UnderGround Forums
 

Weapons UnderGround >> 50 cal ban


2/23/06 8:41 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3911
/unhide post
2/23/06 8:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Entreri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 12/25/2005
Posts: 889
Isn't the .50 caliber needed for hunting 50+ foot long dino's? Those T-Rex's can be mean SOB's!
2/23/06 9:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3912
Very clever.
2/23/06 10:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
e. kaye
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10879
Simple. Just go .55 Boys Anti Tank Rifle
2/23/06 10:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3914
That rifle may have been able to pierce armor back before the halfway mark of WW1, but it can't do it now.
2/23/06 11:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
e. kaye
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10882
"That rifle may have been able to pierce armor back before the halfway mark of WW1, but it can't do it now." Then it should be legal.
2/23/06 11:27 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10050
HEAVY LOL @ your math 1 meter = 3.3 feet
2/23/06 12:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
351 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4516
"That rifle may have been able to pierce armor back before the halfway mark of WW1, but it can't do it now. " And it cannot shoot an airliner down.
2/23/06 1:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3916
e.kaye: There are a variety of bullets that can and cannot pierce a variety of armors available. Should we ban them all? I can easily pierce a class 2 vest with my MBR, however it's still legal to own. I didn't make any mistake in my math. When I put down 40 ft, I was assuming that in order to pierce 3x the thickness of steel, one would have to be about 3x closer. Without knowing the exact ballistics (I don't feel like booting into Windows to run my ballistics program) I can't say for certain where one would need to be to produce 3x the impact. However, I am still adamant in my assertions as I did the conversions correctly. 35 meters ~= 115 feet. Dark Knight is mucho correcto. The .50 can't pierce an airplane at all, much less shoot something down at 30,000 feet. Hell, the round won't even travel that far before it falls back to the earth.
2/23/06 2:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
351 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06 02:34 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4517
If the 50 pierced the cabin (And pretty much any rifle round can) when it was on the ground, the hole is not big enough to create a problem for the plane when it is at 30,000 feet. Damage to an engine would be noticed long before that altitude,. But that can be done with any rifle. The VPC no longer claims that it will take down an airliner.
2/23/06 2:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3917
I was unaware that the vpc had retracted their statements. Are they still on the warpath/witch hunt?
2/23/06 2:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
351 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06 03:01 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4518
Yes they are, they still want to ban it. Now they just say that all types of aircraft are vulnderable to the .50 at many points other than at altitude. But that can be said about any rifle.
2/23/06 4:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3918
Anything is vulnerable to anyone who is skilled enough, resourceful enough, or angry enough to anyone that wants to do damage to something. Are you heavily involved with 2nd ammendment politics, or are you an enthusiast, like myself, that actually understands what the 2nd is for?
2/23/06 6:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Aaron
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 29836
didn't you kill a guy with a shovel, in panama, JKDude? And receive your silver eagle/purple heart/bronze star or some shit? cause that's totally cool.
2/23/06 8:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
351 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4519
The same as you. I own a bunch of guns that collect dust, I wish I had more time. I use to compete in Trap Shooting and appreciate great craftmanship in guns.
2/24/06 9:11 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JKDude
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 05/18/2001
Posts: 74
HeavyHands, I can see you are a true Bush Conservative. You're giving me the Kerry, Cleveland, McCain treatment. I won't be able to convince you short of pics (the afghan server is way too slow for that), but it doesn't really matter. On your second question, the only 50 cal cartridge I know of that is used for hunting is the autoeagle round and that is for handguns. Yes, they have the same diameter, however it is a totally different round. If you have any friends in the military, ask them what the .50 BMG does to a human body. It's not pretty and it's not for hunting. The next time an armored bear attacks my house, I will concede to your arguement. Aaron, trying to relate armor penetration testing to killing people with shovels is quite a leap. Grow up, kid.
2/24/06 9:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JKDude
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 05/18/2001
Posts: 75
HH, educate me. What is the 2nd amendment for? I'd love to hear your answer.
2/24/06 9:45 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
351 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4520
The 50BMG was not developed by the military but by civillians. It is used for hunting, although most do not hunt with it, the newer round is actually better for hunting. And George Bush may be a Republican but is not a conservative.
2/24/06 9:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3922
JKDude, incorrect once again. I can't stand Bush in the slightest. I like how you assume that since I support the 2nd ammendment, I MUST be a nuthugger. Not quite good enough to get me off topic, but you tried. You're right, I will need to see videos of typical .50 cal rounds penetrating 3" thick steel armor before I believe you, and even then I will most likely suspect you're using some sort of special purpose round. Also, there are things such as explosive rounds, which differ highly from the .50 used for hunting not to mention that many people use the .50 ni an actual rifle and not a hand gun of any sort. There's an entire community based on .50 cal muzzle loading aside from the FCSA. As a matter of fact, the .50 is used in Elk hunting in the northwest commonly. The .50BMG has been used in the military for a long ass time and it does not cause bodies to disintegrate or explode. And, as a matter of fact, upon an investigation in preperation for litigation against the .50BMG, Daniel Pouzzner finds that, " The .50 BMG cartridge (by far the most common .50 caliber rifle cartridge in the United States) is ballistically similar to common hunting calibers.."
2/24/06 9:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3923
JKDude, what do YOU think the 2nd ammendment is for? I think the 2nd ammendment is necessary to the security of a free state, not for hunting or self-defense. What about you?
2/24/06 9:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
351 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4521
I am gone for the day. Ill be back later.
2/24/06 10:07 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10055
jkdude the 2nd ammendment - 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. First off, the entire BILL OF RIGHTS are RIGHTS FOR INDIVIDUALS notice the wording - the right of the people to keep and bear arms - PEOPLE - not a well regulated militia. You must understand the federalist papers to understand the ammendment - the founding fathers had just fought a war from a tyranical ruler. the only way to wage war was being armed (and of course, the first thing any tryanical ruler seeks to disarm the populace, making it much harder to stage a rebellion). So the framers of the constitution made sure that OUR government could never get out of control (gov of, by and for the people), by stateing the the GOV could never infrige upon the right of the citizens to be armed. in effect, that the governemnt knows that if the possiblity of the people overthrowing the GOV exists, it wouldnt do any fucked up shit (as jefferson stated, in order to preserve democracy, there should be a violent overthrow of the GOV every 20 years) Notice this is the ONLY ammendment that specifically states this ammendment can never be changed no matter what - This IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AMMENDMENT in the entire fucking constitution as this (presumably) guarentee's all other rights - Once we are disarmed as a nation, we are REALLY at the Gov's mercy - if we werent a country full of pussy mother fuckers who got fat and lazy, we would have taken OUR COUNTRY BACK a long time ago - we CERTAINLY would have taken it back from KING GEORGE W and his merry men
2/24/06 10:13 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3924
sreiter is Co-wrecked. The people ARE the militia.
2/24/06 10:21 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FlashGordon2002
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 05/23/2002
Posts: 7734
Technology over-ran the 2nd amendment about the beginning of the 20th century. It was feasible for a citizenry armed with personal weapons to overthrow the government...until the advent of tanks, aircraft, artillary, smart bombs, etc. Unless you believe that private citizens should have the right to own tanks, attack aircraft, artillary pieces, smart bombs and even nuclear devices, it just isn't going to happen. I always laugh at the militia nuts who train with pistols and rifles and think that if the time comes, they can overthrow a "tyrannical government". While they're guzzling beer and wacking off to Guns & Ammo, an automated drone could blow them away with an air-to-surface rocket.
2/24/06 10:21 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06 10:27 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10056
heavy - it can and is read by some to say in essesence "the state needs a well run militia (army) to protect itself from outside forces. since there will be a standing army around, people need guns to defend themselves in case the gov tells said militia (army) to take over." which is why the 3rd ammendment says; No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law IF the PEOPLE are the militia, the ammendment would have read "...the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms..." have you read the federalist papers? they are the basis of the constitution - they MORE CLEARLY spell out that private citizens should keeps guns, NOT just the government - ALSO how do you reconcile the fact that the ENTIRE REST OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS specifically deals with rights of individuals, and the second is the right of the GOV if your "theory" is correct

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.