WJ SOM SS

iTrader: (11)

I don't have a link...it was on the news this morning....WTF difference does it make? BTW, what makes you the expert on all this? Everyone's entitled to their own ******* opinion around here, last I knew....

92SilverSHO

iTrader: (3)

The Criminals still get their guns the same way while the people who abide by the law get screwed and thats the problem with restricting guns. Here in Canada we are sheep

obsolete346

iTrader: (7)

After all the BS annologies I don't know what to think. I guess I should sell my .50 cal T/A? Cars and whatever else you can think of will never be a valid comparison because of the purpose of each is completely different.

I guess I will state this again. I BELIEVE IN THE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS, I ACTUALLY OWN SOME TOO. I do however believe in reason. I do not think it's reasonable for private citizens to own weapons of mass destuction i.e. rockets, fully automatic weapons, grenades, claymores, Minuteman III's, RPG's, 40mm rounds etc. I also believe in reasonable gun control like backround checks and mandatory safety classes. I actually disagree with most handgun legislation in regaurds to carrying. You guys should stop assuming you know what people think.

I also don't think that any Tom Dick or Harry should be able to own whatever form of weapon they want. Just because the owner will probably not use it doesn't mean there is no chance of theft or other bad situation that could arise from the ownership of unreasonable weapons.

Zodiac also used a gun, not just a knife. That's as irrelevent as your point and his.

I'd actually like stats on this cause I believe that.

There doesn't need to be a correlation and there will never be one. Cars are for transport guns are for killing. There is a difference in purpose. Stop getting hung up on the car anology it's moot. Not to mention there are already enforced traffic laws aimed at preventing accidents. People here usually bitch about that too.

I keep challenging people to provide a reasonable use for said weapons, but no one can point me to one either.

So you see no difference between a rocket and the situation you described? All of your examples take huge logical leaps in order to make your opposition sound wrong. You don't however answer the actual question. It would be similar to me saying that since guns kill people and nuclear weapons kill people we should be able to own those too. It's to far of a conclusion to draw. That's the same reason that the car analogy isn't valid. Your almost setting up a straw man arguement. Actually, not almost, you are.

Funny, I think both sides are guilty of that.

No one answered my question, should convicted felons be allowed to own hand guns?

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Haha let me see that **** going on here (I actually did hear of something like that happening in Paterson, NJ on 9/11/01 ) and yes, my car will suddenly become more deadly than a .50 cal rifle.

brad8266

iTrader: (23)

Im glad I live in GA now where I am legally allowed to carry a handgun and can shoot to kill if attacked or if my home is broken into. Oh and the weather is much better than NJ.

NHRAMAN

iTrader: (1)

NO WE ARE NOT----There are millions of guns in the states...we are trying to keep them out. I have absolutely no use for a gun in Canada. Montreal has always been full of criminals though.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Well, yes and no. Guns are for self (and national) defense, guns are for security (a deterent, like a car alarm if you will), let's not box them into one tiny single category.
They're tools, yes much like a car.
Do we need such big (.50 cal) tools? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.


A convicted felon that did not commit a violent crime or a crime involving a firearm (are there even felonies that can fall under those criteria?)? Yeah, why not.
If he paid his (or her) debt to society and is on record an ex convict then maybe it should be allowed just as a former violator of traffic laws often gets to drive again.
I know there are laws in place to prevent convicted felons from legally owning guns (and from voting) and no I can't say for sure that I disagree with said laws, but you asked.

WJ SOM SS

iTrader: (11)

No, I don't think convicted felons should be allowed to own hand guns. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, a convicted felon is not supposed to own handguns, or any firearms --but correct me if I'm wrong. Convicted and non/convicted felons own plenty of illegal handguns, assault rifles, etc. Usually they are stolen during housebreaks, gun store/sports store breaks or holdups, or obtained illegally from other felons. ID #'s are removed, and there you have another receipe for a holdup, murder, or whatever. I'm no gun expert. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but within logical reason...WJ

obsolete346

iTrader: (7)

Don't be obtuse. How do you defend with a gun? By putting a smoke hole in someone. How do you deter with a gun? The threat of said smoke hole which is a direct refernce to the purpose of a gun. Different intended functions, is that a better way to state it? Let's not argue semantics, if that were the case everyone should be complaining about the term "gun" being used instead of firearm.

I own a gun for it's purpose. If some enters my house and intends to hurt myself or my girlfriend they're getting shot. Plain and simple. (Massachusetts law) If I was back in NM, the second part would not apply.

Ping King

iTrader: (20)

F-117HWK

iTrader: (1)

I'm just glad I live in Virginia where this **** will never happen. Headquarters of the NRA, its that simple. A .50 rifle is not necessary sure, but it is fun, and in a few years intend to purchase one for long distance target shooting. Now in the same sense, adding a twin-turbo system to my car is not necessary, but it is something I want to do for fun, just the same as target shooting. (yes i know the twin-turbo is not the same in creation purpose but the reason for owning one, which is what is being challenged regarding the .50 Rifle, is what I am comparing)

Also to go along with the person talking about the non- .50 loads, Barrett has just developed a smaller load that is more accurate and can be used at even a greater distance (forget the exact distance but it was greater than the .50 and this was tested and proven on Future Weapons on Discovery Channel; for any nonbelievers go rent a copy and educate yourself before disagreeing), so really the purpose of the .50 ban is pointless IMO as there are loads that are even more powerful, but thats just me, so have your own opinions in favor or not.

-Freak-

iTrader: (6)

AGAIN with the mis-conceptions and twisted truths. "armor piercing rounds" there they go throwing out the terror terms again. I have yet to see steel core FMJ rounds for sale in any of the multiple shops i have gone into.
"armor piercing rounds" - once again what do the classify armor as? a 3 inch solid steel plate, dragon skin vest, level 1 - 5 vests? a level 1 vest will only stop bullets up to a .38 cal pistol round.
The public needs to educate themselves on guns so they can see the all the misconceptions and lies in the media and realize that its not any where near as big of an issue as it needs to be.
criminals are criminals and will always get there hands on black market weapons. don't take the weapons away so that the criminals have free roam knowing they won't find any resistance besides the police that won't be at the crime scene for at least 10-20 min.

man this thread hit a sweet spot because i sure am going off tonight.

F-117HWK i think your talking about the Accuracy International AS-50 semi auto .50 rifle. THAT is one weapon i would love to have.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Resemble hunting rifles? To me a hunting rifle is a .22 or maybe a .30-06...I think that .50 cal is pretty cool but I don't think anyone will mistake it for your average hunting rifle.

Ping King

iTrader: (20)

yea im just gonna go for rabbit..nothing big..you should see what i hunt deer with

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

The bad guys are far less likely to break into a home that they think might contain protection than one that they know doesn't.
For that matter they're less likely to approach (aka: mug/rob) someone on the street if they think they are carrying as well...think Texas.
Of course a whacked out suicidal terrorist doesn't care if someone is armed either way but I'm not talking about them.

-Freak-

iTrader: (6)

God Bless Texas for their gun laws, Damn i love that state.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Can one get a carry permit for that one?

Ping King

iTrader: (20)

no but i was thinking of carrying this

-Freak-

iTrader: (6)

why would you want the cannon, i don't think that has armor piercing rounds. So wouldn't that make the .50 cal more deadly?

it needs a fore grip then it would be the ULTIMATE killing weapon.

F-117HWK

iTrader: (1)

I know that rifle and saw that episode and yes I sure as hell want one but I believe it was the same episode, that the guy also tested a new round developed by Barrett that is not .50 and delivers greater range while still holding MOA. If I remember correctly he had one shot to match the shooter Barrett sent to show off the new round and he freaking nailed it (he is an ex-Navy SEAL trained Sniper so not anyone can just go out and achieve these results people) They found out that by making the round a tad smaller and changing the shape, that it could go further more accurately with only a minute drop in impact force. He then walked the distance, well over a mile, to see the results just to prove the new technology. Amazing.