Rock Chalk
01-09-2005, 04:41 PM
OK, let's see how this goes. Im not entirely sure we can keep partisanship out of this but I want to hear your thoughts.
This is not really about gun control though it does play a part in this, more on that later.
Now, the theory is that it would be a preferred weapon of choice for terrorists. This was the reasoning behind the ban. Now I am not for this ban on those grounds. I would be for a ban on this weapon on legitimate grounds but not these.
First off no moron can just pick up a .50 caliber and be effective with it for its purpose. The .50 caliber is not an easy gun to shoot. Its big, heavy and extremely loud. It has INCREDIBLE range (TWO THOUSAND yards) and has bullets sold legally that are armor piercing (enough to go through the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but not the Abrahms Tank). The primary reason for the banning is that its effectiveness at long range make it a dangerous weapon in the hands of a terrorist.
Yeah, that is true. I will not discount that. However, the amount of people in the world capable of making a .50 caliber effective at long range are few and far between with YEARS of practice behind them. You can probably count with both hands how many people in the world can make good use of a .50 caliber outside of a shooting range.
This is not a typical sniper rifle people. This is a difficult weapon to shoot properly. Trust me, Ive shot one and IM a good ass shot with most types of rifles at 500 yards. Not sniper material, but a pretty damn good shot none-the-less. IN A SHOOTING RANGE. Thats the key. Real life applications are entirely different and make the already difficult weapon even more difficult to use.
As for gun control, thats what this sounds like to me. Another method of not banning guns, god no, we wont stand for that, but maybe we can take one here, one there unnoticed until there are no more guns for sale legally.
You give an inch, they take a mile. Thats the golden rule with human beings. Another thing that bothers me is that California has done this (Arnold specifically) but the gun is legal in every other state in the union and further it is not illegal to OWN the gun in California, just to buy it.
What point does this legislation serve? California will not influence the rest of the nation in this matter. IF this was going to be done and IF I were to go along with it it would HAVE to be a federal law prohibiting the sale and possession of the firearm.
So why waste already tax strapped Californian money on nonsense legislature? What say you?
Please keep the partisan rhetoric out of this. Im not concerned with political ideologies on this, just your thoughts on if this is a good move or a bad one. Why you are for or against it.
This is not really about gun control though it does play a part in this, more on that later.
Now, the theory is that it would be a preferred weapon of choice for terrorists. This was the reasoning behind the ban. Now I am not for this ban on those grounds. I would be for a ban on this weapon on legitimate grounds but not these.
First off no moron can just pick up a .50 caliber and be effective with it for its purpose. The .50 caliber is not an easy gun to shoot. Its big, heavy and extremely loud. It has INCREDIBLE range (TWO THOUSAND yards) and has bullets sold legally that are armor piercing (enough to go through the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but not the Abrahms Tank). The primary reason for the banning is that its effectiveness at long range make it a dangerous weapon in the hands of a terrorist.
Yeah, that is true. I will not discount that. However, the amount of people in the world capable of making a .50 caliber effective at long range are few and far between with YEARS of practice behind them. You can probably count with both hands how many people in the world can make good use of a .50 caliber outside of a shooting range.
This is not a typical sniper rifle people. This is a difficult weapon to shoot properly. Trust me, Ive shot one and IM a good ass shot with most types of rifles at 500 yards. Not sniper material, but a pretty damn good shot none-the-less. IN A SHOOTING RANGE. Thats the key. Real life applications are entirely different and make the already difficult weapon even more difficult to use.
As for gun control, thats what this sounds like to me. Another method of not banning guns, god no, we wont stand for that, but maybe we can take one here, one there unnoticed until there are no more guns for sale legally.
You give an inch, they take a mile. Thats the golden rule with human beings. Another thing that bothers me is that California has done this (Arnold specifically) but the gun is legal in every other state in the union and further it is not illegal to OWN the gun in California, just to buy it.
What point does this legislation serve? California will not influence the rest of the nation in this matter. IF this was going to be done and IF I were to go along with it it would HAVE to be a federal law prohibiting the sale and possession of the firearm.
So why waste already tax strapped Californian money on nonsense legislature? What say you?
Please keep the partisan rhetoric out of this. Im not concerned with political ideologies on this, just your thoughts on if this is a good move or a bad one. Why you are for or against it.