . . then they shot it into a pool of water. Trying to hit a person at 8000 ft. would be a lot more fun. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@nixionrichard
Actually, it's kinda boring. You wait, and wait, and wait, and WAIT, until all the conditions are perfect for the shot. - KaserPro, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3Two things, where would you need to shoot a plane with a .50 to actually bring it down?
if you shot the engine, it might catch fire, but the casing is designed to catch flying debris in case of birdstrike. so its unlikly to blow up a plane.
then there is the whole trying to shoot a target moving at 300 mph, 30,000 feet in the air.
Second, what legitimate use do these have? you can't practically hunt with them, firstly becuase they make a huge mess, and secondly becuase of where the bullet will go afterwards. You cant really proctect your family with them, as they are stupidly heavy, and kick like a mule.
The only real reason for having them is target practice. and the amount of clubs with a range long enough to actually make use of these arnt that great.
but yes ban them, just don't blame it on "them, they, the evil doers" - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"but yes ban them, just don't blame it on "them, they, the evil doers""
If you acknowledge that the claim of shooting down aircraft with .50 caliber guns is laughable, what legitimate reason is there to ban them? - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kaiserpro
If you take out an engine of a jumbo jet on take off, it's most likely going to crash.. The two worst times to lose any power in an airplane are takeoff and landing when you're trying to balance lift and gravity with very little room to recover. - AnotherBrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Re: thcobbs
1) I'm sure there are procedures for dealing with the loss of an engine on take off or landing like full throttle the other ones and adjust rudder trim.
2) I seriously doubt anyone could hit a plane traveling as take off or landing speed, much less actually hit it in a vulnerable spot that would cause it to be in danger of crashing.
- mightydavefish, on 10/12/2007, -79/+15And, predictably, the gun nuts come running to defend a weapon that has ZERO self defense or hunting use.
But because a gun makes them feel like a big man, they defend them.
It's sad that people would rather live in a world of fear and gun violence rather than act like men.
Real men don't need guns to feel like men.
And owning a gun doesn't make your ***** bigger, tiny.
But the gun nuts ignore the statistics of gun violence and just pretend that if EVERYONE had guns we'd all be better off.
Pathetic.- teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -11/+67"And, predictably, the gun nuts come running to defend a weapon that has ZERO self defense or hunting use."
Zero self defense use? It is just a gun like any other. More stopping power means you can take out someone wearing bullet protection. If you think that is not necessary, imagine that in the future dystopia, when cops become looters wearing kevlar, you can at least have a chance to protect yourself.
"But because a gun makes them feel like a big man, they defend them."
Irrelevant point to whether or not something should be legal.
"It's sad that people would rather live in a world of fear and gun violence rather than act like men."
What do you mean by people acting like men? If someone breaks into your house and starts raping your wife at gunpoint, are you going do the manly thing and call the police? Guns do not make the world a world of fear. Guns are tools for existing in the world of fear. Our current world is not perfect. Some choose to have certain protection from it.
"Real men don't need guns to feel like men."
No they do not. However, owning a gun does not make anyone any less of a man.
"And owning a gun doesn't make your ***** bigger, tiny."
I have never seen anyone buy a gun because of their biological inadequacy. I am sure there are some. I do not think that those guy buy .50s
"But the gun nuts ignore the statistics of gun violence and just pretend that if EVERYONE had guns we'd all be better off."
Tough argument. But the opposite, i.e. "if no law abiding citizens had guns, we'd all be better off" is also tough to argue.
"Pathetic."
Pathetic is how politicians try to take away rights of citizens for no apparent reason. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -9/+62"And, predictably, the gun nuts come running to defend a weapon that has ZERO self defense or hunting use."
I'm sorry, I didn't see a requirement that a firearm have "self defense or hunting use" (as defined by mightydavefish) in the Second Amendment. Could you clarify where that is spelled out? - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -8/+39"But because a gun makes them feel like a big man, they defend them."
Who has claimed that "a gun" makes anyone "feel like a big man" besides you?
"It's sad that people would rather live in a world of fear and gun violence rather than act like men."
What relevance has this statement to do with anything?
"Real men don't need guns to feel like men."
No one has claimed otherwise. You are attacking a strawman. Why is this? Have you no legitimate argument in support of banning .50BMG caliber rifles?
"And owning a gun doesn't make your ***** bigger, tiny."
Only anti-gunners claim that gun ownership is in any way related to penis size. You are again attacking a strawman rather than providing a rational argument.
"But the gun nuts ignore the statistics of gun violence and just pretend that if EVERYONE had guns we'd all be better off."
Please provide "gun violence" statistics regarding .50BMG rifles. Explain how the statistic would be altered if .50BMG rifles were banned. To do this, you must show that any crime committed with a .50BMG rifle could not have been committed just as easily with a .30-06 caliber rifle.
"Pathetic."
That is an accurate summary of your posting. - nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18Man, just give them their stupid gun . . . My God. It is kind of an IQ test, isn't it? If you don't give them their damned gun we will have to listen to them whine about it. Its their money. Its legal, and they are most likely just going to use it to murder tin cans. If they use it to kill anyone else we'll stuff their butts in jail.
- RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33@mightdavefish
"But the gun nuts ignore the statistics of gun violence and just pretend that if EVERYONE had guns we'd all be better off."
You bring up statistics of gun violence, and since we are talking particularly about the .50 why don't you remind us all of those statistics. How many people was it again that has been killed in the US by that gun? I'm sure the statistics will want to make us ban that gun immediately. We'll all be waiting for your response. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Didn't you see Snatch? It took a .50 caliber gun to kill that guy who refused to die.
- jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6teadrinker: "Zero self defense use? It is just a gun like any other. More stopping power means you can take out someone wearing bullet protection. If you think that is not necessary, imagine that in the future dystopia, when cops become looters wearing kevlar, you can at least have a chance to protect yourself."
I don't know about guns, but maybe NJ should outlaw bad Sci-Fi. - SgtSlappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37I always find it ironic to hear someone who very likely knows nothing about hunting, nor the principles of self defense, utter the words "What does _______ (eeeevil firearm of your choice) have to do with hunting or self defense?"
The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of any such qualifying factors to the individual right to own and bear arms... other than the right shall not be infringed. (That doesn't stop the socialists does it, though...)
...and I hate to tell 'ya but .50 cal and larger ARE used for hunting ...and have been since the days of the Founders. But you'd know that if you knew anything about hunting... which I doubt you do.
I'd also be curious to hear these "statistics of gun violence", that "we" are ignoring... like all the 26 pound .50 rifles (according to the Brady Center... the choice weapon of gang-bangers and terrorists alike) that have been used to shoot down airliners...
P.S. Davey, I just added another Mil-spec .45 to my vast and growing collection of fine American historical firearms... which have freed Europe TWICE, and to this day have killed fewer people (while in my care, that is...) than Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile in Poucha Pond. ...and I hope to keep it that way! - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I don't know...
I think If I were looking down the barrel of a .50 cal rifle, I might be a bit less inclined to attack the guy. Maybe that's just me?
Then you get defense without shots fired. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30Hey retard:
The 2nd amendment is there to make sure the people have the means to overthrow their own government. This is just another example of the government chipping away at that right. It's pathetic that there are so many people who support this. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Gotta love how the people that claim guns are penis-substitutes, calling people "tiny", name themselves something like "mighty"dave...yeah, right.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Thank you, DIGG, for taking care of mightydavefish so I didn't have to. My faith in you has risen again.
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Now that they took my gun, I feel like less of a man. All I have left now are my large genitals." - Simpsons - Police officer Lou
- Chrontius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Get a clue. BATF and DOJ statistics, in easy issue-by-issue form.
http://www.gunfacts.info/ - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10and the anti-gun nuts ignore the statistics.
In the US, the states with the most liberal gun laws have the lowest incidence of violent crime. The states with the strictest gun laws have the most violent crime.
Look outside of the country. In Switzerland, everybody has a gun in their house yet, they have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.
In the 50's most states banned automatic knives (switchblades) in order to reduce gang violence. We see how effective that was.
Lets face it, its just a tool. If you focus on the tool, you are ignoring the problem. The problem is people who want to commit violence. They will always find a way. Focus on the source of the problem if you want to fix the problem. Focusing on the tool makes you just as shortsighted as the president and his policies. Banning guns will not fix the problem of violence any more than the ban on drugs has fixed the drug problem. - ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Look "mightydave" (snicker) - it's real simple - If you don't like guns then don't own one. If people in this country would quit trying to force their personal beliefs on others we'd all be better off,
Just to straighten you out a bit-
-the right to bear arms is just as important as any other right and one "they" want to take away. You can't engage in wholesale tyranny if a majority of the populace is armed.
-In sections of the US where right to carry laws have been passed violent crime drops to all time lows.
-In countries like the UK where they banned guns criminals still use them. Now the UK wants to ban knives too because citizens have used them - to protect themselves.
-you need to do some research on gun crime and please don't use the NWO propaganda rags for research. If you have a gun used against you in a crime the odds are 90%+ the gun is not legally owned and registered by the criminal.
-50 caliber guns are a very niche product bought for a variety of reasons. As far as using them, A. it's huge fun shooting one and B. Just showing one to a criminal will defuse most situations without anyone getting shot.
-your effort to paint gun owners as "less endowed" is just a crappy as Ann Coulter's or O Reilly's tactics. In my own case I'm hung like a mule, (in case you're gathering statistics). - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hmm...but you know mules are sterile, right? :)
- barkeep8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a big penis, and I still like guns... ;)
Finely crafted firearms are truely pleasurable to have and behold. It's amazing to me that with a few chunks of metal, some chemicals and a machine shop, you can create a tool that can feed you, protect you, and entertain you. Guns are fine art.
- teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -11/+67"And, predictably, the gun nuts come running to defend a weapon that has ZERO self defense or hunting use."
- soccernamlak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+54So.....what happened to the 2nd Amendment? Or did that just get washed away with everything else in the Constitution?
- fasda, on 10/12/2007, -26/+3the second amendment specifically leaves all powers to regulate arms to the states and not the federal government.
- fasda, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3mistake digg down
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20"the second amendment specifically leaves all powers to regulate arms to the states and not the federal government."
And the first amendment leaves the power to regulate free speech to the states, the eighth amendment lets states decide how to regulate cruel and unusual punishment, and the thirteenth amendment gives states the power to regulate slavery. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7The second amendment is the only point on the constitution gun advocates fixate on. George Bush can authorize illegal wiretaps, suspend Habeas Corpus, and arbitrarily extend his own power so long as his doting "conservative" followers can have their guns.
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for the right to bear arms. If the police are not there to protect you when you are under attack (which they never are; the vast majority of such crimes go unsolved) they have no business keeping you from protecting yourself. (Proof positive: http://www.digg.com/videos_people/A_Gunfighter_Sends_Liquor_Store_Bandits_Running_With_POINT_BLANK_Shot Admittedly, this is with a handgun; I'm not sure a 50 cal. rifle is good for anything but sniping. When is sniping "defense"? Only in warfare. God forbid that we ever fall into civil war.)
However, let me point out the irony of something I see:
American gun enthusiasts (usually extremely conservative in their political persuasions) advocating the right to bear arms and to assemble militias justify their position by saying that the citizens of a country have the duty to overthrow oppressive government and to establish a government they want, even if it must be done by armed force of a civil militia. On this basis, they advocate the domestic proliferation of small arms. However, the same bunch of people do not advocate the same right in Iraq--which, incidentally, has insurgents organizing armed militias to try to overthrow a government they don't believe to be legitimate.
In other words, it's hypocrisy. But I digress. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Incidentally, it is legal to be armed with a gun on the street, but if you're found possessing a pair of nunchucks at home, you can be charged with a felony.
"Right to bear arms" my scrot. What they mean is firearms. God forbid you're found in possession of nunchucks.
http://www.digg.com/politics/Nunchaku_Illegal_in_New_York_California
Please digg this one. It got submitted awhile ago, but never made the front page. It ought to be brought to attention, because some of what has happened on account of these idiotic laws is truly outrageous. Here's an excerpt:
_______________________
In California earlier this year, police legally entered the San Jose residence of Harold Vaughn, a long-time martial artist and past Virginia director of the U.S. National Karate Association. Upon noticing a pair of nunchaku hanging on display on the wall along with Vaughn’s martial arts certificates, the police asked if he had any others. He did, and they subsequently seized a total of six pairs, following which Vaughn was charged with six counts of violation of California Penal Code § 12020, a misdemeanor, for his possession of the nunchaku in his home. There was no allegation that he had used them, or threatened to use them, to harm anyone, but, unfortunately, under the statute, no such allegation would be needed for a conviction. On July 19, 2004, Vaughn, threatened with prosecution for six misdemeanor counts with consecutive sentencing that would lead to six years of incarceration if he were convicted, pled "no contest" to a single misdemeanor count. A few years earlier he had moved from Virginia to California to study law, and had just completed his law degree. He is now spending weekends doing jail time by means of a part-time incarceration program. Ironically, he was ineligible for a community-service option because a "weapon" was involved. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"The second amendment is the only point on the constitution gun advocates fixate on."
In all fairness, it's kinda the one that's most relevant to "gun advocates."
"However, the same bunch of people do not advocate the same right in Iraq--which, incidentally, has insurgents organizing armed militias to try to overthrow a government they don't believe to be legitimate."
The whole idea of a militia is a fighting force made up of the people to fight for the people in defense of the law (the legitimate parts of it, at least). "Militias" in Iraq derive power through instilling fear in the people. They kidnap innocent people in the middle of the night and conduct ruthless murders and assassinations. They fight along religious and ethic lines and fight not to defend the law, but to dismantle it. They are not trying to preserve a country, they aim to destroy it. John Adams wrote:
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
The militia John Adams is referring to (the one in the second amendment) is nowhere to be found in Iraq. Kidnapping an innocent family of Sunnis, executing them, and dumping their bodies on the side of the road is not the act of a militia. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"the second amendment specifically leaves all powers to regulate arms to the states and not the federal government. "
No. The constitution specifically leaves ***** such as roads, health care, pensions, education to the states. You know -- these things that are today unconstitutionally getting so much federal funding.
Berkana:
Usually conservative?? I guess that's how you can describe me if that means abiding by the constitution... - KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@Berkana Don't you go setting up a straw man. I hate the constitution shredding GWB, but I believe the second amendment is one of the most important in the constitution. It is the "teeth" of the document, the only hope it has of it being enforced. Go ahead and repeal it if you don't like weapons, but please try to understand why the founding fathers found it so important to not only include, but to list it right after free speech in their document outlining the rights of their new country. Find a holocaust survivor somewhere and ask them what they think about gun control sometime, and then ban guns...thats what made me switch sides personally from being a rational anti-gun supporter to supporting our founders' views.
- ExSlashdotter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I can't believe anybody can use the "why would you ever need a gun that big" argument or the "thats way to big to shoot deer" argument...
I can't understand would anyone would need a car like an Enzo. I mean, why do you need to be able to go 200+mph anyway? You can't even go that fast in New Jersey! All you really need a car for is driving to/from work anyway, and a Honda Civic will do that just fine. What, you're going to be driving to work in an Enzo Ferrari?! And don't even get me started on sportbikes, or should I say "deathtrap crotch rockets"! - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The second amendment is the only point on the constitution gun advocates fixate on. George Bush can authorize illegal wiretaps, suspend Habeas Corpus, and arbitrarily extend his own power so long as his doting "conservative" followers can have their guns."
False generalization. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"I can't understand would anyone would need a car like an Enzo. I mean, why do you need to be able to go 200+mph anyway? You can't even go that fast in New Jersey! All you really need a car for is driving to/from work anyway, and a Honda Civic will do that just fine. What, you're going to be driving to work in an Enzo Ferrari?! And don't even get me started on sportbikes, or should I say "deathtrap crotch rockets"!"
Then you should support the Brady Center's proposed Race Car Ban. It has all of the logic and rationality of the Assault Weapons Ban!
http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1004352499/ShowPost.aspx - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"what happened to the 2nd Amendment?"
Its the one part of the constitution that the ACLU pretends doesn't exist.
- maninthemask, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Where in NJ are you gonna be using one of those anyways?
But of course a gun that shoots "evil" can't be sold.
What the hell is that supposed to mean, just cause a gun shoots out a small metal tip doesn't mean that the spawn of satan is emerging from the barrel. It's a gun, the only evil is the person that uses it in an evil way.
If I want to go around shooting deer with a .50 cal and making them explode, it's my deal.- fasda, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4I live in NJ I'm happy about this ban since when densely populated end the woods begin. One bad shot could go through my living room wall and kill me. There is 1100 people per square mile that means there is almost no open space that is large enough to give a person a safe enough radius to not hit some hit neighborhood.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20fasda: what about the pine barrens...
"Supporters argue the guns are inappropriate for civilian use because they can fire armor-piercing rounds that can penetrate and ignite chemical plants, refineries and rail tank cars. The guns, which resemble large hunting rifles, are accurate up to 1 1/2 miles."
With our federal government becoming ever more and more powerful aren't we ***** ourselves by banning these weapons? The 2nd amendment wasn't put there so people could hunt or play with their guns. They would like for us to be able to fight a guerilla war against our own government if it ever got out of control. These gun controllers are morons... a precursor to a totalitarian America - 3-6-0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In Hunterdon county there is tons of open space
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"What would we ever need guns for, anyway?"
"VICTORY IS OURS!"
/family guy - SleepJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In Northwest New Jersey you'd be surprised as to how much of it is covered with just trees. If you feel like checking, search for Northern towns in Sussex County. There are plenty of places to hunt.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Where in NJ are you gonna be using one of those anyways?"
Where do you really need your freedom of speech anyways?
Where do you really need your freedom to gather in groups anyways?
Where do you really need your freedom of religion anyways?
Just because somebody doesn't *need* something isn't reason to make it illegal.
- fasda, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4I live in NJ I'm happy about this ban since when densely populated end the woods begin. One bad shot could go through my living room wall and kill me. There is 1100 people per square mile that means there is almost no open space that is large enough to give a person a safe enough radius to not hit some hit neighborhood.
- DforSpiD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Guns... They made wars boring...
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Aren't you late for an SCA meeting?
- HUKI365, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Ya - check out 300 versus Private Ryan...300 trumps all.
That said it is Sparta in which the right to bear arms was founded. - DaneArden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2guns didn't make war boring. they just made the little guys and girls able to play with the big boys. much like when crossbow made war a more equal proposition. it relies on a skill that doesn't require great strength or years of training and practice to be effective.
politicians are doing form over substance so they can do nothing helpful and still say to the electorate look what we did.
CALONTIR
- limbo1334, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5With all the lower-class Muslims (easier Jihadhi converts) NJ holds, a better solution would be to outlaw Muslims.
Look at Europe; the more Muslims, the more problems.
Let's try and save America.- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Both the NJ law and your idea crap on the reason this country was founded.
NJ is smashing your right to bear arms, and you're smashing the right to practice any religion you want.
- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Both the NJ law and your idea crap on the reason this country was founded.
- goodbeershow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Of course these are sniper rifles, but the primary use for these weapons are by the Army EOD. They pile up confiscated enemy ordinance and explosives and use the 50 cal as a very long handled hammer to ignite them.
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That would be _fun_!
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20New Jersey to America "To hell with your 2nd amendment"
Join the NRA... - somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19This is a brilliant idea whoever came up with it should get the Nobel Peace Prize because lets be ***** honest: this new law will solve the terrorism problem once and for all!
Ha I would like to see those terrorists try and get away with something now their .50-cal guns have been taken away, all those .50 terrorist attacks we suffered through - never again! - LeeSoong, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1stupid.
These .50 cal weapons are no match for Spiderman. - Zer0kill, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6But I need my .50 caliber weapon to hunt todays super creatures, like the flying squirrel and the electric eel.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Umm no.. we need our 50 calibers to hunt things like the US Army, the President, Congress. If government ever got out of control, an armed populace would surely have a good shot of taking it down.
The 2nd Amendment wasn't so that frontiersmen could freely kill however many buffalo they wanted to. - ExSlashdotter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yep, and dont think that it wont ever happen. Look at the history of civilization. America is only ~200 years old, and look at how much different it is already. Just take a look at Iraq and GWB, and the liberties they take with your freedom as is. The government takes 50% of your paycheck, for chrissakes. It may take a while, but its coming.
Do you seriously think that the united states of america is still going to be around and functioning 100 years from now? 500?
Thats the thing about people these days. they dont believe something life-changing can actually happen, then they're shocked when it does (holocaust, 9/11, katrina, etc). - 10lbhammer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1man, with all the simpsons references that fly around this board, you sure missed this one, didn't you!
you sure were grifted good...
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Umm no.. we need our 50 calibers to hunt things like the US Army, the President, Congress. If government ever got out of control, an armed populace would surely have a good shot of taking it down.
- leftfield, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2these people who think a .50 cal rifle is only good for long range apparently haven't seen me no-scope with the awp yet.
/sarcasm - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5why the hell do you need a .50 cal weapon anyway?
Unless you're hunting Dinosaurs what else would you use it for?- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Killing people. You do realize that killing a person is not necessarily a crime.
The purpose of high-caliber weapons for killing people is often stopping power. A long time ago soldiers traded in 7mm pistols for 10mm or .45 caliber pistols. It's not that a 7mm can't kill someone, but you want to be able to kill someone quickly and with one shot or they might be able to shoot back. A .50 caliber pistol is just an extension of this. A .50 caliber rifle can kill someone more effectively, even through walls, and like any good sniper rifle its trajectory is less affected by perturbations in the air. - Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It also has the ability to take out the engine of a lightly armored vehicle.
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Some .50 caliber rounds are suitable for deer hunting, despite the lies fed to you by anti-gun groups.
.50 caliber rifles are also used in recreational and competetive target shooting. See http://fcsa.org/ - OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Need" has NOTHING to do with it. Do you really want the government determining what YOU need, or don't need?
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Killing people. You do realize that killing a person is not necessarily a crime.
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Riiiiggghhht.........
If we outlaw the gun then the terrorists will never get their hands on it.... - AZinferno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14This is really stupid. First of all a .50 caliber rifle has never been used to commit a crime. They're expensive as hell $3,000 - 10,000. They're huge, really heavy, and almost impossible to conceal. Most are single shot so if someone wanted to take out a moving target they would have to be a really good shot. Something like an AK-47 or AR-15 would be much more suited for the job. .50 caliber rifles are only used for target practice and competitions. Some of the best marksmen have been known to hit targets from miles away.
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4They're not that expensive . . . you can pick one up for about 2k. However, if you want to be able to hit someone standing on the steps of Congress from the Lincoln Memorial, you had better get the $10k version. Actually, good .50 sniper rifles can go well above $50k.
- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I thought the US Army used the light .50 rifle to detonate bombs and whatnot that didn't explode on impact?
I also read something about some treaty banning the use of .50 cal machine guns against human targets, but there's a bit of a loop hole, because the military gentlemen being interviewed said that they aimed at the weapons the attackers carried, and if the bullets hit the attackers, it was just because they got in the way.
There was a story like that linked from digg about 9 months ago... - JusticeAK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've even have incendiary bullets for my AR-15.
- Tarnum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15The NJ legislature should read the "Gun Myths" article in Wikipedia.
"Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifles can be used by terrorists to shoot down commercial jets. Although .50 caliber firearms are very powerful compared to other small arms, the cartridge's power is not adequate to cripple a large airplane by sheer impact alone. Most major air forces stopped using .50 caliber machine guns in their fighter aircraft shortly after World War II for this reason."
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_myths_in_popular_culture- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1FYI, The Barrett "Light Fifty" was designed for use against aircraft, not as a sniper rifle. (When it was introduced, a lot of writers thought it was a silly idea, because they mistook it for the latter...) It's not going to "cripple a large aircraft by impact alone", of course not (though if you could hit it at altitude the pressurization would help) - but, as the Barrett brochure points out, "compressor sections of jet engines or the transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area". Sit on the end of the runway and shoot into an engine on takeoff!
- ButterBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16first goes the .50, then the .45, then .38/9mm, .22...whats left???
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -4/+144th reich
- positron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Hitler, Stalin, Mao...
Dictators agree: Gun control works. - skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3BB pellets - they cause 100,000,000,000 scrapes a year.
- welk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12i say we ban boards with nails in them, or soon we'll will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy us all!
- skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All hail glue!
- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16If you outlaw the ability to protect yourself, only criminals will be able to protect themselves..
Now, I'm not saying a .50 cal is a good gun for self defense, but I am saying that this is a slippery slope.
Off-topic, how do cities like NYC and San Francisco get away with 'outlawing' guns? Doesn't the constitution say they can't do that?- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The San Francisco ban is in court right now. Thank the NRA for that one. They aren't arguing against the ban per say. They are arguing that, under California law (state Constitution), cities don't have the power to outlaw firearms. Let's hope they win.
And, as far as I know, NYC hasn't banned any. Please let me know if I missed that. - h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6NYC just makes it next to impossible to get a permit to carry a handgun. I think owning rifles is still allowed, as long as you're not a felon, and as long as you don't carry the ammo and the rifle together at the same time.
NYC also doesn't honor carry concealed permits issued from anywhere else in New York State. - JusticeAK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In DC you it's almost impossible to legally own a firearm. and look at the murder rate.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The San Francisco ban is in court right now. Thank the NRA for that one. They aren't arguing against the ban per say. They are arguing that, under California law (state Constitution), cities don't have the power to outlaw firearms. Let's hope they win.
- bewing77, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3So yea, you really need a ridiculously expensive rifle designed for light armor penetration and ordnance disposal for self defense right? The second amendment is there to allow people to overthrow the government? Well, then you would need to have tanks, aircraft and maybe nukes to be totally safe methinks. And you're not seriously gonna lug around that rifle for hunting, and even if you did, it sure would spoil most of that deer.
I mean come on. Whats all the talk about defending yourself against the government? How come every other free democratic nation in the world remains democratic without their citizens owning military equipment? The battle for your (and everyone else's) future freedom and democracy doesn't take place in some kind of battlefield, it happens through propaganda and fear mongering, where governments make sure people are so afraid of terrorists and whatnot that they will allow arbitrary limitations of their rights.
I mean, I am all for letting people with the correct training and background own hunting weapons. But I do think letting people getting hold of basically any kind of weapon can only lead to trouble. Over here you can buy a hunting weapon if you go through a quite extensive training program involving theory about hunting, eco-systems, species, weapon safety and handling as well as practical parts as proving your gunnery proficiency etc. As a hunter I think that is great since it lets anyone dedicated enough own the weapons needed for hunting but also it makes me feel a little more secure when I hunt with my buddies, knowing that they have passed through a rigorous safety education.
Sure, if I was robbed at gun point it would be nice to be able to defend myself, but if that means giving criminals easier access to guns I'd rather just give him the wallet, be safe, call the insurance company, and live on.- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11No, actually, serious light arms are more than enough to make a government weary. Former Soviet generals will say that in their planning for any invasion possibility of the United States the biggest single problem they foresaw were random light arms everywhere slowly sniping their invasion force to death even if they had eliminated all major US military resistance. You need tanks to overthrow a government, but not to defend yourself from it, and the .50cal is a perfect weapon for this use.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@kibibytebrain
An excellent point, and let's look at what the American military is facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military forces defending these countries was not a problem, the civilian militias are causing far more trouble.
- Sub7, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5Won't work, we've been through this before:
Americans have the right to carry very powerful arms that they can't in any other country - because some ancient law gives them to right to defend their land in the event they get attacked by time travelling Indians- gfreeman223, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Actually, Americans have the right to carry whatever guns they choose because the implicit threat of revolution by the populace keeps the government in check. Though highly unlikely, the very possibility of a shooting revolution is a intrinisic part of American culture and identity. Let us not forget, the founding fathers had just defeated the most powerful empire in the world with nothing but joe blow and his trusty rifle.
First the anti gun people want to ban derringers because they are too small, then they want to ban .50 caliber because it is too big... I'm sorry, but the .50 caliber line wa drawn in the sand a long time ago, and the BS about being able to shoot down airplanes is quite ridiculous. If we ban .50 calibers, they'll just start going down a list..
.50 caliber
.338 Lapua
.308 NATO
5.56mm
.22 caliber
BBs
The slippery slope arguement, while faulty in formal debate technique, is exactly what the Brady campagin has admitted to being their strategy. Start somewhere and take take take. - KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The fact is, I like to know that somewhere in the back of every Judge, Senator, Congressmen, and bureaucrat's mind when they are doing their job day to day is that they face a well armed civilian population every day they work. It stops them from crossing the fine line between the ***** every administration tries to pull and the ***** that this country's people just cannot swallow. Without a well armed population, any sort of resistance is left to a military coup, which I am actually fairly comfortable with happening in this particular country. The problem with a coup is that the Military would not go through with one if they saw any chance of an even small civil war resulting, so they'd need about 99.9% consensus on such action. With that in mind, I rather like the current state of affairs.
- bewing77, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2greedfman, if guns and the possibility of an armed uprise is what keeps the government in the US in check, then what keeps the governments of every other democracy on the planet from going haywire? What is so fundamentally different in the US that makes private militias a requirement for democracy?
Some people argue along the lines that if the people of Germany were armed Hitler wouldn't have gotten power, but this is simply not true. Hitler gained power through hate mongering and fear, while giving the population someone to blame for their problems and he gained massive support from the people. Even if they had been armed they would have been more likely to "help" him out. Same thing with the Soviet union, which came about from the people rising up against the government.
Also, militias face some philosophical issues. What if the government manages to persuade the majority of the population to agree with them doing whatever it is that you wouldn't like them to do. Would it then be right for a militia to go against the majority of the people (by definition being non-democratic) to restore the way things should be? If so, what is stopping groups with a more nefarious agenda from rising up? It all boils down to the basic democratic problem of whether you should abide with the decision of the majority even if you disagree, or if you should go against democracy and take matters into your own hands.
And please, a straight discussion would be nice, I am sincerely interested in a sane debate, instead of just burying people with different opinions. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Americans have the right to carry very powerful arms that they can't in any other country - because some ancient law gives them to right to defend their land in the event they get attacked by time travelling Indians"
What law are you talking about? There's no law that gives Americans (or anyone else) the right to carry arms. The second amendment (presumably what you mean by "some ancient law"), like the rest of the BoR, merely _recognizes_ those _preexisting_ rights, it doesn't claim to _grant_ them. Rights are prior to governments. The founders understood that, unlike most people today. (I'll ignore the silly "reason") - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"greedfman, if guns and the possibility of an armed uprise is what keeps the government in the US in check, then what keeps the governments of every other democracy on the planet from going haywire?"
Same thing, I suppose. What makes you think the US is different? People have guns in other countries, y'know!
(Not that it does much good. The reasons for the American Revolution look pretty trivial compared to the government of today, and nobody's started another revolution yet...well, since the constitution coup anyway)
"Would it then be right for a militia to go against the majority of the people"
I can't understand the question. The militia /is/ the majority of the people - how can the majority of the people go against the majority of the people?
"It all boils down to the basic democratic problem of whether you should abide with the decision of the majority even if you disagree, or if you should go against democracy and take matters into your own hands."
What problem? If the majority is wrong, you shouldn't feel compelled to go along with them. Aristotle called democracy an evil form of government with good reason. - Chrontius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1bewing77:
The American model of democracy (as opposed to the parlimentary model) produces more than its fair share of dictatorial governments where the executive branch seizes power. Public ownership of arms is a stabilizing factor specific to the American model.
Just my pet theory. - bewing77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Misesean:
1) People in other civilized nations don't have access to weapons as readily as in the US. You can own hunting weapons under pretty harsh restrictions, but military equipment is a no no.
2) You lost me there. You mean that there can only ever be one militia and that one militia always represents the majority of the people? In my opinion this is simply not the case. There could be endless militias in a nation, and every one of them could have a different idea of what it is that they need to defend, be it the constitution, universal suffrage, gay rights etc. What if one of theese groups see a need for an armed uprise, even if the majority of the population don't?
3) You shouldn't feel compelled to go with what the majority thinks: So basically, what you say is that democracy is fine, just as long as the majority agrees with you?
Chrontius: Wouldn't that suggest that there is something inherently wrong with the US democratic model? Isn't that the problem that should be fixed in that case? And do you think that the presence of an armed population has had any effect on political decisions in modern times?
All in all I find this discussion quite amazing. To most people in most of the rest of the western world this isn't even a discussion, it's a no brainer that more guns means leads to more problems. It's not a topic of discussion just as little as death penalty, evil profanity on tv and the validity of creationism. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"1) People in other civilized nations don't have access to weapons as readily as in the US. You can own hunting weapons under pretty harsh restrictions, but military equipment is a no no."
Depends which country, and when. In most countries that you'd want to live in (i.e., that don't have what most westerners would recognize as tyrannical governments), you can easily get guns, or could until very recently (e.g., Australia only banned "military style semi-automatics" in 1996)
"2) You lost me there. You mean that there can only ever be one militia and that one militia always represents the majority of the people?"
What do you mean by "militia"? "Militia" in the 2nd amendment means "every able-bodied male between 18 and 45" (the restriction to males only makes sense in the context of the 18th century)
"3) You shouldn't feel compelled to go with what the majority thinks: So basically, what you say is that democracy is fine, just as long as the majority agrees with you?"
No. Democracy (in this context) is NOT fine, ever. Majority vote is not a legitimate decision-making procedure (in the political sense - i.e., when the vote-losers are forced to go along willing or not. It's a perfectly good procedure for a group of friends to decide where to go for dinner, etc., where nobody is being forced)
"All in all I find this discussion quite amazing. To most people in most of the rest of the western world this isn't even a discussion, it's a no brainer that more guns means leads to more problems."
We're not all consequentialists. Even if I were to accept that "more guns leads to more problems" (which I don't), it wouldn't affect my "pro-gun" position.
- gfreeman223, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Actually, Americans have the right to carry whatever guns they choose because the implicit threat of revolution by the populace keeps the government in check. Though highly unlikely, the very possibility of a shooting revolution is a intrinisic part of American culture and identity. Let us not forget, the founding fathers had just defeated the most powerful empire in the world with nothing but joe blow and his trusty rifle.
- r1y23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9A .50 could shoot down a plane......many people get that from WW2 where we used quad .50's for AA defense.
But lets think here, we stopped using the quad because it was not effective enough against larger aircraft and to hard to take down smaller, faster fighter planes. So if 4 .50's set on a platform and designed to specifically take out aircraft had problems taking down planes, one man with one .50 cal rifle is going to? hmmmmm
Also you can use .50 cal rifles to hunt, just really long distance hunting. Its starting to become popular in many places, i think its around 1000+ yards.- bewing77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I guess the "could" phrasing is key here. You probably aren't very likely to take a plane down with it, but it should be quite possible if you hit some critical part (pilot comes to mind). But no, even hitting a flying plane would be a feat, the reason that balistic AA-guns have several barrels (or are gatling guns) are to make hitting easier.
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Guess what? Law biding citizens don't shoot down planes and criminals don't follow laws. Therefore a law is not necessary.
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A .22 hunting rifle took down a plane in "Air America" IT MUST BE TROOOO
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099005/ - flipmeat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 Anti-gun types know very little about firearms - probably the reason they latch onto 'aaa, the scary gun!' issues. Many of them believe that any military-looking rifle is a machine gun. I'm sure that many of them think sport shooting .50's are machine guns too. The phrase 'sport utility rifle' has been coined to fight the false machine gun impression.
The quad .50 AA gun was four actual machine guns firing together. I wish someone would show the anti crowd what 'single shot bolt action' means. - bewing77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From my hunting hobby I am interested in guns and from my military background I know a bit about military weapons and still I am against public availability of theese items. I'm sure I'm not alone. And about the scary guns; guns ARE scary. Military weapons are designed to kill people, and in the wrong hands they will.
- tallguy240, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2I am not an anti-gun nut but outside of REALLY big game hunting like Grizzly, Elephant, Rhino etc. there is really no practical civilian use for this type of rifle. Unless your compensating for something that is.(see phallic symbol).
- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Here's one: The government grows out of control, and the citizens of this country decide to take their freedom back.
The Military sure has lots of big guns, don't you feel silly now that you've outlawed everything that is "too powerful" for hunting? - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Indeed, that's what the second amendment is for. Not hunting. Militias don't hunt.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Recreational target shooting and competition shooting are a couple of civilian uses.
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The biggest big game hunting rifles, back when that sort of thing was done, were a lot bigger than .50 cal. Holland & Holland made rifles chambering the famous .600 Nitro Express (now there's even a .700NE, but...), and I've heard tell of 2-bore rifles (which, if I'm calculating it right, is about 1.32" caliber!)
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The biggest big game hunting rifles, back when that sort of thing was done, were a lot bigger than .50 cal. Holland & Holland made rifles chambering the famous .600 Nitro Express (now there's even a .700NE, but...), and I've heard tell of 2-bore rifles (that's about 1.32" caliber!)
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2There's really nothing in the 2nd amendment about keeping the government in check. Here it is, since you seem to have forgotten it:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There, that's all there is. Does it say "the right of the people to keep and bear any kind of weapon they please"? Does it say anything about overthrowing the government? Does it even ***** suggest that free ownership of guns outside a "well regulated militia" is permissible? No. No, it doesn't. Stop going on and on about the 2nd amendment as though it supports your agenda of unregulated guns when it really says nothing of the sort. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@ eicos
There's really nothing in the 2nd amendment about keeping the government in check. Here it is, since you seem to have forgotten it:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There, that's all there is. Does it say "the right of the people to keep and bear any kind of weapon they please"? Does it say anything about overthrowing the government? Does it even ***** suggest that free ownership of guns outside a "well regulated militia" is permissible? No. No, it doesn't. Stop going on and on about the 2nd amendment as though it supports your agenda of unregulated guns when it really says nothing of the sort.
My reply: the key is in "free state." If the government usurps too much freedom from us then we cease being a free state.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention any types of weapons at all, so why ban one type and not another? Why not ban them all?
The constitution is open to interpretation, and the supreme court has ruled on many cases regarding firearms ownership so there is a vast amount of case law regarding firearms that support the freedom to own and keep them, even outside a militia.
Also, although the 2nd Amendment mentions a militia, the second phrase clearly states "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." We are the people, not the militia, and it is OUR right to bear arms. And we should be able to freely choose what weapons we want to carry, and not some politician with an agenda. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"There, that's all there is. Does it say "the right of the people to keep and bear any kind of weapon they please"?"
Yes, it says that in plain English: "The right ... to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - "arms" means "any kind of weapon" and "shall not be infringed" means "making restrictions is not allowed".
"Does it say anything about overthrowing the government?"
Nope. The DoI suggests that purpose, but the Constitutional purpose is to avoid the danger of having a standing army by making the people responsible for their own defense, and making offense very difficult.
"Does it even ***** suggest that free ownership of guns outside a "well regulated militia" is permissible?"
Yes. Again, in plain English: the right of the people ... shall not be infringed.
"No. No, it doesn't."
Yes. Yes, it does. You might like to try a remedial reading class, if you're having problems. (You also seem to be making the common error of assuming that the second amendment _grants_ some right. It doesn't. It merely recognizes a preexisting right, and tries to protect it from federal interference. Therefore the idea that it puts some condition on the right (e.g., membership of "a well-regulated militia" - though you clearly don't understand what /that/ means, either) is ludicrous) - bewing77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So tanks, fighter jets, cruise missiles and nukes are all fine? You are reading this like some people are reading the bible, forgetting the context it was written in. Back then, do you think the "founding fathers" could conceive the possible weapons of today?
And the part about "recognizing a preexisting right", does that imply that it is every human beings right to arm themselves? Who came up with that idea. And if so, why would the US be so vexed about Iraqi insurgents possibly getting weapons from Iran? I mean, they are only exercising their human right to bear arms, right? - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"So tanks, fighter jets, cruise missiles and nukes are all fine?"
Except for the nukes, yes.
"You are reading this like some people are reading the bible, forgetting the context it was written in. Back then, do you think the "founding fathers" could conceive the possible weapons of today?"
Why would that matter?
"And the part about "recognizing a preexisting right", does that imply that it is every human beings right to arm themselves?"
Yes.
"Who came up with that idea."
What do you mean, "who"? Anyone who reflects on the subject, I suppose. Consider: there is no person who has more rights than any other person. Who has the right to tell some people they can have guns and other people they can't? On what basis?
"And if so, why would the US be so vexed about Iraqi insurgents possibly getting weapons from Iran? I mean, they are only exercising their human right to bear arms, right?"
Why would you expect any government to be any more concerned with anyone's rights than they absolutely had to be? (Anyway, presumably it's not so much the /getting/ of the weapons that's of concern as their /use/) - RawShark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tallguy240
"I am not an anti-gun nut but..."
But you use the same arguments as one.
- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Here's one: The government grows out of control, and the citizens of this country decide to take their freedom back.
- jefferson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+250 caliber that seems like a nice practical personal weapon
- infra172, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24If New Jersey thinks terrorists follow laws, why not just ban the act of shooting down a plane? Gun laws only affect the lawful.
- GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Damn I wish I could give you a couple hundred diggs! You just explained in two short sentences the problem with all of these anti-gun laws. Kudos!
- austintexasguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11How bloody silly. Let's protect some of the amendments, but others are EVIL! Can't we just have ONE party that supports the WHOLE constitution for once?
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Especially going after the 2nd, which is the only amendment that actual makes the constitution enforcible by any party but the government itself.
- jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What about the 18th amendment? Where does that fit into your argument?
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Presumably "the WHOLE constitution" would include the 18th, and also the 21st.
PS: Ron Paul
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Does anyone else see a pattern of more disarm more control?
- RedHerringHack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Barretts Weapons are works of art and engineering. I would love to have one of each.
Especially the 82A1/M107. You should see the piece that they did on him on the
military channel. Only 4 people have ever designed weapons for the military.
These kinds of weapons are the only reason that the enforcement arm of our government
fears us. That fear is a good thing. Keeps em in line. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Are they going to ban box trucks because they can hold IEDs? Look what Timmy did in OK. Seems like ranting about one type of weapon that not too many people own in the first place is a smokescreen or diversion, which makes me wonder, why bring this up? Further, why would someone intent on taking out a plane use a rifle? Wouldn't they smuggle in a couple of antiaircraft missles through Canada?
- sambo357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This image comes to mind. Shoot down airplanes?
http://www.seawindpilots.com/images/pilot_mg250.jpg - avasol, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2You have the right to BEAR ARMS.
So, if you can't CARRY the f'in gun yourself you don't have a constitutional right to use it.
Case closed. :-)- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This just in... The .50 cal CAN be carried. Not concealed, but it can be carried. So can an M60 and a few hundred rounds of ammo.
Give me one of each! (not at the same time of course... this isn't Doom)
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This just in... The .50 cal CAN be carried. Not concealed, but it can be carried. So can an M60 and a few hundred rounds of ammo.
- gr3i, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1A lot of people seem to be making an argument that firearms (of apparently almost any type) are needed in order to over throw a tyrannical government. I'm sorry, but to my non-US sensibilities this whole concept seems... well... stupid.
Isn't America supposed to be this great shining beacon of democracy where everyone is equal with the right to choose their government?
So instead of letting your nation get to the point whereby you need high powered armaments to overthrow a tyrannical government.... how about, and I know this idea may seem strange to many of you, using those democratic rights and voting for an alternative.
I'm Australian and I live in a country that implemented some pretty strict gun control laws after some maniac decided to go kill 30 odd people and ruin everyones day. I can't think of a single time in which anyone suggested we keep our access to firearms in order to ensure our rights to a democracy. I don't particularly care if you fought for your freedom against the British, and I'm fully aware that Australia is still part of the Commonwealth and (depending on who you ask) has the Queen as our head of state. We don't have to rely on weapons to ensure our democracy, our constitution lets us decided every three years if the pollies in Canberra have done a good job or gone too far and we just vote the bastards out. Now we just use guns for their real purpose, shootin' roos, rabbits, pigs and robbing the occasional bank.- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"So instead of letting your nation get to the point whereby you need high powered armaments to overthrow a tyrannical government.... how about, and I know this idea may seem strange to many of you, using those democratic rights and voting for an alternative. "
I don't understand why this needs to be explained. What if a tyannical power assumes control, and refuses to step down? You know they have elections in most totalitarian governments, too.
It's quite insulting that you think that progun Americans are stupid... and quite pathetic that it's coming from someone from a country that has seen a rise in crime following the enaction recent gun control laws. Any nation that trusts its government is already on the road to tyranny. America has unfortunately reached that point. You are long gone. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"I'm Australian and I live in a country that implemented some pretty strict gun control laws .... We don't have to rely on weapons to ensure our democracy ..."
Give it time. - gr3i, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1@ jcm267 "I don't understand why this needs to be explained. What if a tyannical power assumes control, and refuses to step down? You know they have elections in most totalitarian governments, too."
"It's quite insulting that you think that progun Americans are stupid... and quite pathetic that it's coming from someone from a country that has seen a rise in crime following the enaction recent gun control laws. Any nation that trusts its government is already on the road to tyranny. America has unfortunately reached that point. You are long gone."
What you'd probably have to explain to me and every citizen of Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, German, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Austria, Italy and countless others is exactly *who* it is your worried about. What tyrannical force is going to take over your country? Besides which, surely if a tyrannical force takes over your country then the constitution would automatically become invalid negating any need to enshrine this concept into law.
I never said that pro-gun Americans were stupid. What I said was the concept of needing an article enshrined in your constitution as a method to defend your democracy as stupid. And.... it is. Your going to go off about that comment I'm sure, but to the rest of the world, its S T U P I D.
Additionally, you have a go at me because I'm from a country that has exercised its democratic right to continue voting for (in three different elections no less) the federal government that brought these gun control laws. Do you have ANY evidence that suggests that an increase in Australian crime post the introduction of increased gun control laws has either a direct or proportional link to the enactment of said laws? P.S. A link from the NRA or wikipedia will not suffice.
@ nepawoods "Give it time."
Seek help. Its called paranoia. Here is some light reading from the DSM-IV, the diagnostic standard text for mental illness.
Paranoid personality disorder:
# suspicious; unfounded suspicions; believes others are plotting against him/her
# preoccupied with unsupported doubts about friends or associates
# reluctant to confide in others due to a fear that information may be used against him/her
# reads negative meanings into innocuous remarks
# bears grudges
# perceives attacks on his/her reputation that are not clear to others, and is quick to counterattack
Pick which ones fit you. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Seek help. Its called paranoia. Here is some light reading from the DSM-IV, the diagnostic standard text for mental illness. Paranoid personality disorder ..."
Then I guess you'd count the founders of this nation as mentally ill too.
The atrocities that governments have committed against their own people are very real, and blissfully pretending it can't happen in your country is pure naivete. What does DSM-IV list as the diagnostic criteria for unrealistic naivete? Or don't they address it?
And what are you afraid of? That your gun-owning fellow citizens are gonna kill you? It's the anti-gun folks who are paranoid. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4[quote]Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, German, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Austria, Italy and countless others is exactly *who* it is your worried about[quote]
Funny you mention Germany and Italy.. Just how many of the other countries were threatened by the governments of Germany and Italy? Almost all of the, your homeland and New Zealand were threatened by Japan in WW2. . It was quite convenient that those "enlightened" folks in Germany decided in the 1920s to take away guns from the people.
[quote]What tyrannical force is going to take over your country? Besides which, surely if a tyrannical force takes over your country then the constitution would automatically become invalid negating any need to enshrine this concept into law. [/quote]
I don't know what force will take over this country. If it around long enough I'm certain that we will be tested, and probably lose. As the global superpower with military bases in most countries across the globe, ruling this country would be a tyrant's dream. Other countres
[quote]I never said that pro-gun Americans were stupid. What I said was the concept of needing an article enshrined in your constitution as a method to defend your democracy as stupid. And.... it is. Your going to go off about that comment I'm sure, but to the rest of the world, its S T U P I D. [/quote]
You did say that progun Americans are stupid. You are saying it again. How can any intelligent person support such an inane method of defending the constutition? What else do you propose we do to defend Democracy? Are you just trolling or do you really believe what you are saying? I guess you have the benefit to be from a country that, if threatened by tyranny, could be overtaken by the US or even a UN force. If your misguided politics sets the stage for a dictatorship, someone else can always bail you out.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0211f.asp
http://www.sightm1911.com/docs/guncrimesoars.htm
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
http://www.kc3.com/editorial/gun_control_works.htm - gr3i, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@ JCM267 Mate, you’re an imbecile. From the very first link you posted.
"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.
However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.
How the ***** is this directly or proportional to the enactment of gun control laws? If you honestly think that our increasing crime rate is specifically and / or proportionally due to gun control, you’ve got to be as dumb as you appear.
In a country of only 20 million it’s not hard to skew statistics. Read about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_gangland_killings
Each of your articles refers to increased homicide rates in Victoria during this period. Since three of those murders appear to be criminal on criminal, then I’m all for more gun control. I certainly don’t lose sleep at night about it.
@ nepawoods The DSM-IV are an American criteria and as such can be forgiven for ignoring a concept such as unrealistic naïveté. It’s got so much more to deal with over there as it is. In Australia things are fare more simple, we generally just think your country is full of wankers. Anyways, its late here and I’m going to bed, but just to make you feel happy I’ll ramp up my level of unrealistic naïveté and leave my front door wide open tonight, just for you. Or would that be going against my underlying anti-gun paranoia….. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Less guns means crinimals aren't worried about random people packing heat.
From an earlier post of yours:
"Do you have ANY evidence that suggests that an increase in Australian crime post the introduction of increased gun control laws has either a direct or proportional link to the enactment of said laws? P.S. A link from the NRA or wikipedia will not suffice. "
Funny that the same rules don't apply to yourself. Figures.
If you are actually somewhat intellectually curious (which I highly doubt) I'll post a link to a nice ebook about gun control.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.1/GunFacts4-1-Print.pdf - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@gr3i
"Anyways, its late here and I’m going to bed, but just to make you feel happy I’ll ramp up my level of unrealistic naïveté and leave my front door wide open tonight, just for you. Or would that be going against my underlying anti-gun paranoia….."
So wait - crime has gone up in Australia since guns were banned, but you feel safer now?
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"So instead of letting your nation get to the point whereby you need high powered armaments to overthrow a tyrannical government.... how about, and I know this idea may seem strange to many of you, using those democratic rights and voting for an alternative. "
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Gun control laws only help the criminals. Ask anyone living in DC...
- kneegarplz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5First...the governor cheats on his wife and takes up fudgepacking...now banning guns because ZOMG terrorism. Just another reason to hate NJ.
It's statistically proven that MORE planes have been brought down by BOX CUTTERS than .50 cal weapons. Maybe ban them first?
***GUN MAKERS LOVE THESE THINGS*** Why? Because everytime these assholes talk about banning such and such a weapon, sales of that particular gun sky rocket. Don't believe me? Call some NJ gunshops in a few weeks. - noworld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There are a ton of things wrong here:
1) "...illegal to sell .50-caliber weapons in New Jersey." So, if I want to kill someone, I either do it w/o a .50 (easy) or take a little trip to get one (easy, too).
2) "...because they can fire armor-piercing rounds that can penetrate and ignite chemical plants, refineries and rail tank cars." There are a lot of easier ways to do that than with a .50.
3) "Gregory Paw, director of the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, endorsed the legislation. Paw spent 11 months in Iraq advising the new Iraqi government in its war crimes cases against Saddam Hussein and said there are documented attacks by insurgents with .50-caliber weapons." Yeah, take a geography class... New Jersey is on a different continent.
4) "'The only thing that comes out of this weapon is evil,' Paw said." Barretts spit evil and Glocks fart sunshine.
5) "New Jersey legislators want to include .50-caliber weapons in the same law that bans explosive devices." because they're the same. If you're worried about AP or incendiary ammo, ban that.
Finally, the article states that .50 cal weapons are extremely expensive, which they are, and that will slow proliferation on its own. Also, they just keep saying "ban .50." What are they talking about. Every gun that has a half-inch or larger bore? If they just put .50 in the law, then we'll see .51 in a few years. What about .50 AE? Would that be banned, too? It doesn't exhibit any of the targeted features of .50 BMG. What about historicall rifles that are still legal like a WWII Boys AT gun, .55 Cal? What about 12.7 Bloc?
Why is it that the people that legislate about firearms are always so ignorant about the article that they write laws about? It's like the half-witted assault gun ban, where you could pick any two of the dangerous features, like a pistol grip (so much deadlier when you hit someone over the head with an assault gun), or a bayonet lug (I'd like to see statistics of how many people were bayoneted during the commission of a crime with a firearm that had a bayonet lug).
My last thought is that anybody who was already going to do one of the above illegal things could care less if the gun they did it with was legal.
Just my 50c.- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9" If they just put .50 in the law, then we'll see .51 in a few years. "
.50 is the largest caliber a firearm can utilize without being a Class III weapon, IIRC. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Number one caliber used in murders?
.22 - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Number one caliber used in murders?
.22"
Really? I would have thought that it would be .38 or .380. - noworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, over .50 is class III. Does New Jersey ban the sale of all Class III already?
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9" If they just put .50 in the law, then we'll see .51 in a few years. "
- dagr8tim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Funny thing is I just read a magazine article on using .50 rifles for hunting. The whole arguement about taking down a plane is FALSE. The US military used to use a set of four M2's (ma duces/browning .50 machine guns that spit about 500 rounds a minute per gun) firing about 2000 rounds a minute combined. The US military gave them up because they couldn't hit a plan effectivly with them. Now how do you expect some terrorist with a single shot .50 rifle to hit a plane?
Secondly, the guys that are laying out 5 grand + for these guns are hunting at extreme distances. We're talking 1000 yards. There are 1760 yards in a mile. The advantage of using a .50 rifle is not only the thrill of being able to take down an elk at that range, but when you hit said elk, it drops. No tracking it through the brush to find it. And yes, in the sitution stated above, the meat is still usable.
All of the models I've heard about are single shot. Most of them require you to remove the bolt to load the round. Which means if you are lucky, you may be able to get 2 rounds off per minute. The repeaters, maybe 4. And that's if you didn't bother to really aim.
This is really a knee jerk reaction by the state of NJ to a group of sportsmen (and women) who number probably less than 1000 in the US. Most of which are in the Western part of the US where you can safely use a rifle with that kind of range. - keymanjim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is another one of those things that our legislators concentrate on so avoid doing anything about our (highest in the country) property taxes and car insurance.
Currently our governor wants to sell our roads to cover a $2,000,000,000 budget gap that was created because he was sleeping with the head of the state workers union.
Ya gotta love those democrats. - stevenb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7There was talk of a presidential candidate forcing States like California and New Jersey to abolish their gun laws because they are unconstitutional.
I think any president who forces states to remove their gun laws in favor of the 2nd amendment will get my support.
Remember guys.. Good politicians are the ones who don't want to be politicians.- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually, the FEDs should stay out of it. States rights and all...
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It's not a state right. Read the Constitution. States have rights over everything that is not specifically mentioned over something that is a federal right. It's in the Constitution.
Stuff like Social Security, Medicare... that stuff is unconstitutional. Repealing illegal gun control laws is constitutional. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jcm: the constitution doesn't grant the feds any rights over the states on this issue, so it /should be/ a state's rights issue.
- Dou6, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Wow, New Jersey really is a bunch of morons. Sorry NJ, your laws are stupid and don't work. The politicians of NJ have royally ***** that place up, and they think that their gun laws are gonna make things better. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet they have cities like Newark, and Camden, places I would never go without an AK-47 and 1k rounds.
For the last ***** time, gun laws ONLY hurt the honest. Ask the British and the Aussies about it, their crime is skyrocketing. - FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Liberal
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11OMFG We need to BAN TORCHES!!!!
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/8687903p-8585080c.html
Flaming torch used in daylight bank heist
CREDIT UNION: Police are seeking a man who threatened to burn a teller.
By MEGAN HOLLAND
Anchorage Daily News
Published: March 6, 2007
Last Modified: March 6, 2007 at 05:35 PM
A man swinging a flaming torch robbed a Fairview bank Monday afternoon, threatening to set fire to people and burn down the building if his demands weren't met. - cyclonesworld, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I think that there is a ablib somewhere that lawmakers use that reads as:
"_________ should outlaw _______________ because ____________ could ____________."
In this case:
"New Jersey should outlaw .50 caliber gun because terrorist could shoot down an airliner."- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7France should outlaw unlicensed journalists because they could film violent acts and show the world how un-safe Parisian city streets are.
BRILLIANT!
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7France should outlaw unlicensed journalists because they could film violent acts and show the world how un-safe Parisian city streets are.
- JFitzpatrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think the average person has no idea how inconcievably hard it would be to take down an aircraft with a .50 caliber rifle.
The round, as should be obvious by the name, is .50 inches (for those of you using the metric system thats 12.7 mm) in diameter. To put that in pespective that is a bullet with a diameter 2/3rds that diameter of an American Dime, the diamter of a Mexican 2 Peso, or 2/3rds the diameter of an English 1/2 Sovereign.
In other words to actually take down an aircraft you would have to hit the plain in a critical area with a round the size of a damn piece of pocket change (and not -even- a big piece of change the size of a dime.) Not only would you have to -hit- the aircraft in a critical area (assuming that a single shot from a rifle could disable anything important given the solid design of modern aircraft) you'd have to do so at ranges in excess of what the best military snipers in the world are capable of. You'd have to be able to pull off that mission critical shot at a distance of more than several miles on a target moving hundreds of miles per hour.
Do you actually expect me to believe that our government is worried about some middle eastern hillbilly with nothing better to do than come to America and suicide his way into a fictional land of milk and honey (because his life in the middle east sucked so much ass this was his best choice in life?) actually has the marksmenship skills and training to pull this stunt off? Hell no. They just want to take away more freedom from their own people in an ever pressing march towards facism. - ifman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1I missed the part in the 2nd Amendment where it says that we have a right to "Bear any caliber arms that we wish."
I don't see how requiring background checks and banning certain guns is infringing upon the 2nd amendment.- zombiedepot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Do you even know what infringe means?
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention which arms can or cannot be carried, only that the right to do so will not be infringed upon.
That being said, banning things generally begins with one type, and the argument is "Why would someone need this?" or "Why do you need to fear government intervention?" So what is worrisome is the thought that we could go from one type of firearm being banned, then another, and another, until you're defending yourself with a spring-loaded Daisy BB gun.
I just don't buy the "terrorist" reasoning. I'm not aware of any terrorist bringing down a plane in history with a firearm. Besides, "terrorism" is the catch word to panic people and get them to go along with anything these days. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"I don't see how requiring background checks and banning certain guns is infringing upon the 2nd amendment."
What types of guns should be banned, and what is the rationale for such bans?
- jpowlus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Typical action by the People's Republic of New Jersey...
The state where the government needs to protect the people from themselves.
No, you can't easily purchase /any/ gun...you might hurt yourselves, silly citizens!
No, you can't pump your own gas, you might mess it up!
Citizens who have lots of disposable income and the ability to make it through the horrible gauntlet that is our firearm licensing process, you can't buy a Barrett .50 rifle... because you might be terrorists.
I try my best to not even /drive/ through NJ (and I live in PA), and I sur
