Lawmakers should outlaw military rifles (Blualalah)

[Toad]

Yeah, Jig. Most of the guys I know that have almost any kind of military jet usually only fly them to/at/from airshows. Simply because it's standard that you get gas and oil when you arrrive, as you fly the show and a free fill before you leave.

The exception might be the L-39. I know of a dentist in FL that flies his sometimes just for fun and can just about afford to do so.  

[Nifty]

hehe, I say something about restricting gun TYPE ownership and I'm now a bleeding heart liberal.  Pretty damned funny!!!  

I'm an independent and proud of it!  Only registered with a party so I could vote in primaries, as this is a closed primary state.  Funny thing is, I don't vote in the primaries.  I just haven't gotten around to changing the little R on the voter registration card to an I.

Ok, have your guns of mass destruction if it makes you feel any better.  Remember that you wanted it this way when another couple of morons go out in full body armor with fully automatic weapons and rampage around in a nice little neighborhood.  Then again, everything they used was illegal, so I guess it's a moot point as to what firearms we make legal and illegal.  People like that will obtain them anyways.  Not the gun that kills anyways, it's the handsomehunk idiot who should just do the world a real favor and use the gun on himself.    

[Yoj]

I want a 105mm recoilless rifle.  Hey its a rifle.  I wanna use it for hunting.  Honest! Whaddya mean why?  I'm a lousy shot.

- Yoj

[AKDejaVu]

Ok, have your guns of mass destruction if it makes you feel any better.

Guns of mass destruction.  Hmmmm... I don't really think that means what you think it means.

Don't know that a .50 is any more of a destructive threat than a .30 as far as people go.  It can touch someone from a mile away, but range is its real benifit.  Unless you manage to get a few people to line up in a perfect row for you.

Really... a car is more of a weapon of mass destruction than a gun is.  Find a different terror phrase... one that is actually aplicable.

AKDejaVu

[DingHao2]

DAMMIT, ITS NOT THE GUN, IT'S THE PERSON BEHIND THE GUN.  The same is true for aircraft.  Its the pilot, not the plane.  In any case, the gun doesn't decide to stand up and shoot someone, THE PERSON DOES.  IT'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE NEED, NOT REGULATION.

[LePaul]

Originally posted by Toad:
Yeah, Jig. Most of the guys I know that have almost any kind of military jet usually only fly them to/at/from airshows. Simply because it's standard that you get gas and oil when you arrrive, as you fly the show and a free fill before you leave.

The exception might be the L-39. I know of a dentist in FL that flies his sometimes just for fun and can just about afford to do so.  

Nice research and nice links.  I'm told the L-39s can't be imported in anymore, due to the legislation, and that covers all former miltary birds, from the explanation(s) I was given.

The L-39s are a bit more than I thought (read the trade a plane for this week)...but STILL, if you have $200k for a airplane, whats $150k more for a jet trainer!

MiG-15s are dangerous birds and require a gentle touch.  If I was to buy ANY warbird, I'd buy it through this guy, and get training from him...  http://www.jetwarbird.com

Great guy, talked to him a few time.  Every time I talk to him, the savings account cringes!

[Nifty]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:


Guns of mass destruction.  Hmmmm... I don't really think that means what you think it means.

Don't know that a .50 is any more of a destructive threat than a .30 as far as people go.  It can touch someone from a mile away, but range is its real benifit.  Unless you manage to get a few people to line up in a perfect row for you.

Really... a car is more of a weapon of mass destruction than a gun is.  Find a different terror phrase... one that is actually aplicable.

AKDejaVu

hehe, you should be a lawyer if you're not.  you're really good at nitpicky little things.  

my mistake!    I'll admit 'em when I make 'em!

weapons of mass destruction becomes automatic weapons(including light mg, heavy MG, etc), armor piercing rounds, sniper rifles, explosive devices, etc.  Is that better, Deja?    I just didn't feel like researching the appropriate term to apply to all of the above for a post on an off topic bulletin board for a WWII style flight combat sim.  In the future, I'll do more research into the more appropriate terminology I should use (yeah right!) before posting.  

[Toad]

1. Jets are for kids.

2. Big radials rule.

3. If I was going to spend $350,000+ it'd be for a B-25, not some stinking jet trainer.

 

[CJ]

Hmm.. when I think of weapons of mass destruction, i think of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.  Another thing that worries me, if we actually lived in a civilized society, we wouldn't have to worry about psychos going out and killing people for fun.  Since we don't, we also can't count on those same psychos to obey laws that restrict their ability to own weapons.  If it wasn't a gun, it would be a knife, or a sword, or a bow, or a poision dart.  There are lots of easy ways to kill people, and a creative psycho will find them all.  Lets worry about the psychos instead of the tools.

[Yoj]

Sorry - can't let that one slide.  If "psychos" were the only ones who killed people you might be right.... maybe.  If someone is determined to kill, they will.  However, the vast majority of murders are committed by "normal" people - generally those who got really pissed off about something.  A brick, a comb, a garbage can lid, they can all be a lethal weapon, but that's not what they are designed for, usually just end up wounding, and require a lot of work to use.  Firearms are designed for the job, and often get used because they are already available - and because they don't require a lot of exertion or the need to get close to the victim.  You can not assume that everyone who murders with a gun would have found something else if the gun were not there - it just ain't so.

- Yoj

[zapkin]

I dont own a gun. (thank god)

but I think i should be allowed to buy a .50 calibre rifle if I have the money and desire to do so. I sometimes worry about what the "liberal" vision of america is? A bunch of pacifist hippies at the COMPLETE mercy of their government. You liberals need to take a look at history and how well goverments can be trusted before you give your rights to self defense away.  

[AKSWulfe]

"but you NEED high caliber full automatic military assault weapons for today's modern super animals... like the flying squirrel or the electric eel!"
Lenny from The Simpsons.
-SW

[AKDejaVu]

weapons of mass destruction becomes automatic weapons(including light mg, heavy MG, etc), armor piercing rounds, sniper rifles, explosive devices, etc. Is that better, Deja?

Actually, no.  Weapons of mass destruction... Nukes, Chemical, biological.  This is the common use for that term.  Hell.. a bomb doesn't even fit into that category.

MASS destruction.

So, basically, you take a term used to denote the most horrific weapons known to man and casually apply it to a firearm.  No, that's not OK with me.

AKDejaVu

[ispar]

Wait, something is wrong here...

 

Originally posted by 10Bears:
Mr Fish, Niffty:
...this issue and the other one open legal abortion, cost you guys elections.
  Americans don't like having their constitutial rights snached...

'Scuse me... this is a bit contradictory, methinks. Here's my suggestion: I'll stop telling you how you should live if you'll stop defining what morals you think I should live by. Ok?

Anyway, I don't have any problem with range shooting with heavy sniper weapons. Should they be more regulated? Perhaps, but I get the impression that most people who go to the trouble of obtaining a .50 caliber rifle are responsible enough to manage themselves.

Assault weapons are another matter entirely, IMO.