UnderGround Forums
 

Weapons UnderGround >> 50 cal ban


2/24/06 10:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06 10:43 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10057
flash - well, afghanies(sp?)defeated the russians all i know is if this country went the way of nazi germany, i'd rather have weapons to fight soliders comeing to take me to the gas chambers then NOT to have a way to defend myself against them and have to go willingly Also, just becasue technology (and state laws) has limited our ability to overthrow tyrants, doesnt mean would shouldnt try, nor should we say fuck it, our sling shots are of no use, take them away from us
2/24/06 10:42 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: 3927
Sreiter, I said it more said more tongue in cheek than anything. Didn't mean to get a fellow supporter after me, heh. Flash, I guess you'd just conform instead of fighting for what you believed in? Live on your knees? It's not like we're going to go into a battle against an army with traditional warfare tactics.
2/24/06 10:46 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: 10058
i was suprised by your remarks concidering you seemed to be pro-gun
2/24/06 10:49 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: 3928
Well, truth be told, I've had a massively fucked up sleep schedule lately and It's affected my humor severely. Going two consecutive 24 hour waking periods with only 8 hours or so of highly interrupted sleep does that to a G. Looking at my post, I should have put an exclamation and a smiley or something. I dunno... I should go nap..
2/24/06 11:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JKDude
9 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: 76
sreiter, that was well said. Let me be clear of my position. I am for most arms, ie handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, however some guns are too dangerous to let every joe bob own one, ie .50 cal sniper rifles and sub-machine guns. I wouldn't want everyone in America to rely on the government to provide personnal security. However, the line has to be drawn. The second amendment was written at a time when it had much more meaning. It looks like you read the federalist papers, however you are reaching by trying to directly compare it to today's world. HH- Do not compare the 50 cal cartridge to a muzzle loaded rifle. They are not the same. Also your Daniel Pouzzner reference is not clear. They may be similar physically, however one leaves a MUCH bigger hole.
2/24/06 11:20 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JKDude
9 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: 77
HH- Get some sleep and come back tomorrow. I don't like being called a liar, but I do like arguing with you.
2/24/06 11:30 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: 3930
If you think only certain guns are dangerous, then you've got a few things coming. EVERY gun can kill someone. As a matter of fact, I found a Sear & Roebuck (sp?) bolt-action .22LR made in 1952 (I think) that I can hit an 8 1/2 by 11 piece of paper at 50 yards with just the iron sights. And that was the first time I had ever fired the rifle. I could easily apply this skill to popping people in the head like John Allen Muhammed did. It's really not much difference. a .22 hole in the head is just as deadly as a .308 or a .50. I am aware that .50 muzzleloaders are different from .50BMG, but .50BMG has also been in heavy use for sometimes in the military and has never been known to virtually detonate upon impact of a human body. Sure, they fuckin' kill, but that's what they do. It's a high powered round. .308s leave huge fuckin' holes too, but they're widely used for hunting. When you draw the line somewhere, in regards to personal firearm ownership, you make it so that the line can be moved further and further until there are no owners. Draw the line at explosives, not firearms.
2/24/06 11:35 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
wright4lfe
168 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 09/13/2002
Posts: 11234

" Gun nuts are fucking disturbing "

yeah, so are those people that freak out about the 1st amendment...

2/24/06 11:41 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: 3931
Hard Gay, if you bothered to read any of my posts, you would see that the .50 is an extremely popular round for elk hunting. The reason people demonize, villify, then try to ban guns is due to ignorance and apathy towards firearm education. Bluenamer, por favor: http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/panther_s.jpg http://www.a-human-right.com/s_constitutional.jpg http://www.a-human-right.com/s_1984.jpg
2/24/06 12:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FlashGordon2002
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 05/23/2002
Posts: 7740
Afghanis defeated the Russians but they had more than pistols and rifles. They had frickin' RPG's and Stingers - the Stingers came in very handy since they mooted the one advantage that the Russians had - air superiority. The Afghanis also had foreign aid in the form of training, equipment and actual people working with them against the Russians. Heavy Hands - learn to read. I did not say that I advocated living under tyranny. I merely stated that the original intent of the 2nd amendment has been mooted by technology. Private weapons are not going to matter a bit (unless one is permitted to privately own tanks, etc.) if a tyrannical government is to be overthrown in this day and age. Running out in the streets and trying to shoot it out with government troops with pistols, rifles and shotguns is also pointless - it's nothing more than suicide by cop (to get a good idea of how you'd fair, do a Google search for the clip of the Palestinian guy who was shooting at an Israeli tank with a rifle - he got blown up by the main gum of the tank); the only thing that would achieve is giving some government trooper a funny story to tell the new guys about the stupid rebels who thought they could take on a tank with deer rifles.
2/24/06 1:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3932
A number of people are letting their vaginas type on this thread. Flash, I can read just fine. I was merely pointing out that the 2nd ammendment is an ESSENTIAL LIBERTY as defined by our founding fathers. Those that sacrifice ESSENTIAL LIBERTY for security will recieve TYRANNY. Many people miss the point of the 2nd and are not worthy of being free. It's shameful, really. If you think that the government would be stable enough to fight it's own divided people with tanks, or that people will just aimlessly attack tanks with no regard for their safety or the accomplishment of a mission, then you have no clue about how to use a firearm or have never paid attention to any insurgency in history. If a tank rolled into my neighborhood (as part of this bizarre assault on a mixed citizenry of revolutionists and fascists) I wouldn't even bother to attack the tank haed on, merely relying on stealth tactics, well placed shots, and information. I still feel very doubtful that any large artillery assault or otherwise would be launched by our military in our cities. Cutting off your feet to spite your knees. Citizens without arms are merely subjects.
2/24/06 1:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10059
Hey, i have an idea for all those in favor of giving up their constitional rights - how bout you give up your right to FREE FUCKING SPEECH - just stfu - seriously, you can longer longer voice any fucking opinion since you are dangerous, and your opinion can get me killed
2/24/06 2:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GrandInquisitor
42 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 07/01/2005
Posts: 432
Actually the new rifle being released is .416, not .419. The big benefit being that there is already an well established cartiridge in .416 (.416 Rigby) which will make getting components for hand-loading even easier. The rifle will be expensive as all hell, like all of Barrett's rifles are, but I would still love to get one. On Monday I am picking up a new (to me at least..slightly used) Savage in .300 Win Mag with a really slick scope already on (Butler Creek Super Sniper). I'm hoping to take it out to at least 300 yards (not too many longer ranges around that I know of) and pull 1.5 MOA minimum. For all of the limp wristed anti gunner, .300 Win Mag is a lrge, powerful cartridge used for both big game hunting and military shooting. Even some of the new M24 and M40's (American military accurized precision rifles) are being chambered in .300 Win Mag. It's been popular in Europe for quite a while with military marksmen.
2/24/06 2:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10062
1.5 mao MAX (not min) imo BTW 300 yrds is pretty close - i'll 10 ring all day with a ar-10 (benchrest)
2/24/06 3:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3933
Damn, I must have missed the "anti-aircraft gun" comment. Allow me to reiterate that the .50 cal CANNOT bring down an airplane anymore than an AK can. Real anti-aircraft guns use something in the range of 38mm shells, which is a far fucking cry from 12.7mm(.50). I would cut my nuts off if someone could prove to me that you can shoot down a plane with the BarretM82A1 that's flying, oh, say, 15000 feet - half cruising altitude.
2/24/06 5:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10069
i'm sure i can w/ .223 - i just did with the .308
2/24/06 5:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Revolver of Reason
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 30673
JKDude, shouldn't you be out killing people with shovels?
2/24/06 11:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JKDude
9 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: 78
Why use a shovel when I can take out someone from 2000 yards with just a trigger pull? RoR, shouldn't you be more creative? I've seen the arguements for keeping the round, but they just aren't justified. From what I understand, the ban is for 50 cal BMG round. Muzzle loaders are still free to hunt their elk. HH- the website you referred to in your first few posts clearly talks about taking out airplanes on take off or landing. I respect your enthusiam, but it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with the round itself. Once you fire one, you will see the how obsurd your posts are. Stop googling an opinion. In reality, opinions like these are what get people like me killed. Just because they are not used right now for killing civilians doesn't mean they won't be. Why do we have to wait for a tragesty before we take action? I hate California, but they see the light on this issue. More forethought on consequences could have save many lives on 9/11, katrina, hell any major disaster.
2/24/06 11:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JKDude
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-06 12:01 AM
Member Since: 05/18/2001
Posts: 79
Just repeating weapon specs. Very popular on this page. http://www.50caliberterror.com/index2.html
2/25/06 1:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HeavyHands
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-06 01:20 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3936
JKDude, what exactly is it that you do? If you're an LEO, then I know just as many LEOs that support the .50 as you do that don't support. I am an amatuer marksman and have fired a number of guns, .50 cal included. While it wasn't the almight M82, I have fired a .50 cal before. I grew up around guns and around hunters and around marksmen all my life. I shot my first high powered rifle when I was 8. I am familiar with bullet sizes and ballistics, generally. I can't believe that you even linked 50 cal terrors dumb ass website. Their shit is so far off the fucking wall that I'm almost convinced that you're trolling me now. from their site: # .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles were designed to attack parked or landing aircraft, armored personnel carriers, rail tank cars, bulk fuel storage, and concrete bunkers. Any number of far more effective tools can be used to attack parked or landing aircraft. It would be more feasible for a terrorist to get in as an employee for an airline as a baggage handler, put a bomb in a suitcase post screening, and detonate. Not to mention that a sniper could effective damage to an air craft with smaller cartridges. Most of this stuff is utter BS too. I designed a computer that can download porn 1000X faster than the average computer, but it doesn't mean that it does it. "It takes 300 rounds to penetrate 2 meters of reinforced concrete at 100 meters, 1,200 rounds at 200 meters. 3 meters of reinforced concrete take 450 and 1,800 rounds to penetrate at the same distances. 4 meters of reinforced concrete 600 and 2,400 rounds, respectively, at 100 and 200 meters." (Table 8-4, "An Infantryman's Guide to Combat in Built-up Area" (MOUT) field manual 90-10-1, Chapter 8, US Army, May 1993) . . . # .50 Caliber sniper rifles are powerful enough to puncture armored limousines and can be used as tools for assassination.# There are a number of things that are powerful enough to pierce armored limousines, but the .50 isn't practical enough for this task in, say, the US. The intended use is long-distance shooting -- exactly what the gun is safely used for all across this nation. Besides, almost anything can be used to destroy. A can of gasoline can do incredible damage to the national infrastructure. 5,000 American citizens were just murdered with box-cutters, doing tremendous damage to national infrastructure -- are we going to ban them? If not, why not? . . . . # .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles have effective ranges up to 2,000 yards, or in other words, 20 football fields laid end to end. Deer hunters generally shoot at ranges of 150 to 200 yards.# "It is exceedingly difficult to hit a target, even a large one, on one shot at anything over 1200 to 1500 yards by even highly trained individuals. The myth that the rifle can be used to hit a target at extreme ranges RELIABLY is just that, a myth. Just because the projectile can travel a mile, doesn't mean you can hit anything with it, PARTICULARLY if you are using the dreaded military ammunition. The ammo is designed for a machine gun, and is generally only good for 2-3 minutes of accuracy. That equates to a 30-45" circle at 1500 yards with a perfect rifle, no wind or other conditions and a trained shooter." --Scott Nye, Past President, FCSA; FCSA National Champion 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 . . . # Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s.# This is a dumbass moot point. Our government sold them far more weapons than the M82s. We also gave them serious munitions as well, things that are far more dangerous than the .50 cal rifle. Not to mention that these rifles aren't AKs and can't be put in a hut somewhere after firing with no maintainence at all. There are no documented incidents of the gun being used by terrorists here. Zero. But even if there were, that is no reason to ban them, any more than 9mm cartridges should be banned because criminals misuse them. Furthermore, even if they were banned, terrorists would pay no attention to the ban, any more than they paid attention to bans on hijacking airliners, murder, and destruction of skyscrapers. A ban would merely remove the guns from the hands of law-abiding Americans -- not criminals. . . . . . . . # .50 Caliber ammunition is the largest round available on the civilian market and highly destructive armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive rounds are easily available.# This is even more fuckign incorrect. THe armor-piercing, incendiary, explosive rounds are not easily available. I've frequented a number of gun shops in my area and other states and have never seen these rounds for sale. I don't even consider it a good thing that's it not. Far more people are killed with the .40 and .38 every year, yet I don't want that round banned either. The .50 cal isn't even the largest round available. I guess the .600 and .700 don't exist anymore? . . We don't live in a communist utopia where needs are provided by the state, thank God. We do, however, live in a country where he have the right to own things based on individual freedom.
2/25/06 2:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JKDude
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-06 02:32 AM
Member Since: 05/18/2001
Posts: 80
HH- I was just linking to the page that you linked to on the first page for distance reference. No need for me to defend some page that I didn't write. I've said in the past that I am not entirely for gun control. Just certain guns that have no use in civilized society- large caliber sniper rifles and machine guns. Besides you liking them and they are fun, what use are they? The intended use is long range shooting, but long range shooting of what? I guess I'll defend that stupid webpage the best I can: Point #1:# .50 Caliber sniper rifles are powerful enough to puncture armored limousines and can be used as tools for assassination. You went on to say that it would not be practical. I don't know why you said this because it was made for just this kind of thing. It is an armor piercing round that is fired from a long distance. Why wouldn't that be practical? You also said lots of things can be used to destroy. I'll agree with you on that one. The IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq would cause mass destruction here and they are not that hard to build. Point #2 .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles were designed to attack parked or landing aircraft, armored personnel carriers, rail tank cars, bulk fuel storage, and concrete bunkers. I will also concede that there are many ways to take out an airliner. The 50 cal sniper rifle is one of them. Point #3 # .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles have effective ranges up to 2,000 yards, or in other words, 20 football fields laid end to end. Deer hunters generally shoot at ranges of 150 to 200 yards. There is enough evidence that supports this on the internet. Either way it doesn't matter. Even at 1500 yards, it is a good distance away. Point #4 Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s. Yes, we gave them all sorts of stuff. This is a stupid point. However, when you say that banning these will take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, once again what is a law abiding citizen doing with this weapon? Point #5 # .50 Caliber ammunition is the largest round available on the civilian market and highly destructive armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive rounds are easily available. I don't know how availiable they are. The only .600 or .700 I know of are flint lock/ muzzle loaders. Please don't tell me you are trying to compare them to a 50 cal BMG? To answer your first question, I am an EOD tech. We use the M82A1 to destroy UXOs from a distance. I know I am at odds with most of the military/ LEO community, but safety is my business.
2/25/06 3:41 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Aaron
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 29898
up for later
2/25/06 8:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
252 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4522
JKDude "HH- the website you referred to in your first few posts clearly talks about taking out airplanes on take off or landing" That website refers to the VPC as its reference. On the VPC website they say thaey never said a 50 could shoot down an airliner, but that it is vulnerable to a .50. But this is true for most rifle rounds. The skin of an aircraft is very thin and a 223, 308, 300.... will puncture it. The 50calterror page is blatently misleading people. Any referneces from it should be seen as a lie as they have shown by thier statement that the 50 cal can shoot down an airliner on takeoff or landing.
2/25/06 9:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
252 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4523
Again a .300 or 308 (and many other rounds) will shoot through the skin, fuel tanks, engine... And as has been pointed out, the .416 is an already existing round that is as strong as the .50. (BTW, the first .50 rifles were sold to civilians, not the military)
2/25/06 10:01 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JKDude
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-06
Member Since: 05/18/2001
Posts: 82
Batman, I'm not a big fan of that page either. In my above post, I've defended what I think is worth defending. Since an airplane hasn't been shot with a 50 cal yet, it is difficult to determine if it would be shot down or not. Let's not wait to find out. There are many powerful rounds out there, but by saying that a round shouldn't be banned because there are others that are just as dangerous is not a sound arguement. You are just asking to have more calibers banned. HH and DK, this has been fun. I've enjoyed this mostly intellectual debate, though I doubt many opinions were changed. I've surpassed my yearly post quota, so I'm out. Later.

Reply Post

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