someone else didn't get the message about laying off

[enfield collector]

gun control. check it out, armor piercing and sniper rifle in the same sentence. all she missed were "bullet hose", "cop killer" and "spray fire".
exactly how many crimes have been commited with these guns? I believe it is zero. I bet this does wonders for us in the south.

http://www.house.gov/maloney/press/108th/2004081850CalRifle.htm

NEW YORK, NY - Today, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY), Chair of the Task Force on Homeland Security for the House Democratic Caucus, urged a crack down on access in U.S. markets to the 50 caliber armor-piercing sniper rifle, a weapon of terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda.

Joined by leaders of the Violence Policy Center and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Maloney revealed how easy access to the 50 caliber weapon in the United States threatens the nation’s civil aviation system, as well as its chemical and refinery plants and the hundreds of thousands of residents living in communities around those plants. Maloney noted specifically that the 50 caliber’s power, long-distance accuracy, and explosive ammunition make it a weapon of choice among terrorists, but that U.S. regulation on the sale and monitoring of these weapons remains extremely weak.

Congresswoman Maloney said, “This is an obvious weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist, but under current federal law it is easier to purchase than a basic handgun. A terrorist could ignite an airplane or chemical plant from thousands of yards away with this weapon, increasing the chance of escape and repeat attacks. Cracking down on access to the 50 caliber should be a crucial part of the country’s homeland security strategy, but right now that sense of urgency is missing in Washington.”

Tom Diaz, Violence Policy Center senior policy analyst and author of numerous VPC studies on the threat posed by 50 caliber sniper rifles, stated, “These anti-armor rifles can take out light armored vehicles, are capable of turning commercial jetliners into bombs on the ground, and of knocking helicopters out of the air. And, they are capable of igniting railcars and stationary tank farms containing extremely hazardous, volatile, and explosive chemicals.”

[Fescue4u]

1. If a rifle is a weapon of mass destruction

as this ninny suggests.

Then I guess Saddam did have wmds??????

Nah.

I think shes just a gun grabbing ninny.

[iverglas]

9. "gun grabbing ninny"

"Democrat". Whatever.

[Fescue4u]

11. Nice and concise.

Bravo.

(now back to business).

Whatever indeed

[Wcross]

2. "threatens the nation’s civil aviation system"

Gee, she lost me on the first lie. I wouldn't own a .50 rifle if it was given to me and I doubt a terrorist would consider it a valuable weapon either. Most civilian .50 bmg rifles when upwards of 30 pounds and are hard to hide. While it is accurate at long ranges, a shooter would be hard pressed to track a moving target at any kind of distance.
Ok, lets ban a weapon that has never been used by a criminal to commit a murder. Is it too hard for her little pea brain to see that if it WERE considered a weapon terrorists would use that it could be imported much like the millions of tons of cocaine we consume each year. Just a thought ;)

[iverglas]

10. and your point was?

Maloney revealed how easy access to the 50 caliber weapon in the United States threatens the nation’s civil aviation system, as well as its chemical and refinery plants and the hundreds of thousands of residents living in communities around those plants.

... A terrorist could ignite an airplane or chemical plant from thousands of yards away with this weapon, increasing the chance of escape and repeat attacks.

... “These anti-armor rifles can take out light armored vehicles, are capable of turning commercial jetliners into bombs on the ground, and of knocking helicopters out of the air. And, they are capable of igniting railcars and stationary tank farms containing extremely hazardous, volatile, and explosive chemicals.” (emphases added)

While it is accurate at long ranges, a shooter would be hard pressed to track a moving target at any kind of distance.

Many "moving targets" in those lists? (I'd note that airplanes are sometimes on the ground, as in fact one speaker specified, and vehicles and railcars are not instruments of perpetual motion; and I'd be remembering that helicopters in the air have that uncanny ability to hang around in one place ... that maybe being why the speaker specified helicopters in the air and planes on the ground. Or maybe that was just coincidence and dumb luck ...)

Ok, lets ban a weapon that has never been used by a criminal to commit a murder.

Once again -- was anybody talking about committing a murder?

Did you just wander aimlessly into a thread and start pecking at the keyboard at random?

Most civilian .50 bmg rifles when upwards of 30 pounds and are hard to hide.

Mmm hmm. And if we now look at your next sentence:

While it is accurate at long ranges, ...

... what might we conclude about the importance of that hard-to-hide factor?

Is it too hard for her little pea brain to see that if it WERE considered a weapon terrorists would use that it could be imported much like the millions of tons of cocaine we consume each year.

Well then y'all may as well be hospitable, and save 'em the trouble, eh?

Just a thought ;)

Indeed it was ... I guess.

[MrSandman]

16. Those rail cars...

Well placed ANFO would be more likely. Either prepostioned or in a vehicle.

Maybe.

Wait, that would require terrorists to substitue an explosive for a firearm. That is a myth.:eyes:

[TheRovingGourmet]

24. A well-placed crowbar works well on trains, unfortunately.

[Wcross]

22. Some more idle pecking.....

"NEW YORK, NY - Today, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY), Chair of the Task Force on Homeland Security for the House Democratic Caucus, urged a crack down on access in U.S. markets to the 50 caliber armor-piercing sniper rifle, a weapon of terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda."

Is there any proof these are favored by terrorists? I had been told they have used bombs and box cutters- I must have missed the .50 cal rifle attacks. Should we ban everything that terrorists "might" use some day?

This is a pure case of terror-mania. They might,could, maybe. We better ban them!

Write your congress-person and tell him/her how you feel about this. I am sure someone up in Ottawa will be glad to hear from ya!

[LibraLabSoldier]

23. Just look at how successful

the war on drugs has been. I for one have NO INTENTION whatsoever to give up my guns. Ever. Under any circumstances. If the war on Guns is successful as the War on Drugs, I have nothing to worry about.

[MrSandman]

3. "Weapon of choice" too...n/t

[minavasht]

4. Damn terorists!

20 box cutters killed thousands, imagine what a single .50 "armor-piercing rifle" can do!
Why nobody listened to her when she was warning about the box-cutter loopholle? If only there was a box-cutter ban in place....

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

5. So what bullet does the thing fire?

Maloney noted specifically that the 50 caliber’s power, long-distance accuracy, and explosive ammunition make it a weapon of choice among terrorists, but that U.S. regulation on the sale and monitoring of these weapons remains extremely weak.

Are they Armor Piercing (AP)?

Are they High Explosive (HE)?

Are they Armor Piercing Incindiary (API)?

Are they Match rounds?

Are they all four rolled into one?

Does the author have a clue?

Umm, .50 BMGs aren't regulated any more than a hunting rifle because they are simply, rifles! And usually bolt action at that.

These anti-armor rifles can take out light armored vehicles,

So now it is an anti-armor rifle? I've seen a WWII anti-armor rifle once. It was about 7 feet long and fired a 20mm projectile (.80 caliber). .50 BMG isn't even close.

are capable of turning commercial jetliners into bombs on the ground, and of knocking helicopters out of the air.

Someone needs to notify the US military. They abandoned the .50 BMG as an anti-aircraft round after WWII. Even then it was used as a close quarters weapon aboard bombers.

And, they are capable of igniting railcars and stationary tank farms containing extremely hazardous, volatile, and explosive chemicals.”

Lots of rifles can poke a hole in a railcar or a petro tank, especially with these AP rounds that are supposedly so common.

[MrSandman]

6. They are rotated in the Mag....

it is an unwritten law.

[Vladimir]

12. A couple of points

Umm, .50 BMGs aren't regulated any more than a hunting rifle because they are simply, rifles! And usually bolt action at that.

How is this fact pertinent? You are not going to be shooting at a fast moving target anyhow, so rate of fire is fairly unimportant.

Someone needs to notify the US military. They abandoned the .50 BMG as an anti-aircraft round after WWII. Even then it was used as a close quarters weapon aboard bombers.

In fact, almost every US fighter during WWII was equipped with the .50 and nothing else, and this was not only sufficient firepower but in many respects superior to the German preference for large calibre cannons. The P-47 was considered one of the most heavily armed airplanes of the time, and it carried eight 0.50 calibre machineguns. And was extensively used against ground targets too. And of course the .50 remained in use during the Korean war. Moreover, a commercial jetliner lacks either self-sealing fuel tanks or an inert gas system to prevent the same tanks from igniting, so it would be less than shocking if a 0.50BMG round placed squaely into one of its fuel tanks would send it up in flames. As for helicopters, an Apache is protected against 0.50 caliber rounds, but most transport choppers are not - they tend to be protected against 7.62mm rounds at best. Which is for example why most main bttle tanks are still equipped with a 0.50 calibre machinegun on top of the turrett (in addition to the gun's use against infantry targets on the ground).

[Zynx]

13. Misleading.

You are seriously suggesting that solitary shots fired from a single-shot or bolt-action rifle can actually take out/blow up an aircraft?

Or are you just deliberately comparing it to machine guns, which fire dozens of mixed armor piercing and incendiary bullets in a single burst?

[MrSandman]

15. Not only MG to Bolt action

it carried eight 0.50 calibre machineguns.

I believe those eight fired in unison at the same point of aim.

[Vladimir]

18. Yes, and they were used against armored targets

which a civilian plane is not. A P47 could take out decently armored ground targets, of course a bolt action rifle cannot do this - but civilian planes are completely unarmored. If you hit the fuel tank directly, with an incindiary round, and without any mechanisms to stop the fuel from igniting, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to blow it up. In any case, even with a bolt action rifle you could get off more than one round before the plane was evacuated. Seeing as most of the rifles, whether bolt action or semi-automatic, come with 5 or 10 round clips, I really do not understand what you find so implausible about this.

On edit: when I say a bolt-action rifle cannot take out a decently armored ground target, it depends on the target of course. They are not called anti-material rifles for nothing - the whole point is to be able to take a sniper out through a wall.

[enfield collector]

20. since we're playing the "if" game

how about if we distribute 50 cal armor piercing sniper rifles thro the CMP and have people stationed near strategic targets as counter snipers. I believe the SWAT teams use this tactic and CMP has enough retired military and civilian marksmen to recruit from.

[Vladimir]

21. I would not be at all surprised

if similar things are actually in place, depending on the target in question...

[LibraLabSoldier]

25. You know Vlad....

If I walked into a sporting goods store and asked for .50 cal armor piercing incendrindary rounds, they would be laughing....as they called the police. This arguement is laughable. If I woke up tomorrow morning and decided to shoot at some cars from the roof of my house, I would use my .303 British Bolt Action, made in 1947. This is a typical gun grabber arguing tactic...start talking about a legal gun, and then mix up lots of information about vaguely similar military arms. No wonder your average soccer mom thinks that we can just walk into the gun store and walk out with a Ma Deuce. What idiocy........

[MrSandman]

27. Why not...

No wonder your average soccer mom thinks that we can just walk into the gun store and walk out with a Ma Deuce.

[Vladimir]

29. Now this is a different argument alltogether

if you want to claim that the rifle (or ammunition) is not as widely available as the original article suggests, that is different from arguing whether or not it should be given the uses it could be put to. I was indeed working on the premise that the gun was widely available (along with a broad spectrum of ammunition for said gun) because no one seemed to be challenging the notion but rather applauding it.

PS Incidentally, armor-piercing incindiery? I always thought you got one or the other...

[MrSandman]

32. What do you think they put...

In those WW2 P47's?

API

I do applaud the fact that the .50 Barrett is widely available. Where has the availability increased the terror threat? Maybe gun sales should be regulated according to the Mickey Mouse terror threat level.

[Vladimir]

34. Having now researched the matter

you are correct. They used a mix of 2 AP, 2 Incindary and 1 tracer originally, but switched to combination API later in the war.

[MrSandman]

26. Possible?

Yes. Likely? no. I can sit and think of easier methods to bring down an aircraft given current security measures. Especially since counting on a single shell to light kerosene is not the most dependable way to start a fire.

[Vladimir]

28. But then I only claimed the possibility n/t

[MrSandman]

30. Then a ban on ammonium nitrate....

Should be considered on "possibility."

[MrBenchley]

31. Funny thing about that...

Who was that who blocked putting taggants in ammonium nitrate? Oh yeah, it was the scumbags in the gun lobby....

[NorthernSpy]

45. did the NRA object to tagging ammonium nitrate?

What I remember is them stating their opposition to tagging gun powder. (Ammonium nitrate and gun powder are not the same stuff.)

Do you support tagging gun powder, as well as AN?

Which taggants do you propose using?


Mary

[slackmaster]

46. Some of us are very, very confused about tagging gunpowder

Here's a regular contributor who claimed that European smokeless powders contain taggants. They don't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=44507&mesg_id=44563&page=

The NRA AFAIK has never said anything about taggants in fertilizer. I can't imagine any reason they would care.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSpy]

177. yeah -- I thought this discussion sounded familiar!

I think that some people may be confusing the use of gun powder in pipe bombs with the use of ammonium nitrate in truck bombs. And yes, AFAIK, the NRA's objections were to the proposal to put taggants in gun powder. I don't remember them taking an explicit stand on the ammonium nitrate question, and no one here has shown us anything indicating that they had.

What I wanted to explain to Mr. B is that using taggants may be less useful than he seems to think. None of the tagging technologies that I've read about is foolproof. All of them are either: prohibitively expensive; harmful to the products they are added to; susceptible to destruction when the bomb explodes; pose a pollution risk; or are easily removed and discarded -- or some combination of these. Additionally, even the fanciest tagging technology can be undermined by the simple 'homebrew' method of mixing small amounts of the desired material from diverse sources.


Mary

[TheRovingGourmet]

48. The NRA opposed tagging gunpowder; their claim was that

it made gunpowder unpredictable, or something like that. Farmers got the support of a Democratic politician on the tagging of fertilizer but I forget his name.

[MrBenchley]

53. The NRA opposed all taggants

but then they're the scum of the earth....

[TheRovingGourmet]

57. Look it up if you want. It won't hurt you.

[MrBenchley]

59. Don't have to look it up...

I'm not pimping for the scummy gun industry.

[TheRovingGourmet]

62. Are you saying I am?

[MrBenchley]

64. Gee, ask a "dumb broad" to explain it to you....

[TheRovingGourmet]

66. Are you female?

[MrBenchley]

67. Are you?

Or do you think that only women can object to sexist stupidity and outright dishonesty?

[TheRovingGourmet]

69. I was merely acting on your suggestion.

[MrBenchley]

70. And you got the answer you deserved...

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

98. Really...

"hangs out on a board meant for Progressives"
Yeah, it is....but instead all we get is this right wing shit from phony RKBAers.....as well as imbecilic slurs like "dumb broad."

"hoping to get someone to say something naughty so you can get them banned?"
Don't need to hope....so many of the RKBA fuckwits end up showing us what they really are and earning tombstones all by themselves.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

114. Gee, the obvious answer is

that I don't break the fucking rules....

"I see that DoNotRefill asks the same thing in his ATA post."
Yeah, refill says lots of things not worth responding to....

[TheRovingGourmet]

116. Don't break the rules? Now that is funny! Thanks!

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skippythwndrdog]

146. What about bandwidth theft?

[skippythwndrdog]

93. Nice pic.

What's that little white spot on the edge?

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skippythwndrdog]

100. Some things never change.

Still with the penis obsession. It's good to know that there are some constants in life.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skippythwndrdog]

103. It's your pic! n/t

[MrBenchley]

105. And your imagined splotch....

[MrSandman]

121. Taggants still won't stop Kaboom...n/t

[Vladimir]

33. Well if I had talked about banning anything

in this thread, you may have a point. But since I have nowhere stated that I want these guns banned, and was only saying that they could be used to do certain things, I really don't see what you are going on about.

[MrSandman]

36. Wasn't that the topic of the .50 in original post...

So if you don't agree, Welcome to the bright side.

[MrBenchley]

38. Too too funny....

"Welcome to the bright side."
Home of such brilliant luminaries as Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt and the Aryan Nation....


Bright...yeah, that's the word to describe these folks....NOT.

[Vladimir]

94. You'll find out my position in a second

(bet you just can't wait), but first of all lets note that if X says "lets ban 0.50s" and Y says "no way, 0.50s are harmless" and Z says "well actually 0.50s can cause some harm in certain situations", Z has not stated a position about banning one way or the other. Sorry, I am a sad, sad pedant sometimes.

As for what I think, as if it matters for shit, I don't really see what possible legitimate use one could put a 0.50 to. You are hardly going to use it for self defence, and I can't imagine that it would be too comfortable to hunt with seeing as you can't shoot most of these rifles from anything other than prone and they tend to be heavy as fuck. But then again, I guess if you are hunting yetis or bigfoot or sperm whales, maybe you need 14kg worth of rifle that can shoot through a brick wall. Having said all that I still don't think that you need to ban them, but then that is not what is being proposed by this legislation - as far as I can see from the bill as introduced:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

(type in S. 429 for the bill, the direct link doesn't reproduce correctly)

they would merely be pursuant to the same restrictions as destructive devices (which it would be reasonable to argue they are anyway, being able to go through a brick wall and all that), which as has been lovingly explained to me here are not banned but just hard to get.

[slackmaster]

112. Makah tribe in Washington state has used one on gray whales

They're great for long-range target shooting. It's a lot of fun and challenging trying to hit something at 1,000 yards of more.

The threshold for being a firearm being a destructive device (assuming it fires fixed ammunition) is OVER .50 caliber. I see no compelling reason to lower the bar, and obviously once that happens (if it happens) someone is going to start making specious claims that some other slightly smaller caliber, e.g. .458 Winchester or .460 Weatherby, is the new "weapon of choice" for prematurely partially bald Sociology professors or whoever happens to be the Bogeyman du jours.

[Vladimir]

113. And there I was, trying to be funny

but as so often in life, its funnny because its true...

[MrSandman]

119. I am not going to...

spend $3000+ for a rifle and ove $1.50 per shot. But, if there is no legitimate use for a .50 BMG rifle, what are the illegitimate uses they are put to?

And if they are not put to illegitimate ends, then by all means, let us stand up and call for their regulation.

If S. 429 is your position, you are doing more than stating the .50 may cause harm.

[Vladimir]

122. I'm not sure I see what you mean by

If S. 429 is your position, you are doing more than stating the .50 may cause harm

Well yes. Originally I was merely discussing the harm that could be caused by one of these things. Then you implied I wanted to ban them, and I said I had stated no such thing. Which at the time I hadn't and incidentally I still haven't. Afterwards, I cited S. 429 as a piece of legislation designed to deal with the potential problems caused by these guns that made sense to me. My position has progressed in time...

Here are the findings of S.429

The Congress finds that--

(1) certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range 50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market;

(2) the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices;

(3) these firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use;

(4) extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce; and

(5) the virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security.

I think this, along with the original article, pretty clearly sets out the illegitimate purposes they could be put to.

[MrSandman]

129. I believe it is wrong...

(1) The .50 Barrett was initially a civilian firearm.
on edit: the M82A1

(2) Other calibers are more accurate and as effective

(3) What illegitimate sporting purposes are they put to?

(4) Regulate API ammo.

(5) What threat has been presented?


What illegitimate uses HAVE they been put to.

[Vladimir]

135. I don't know about that...

(1) The .50 Barrett was initially a civilian firearm.

Only because it took about 7 years from the rifle's design to the first major military order. A lot of 0.50 caliber rifles around the world are designed for military purposes in response to direct military design contests.

(2) Other calibers are more accurate and as effective

More accurate is undeniable but irrelevant since the propsed application is hitting an airplane's fuel tanks (tend to be all along the wing) or a chemical storage tank. More effective depends on your application - once again, these things are called anti-material rifles and exist for a purpose. You are not seriously telling me that a normal rifle or even something like the CheyTac Intervention can go through a brick wall and kill the person behind it?

(3) What illegitimate sporting purposes are they put to?

Not having a legitimate sporting purpose does not equate to having illegitimate ones. Not that this regulation would stop someone using this rifle for sport or even hunting...

(5) What threat has been presented?

Go back to the original article... plenty of threats have indeed been presented. YOu do not seem to find them very plausible but this is a different matter.

[MrSandman]

162. Handguns are the real threat...

What purpose are they put to...It must be none or illegitimate. They are in use.

Lat us ban auto's capable af speeds in excess of 70mph. They are a clear threat.

Yes it was initaially a civilian firearm because the military had no interest. I don't think Barrett designed the rifle with the intention of a military arm, unlike Stoner, who actively marketed the AR-15 to military, esp. LeMay.

I don't think that the .50's are used to shoot people through brick walls. How many times has this happened?

[MrBenchley]

163. Fine with me, sandman...

There's a sizable contingent of the country that thinks handguns have no place on the civilian market....

[Vladimir]

168. Do some research

an anti-sniper (or anti-material) rifle is there to be able to take snipers out through cover, including brick walls, yes. Have a look through the listings on world.guns.ru for example...

[MrSandman]

170. How about...

http://www.fcsa.org/articles/2003-3/brakingthe50bmg.htm

For legitimate sporting uses whic do not exist in some minds.

[Vladimir]

171. But then this proposal

would not put a stop to sporting use, so long as the guns were registered and a background check passed...

[FeebMaster]

172. Sure.

Until they ban their manufacture for civilians like they did with machine guns in 1986.


S.429 is possibly the most pathetic bill I've ever read. Feinstein needs to hire someone with a clue to write gun bills for her. If she really wants to make .50 caliber weapons NFA items there's certainly no need to make up some idiotic definition for 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPON. It would require moving two words in the definition of destructive device. Also, note the lack of decimal points in front of almost ever 50 in the bill. Good job.

I almost wish it would pass, if only to listen to the endless whining of gun grabbers when the corrupt gun industry introduces the .499 GGC (gun grabber cartridge) or something like that.

[MrSandman]

173. Then would the .460 Steyr...

Be deemed to present this threat?

And if they are deemed a destructive device, then every local chief law enforcement officer will be able to influence who may obtain these guns.


What about those High performance auto's? Shouldn't we do background checks on purchasers also? They present a greater real threat than the Barrett's.

[Vladimir]

174. High performance autos? n/t

[MrSandman]

175. No,

A high powered "sniper" round which fails to meet the .50 cal. distinction. It was developed IIRC, as a military round.

[TX-RAT]

35. You are seriously suggesting

(solitary shots fired from a single-shot or bolt-action rifle can actually take out/blow up an aircraft?)

Absolutely!

[TheRovingGourmet]

7. Chair of the Task Force on Homeland Security?

Normally, I would find this sort of ranting humorous, but I draw the line at having someone of this person's caliber working on anything even remotely associated with Homeland Security.

[Zynx]

8. Like I'd need a .50 cal.

Remember that guy who blew a hole in the Alaska oil pipeline, which is a heck of a lot tougher than most targets this quack lists off?

It was a .338 magnum firing standard ammunition.

This should probably be banned as well. It's most certainly capable of ripping through a police Kevlar vest and thus is a "cop killer."

[goju]

14. Someone explain to me

How a 50 cal would be a greater threat than say, a 300 weatherby or winchester, or an ultramag in taking down ANYTHING with the right shot? We're not talking about a huge distance factor here, maybe a difference of 200 yards effectively to peirce ANYTHING other than heavy armor. 338? Even less.

But aside from that, I sincerely doubt that if your goal was to blow up a helicopter or rail car, a terrorist would choose a rifle to do the job. But maybe "I" am lacking the experience in these matters :eyes:

Once again, we see the gun controllers peering over the top of the slippery slope. Im truly amazed how little knowledge they actually have yet, they purport to be such experts in these matters.

[FeebMaster]

17. We'll ban those later. (nt)

[MrBenchley]

19. Yeah, imagine that

a Democrat not acting like a nutcase right wing loony....who'd a guessed it.

[FatSlob]

37. Ha! What a dumbass! It is a shame that people like this get elected.

What a fool.

[MrBenchley]

39. Wow...fat slob bashes a Democrat again

who would have guessed that?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

49. I think it's beneath contempt....

as is that comment....

But really who's surprised by anything disgraceful the RKBAers say....

[turnkey]

51. I'm sorry you're offended!...NOT. n/t

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheRovingGourmet]

50. It falls into the alarming column. If someone wants to fret over

the million to one deals, that is fine. Just please don't do it as part of Homeland Security, FBI, or whatever. There are bigger and more probable things to worry about.

[MrBenchley]

54. Frankly, I think it shows good judgement...

There's no reason to risk letting a terrorist get their hands on any more of these...despite the lies of our ethically-challenged trigger happy pinheads.

[turnkey]

56. do we have proof that they have their hands on any of them? n/t

[MrBenchley]

61. Yeah, we do....

And we beat this issue to death months and months ago...

"Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda is believed to have obtained two dozen of these weapons on the international arms bazaar, plus night-vision equipment enabling their use in darkness. Various types of ammunition are easily obtainable for a few dollars per shot.
The marketing literature of one manufacturer of these sniper rifles waxes enthusiastic not about the weapon's lethality against big game, but against big airplanes: "The cost-effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than $10 can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft.""

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_42_17/ai_109586489

"The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released a study rebutting gun industry claims that twenty-five 50 caliber sniper rifles obtained by Osama bin Laden in the 1980s were part of U.S. government aid to Afghan rebels fighting Soviet invaders. Based on interviews with the top three former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials who ran the Afghan-aid program, sworn court testimony, and other independent sources, the report—The U.S. Gun Industry and Others Unknown: Evidence Debunking the Gun Industry's Claim that Osama bin Laden Got His 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles From the U.S. Afghan-Aid Program—demonstrates that the Barrett rifles bought by bin Laden were not part of the U.S. freedom fighter aid program. "

http://www.vpc.org/press/0202snip.htm

[turnkey]

71. "Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda is believed to have obtained ...

Believed?? Any documentation on actual use by terrorist in these scenarios?

[MrBenchley]

76. Guess you missed the second link

you know, where Barrett tried to justify it by claiming the CIA told him to?

"Any documentation on actual use by terrorist"
There was the fuckwit on the armored bulldozer just a few weeks ago...

[turnkey]

81. Sorry!...I don't accept anything coming from the VPC.

Kinda like you not accepting anything from the NRA. :)

[MrBenchley]

82. Tough titty...

Come back to me if you find a specimen like Grover Norquist or Ted Nugent at the VPC...

Because the plain difference is that the NRA are a bunch of lying right wing shitheels....

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

86. Yeah, they do...

"This doesn't speak well of her leadership ability."
Go ahead and follow the dishonest fuckwits in the gun lobby then....it's not like our "pro gun democrats" are fooling anyone as it is.

[TheRovingGourmet]

60. If it were an effective terrorist weapon, it would be in use now.

[MrBenchley]

65. Sez you....

Me, I'd prefer not waiting until it's used...

[TheRovingGourmet]

68. Don't worry. The terrorists will stick to bigger things. It might

be a good idea to concentrate on catching them now before they do something, but that is just my opinion.

[MrBenchley]

72. Sez you...

But considering how clueless and dishonest our "pro gun democrats" and their statements are, I think I'll keep supporting Congresswoman Maloney's suggestion.

[TheRovingGourmet]

74. Maloney rhymes with bologna.

[MrBenchley]

75. Yeah, and the RKBA cause is nothing but right wing horseshit...

as this thread proves in spades....

[TheRovingGourmet]

77. Call it a RKBA issue if you want, but this thread is more about

a politician abusing her position on Homeland Security to push a personal agenda than anything else. Not a good thing.

[MrBenchley]

79. Horseshit...

It's about a reasoned response to a public menace...and the usual pile of RKBA right wing horseshit.

[turnkey]

85. Gee!...Those of her ilk wouldn't do that...would they?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

158. "her ilk"

Her ilk is these folks...
"This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives."

[Vladimir]

99. Haven't you noticed how this

administration is anything but effective when it comes to the war on terror?

[MrBenchley]

102. Shhhhhhh.....

You know our "pro gun democrats" never ever say anything even mildly critical of a Republican.....

[TheRovingGourmet]

108. Who said I was pro-gun?

[TheRovingGourmet]

109. Meaning what?

[Vladimir]

110. You said:

If it were an effective terrorist weapon, it would be in use now.

And I tried to draw your attention to the fact that this administration has been so bumblingly incompetent at fighting terrorism that your statement is not likely true. There is a whole host of effective anti-terrorist weapons not being used for political reasons...

[TheRovingGourmet]

115. I'm not sure what you mean. If there was a terrorist here that

wanted to use one, they could do so. They could also derail a train right now if they wanted to. As to why nothing like this has happened, I don't know. It wouldn't be anything this administration has done, just law enforcement doing its thing, I guess.

[Vladimir]

117. Ah! My bad, sorry

*beats self over head* I see what you meant now, my bad. I had my wisdom teeth removed today, so I'm still a bit groggy from the painkillers... stupid.

Doesn't mean I agree with your premise though. I think the terrorists are waiting and getting ready for a 'big one' near election time, rather than wasting their energy on a number of smaller attacks. So I don't think that just because they haven't been using one of this things that they don't consider them useful.

[TheRovingGourmet]

123. Ouch! I'm betting that was no fun.

Hopefully we won't have to find out what the terrorist find effective.

[MrBenchley]

118. "why nothing like this has happened"

Yeah, it would be a bitch if some loony went on a rampage someday oh, wait.....

"Officers looking through the square-foot hole cut into the metal casing could see Heemeyer's body with a gun lying nearby, Johnson said. Authorities planned to use a crane to lift the armor shell off the bulldozer, the sheriff said.
Heemeyer plowed the armor-plated bulldozer into the town hall, a former mayor's home and at least five other buildings Friday before the machine ground to a halt in the wreckage of a warehouse.
Holahan said Heemeyer was armed with a .50-caliber weapon but appeared to have deliberately avoided injuring anyone during the rampage, which began about 3 p.m. Friday. No other injuries were reported. "

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040605-0928-bulldozerrampage.html

[TheRovingGourmet]

124. Not a very effective example

[MrBenchley]

128. Sez you....

But by now we all see what that is worth....

[TheRovingGourmet]

157. How many buildings were knocked down by a firearm?

[MrBenchley]

160. How many pinheads can dance on an angel?

You mean instead of thanking our lucky stars that this murderous asshole was too incompetent to blow up the propane storage tank he shot at, we should smile and say "boys will be boys?"

And remember, the initial claim was that no crimes had been committed with these guns....there was also the fuckwit in the Midwest who set his house on fire a few months ago so he could blow holes in firetrucks and ambulances as they responded....

But then the initial claim also said there was some sort of party-wide edict against gun control...which is also horseshit.

[TheRovingGourmet]

161. It doesn't sound like you followed the story.

[MrBenchley]

165. Sez you...

but we've seen by now what that's worth....

"Regular readers may recall the case of Marvin Heemeyer, the man who went on a rampage in a small Colorado town with an armored bulldozer, leveling a number of local buildings before becoming stuck and apparently shooting himself. I noted back then that a number of conspiracy theories had already sprung up around Heemeyer's case, and speculated that he might become yet another accidental martyr for right-wing extremists.
A recent piece by Martin Smith in the Los Angeles Times Magazine indicates that this is precisely what's happening:
Martyr Without a Cause:
The Antigovernment Crowd Declared Marvin Heemeyer a Hero After He Died Trying to Level a Colorado Town With an Armored Bulldozer. Never Mind That the 'Patriots' Got It All Wrong.
"Getting it all wrong" is, of course, a trademark of the extremist right, which thrives on distortion and outright falsehood. And in Heemeyer's case, it seems that they're once again taking a case of outrageous miscreancy and recasting it as yet another instance of evil government tyranny:
But out there in the ideological abstract, where details don't much matter, the hijacking of Marvin Heemeyer continues. Conspiracy theories multiply against all logic: One suggests that the five guns and boxes of ammo in Heemeyer's bulldozer were a figment of law enforcement imagination, and that all those bullet holes around town were the result of ricocheting police fire. (Some of them were, no doubt, as one undersheriff emptied 37 rounds into the greased rhino's few orifices, hoping to disable or kill the unknown driver). The chatter got so loud that, nearly two weeks after the rampage, the Grand County Sheriff's Department felt compelled to clarify that Heemeyer wasn't the harmless man with a gripe his supporters wished him to be. Its news release noted the "significant amount of information circulating regarding Mr. Heemeyer's lack of intent to hurt anyone during this incident" and said "statements of witnesses and physical evidence contradict that belief." It also noted that Heemeyer fired his guns at both Docheff and police officers."

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_dneiwert_archive.html

[TheRovingGourmet]

167. Oooh! A blog! It must all be true then. Sorry.

[MrBenchley]

169. Yeah, I have a source...

and you got nothing but hot air and horseshit.

[Vladimir]

97. I think that sexism usually

exposes ones's political leanings pretty damn well...

[MrBenchley]

104. Every once in a while you get a glimpse

of what's really hiding under the sheet.....

[turnkey]

126. At least I control my language...

When throwing around endearing terminology, unlike some here.

[Vladimir]

127. I wonder if I am the only one

who considers the kind of blatant sexism embodied by your 'Dumb Broad' comment to be more offensive than any number of fucks?

Tell you what, make that comment somehwere outside the gungeon and wait for the responses. Go on, I dare you.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

132. How about respected Democrat

since that's what she IS.

[turnkey]

134. Nah... I'll stick with my prior assessment.

[Vladimir]

138. Why thank you

i take great pride in my sensibilities. They stop me from being a sexist for one thing...

PS The answer to your question is no, but thanks for playing...

[MrBenchley]

131. Hey, when I say someone's a drooling fuckwit

it's because I mean he's a drooling fuckwit.

And the RKBA cause is overladen with such specimens, as this tender ceremony showed...

[turnkey]

136. The guy in the middle I can do without... the other two are OK!

[MrBenchley]

139. The other two are lying right wing pieces of shit

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on....

The one is Kayne Robinson, who boasted that with this unelected drunk in power, he'd be working out of the White House....the other is racist dimwit Wayne LaPierre....

[Vladimir]

140. At least they aren't dumb broads, eh?

[MrBenchley]

144. Amazing what our "pro gun democrats" spout, eh?

I wonder who they think they're fooling?

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FatSlob]

41. Hmmmm.

Lemme guess. The reply to my post said something about bashing Democrats.

Let me clarify that I have no prejudice when it comes to bashing dumbasses. I don't care what party affiliation the dumbass has.

[MrBenchley]

42. Hmmmmm....

Funny, when fat slob started a thread praising politicians, he picked the dimwitted fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus...who are all Republicans.

"Let me clarify that I have no prejudice when it comes to bashing dumbasses."
Yeah, just look at all the posts fat slob's put up bashing Ted Nugent....or Larry Pratt....oh, that's right, there aren't any.

[skippythwndrdog]

40. Shouldn't this be labeled "The Golden BB Bill"?

Sure, one shot can do it. It's happened before. Is it likely? Not very.

If I'm going to do anything that isn't long range sniping with a firearm, I'll definitely choose something different from a .50. It's not practical for anything else.

[MrBenchley]

43. Gee, skippy, if they're just like bb guns...

then we'll go ahead and ban them and you can make do with a Daisy....

[skippythwndrdog]

52. You're either uninformed

or deliberately otuse. Either way, any GI or former GI - particularly flight crews know about the golden BB. Hell. Anyone who ever watched many movies about GI aviators knows about it.

[MrBenchley]

55. Gee, skippy....

"Anyone who ever watched many movies about GI aviators knows about it."
Some people don't obsess about that crap, skippy.

[skippythwndrdog]

88. Obsess? Who's obsessed with it?

I'd hardly call a term used by flight crews for the random shot that can end their lives crap. Because it gets referenced in movies certainly doesn't make it crap. Or is it just movies in general that you consider crap?

[Vladimir]

106. As I knew it

the golden shot usually referred to a shot fired from the ground and hitting a plane in flight - but I may be wrong. What is being talked about here is hitting a plane while it is still on the ground in the fuel tanks and causing it to blow up.

[MrBenchley]

44. Just a reminder

of who it is our trigger happy goons are pissing and moaning about.....

"Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney, a Democrat, represents the 14th district in New York City. Her district contains many of the city's most historic and well-known neighborhoods, including most of the East Side, Astoria and Long Island City, Queens. After serving for ten years on the New York City Council, Maloney defeated a 14-year incumbent in her first race for Congress in 1992. She was reelected in 2002 with 75% of the vote. She has never lost an election. Maloney serves on the House Financial Services Committee, the Government Reform Committee and the Joint Economic Committee.

In February 2003, Rep. Maloney was named the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology of the Financial Services Committee. This Subcommittee oversees Federal Reserve interest rate policy that directly affects all mortgage, car, and credit card interest rates. Since being elected to Congress, Maloney has worked to modernize financial services laws and regulations while strongly advocating for consumer protections that are up-to-date with the increasingly global economy. In the 106th Congress, Maloney served as a conferee on the historic Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial modernization bill, where she fought to redraft Depression-era separations between banking, securities, and insurance firms while at the same time providing new consumer privacy protections for personal financial information. Maloney was the lead Democrat on the Investor and Capital Markets Relief Act, legislation which allowed the SEC to increase salaries of its employees so it can recruit and retain the most qualified professionals to oversee the markets. She is also a member of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

In the 107th Congress, Maloney remained steadfast to her commitment of modernizing financial service laws while strongly advocating for consumer protections and privacy. She passed legislation to cut fees on securities transactions by $14 billion over ten years. In April 2003, the House passed a bill introduced by Maloney and Sue Kelly (R-NY). H.R. 758, the Business Checking Freedom Act, allows banks to pay interest on business checking accounts.


In Congress, Maloney has been a leading advocate of campaign finance and government reform. The FY 1999 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill contains additional funding for the Federal Elections Commission, thanks to a Maloney provision. The funding provision marked the first time the Federal Elections Commission was fully funded since the Republicans took control of the House. She also prevented a partisan attack on lead investigators at the agency, allowing them to continue their work as the only non-partisan entity charged with conducting campaign finance inquiries. In 1995, as a member of the Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations subcommittee of Government Reform, Maloney authored the historic "Debt Collection Improvement Act;" this bill was enacted into law on April 26, 1996. The 1996 law requires government agencies who are holding debts that are more than 180 days old to turn them over to the Treasury Department for collection. It has been successful because of Maloney's efforts, during FY 2002, the federal government as a whole collected $84 billion in non-tax delinquent debt, which represented a 229 percent increase over FY 2001.

In early 1999, Maloney, who co-founded and co-chaired the Census Caucus, was appointed the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Census. She has been leading the fight to ensure that scientists, in spite of the objections of partisan politicians, will finally be able to release all 2000 Census data. The importance of accurate data cannot be minimized. Decennial census data is used to ensure fair representation and the fair distribution of federal funds. In 1990, the census undercounted the City of New York by 244,000, costing the city its fair share of federal funding. Maloney worked hard to ensure that the Census Bureau received adequate funding to continue with its plan to use modern statistical methods (statistical sampling). Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has refused to release the data generated using statistical sampling.


As the former co-chair of the Women's Caucus, Maloney is one of the leading advocates for women and family issues, with special emphasis on foster care reform, funding for women's health needs, and reproductive freedom. She was a member of the U.S. Delegations to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and to the International Conference on Population and Development fifth-year review and appraisal at The Hague (Cairo + 5). Maloney succeeded in increasing funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriation to $34 million, a $12.5 million increase from the previous fiscal year. Additionally, she introduced the Saving Women's Lives Act of 2002, to try to spur the Bush Administration to release the $34 million budgeted for the United Nations Population Fund. Her bill to offer annual mammograms for women on Medicare was included in the FY 1998 budget agreement. She has also introduced legislation ("Kiddie Mac") which would make day care more available and affordable by guaranteeing loans for day care facility construction and improvements. In November of 2002, Maloney was recognized for 'Carrying the Weight of the World' by United Nations Family Planning and received their Women's Leadership Award."

http://www.house.gov/maloney/bio.html

[minavasht]

80. And that makes her a gun expert?

[MrBenchley]

83. Who has to be a gun expert

to know these don't deserve on the market?

[skippythwndrdog]

89. You're absolutely correct!

The next time an artificial heart is ready for the market, we'll let Joe the mechanic decide its merits.

<sarcasm off>

[MrBenchley]

92. Gee, skippy, are you REALLY pretending

that the issue of whether this gun ought to be in the hands of fuckwits and thugs is as complex as an artifiical heart?

That IS funny.

Put Joe on the keyboard....I bet he'll know better than to post something this lameass.

[minavasht]

125. Are you calling all gun owners

fuckwits and thugs ?

[MrBenchley]

133. Ask me next what the evidence of this thread demonstrates....

[skippythwndrdog]

147. Do tell!

[minavasht]

159. I asked a question first.

And simple one too.

[FeebMaster]

137. Don't forget racist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78262&mesg_id=78262

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FeebMaster]

143. Yeah. Damn those RKBAers.

They hate everyone.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Columbia]

148. Hilarious!

In one thread, the gun-grabbers are whining about how the 2nd Amendment is worthless because we don't have a chance against armored vehicles, planes, and helicopters...

And in this thread, the gun-grabbers are whining about how plausible it is to to take down armored vehicles, planes, and helicopters!

WOW!!! :crazy:

[Vladimir]

150. Wow Columbia...

I suppose the difference between an F16 in the air and a 747 on the runway really escapes you?

[LibraLabSoldier]

151. Wow Vlad

I suppose the difference between a huge .50 cal rifle and a box cutter eludes you?

[Vladimir]

152. Let me try...

One can destroy a 747 sitting on the runway and the other one can't?

[LibraLabSoldier]

153. Ok, I will give you that one.....

But show me where anyone has ever used a .50 cal as a civilian to do such a thing? It isnt a good weapon to commit a crime with. It is too big, too conspicuous, too loud, and too easy to trace. COme back again with a better argument. And, I suppose if you had a baggage handler with an axe to grind and a box cutter, he could disable some components that would make the plane unsafe to fly with little or no trouble.

[Vladimir]

154. But the terrorists have proven that they don't

care about big conspicuous or loud LLS, since they don't care if they die so long as its 'mission accomplished'...

[LibraLabSoldier]

155. Lets quit dealing in the mantra of What if....

because by that rationale, since I have guns in my house capable of killing someone, blowing up a chemical tank, or shooting through a car, its just a matter of time before I do it....

Gee, what about innocent until proven guilty?

I guess since I own big scary guns, I am just a ticking timebomb that should be stopped before it is too late.

[MrBenchley]

156. What a childish silly idea....

"since I have guns in my house capable of killing someone, blowing up a chemical tank, or shooting through a car, its just a matter of time before I do it...."
Hey, and I'm not going to swindle people out of their pensions...but I can see why there should be regulations gaainst it. But hey, let's sit around with our thumbs up our asses without taking reasonable precautions...it's worked so well before.

"I am just a ticking timebomb"
You won't get an argument from me...

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Columbia]

176. LOL

And now back to how weak it is again!

I love it!

[Vladimir]

178. Hey if I'd ever claimed this thing could

take down a military airplane in the air, you'd have a point...