Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 10Bears on June 22, 2001, 02:44:00 PM
-
Hey liberals, its articles like these that make you loose elections. For 2nd admendment supporters, get ready to barf. They going after your hunting rifles next mark my words. Like the old saying Let the camel stick his nose in the tent to keep warm, next morning the whole damn thing is in there...
10Bears--
Lawmakers should outlaw military rifles
By Jason Bennyhoff
Thu, Jun 21 12:00 PM EDT
The Battalion
Texas A&M U.
(U-WIRE) COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- A recent article in Rolling Stone reported an entire subculture of Americans dedicated to sniping and the use of ultra, high-powered, military firearms. In the story, backwoods frontiersmen posing as normal people, take out their adolescent aggression by discharging powerful firearms, evidently for "fun."
They lie on hillsides, peppering steel targets with bullets from nearly a mile away. Among the weapons, they use are the Armalite AR-50 and the EDM Windrunner, both .50-caliber sniper rifles manufactured to kill people and pierce armored vehicles from [blink]thousands of yards away[/blink]. And to do this, they did no more paperwork than an 18-year-old buying a pellet gun at a local sports store. The scary thing is that the story is true, and the weapons of near mass destruction these men use are legal.
A number of lawmakers, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., are working to change that, however. These legislators are promoting a bill that would reclassify these behemoth rifles for military use only, making them nearly impossible for an average citizen to buy. Inevitably, this effort will produce a backlash from conservative gun lovers. Nonetheless, these guns must be banned for the safety of the public.
Gun advocates, including John Burtt, chairman of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association, say there is no reason to criminalize the use of these weapons. Burtt states, correctly, that there is no record of a .50-caliber sniper rifle, such as the Windrunner, being used in a crime. However, there was a time when there was no record of an assault rifle being used in a crime.
Once upon a time, it was legal to buy and own a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) -- this turned out to be a mistake police departments the across the nation would live to lament. After the invention of the gun, gangsters realized its potential uses, and some of the most colorful characters of the era, including Bonnie and Clyde, used them against police. Granted, large sniper rifles weigh between 25 and 40 pounds, making them much heavier than a BAR, and they fire far slower. However, these facts make it less likely they will be used in an armed robbery and more likely they will be used by a lunatic at the top of a college bell tower.
Charles Whitman did not have a .50-caliber rifle to shoot during his infamous rampage in Austin. He could only shoot passersby with ease, not armored car drivers. But he also did not have an automatic weapon. Whitman used precise shooting with bolt-action, hunting rifles for the majority of his killing. One only can imagine the destruction he could have wreaked had he been using a rifle designed to shoot straight through a brick wall rather than simply fell a deer in the forest.
One would assume that the Brady Bill would have outlawed weapons such as these, but instead it applies only to assault weapons -- what the bill defines in part as "weapons not operated by lever, bolt, slide or pump." Hence, these large bolt-action rifles are exempt from the bill.
Considering the controversy that surrounded the Brady Bill, it is unlikely that this latest measure to restrict firearms will pass, especially with a Republican in the country's highest office. America can only sit and wait, hoping that the .50-caliber's unblemished crime record stays that way.
(C) 2001 The Battalion via U-WIRE
-
Dianne Feinstein
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html (http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html)
hehe
and as for Henry Waxman's credibility:
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
HT-2, The Capitol
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Complaint Against Congressman Henry Waxman and Involved Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee.
Dear Committee:
On behalf of the American people and in the public interest, we hereby file a complaint against Congressman Henry Waxman of the 29th District of California. Judicial Watch is a public interest group dedicated to fighting government corruption.
In recent days there have been press reports on the Fox News Channel and in the Washington Times that Congressman Waxman and Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee have attempted to impede the free flow of testimony of a material witness, Johnny Chung, in the campaign finance/Chinagate scandals. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and incorporated by reference are the transcripts, a video clip, and press reports of these allegations.
Furthermore, recent press reports have suggested that Congressman Waxman may be one of the individuals, including, but not limited to, officials of the Democratic Party and the Clinton Administration, who have engaged in a scheme to use the Internal Revenue Service to audit, harass and harm critics of the Clinton Administration. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and incorporated by reference are press reports of these allegations.
If true, these reports on the campaign finance/Chinagate and IRS scandals would mean that Congressman Waxman has violated laws and rules that include, but are not limited to: 18 U.S.C.§§ 1505, 1502; House Rule XXIV, Code of Official Conduct, no.1; and The Code of Ethics for Government Employment, nos. 1, 2, 9 & 10. We therefore demand a full investigation on behalf of the American people.
In light of the fact that Chairman Dan Burton of the Government Reform Committee has continuously complained about Democrat obstruction of his investigation into the campaign finance/Chinagate scandals, and given his remarks yesterday evening on The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News (enclosed as part of Exhibit 1), it is clear that he should certify that he believes this information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Judicial Watch, Inc., certifies that it has provided an exact copy of this complaint and all attachments to Congressman Waxman and Chairman Burton.
Sincerely,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Larry Klayman
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bb415f7aa9.htm (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bb415f7aa9.htm)
Eagler
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]
-
I'll get upset when they go after the hunting rifles. I have no problems with making sniper and other military issue hardware "military use only." You don't need a .50 cal sniper rifle anymore than you need an assault rifle.
-
I'll get upset when they go after the hunting rifles. I have no problems with making sniper and other military issue hardware "military use only."
What constitutes a sniper rifle? Would it just be a matter of outlawing .50 calibre weapons? If so.. adress it that way. If you do not, you open the door since the .308 is the calibre of choice for most snipers. My 7mm STW is technically a sniper rifle. Wow.. talk about openening the flood gates.
AKDejaVu
-
You don't need a .50 cal sniper rifle anymore than you need an assault rifle.
Does anyone understand the Constitution at all? The right to bear arms has nothing to do with owning a hunting weapon. Its the right to bear arms to defend ourselves against a corrupt government should that "need" ever arise.
-
i don't think the 2nd amendment really guarantees gun-rights for each person. it says "the people" but the part about a "well regulated" militia paves the way for arguing for some type of restriction.
today "the people" is interpreted to mean everyone but even gun advocates support some restrictions - i mean would we all agree that 3yr olds and insane people with felony records should be allowed to own guns?
i think in reality it was probably more geared toward ensuring local autonomy and as a check against a large standing federal army rather than a citizen per citizen guarantee of unrestricted ownership.
however whether it was or not back then ....it IS a part of the american mindset now and has given citizen level americans piece of mind for several hundred years.
i would be for an ammendment that was more specific about granting rights to the citizens but i dont think the current one is clear enough. maybe a new clear ammendment granting specific rights would settle the matter up once and for all?
EDIT: and besides there is still a law against shooting people! if it were obeyed this thread wouldn't exist. :)
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: mrfish ]
-
oops double post
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: mrfish ]
-
Mr Fish, Niffty:
Point I was trying to make, this issue and the other one open legal abortion, cost you guys elections.
Americans don't like having their constitutial rights snached. I knew when they passed the assualt weapon ban, hunting rifles where next. They just simply call it a military sniper weapon.
Now all the social stuff you guys like which I don't have a problem with, ie early reading development, prescription drugs for seiors etc, all get toejamcanned because of these two issues.
10Bears
-
you guys? how do you make me a liberal for supporting private gun ownership? did you read to the end?
-
LOL ok sorry Mr fish, you let off the hook. I just pointing out if they want all their social programs, they better rethink these two issues that all..
As for you your right I read the first line or so and went "Bah"
-
In the story, backwoods frontiersmen posing as normal people, take out their adolescent aggression by discharging powerful firearms, evidently for "fun."
Urban rutabagas posing as journalists, take out their adolescent feelings of inadequacy by whining about other people evidently having "fun"....
:)
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
And 10Bears you are 100% correct about the elections. There are a few things about the Democratic Party which occasionally appeal to me, but the Safety Nazi wing of the party always rears its ugly head and I end up voting more sensibly. There are quite a few deranged citizens of this country who are hell bent on removing all risk (and at the same time all freedom and all fun) from life. :(
-
Once upon a time, it was legal to buy and own a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) -- this turned out to be a mistake police departments the across the nation would live to lament. After the invention of the gun, gangsters realized its potential uses, and some of the most colorful characters of the era, including Bonnie and Clyde, used them against police. Granted, large sniper rifles weigh between 25 and 40 pounds, making them much heavier than a BAR, and they fire far slower. However, these facts make it less likely they will be used in an armed robbery and more likely they will be used by a lunatic at the top of a college bell tower.
Ah another idiot journalist.
Btw you can still get BAR's, dirt cheap. They never were outlawed. Given the price you can pick one up for, the 200$ fee needed to register a fully automatic version is no biggy. I have two, one is display piece, the other is working hunting rifle. Neither are automatic though.
Didn't read the rest, he lost credibility very quickly :)
-
I've been out with my father and brother hunting elks.
An elk is a big diddly'n animal, and I wouldn't want to have one chargin down on me. It weights half a ton or so (at least all elks *I* see do :D). A .308M is sufficient to drop one of these things with one round.
Why you'd need a .50 to hunt is beyond me. Yer either a very bad shot or just a bit loose in the head if you do.
Unless we're talking hunting elephants or other BAG (Big Assed Game), and I on't see too many elephant hunters in the US.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
[QB]Why you'd need a .50 to hunt is beyond me.
Who said anything about using a 50 cal to hunt? That would be stupid, it would blow most of the meat away.
The .50 cal is for the poor lefty who tries to come to my house to take away all my other guns/rights.
-AKHog
-
Why you'd need a .50 to hunt is beyond me.
In some states its actually illegal to hunt with .50 cal rifles. Too many people taking 1 mile shots and not wanting to walk that far to get the carcas.
Hunting is not the only use for a rifle. If it was.. nobody would sell .22's anymore. Target shooting is a sport in and of itself. If you don't know what I'm talking about... you probably haven't tried it ;)
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Urban rutabagas posing as journalists, take out their adolescent feelings of inadequacy by whining about other people evidently having "fun"....
lol :D
"...and here we see the western runny nosed urban popsicle in his natural environment: sniveling about the foam temperature on his frappamachamerichino with vanilla coffee."
- excerpted from the 'popsicle and whiner spotting field guide'pg 212, 2001, houghton mifflen
-
Okay.. so where does it stop? They take what they say is a hazard.. well a .308 w/a scope is pretty damn lethel. Dont think by giving in on one thing they'll quit. History is rampent w/THAT mistake.
I simply wish that all the gun laws that have been passed for the last 20yrs would be enforced. I'm tired of others telling me how I need to live my life. I know we have idiots out there who will abuse our freedoms but does mean we take those freedoms from all due to the actions of a few? The entire concept just seems UNAMERICAN.
xBAT
-
Well, I heard several people insinuating that the .50 was a hunting rifle :).
Glad ya disagree.
-
In some states its actually illegal to hunt with .50 cal rifles. Too many people taking 1 mile shots and not wanting to walk that far to get the carcas.
Feh... That's pretty funny.
And I recall a few people here mocking the "walking" in golf and questioning its status as a sport... Now not only is walking to "get the carcas" too much to ask, we're saying even "target shooting is a sport in and of itself."
<cough>
Right.
[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
As someone who is from Maine, which has the highest guns per miles ratio in the nation, and among the lowest crime rates in the nation....dare I act suprised? Whenever I read people saying "People dont need..." and then state what calibers, style and such weapons we can have, I just turn them off.
I don't tell these people what to drive, dress or smoke. Yet they wanna tell the rest of the world what we may/can/shall do.
I'm very active in aviation and its idiots like that that wont let private citizens own warbirds and such. "Who needs to go that fast", etc etc.
Its just lame. If you wanna own a Tommy Gun, and have a clean record, well have at! Guns and legislation are oxymorons....how many criminals are in jail for buying a firearm illegally?
-
Private citizens can't own warbirds? I didnt know that. FAA rule or some other law?
-AKHog
-
BAR
Data is for the M1919A2.
Caliber: .30 cal
Length: 48.7 in
Length of barrel: 24.07 in
Weight: 19.4 lb
Magazine: 20 rd box magazine
Sights: Post and ladder, rear dial type on some
Rate of fire: 500-600 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 2650 fps
Ammo: Ball, tracer
When I was kid, I had a neighbor who had lugged one of these across France in his younger days.
He sure never had a good word to say about how "light" they were. He mentioned that dragging along a few extra magazines wasn't fun either. :)
Hey Santa, how big are your elk and what species? What range do you guys usually shoot from with those .308's?
-
I've wanted to go elk hunting, but I'm afraid those rocky mountain boys will laugh at my 7mm Rem Mag :D
-
Originally posted by AKHog:
Private citizens can't own warbirds? I didnt know that. FAA rule or some other law?
-AKHog
You can still buy em, if they are HERE. Say you find a nice Russian MiG-15 2 seater...BUT...its overseas....can't have em. Can't recall the exact law and such on them but it sucks. Be it a Spitfire from England or MiG21 out of Poland, you can't have em. There may be loop holes and such but it seems Cessna and others, whose Skyhawks *new* cost $170,000, got annoyed people could buy and get training in MiG's and stuff for well below that.
Aviation Biz is a frustrating adventure. Everything is absolutely expensive thanks to the lawyers. People can sue the airplane makers for anything they desire, and this in turn cranks up the cost on airplanes since these companies need to pay legal counsel to defend them from such suits. We need legislation where if the person sueing looses, they pay the legal costs of the parties they attempted to sue. Only then will people think twice about launching a frivilous lawsuit.
Kinda scary when itty bitty Cessna 172s cost just under $200,000 brand new. Which would you rather put $200,000? A nice new house, or a dippy looking Skyhawk? (Me, well, I'd REALLY like the L-39 Russian Advance Jet trainer for that amount!)
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: LePaul cuz this thing seems to wanna spellcheck everything for me... ]
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: LePaul ]
-
And I recall a few people here mocking the "walking" in golf and questioning its status as a sport... Now not only is walking to "get the carcas" too much to ask, we're saying even "target shooting is a sport in and of itself."
Wow nash. You've entered a new level of tardom that actually makes Animal look on with envy.
First of all, I will criticize anyone that says walking is a critical part of the game of golf. I don't know anyone that goes to walking class to improve their golf game. Especially in the situation the ruling occurred over... that individual was facing the same if not more fatigue issues just walking from a cart.
Secondly, how does a person not wanting to walk to pick up a deer carcas in any way reflect on my thoughts as to wether or not they should? It happened... laws were made... that's all. Yes, there are people who are just too damn lazy to walk. I guess even in a state like Idaho, people resent the idea of killing something just for the sake of it.
As for shooting being a sport... it is. Get over it. Its actually quite a bit like golf in that aspect... precision is the key at all times. Then, mother nature throws in her only little set of obsticals to make it less than automatic. Like I said... if you don't know what I'm talking about then you haven't tried it.
AKDejaVu
-
$200k for a new Skyhawk?
Check this: http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml (http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml)
Standard Equipped Aircraft: $144,900
NAV I Equipped Aircraft: $154,200
NAV II Equiped Skyhawk 172R: $166,000
Still absolutely NOT worth it IMO, but not $200K either.
AFAIK, you can still import de-mil warbirds. Paperwork? Yep. Tax? Yep. But I don't think there's a ban on them.
..and that L-39; most of the nice sounding ones in Trade-A-Plane are showing $350-400,000. You can get "ready to restores" @$160,000; but that'll be no where near your final.
-
http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index19890507.htm (http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index19890507.htm)
And
http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index19790303.htm (http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index19790303.htm)
Daff
-
WTF...real men hunt with Bow and Arrow.
I'd like to see the poor bastard that tries to take away any of my weapons, legeslate them to illegality and I'll become a criminal, period.
Lars
-
You can still pick up MiG-15's from anywhere between 20k and 50k.
There are several companies in the US that import them, just pick up an aero trader magazine, they usually always have 10-20. They often provide a course, and will deliver too, albeit with a marginal price hike.
There was a nice one for sale in Houston last year, loved the paint scheme...but with fuel prices it's hard to sell a gas guzzling Russian jet :)
-
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. ;)
-
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. :mad:
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.jetwarbird.com)
Great guy, talked to him a few time. Every time I talk to him, the savings account cringes!
-
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! :o 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. :D
-
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.
:)
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :eek:
-
"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
-
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
-
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. :)