Mark Blankenship's passion

mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Ronnie Barrett, Patriotic American 4/26/2005 12:44:21 AM
An Open Letter from Ronnie Barrett, Owner of Barrett Firearms Dear Fellow Citizens In the never-ending battle to destroy our Constitution, more "big lie" propaganda is being dumped on our elected officials. The rhetoric given forth by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) so easily deceived the legislators of California, resulting in the banning of fifty caliber rifles because they are powerful and their bullets punch holes when they strike. Even single shot .50 cal rifles were banned. It's hard to believe we live in such a dark time that someone has actually banned a single shot rifle. But as you will see, this is the cleverest of all gun bans, and the end goal is civilian disarmament, the confiscation of your tools of liberty, your rifles. What lies before us is the continuation of the misinformation campaign, trying to coax yet another state to infringe upon the U.S. Constitution as California did. The anti-freedom/anti-gun movement has discovered how transparent they appear when they propose sweeping gun bans and now are successful by biting off a little at a time. Ever so small, many politicians are trading off your rights without you recognizing their violations. First we had the "Saturday Night Special" which was all affordable handguns, then "sniper rifles" which were any scoped deer rifles. Those were obvious, too big a scam to go unnoticed, but with the creation and demonization of the term "assault weapon," the Clinton's Crime bill produced a wasted 10-year setback on your freedoms and safe gun design. Now comes another scam. This time they are shocked to discover that rifles are "accurate and powerful." This is the same bull the officials in the 1950's fell for when they banned the self-unfolding knife. First the knife was demonized by giving it an evil name, "switchblade," then we (the trusting public) were told that the problem of gang violence was solved with its banning. How ridiculous. It's surprising they didn't ban the leather jacket. In reality, gang violence was and is a serious social problem, but it was not related to manually unfolding verses self-unfolding knives. The elected officials voting to ban an object like a knife proved themselves unwilling or uncaring to understand the problem, and thus, incapable of any real solutions. The handful of people that make up the VPC are solely responsible for the big lie on .50's, claiming fantastic destruction capabilities. They manipulate fear by claiming terrorists will use these rifles on targets of our infrastructure. "They will shut down our airports in flames" they claim. VPC's Tom Diaz refers to them as "super guns" lying to his dupable group of politicians, concealing the facts that there are many rifle cartridges that are comparable in performance (those will be added to the list in phase two). He is boldly telling these officials (and all who will listen) that the risk of terrorist attacks on these targets will be solved with the banning of powerful rifles, in this case, the .50 caliber rifle. In reality, terrorism is complex and will be defeated with improved intelligence. In this instance, the officials voting to ban an inanimate object like a rifle prove themselves to be ignorant of the problem of terrorism and are wasting time and resources.
Collapse all posts in this thread
Author
Replys
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

Ronne Barrett . . . 4/26/2005 5:47:12 AM
. . . is as partiotic as your local loan shark. If .50 caliber rifles are banned he is out of business.
hieHavocPosts: 133

Re: Ronne Barrett . . . 4/26/2005 10:43:34 AM
If .50 caliber rifles are banned he is out of business... ...and our rights becomes privileges.
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: Ronne Barrett . . . 4/26/2005 10:58:08 AM
...and our rights becomes privileges. Yea, I remember reading in the constitution ""The right to bear .50 calliber assult rifles""
hieHavocPosts: 133

Re: Re: Re: Ronne Barrett . . . 4/26/2005 12:20:25 PM
really? wow...that is one tough point...i''m glad we are allowed to keep our arms but it doesn''t mention our heads, you must be the result of that.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Ronne Barrett . . . 4/27/2005 12:34:05 AM
Curmudgeon, perpetuating the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, either by standing up for it like many here do, or by actually supplying the resources to tangibly accomplish the Second Amendment''s purpose unto fulfillment, is the hallmark of a patriotic American. God bless Ronnie Barrett for making a stand. I can vouch it is usually lonely work defending the Second Amendment, especially when anti gun politicians, major media outlets, and sometimes even fellow ""gun owners"" (in name only) a arrayed against you.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: Ronne Barrett . . . 4/27/2005 1:06:20 AM
I would like to thank Hardcore Harry and hieHavoc for their support on this issue. You both did a commendable job in my abscence.
dannoynted1Posts: 553

Re: Ronne Barrett . . . 4/27/2005 1:36:04 AM
like you dont own 50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahhahahahahahahahahaha
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Ronnie Barrett, Patriotic American 4/26/2005 10:56:46 AM
Its propoganda trying to sell more guns... he dosn''t get into deatils, its emotional ""the sky is falling"" ""their coming to get us"" retoric.... And this is also interesting.... The handful of people that make up the VPC are solely responsible for the big lie on .50''s, claiming fantastic destruction capabilities. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=50cal Sales literature from Barrett Firearms Manufacturing and E.D.M. Arms, respectively, tout the .50 caliber sniper rifle as capable of ""destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area"" and to ""attack various material targets such as parked aircraft, radar sites ammunition, petroleum and various thin-skinned material targets.""[9] Additionally, manufacturers themselves advertise these weapons as ""sniper"" rifles and use slogans such as ""When your mission objective is further than the eye can see.""[9] The World''s Sniping Rifles, a catalogue of various caliber rifles and accessories, explains how the Barrett Company even promoted the weapon''s ability to destroy jet aircraft: ""There was a good deal of skepticism at the thought of using such a heavy weapon for sniping but, after Barrett pointed out that the object was to wreck several million dollars'' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars'' worth of cartridge, the whole thing began to make more sense and the idea spread.""[10] #9 Christensen Arms advertisement of CarbonRanger .50 BMG rifle in Very High Power, The Magazine of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association. 2002-2 p. 45 #10 Ian V. Hogg, The World''s Sniping Rifles, with Sighting Systems and Ammunition, 108, Stackpole Books (Pennsylvania 1998). It seems when no one wanted to buy his guns he builds up their ""fantastic destruction capabilities"" Then when people say, ""hay, should you sell a gun like that to the public,"" He plays down the ablities of the gun.... his goal is sales. In the never-ending battle to destroy our Constitution, more ""big lie"" propaganda is being dumped on our elected officials. Stuff like that is propoganda... Gun control people arn''t ploting in a dark room what next they can to to ""destroy the constitution"" If you dissagree their ideas have signifigant benifits thats one thing, but playing on peoples emotions is simple propoganda, the same thing many of the gun control groups use. I''ve got a question... why does anyone need a .50 cal semi-automatic rifle? Its obviously not good for home defense, do you really hunt with it? is there anything left after you hit your target? What about amour pericing rounds? As I understand it most stuff that is desinged or capable of penetrating body armor is illegal... sure you might be able to modify something, but armor peircing rounds are illegal... why? Because you don''t want criminals and drug dealers out gunning the cops.... remember the LA bank robery shotout? It just seems stupid, its pointless for home defense, pointless for hunting, target pratice maybe, but then you''ll have a hard time proving to others you not trying to compensate for something.... if you just HAVE to have that .50 cal gun to shoot paper targets I''m gonna think your lacking in other manly departments. So... whats the point of selling them to the public?
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

The same folks . . . 4/26/2005 11:10:06 AM
. . . who lust after .50 caliber semi-auto rifles, lust after Hayabusa motorcycles and Dodge Vipers. Viagra would be cheaper.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Sidewalk and Curmudgeon are both suffering under the delusion that: 4/26/2005 11:28:13 AM
The second Amendment is about the ""Right to Shoot Ducks."" Or was it the right to duck when being shot at? Meh! I ferget! Anytime those two find a consensus something is wrong, wrong, wrong. I''ll take 2, 50 cals and a side of ammo to go please. /sarcasm What disturbs me greatly about most of any ""ban"" attempts is the wording is most time left intentionally broad as to include any bore size 50 caliber or greater. This includes most EVERY shotgun currently in production over 28 guage and bigger!!! Other guns that would be construed as being larger than 50 caliber also include a great many muzzleloaders used in sport and recreation. I for one ain''t giving up my period Trade Gun which is 62 caliber folks! They can get it when they pry it...well yeah I may probably only get to fire it one time with no effect before the jack booted minions close in on me but I will die defiant dammit! Heh! I am with you on this one Mark. The gun grabbers will use any mechanism fair or foul to get their way. Vigilant, freedom loving, Americans should be on guard from those who would diminish our rights granted to us by the Constitution. Hardcore Harry
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

I know exactly . . . 4/26/2005 11:36:49 AM
. . . what the Second Amendment is for and it is to put in the hands of the people the same sort of weapons used by an ordinary soldier and a .50 cal Barrett ain''t one of them. As a matter of fact it is against the Geneva Conventions to engage personnel with weapons larger than .30 caliber. Lesson over.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Re: I know exactly . . . 4/26/2005 12:31:34 PM
I see alot of ""ordinary soldiers"" totin Barrett 50s on the battlefield bud. So are we to assume that any long range kills made against pesonnel in Afghanistan and Iraq are war crimes John Kerry? Or were the soldiers really trying to hit the ""rock"" they were hiding behind? Yeah I know the game too, ""Aim at the truck not the person in it."" So are you too busy being your twerpish self to admit you are wrong here or you going to chime in with with more of your baseless stupidity. Personally, I get the sense you ain''t half the ass you make yourself out to be. You just thrive on being contrary. Hardcore Harry
hieHavocPosts: 133

exactly . . . 4/26/2005 12:41:59 PM
wouldn''t you know that this kind of law sets a precedence, if you don''t know this you have to be ignorant to past laws, i say ignorant but not in a derogatory sense because i don''t know you personally. it seems that most people ask why should we sale these types of guns to the public and most people that say that our unknowledgeable of the constitution. know Hitler''s, Stalin''s, and Mao''s stance on gun control before you talk about gun control here. simply put, banning guns or any type of gun to the public is bad. and to say we should ban them because they are armour piercing is just stupid, not only are other guns armour piercing but i have yet to hear of any bullet proof face guard as shown in the LA bank robbery to the robbers during the shootout. also, good luck trying to argue for banning the .50 cal by demeaning the owners, that''s genius. i''m sorry curmudgeon, when did the geneva convention trump the Constitution of the united States of America relating to the people of this country not the military? and they do to have .50 cals, m107, the rifle, and M296, the automatic .50 cal on certain helicopters, come on, a simple search on google could prove this one wrong.
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

They also have . . . 4/26/2005 1:25:29 PM
. . . 16 inch guns on the Missouri but that doesn''t give them Second Amendment protection. I firmly believe that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the citizen to own the same weapons carried by ordinary soldiers. This would include the fully automatic M16 and variants but I can assure you that like anti-tank weapons and machine guns, the .50 caliber Barrett is not carried as an individual weapon, it is a crew served weapons has Hardcore well know. You would be the first to whine if some of our troops were treated in a manner that violated the Geneva Conventions. Do I detect some hypocracy?
hieHavocPosts: 133

Re: They also have . . . 4/26/2005 1:40:04 PM
You would be the first to whine if some of our troops were treated in a manner that violated the Geneva Conventions. Do I detect some hypocracy? your talking of two entities, i think, military law and public rights. i would complain about a violation of the geneva convention in the military and i will complain about violation on the Constitution in the public. what was the point?
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: They also have . . . 4/26/2005 1:48:37 PM
your talking of two entities, i think, military law and public rights. i would complain about a violation of the geneva convention in the military and i will complain about violation on the Constitution in the public. what was the point? That shows your inablity to reason... or at least read. Crum said the 2nd ammendment is to get common soldiers wepons into the hands of the public, .50 semi-auto rifles ARN''T part of what the common soldiers carries, PROOF to verify that statement, is international law only allows personal to persoanl fire of less than .30 cal. Therefore, we can reason, that the 2nd ammendment dosn''t apply to .50 cal because its not a standard issues weapon to soldiers.
hieHavocPosts: 133

Re: Re: Re: They also have . . . 4/26/2005 2:20:18 PM
i must not be adding enough language to the 2nd amendment to see why the military needs the gun for the public to own it. 2nd Amendment A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. and this is where we may differ, you may be looking at other laws that would infringe on the 2nd amendment.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Hate to burst you bubble Sidewalk but you are wrong 4/26/2005 3:24:00 PM
""50 semi-auto rifles ARN''T part of what the common soldiers carries,"" I know for a fact that the T O and E of units of the 82nd Airborne Division (The division with which I served) specifically has Barrett semi-auto 50s! I also know that other divisions such as the 101st and many special operations units, Green Berets, Navy Seals and the Army Ranger Battlions also are issued them. Frankly, I am surprised at Curmudgeon failing to acknowledge this as fact! Now before you get all giddy because you found some common ground with Curmudgeon you might want to consider before commenting on topics you do not have the first earthly clue. He must be having a good chuckle at your expense. I think you are late to the poodle groomer Sidewalk. I hear Curmudg ordered you a nice shampoo and set and plenty of that fluffy smelling dog perfume for you. WOOF! (Chuckle) Hardcore Harry
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Hate to burst you bubble Sidewalk but you are wrong 4/26/2005 3:32:15 PM
So your saying a .50 cal semi-auto is standard issue to US soldiers?
Capt CarralesPosts: 3167

Do we consider .50 caliber to be an infantry or artillery weapon... 4/26/2005 3:34:21 PM
..I think the official answer to that question would solve the problem.
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

The TOE of those units . . . 4/26/2005 3:37:20 PM
. . . also contain M2 machineguns, M60 machine guns as well as other crew served weapons. If you were in an artillery battery it would have contained 105mm howitzers. None of these are protected under the Second Amendment.
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Hate to burst you bubble Sidewalk but you are wrong 4/26/2005 3:40:00 PM
According to GlobalSecurity.org the ""Standard Issue"" US military rifle is the M16 5.56mm Semiautomatic Rifle. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16.htm And if you agree the 2nd amendment is to ""put in the hands of the people the same sort of weapons used by an ordinary soldier"" logically that would be what ever is ""Standard Issue""
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: Re: They also have . . . 4/29/2005 5:23:29 AM
Sidewalk, [.50 semi-auto rifles ARN''T part of what the common soldiers carries, PROOF to verify that statement, is international law only allows personal to persoanl fire of less than .30 cal. Therefore, we can reason, that the 2nd ammendment dosn''t apply to .50 cal because its not a standard issues weapon to soldiers] If what you say is true, the U.S. military is violating international law in using the .50 cal rifle, am I correct?
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: They also have . . . 4/27/2005 12:25:05 AM
Ah, Curmudgeon has hit the nail on the head! [the .50 caliber Barrett is not carried as an individual weapon, it is a crew served weapon as Hardcore well knows.] The distinction between individual vs. crew served weapons is the defining line between Constitutionally protected and non protected arms. In every instance I have seen, individual soldiers carry the Barrett .50 cal. If I can be proven wrong, I will have to reconsider my stand, so please have at it.
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

The Barret .50 . . . 4/27/2005 5:54:37 AM
. . . is used by a two man team as is the M60 machine gun, argument over.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: The Barret .50 . . . 4/29/2005 5:09:00 AM
ARGUEEMENT NOT OVER!!!! Curmudgeon, let me give you some relevant examples of ""argueement over."" #1. Tanks, jet fighters, artillery, and patriot missle batteries are not used by an individual soldier and are clearly not protected by the Second Amendment. Arguement over. #2. High capacity military style semiautomatic assault rifles are the quintessential arms of the individual in our time and their protection under the Second Amendment is absolute. Arguement over. What we have here in the .50 caliber is a firearm funtionally equivilent to every other Constitutionally protected arm. Under these circumstances, the default position is that it is protected unless the weight of evidence is so proponderous as to prove otherwise. Your evidence so far has not met this standard and the counter evidence to your arguement weighs greatly against your position. It''s not arguement over, it''s let the debate begin!
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

the standard.... 4/30/2005 2:21:16 PM
So where is the ""standard"" mark, you talk about it all the time, its sure not something you just made up, the ""standard"" isn''t just you personal opinion on weather it should be protected or not right? So.... where is it, if its a ""standad"" it should be avaliable for everyone to read and follow... thats what a ""standard"" is... so... please point me to something. were is the ""standard""
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: the standard.... 5/2/2005 2:39:07 AM
Look around, Sidewalk. The standard is what We The People already own. We own assault rifles by the millions. We own high capacity magazines by the millions. We also own .50 caliber rifles. So Kalifornia recently passed an illegal act to ban .50 cals. In 49 other states there are no bans. The .50 caliber rifles have been enjoying Second Amendment protection since their inception, including Kalifornia. The only reason they are an issue now is because the Gun Banners have lost on their precious Assault Weapons Ban and they are now looking for any opportunity to salvage their discredited agenda.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

How Crew served weapons are different 4/27/2005 4:21:43 PM
The Barrett is employed in much the same manner as the old Browning BAR--Gunner and Assistant Gunner. The assistant carries the spare ammo, and spare barrels (If any). In actual practice you will find the Barrett being used in much the same way in most units, the gunner pretty much has autonomous use of the weapon until he runs low on ammo or needs a barrel change. The weight on the Barrett itself is not that limiting. The ammunition load weight on the other hand, can be substantial at times. Dividing second amendment rights along crew served versus personal weapons is really absurd. Looking back at mid to late eighteenth century weaponry, the only crew served weapons was artillery. Additionally, if you think those crews served weapons are not in private ownership in this country you are sadly mistaken. I know of many in private hands from BARs to M60s to 50 cal M2 Browning to even Mini guns! So there! Hardcore Harry
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

And I know people . . . 4/27/2005 9:32:34 PM
. . . who have tanks, APC and a P51 Mustang. Doesn''t mean they are protected under the Second Amendment. So there! You lost, give up. The guy who was carrying that .50 Barrett had a personal weapon back in the arms room.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Re: And I know people . . . 4/28/2005 12:54:54 AM
I think it is hilarious that you should bring up the weapon still sitting in the racks in the arms room as proof for you argument. Yeah, that bad boy is EXTREMELY effective sitting there if all hell breaks loose now isn’t it? Facts are that no matter what TO&E says, weapons like the semi-auto Barrett fifty caliber, are employed far differently on the ground than they are on ""paper."" (I know I carried an M60 and operated it without an assistant gunner in combat). I suppose tactical concepts such and ""economy of force"" and ""maximizing firepower"" is foreign to you then? I hardly believe that. You are just fudging a bit with the honesty here to try to win this debate Curmudgeon. I suppose the next thing you are going to assert is that every soldier goes into combat with ""standard"" To&E ammunition load? The joke was the actual ammunition carried into a fight was To&E times three. ""Extras"" like food and a spare change of clothes were of little use if you ran out of ammunition mid way through the fight! I can only assume that you never actually ever saw combat and spent your time pushing paperwork in the Rangers, otherwise you would not spout this foolishness Curmudgeon. Then again, you could be simply role-playing your namesake and looking to be a contrary cuss. Either way, you, and your arguments, are ""LOOB.” (You figure it out). Hardcore Harry
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

Never saw . . . 4/28/2005 5:58:31 AM
. . . combat with the Rangers but certainly didn''t spend my time pushing paper. You seem to have been a PVT who didn''t really know what was going on. Ammunition is not on the TOE. The ammunition a soldier carries is called the basic load and varies with the mission. Every soldier has a personal weapon, usually an M16 or varient and possibly a side arm if an officer. Weapons such as the M60 are not assigned to individuals but to the squad. While a M60 can be operated by a single person it is most effective when operated by a least two and possible three people to carry the tripod, extra barrel and the considerable load of ammuniton. You should know this why are you trying to BS people unless you were the one pushin'' paper?
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

The Garritrooper 4/28/2005 2:05:01 PM
Heh! You are funny Curmudg, you try using my putdown against me, it would be incredibly sad if it were not so darned laughable. Was I ever a private? Certainly, but I did not stay one. Yeah, I know it is called the ""basic load."" I did not want to introduce any more concepts to your already overtaxed little brain. While it is certainly true that an M60, is on paper issued to a squad, in practice it is not always so. As for tripods, the only time any of us ever got the chance to use one was a single time at the range. While effective, they were cumbersome and took time to set up in the field (time we in the Airborne did not always have). While I am here, I ought to point out that my experiences in the Army were probably not, what you would consider ""standard."" It was said then, and is oft repeated now, that the Airborne is an army within an army. We did things differently than other units. The thinking was then, and I am guessing not much has changed, that a light division was most effective if it were mobile. In addition, in order to maximize lethality some weapons were issued in greater numbers. Considering the fact that the division might be called upon to fight unsupported for extended periods against numerically and technologically superior foes (i.e. armor etc) that was, and IS, a wise use of resources and man power. Our squad was issued two M60s as I recall. This was when I worked in ""Fire Direction"" for the firing battery. Access to spare ammunition and barrels was not that big of an issue considering we had vehicles to carry it on. The infantry companies in the division did not always have this luxury so their practices often differed from ours. When I worked with the ""FIST"" (Fire Support Teams) teams, everything we had we carried with us. One thing is certain, we NEVER carried tripods for M60s with us in the field! Tripods took up precious weight allowance that was needed for either other essential gear or more ammunition. If I were a highly decorated Garritrooper (Garrison Trooper, PX Hero, and Pogue) like you, I might well sing a different tune Curmudgeon. After all, you have years of “training” to prove me wrong! I am surprised that you have not quoted me chapter and verse from this TM or that FM (insert your favorite TM and FM). By the way, “LOOB” stands for “Left Out Of Battle.” It is a more polite synonym for the ubiquitous “SOL” or “SOOL” (S*it Out of Luck). I find LOOB entirely appropriate in this instance as it is and infinitely more accurate descriptor for you. Take heart Curmudgeon, Barry Saddler even recorded a song of comfort for you Garritroopers. Hardcore Harry
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

I think the term . . . 4/28/2005 2:17:39 PM
. . . we used most to describe the 82nd was the jumpin junkies. BWAHAHA!!!I too spent a lot of my time in unsual persuit as the Team Leader for a Long Range Recon Team and later a Long Range Surveilance Team (change on nomenclature not job). Whether an M60 is used with or without the tripod it is a crew served weapon and needs two men to operate it effectively. The only time you see it being used by a single guy is in the movies. You don''t sound like you spent any time in a rifle squad. You sound a little jealous. I guess I would be too if I weren''t a Ranger. Maybe in the next life.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

The Garritrooper Part Deu 4/28/2005 2:52:40 PM
""Jumpin Junkies"" goes back to when Jimmi Hendrix was in Division. By the time I arrived, the junkies were long gone and the urine tests weeded out any other wannabe junkies. Your skull is thicker then a NYC phonebook and twice as soft Curmudgeon. When employed in a static defensive postition, weapons like the M60 can be operated just fine by one person. I am not talking about firing the thing Rambo style from the hip. I am referring to a solid defensive deployment with range card etc., and braketed to coordinate with other guns in the defense of the Battery. Yes, I know the silly manual called for assistant gunners and whatnot. However, as I explained previously, we did not always use them ""by the book."" I mean honestly, to hear you parrot on the assistant gunner is so necessary tot he whole operation that if he is not present the thing won''t work! Maybe you needed one at your side to tell you where to shoot ( I can picture it now. A scene reminiscent of watching my kids play with their play station and one of the kids is frantically pointing to this and that area on the TV screen pointing out the enemies their sibling has missed!!! HOOHOOHOO!) As for me being jealous, that is a HOOT! That happens to be the single biggest delusion that a Garritrooper operates under!!! They all stand around the magazine racks in the PX decked out in ther finery. They are listing to port because the weight of their medals and decorations are weighing them down. They are reading the latest copy of Soldier of Fortune magazine. Meanwhile sporting the latest fashionable lizard-eating sneer (the one they saw in last month’s issue of SOF) at any passing troopers who they think are envious of all their ""I Love Me"" ribbons, patches, and tags. When really what they are secretly dreaming of is the extra large chocolate milkshake that they sell at the base bowling alley and a large order of greasy fries to go with it! The only response you get from said passing trooper a quite chuckle is ""What a fricken pogue!"" Jealous? Nope! I got enough of my own! Hardcore Harry
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

I can tell . . . 4/28/2005 3:32:40 PM
. . . you spent a lot of time behind a ''60. BWAHAHA!!! Like I said earlier, I probably got more time under canopy than you got time.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Re: I can tell . . . 4/28/2005 6:12:43 PM
Yeah, I know you played soldier your whole career. By my recollection, I was jumping out of planes when you were still a dirty rotten leg sonny. So take your consolation where you can get it because you have no conception of what its all about apart from your life as a Garritrooper. Hardcore Harry
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

Just like everything . . . 4/28/2005 6:24:17 PM
. . . else you said you are full of shit on this one too unless you went to jump school before 1982. The next time the Rangers need some advice on how to properly employ our M60s we will call the cannon cockers from the 82nd. BWAHAHAHA!!!
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

As you were, LEG! 4/29/2005 12:28:37 AM
Jump school 1981. (Chuckle) As you were, LEG! I was in FIST too. We put the H into Hardcore. We humped rucks that would make rangers run crying to their mommies. While you were busy scheming you little small unit tactics we put steel on the target, baby! We out-infantried the infantry out-grunted the grunts. And THAT, is the Gods’ honest truth!! HOOOAHH!!! (Incidentally, I am still pissed that they won’t recognize FIST teams who serve in combat with the CIB. I know many people wearing one who did not do a fraction of what we did in the field and in combat!) Now, I will let you formulate your apology in front of either the assembled cast and crew of the Eric Von Wade Show and invited threadsters. Here, let me write it out for you: I Curmudgeon, apologize profusely for talking down to my superiors and beg for forgiveness for not making it to Jump School in a timely fashion. Likewise, I recognize I am but a lowly ranger who is susceptible to become quite discombobulated, disoriented, and dismembered by large projectiles emanating from the tubes of the Field Artillery—, which I will heretofore and henceforth forever refer to as the King of Battle. I apologize for speaking above my station and will in penance strap myself to the first passing artillery caisson and will be pelted with spent shell castings from the amassed issued lights and medium machine guns of said unit, and/or buy any and all alcoholic beverages to any past present or former member of the Field Artillery. Additionally, I will make an appointment forthwith at the nearest tattoo parlor to have a large pair of cross cannons tattooed upon my chest to forever remind me who my Daddy is! Signed, Curmudgeon-I-Wanna-Be-an-Artilleryman The Lowly Ranger There! That ought to do it! Hardcore Harry I put the H into HOOOAHHH!
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: How Crew served weapons are different 4/29/2005 5:17:37 AM
Harry, I know from your background and personal experiences you have chosen to share with us Threadsters in the past that your opinion on this issue is to be HIGHLY regarded. Your point: [Dividing second amendment rights along crew served versus personal weapons is really absurd.] Would we be more accurate to approach it from the ""if the arms can be used by an individual"" aspect? One thing is for sure, the .50 cal is not artillery. It is functionally equivilent to all other firearms and by this default enjoys protection under the pnumbra of the Second Amendment. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 1:36:02 PM
... is lost. wouldn''t you know that this kind of law sets a precedence, if you don''t know this you have to be ignorant to past laws What the hell are you talking about? If there were past laws, and there have been, the precident is allready set... how can you set the same president twice? It makes no sense... The fact is the precident HAS been set. The government regulates and will regulate guns, THATS GUN CONTROL. The argument is to the DEGREE of gun control we want. This isn''t some ""precidnet setter"" that would ""destroy the constitution"" and whip away everyones rights... thats stupid emotional reactionism. Its simply another gun contorl program, IN A LONG LINE OF THEM. Some were accepted by the population, like making gun dealers get a licness and comply with state regulations. Some have been defeated, like the assult wepons ban, But its a long shifting debate... and everytime something changes both sides freak out like its the end of the world. it seems that most people ask why should we sale these types of guns to the public and most people that say that our unknowledgeable of the constitution. Then you might as well rise up and revolt against the government right now, Gun control has been around for EVER, If you belief is that ANY gun control is an infringment on your rights, and trampling of the constitution, then hang your head in defeat because you lost that battle long ago. simply put, banning guns or any type of gun to the public is bad. Please illustrate in a locigal way, how that is ""bad"" YOu can''t argue it violates the constitution, because we''ve all ready shown the government does and has been regulating guns for ever, so its just a question of WHAT regulation and why? to say we should ban them because they are armour piercing is just stupid, not only are other guns armour piercing but i have yet to hear of any bullet proof face guard as shown in the LA bank robbery to the robbers during the shootout Do you want your cops facing drug dealers with ammo and wepons out matching theirs? There are bullets and guns desinged specificly to perice the body armor worn by police and swat teams... ITS ILLEGAL IN THE USA. Noone wants them bann because they say ""armor periceing"" they want them baned because THEY ARE AMMOR PERICING... ie Designed to perice tattical body amor levels I II and III I got no idea what ""bullet proff face guard"" your talking about. the automatic .50 cal on certain helicopters He said the international law applies to person to person fire... And the US has agree to follow internatioanl laws... now you want the US to be a liar? HARDCORE HARRY What disturbs me greatly about most of any ""ban"" attempts is the wording is most time left intentionally broad as to include any bore size 50 caliber or greater. Have you bothered to READ the text of the law yet? Do you know what the wording of ANY OF IT is? I for one ain''t giving up my period Trade Gun which is 62 caliber folks! Why don''t you find out what the law states before you start pointing out speicific crtisims... your just guessing at what it says. I am with you on this one Mark. The gun grabbers will use any mechanism fair or foul to get their way. ????? Your only speicific critizems is the word it too broad to inclued other things... does that mean you see the point in banning things like .50 semi-automatic rifles and ""armor pericing"" rounds to the public? If so, why jump back on the band wagon that all gun control is bad? Vigilant, freedom loving, Americans should be on guard from those who would diminish our rights granted to us by the Constitution. Well you screwed up big time on that one, guns are one of the heaviest regulated commodietes in the country.
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

Armor piercing round . . . 4/26/2005 1:53:47 PM
. . . has no definition. An ordinary 3006 round will go cleanly through any known body armor. A .22 will penetrate Level 1 body armor. Is this what you had in mind when you proposed banning ""armor piercing"" ammunition?
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Armor piercing round . . . 4/26/2005 1:59:10 PM
Obviously clear definitions need to be written into the laws, but as I understand it some rounds are desgined speicificly to perice armor (or thick stuff) and that many of these are illegal... am I wrong?
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

There are rounds . . . 4/26/2005 2:11:57 PM
. . . designed specifically to penetrate light armor. These were developed by the NAZIs during WWII to be fired from their 9mm submachine guns and consisted of a very light bullet with a conical ogive at first made from bronze and later zinc. These surplus rounds were marketed by a French firm under the name Arcane and were later copied by other firms. They were found to be effective for piercing body armor made from Kelvar. The have been made illegal.
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: There are rounds . . . 4/26/2005 2:41:32 PM
Thought this was interesting.... http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html There is a logical view of ""cop-killer"" bullets.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Re: Re: There are rounds . . . 4/26/2005 4:04:17 PM
""Armor Piercing"" ""Cop Killer Bullets"" My, my, my, you sure know the Sarah Brady and Diane Fienstien gun grabbing mantra Sidewalk! Hardcore Harry
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: Re: There are rounds . . . 4/26/2005 4:06:12 PM
So bullet ""proof"" vest are really bullet proof? theres no such thing as a bullet than can peirce body armor?
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: Re: Re: There are rounds . . . 4/27/2005 12:38:04 AM
Bullet resistant would be slightly more accurate. There is currently no such thing as a bullet ""proof"" vest. Such vests are only usefull on handgun rounds from .22 cal to .380 cal. anything above that their usefullness decreases.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: There are rounds . . . 4/27/2005 12:34:25 AM
Sidewalk, good to see you using a reputable site for your info. I frequent Guncite often as it is one of the best resources for understanding the Second Amendment. The article you sourced is typical of the ""Media bias"" we often talk about. Good Job.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Re: Armor piercing round . . . 4/26/2005 4:00:11 PM
Heh! Even Curmudg called you out on that one Sidewalk! Chuckle Hardcore Harry
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

????????? 4/26/2005 4:05:03 PM
AGain, are you retarded? Called me out on what? I said there are some bullets that are ""armor pericing"" and illegal... then he clarified what I was talking about and agreed... am I missing something? Do you not agree? H.R.3132 Title: A bill to amend chapter 44, of title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture, importation, and sale of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes. 8/28/1986 Became Public Law No: 99-408.
skwardupntruPosts: 1482

Re: ????????? 5/2/2005 1:12:34 AM
Leaving one to Ponder, what would one use to hunt Armordillos?
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: ????????? 5/2/2005 1:40:12 AM
Anything you want to! Just keep in mind two things: 1. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. 2. Civilian ownership of assault rifles, and other military style firearms like the .50 cals we have been discussing, both politically and physically protect the right to own all other firearms. So, if you enjoy hunting with firearms, your continued ability to do so depends on the Second Amendment right of all Americans to own assault type firearms. If you don''t believe me, just look at Britain, Australia, Canada, etc..
hieHavocPosts: 133

Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 2:05:20 PM
ability to reason, as in, ability to hand over a gun, that seems reasonable. first off, thanks for proving my point about the presedence and banning a gun not ammunition. and i did say learn hitler''s, stalin''s, and mao''s stance on gun control. ""gun control is bad"". you can still get shot in the face (ie. bullet proof face guard). you didn''t mention the M107 sniper rifle. http://www.barrettrifles.com/military/images/m107b.jpg
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 2:35:58 PM
ability to reason, as in, ability to hand over a gun, that seems reasonable Ok, can you show me were this specific laws calls for the collection of all .50 cal guns? Or does it just prohibit the sale? Do you know what your upset about? first off, thanks for proving my point about the presedence and banning a gun not ammunition. Did you hit your head? Laws banning GUNS and AMMUNTION have been ban before, the precidnet is set... this is nothing new... and i did say learn hitler''s, stalin''s, and mao''s stance on gun control. ""gun control is bad"". see what I mean by your ablity to reason Governments from the begining of time have been regulating arms and malitias for the sake of stablity... the also make rape murder and theift illegal also, for the same reasons... Plus... your being misslead by propoganda... the nazis passed gun control laws, took the jew''s guns away, then put them in the oven right? If they would have just fought gun control they would have saved millions of lives right? Its crap and propoganda. The Nazi gun control law was pass in 1938. And it wasn''t a legislative act, it was pass using Hilter''s dictatorial power granted in 1933. By ''38 the Nazis allready had a death grip on Germany... PLUS! The ''38 law was simply AN EXTENTION of the FIRST gun control law, which is dated 1928, under the Weimar regime. And was put was passed, to deal with faction groups like the ""brownshirts"" and anarchists and communists from taking over... IT WAS DESINGED AND INSTITUTED BY A DEMOCRATIC STATE FOR STABLITY... LAW AND ORDER. The whole, gun control lead to rise of the Nazis is BS, Gun Control is a way to stabalise a country, LAW AND ORDER... what government is supposed to be about. you can still get shot in the face What exquiset logic, I can shoot you in the face, so ANY gun should be legal... why not make tanks and missles leagal also? matter of fact, why not just make murder legal... someone will always find a way to kill someone else...
hieHavocPosts: 133

Re: Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 2:46:04 PM
you can point and criticize but you need to comment on the M107 sniper rifle, please, i want your comment on that. look here also: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281576.html?page=4&c=y
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 3:30:30 PM
what do you want me to say? Your arguments are nothing but emotional reactoinism... Oh boy, a big gun how exciting.... If you want my opinion, this gun shouldn''t be available to the public. Why do you NEED it? personal defence? ""the M107 is hardly optimized for close-quarter combat."" Look, I''ve tried to get all you ""gun nuts"" to admit SOME gun control is needed, something Mark won''t touch... does anyone thing its a good idea to have sub machine guns being sold in circle K to 5 year olds... laws preventing this are GUN CONTROL! Granted Anti-gun control groups do a good job in opposing BAD legislation, but that SOME legislation and regulation is needed is agreed on EVEN BY THE NRA. Congress got into the act and proposed legislation that would have outlawed any bullet based on its ability to penetrate certain bullet resistant material. The FBI, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and other forensic experts cautioned that the proposed ban was too vague to be enforceable. The NRA opposed the proposed law since it would have banned not only the controversial armor piercing handgun rounds, but nearly all conventional rifle ammunition as well. (Most rifle ammunition will easily penetrate the most commonly worn protective vests.) The NRA proposed alternative legislation based upon the actual design and construction of the bullets. The final, approved version of the bill (H.R. 3132 passed in 1986) prohibited the sale of armor piercing ammunition [which may be used in a handgun] other than to law enforcement and the military. Representative Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.) the original bill''s sponsor, stated that the final legislation ""... was not some watered down version of what we set out to do. In the end there was no compromise on the part of police safety..."" Gun control advocates and the news media jumped on the NRA''s opposition to the original, vague and ineffective proposal. They ignored the NRA''s contribution to the final legislation insisting to this day that the NRA wants ""Cop Killer"" bullets to be available to the public. THAT is how the system should work. A proposed law is too vauge, so the other side steps in clears it up, and in the end we have something that keeps our rights, AND SAFTY. But ""nuts"" on both sides who say things like ""no one should own a gun"" or ""any gun control is bad"" get the issue all screwed up and it turns into the mess of a debate we have today.
hieHavocPosts: 133

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 4:24:34 PM
but you agreed with ""questionable intelligence"" and my answers are passionate because this effects everybody and for some to think of this as just politics as usual are complacent with what i see as our slowly erroding rights to liberty. you see it differently and i can see you are worried about our safety but really, how will the ban on a .50 cal make us any safer. like i said in another post, heart disease is the number one killer, not guns, not .50 cal rifles. to ban a type of gun that is a non-issue is just more legislation and more government involvement and that''s just the way i see it. i like to think this country was built on a no compromise document not a ever changing, living bill of rights, and if that is the case, the people in the government needs to change those guaranteed rights so discussions like this won''t take place. but of course, remember these are just my beliefs, i am just a reactionist. does anyone thing its a good idea to have sub machine guns being sold in circle K to 5 year olds...that''s radically funny
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 4:47:54 PM
and my answers are passionate because this effects everybody Passion is good, but it can''t do everything... passion alone will leave you looking like an idiot. I was watching the Trump show the other day... there are a couple of guys who always sit around talking all big, about how great they are, and how their gonna ""kick ass and take name"" ""balls to the wall"" its ""do or die"" they have lots of passion but their idiots, and have lost like 7 weeks in a row... passion will not do your thinking... and for some to think of this as just politics as usual are complacent with what i see as our slowly erroding rights to liberty. Well... it IS politics as usual? Whats so monumental about the gun debate right now? Its been going on for years, like many other debates. There is no secret Nazi agenda to take your guns and then march you off to the death camps... The other side is people just like you, scared and reacting in the only way they know how. slowly erroding rights to liberty. Thats kinda BS... We''re freer now than we''ve ever been... During WWI and WWII there were concentration camps in America... I think were getting MORE rights not less... and THAT might be part of the problem. how will the ban on a .50 cal make us any safer. Imagin if the DC snippers had a .50 cal gun... Imagin the damage they could do... Are murder rates gonna signifigantly drop? Probley not, but look at the damage, not just deaths but social panic and unrest the DC snippers caused... Imagin what someone could do with heavy fire power... Is something like that worth the benifit gained by allow civilians to own .50 cal or armmor pericing bullets? Whats the gain? Not good for hunting, not good for personal protection... their good for the milita, but the government can own them all they want, so thats covered. It would seem all our 2nd ammendment bases are covered without accesses to .50 cal or armor pericing bullets. Whats the cost of a ban? Its not infringing on your rights... you still have the right to own guns and ammo for personal protection or sport.... So why not go for the safty side and ban them? Granted the wording would have to be worked out to make the ""spirit"" of the law fit what were talking about... but I see no harm in it... AFTER looking at the constitutional implications and safty aspects. to ban a type of gun that is a non-issue is just more legislation and more government involvement and that''s just the way i see it Well if your goal is simple to reduce crime statistics better enforcement of current laws would be the way to go... But in today''s age the fear some lone nut or terrorist could inflict massive damage on a who population is real... and having .50 cal semi-autos floating around contributes to that threat and fear....(there are many reports of .50 cals being confiscated from drug dealers and gangsters) and for what gain? i like to think this country was built on a no compromise document not a ever changing, living bill of rights, Come on, the 2nd ammendment is one sentence... you really think they meant to say that everyone should have the right to own a gun with NO interferience of any government agency? and I can still make the arguement that banning .50 cals dosn''t infringe on your ""right to bear arms"" its just regulating what arms you can bear.... and we''re back into having to interpret what the constitution means.... its not as clear cut as people want it to be... its like the bible, for the soul source of universal right and wrong... its the most contradictoryly interpreted book ever. Wahsington isn''t around anymore, we can''t ask him what he ment, what were his intentions, whats the ""spirit"" of what he was doing, all we have are texts, that have to be interpreeted, like anything else. does anyone thing its a good idea to have sub machine guns being sold in circle K to 5 year olds...that''s radically funny Its the logical outcome, (taken to an illogical extream) of ""Gun control is bad""
hieHavocPosts: 133

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 5:40:15 PM
well to compare my passion of the constitution to a trump show and the idoits they put on there to sell that show is derogatory to my person and on that note we must agree to disagree
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/27/2005 1:01:29 AM
Sidewalk, [Look, I''ve tried to get all you ""gun nuts"" to admit SOME gun control is needed, something Mark won''t touch... does anyone thing its a good idea to have sub machine guns being sold in circle K to 5 year olds... laws preventing this are GUN CONTROL!] Well let me touch it Sidewalk. Regulations which affect only criminals and their use of firearms is an acceptable form of what you refer to as ""gun control"" and I refer to as common sense. So are the age limits you refer to. At least on this part of the issue we can agree regardless of semantics. Gun controls which in any way affect the law abiding right to arms (ie Concealed Carry) need to be strictly scrutinized and should err toward the Constitution. On this we can hold debates. Gun controls which seek to ban civilian access to particular types of arms, especially military grade arms, are non negotiable as they are repugnant to freedom and the Second Amendment. It is our civic duty as Americans to destroy such vile attempts to disarm us. Is that clear enough? If it makes me a ""gun nut"", I will wear the title with proud distinction! But you still like me anyway! Take care, Mark
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/27/2005 8:31:18 AM
Gun controls which seek to ban civilian access to particular types of arms, especially military grade arms, are non negotiable as they are repugnant to freedom and the Second Amendment. It is our civic duty as Americans to destroy such vile attempts to disarm us. And thats PART of the reason the argument never gets settled... you think people should have .50 cal semi-autos. Which aren''t standard issues fire arms. Why not sell TOE missles and land mines to the general public also?
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/29/2005 5:26:53 AM
Sidewalk, .50 cal arms are firearms and they are issue to the U.S. military. These 2 facts alone default their protection under the pnumbra of the Second Amendment. As long as people disrespect the Second Amendment this arguement will never be settled.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/27/2005 12:44:49 AM
Sidewalk, please reference the following equation: Government + hatred (especially against a race or religion) + gun control = Genocide. This fact is irrefutable. The 20th century''s history is replete with examples of this equation in action, including the Nazi vs Jews situation you call crap and propoganda. Read ""Lethal Laws"" by Jay Simkin for actual gun control laws in their ORIGINAL LANGUAGE alongside the english translation and see the bountifull harvest of victims gun control brings!
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

hilter and guns 4/27/2005 8:46:58 AM
Read ""Lethal Laws"" by Jay Simkin for actual gun control laws in their ORIGINAL LANGUAGE Here we go again... I saw that allready and again, crap. First the whole point of that book is to try and say the US copied its gun control laws from the Nazis, and it based on the idea that the Nazi would never have come to power if they didn''t institute gun control laws. Thats crap, in ''38 when Hitler expanded the allready existing gun control laws, the Nazis allready had a death grip on Germany... he didn''t need gun control to rise to power, he allready had power, the ''38 law wasn''t legislated it was passed with hitlers dictatorial powers. The First gun control law in Germnay was under the Weimer reign and it was desinged to keep groups like the proto-nazis and anarchists and communists from taking over the government... and it work, the Nazis didn''t take Germnay with a violent coup. The nazis didn''t need gun control to come into power, by the time they passed gun control laws, they all ready had complete control of the country. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: hilter and guns 4/29/2005 5:35:01 AM
You completely missed the point. Although I strongly disagree with you assumtions on the ''68 Gun Control Act, the book ""Lethal Laws"" is about governments controlled by hate filled, racist tyrants using gun control to perpetuate Genocide! Individual citizens being armed with military style arms is the hallmark of being able to stop such racist atrocities. This fact is irrefutable. And I thought you hated racism.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 3:58:24 PM
Sidewalk I believe I stated pretty clearly that most ban attempts leave the language open to include other firearms. Did I read that in this bill''s wording? I didn’t need to, I wasn''t specifically addressing the bill in question when I was summarizing past ban attempts. Duh! You can be such a potato head at times. I know muzzle loading rifles that are capable of defeating some body armor today (that and the fact that a great many modern popular lesser caliber sporting rounds are even more capable of doing the same) so just what are referring to when you mention ""armor piercing"" ammunition? This is specifically what I am questioning as per this broad wording that plays upon well meaning folks such as you. Armor piercing ammunition is bad so it must be banned according to you. So what if it affects millions of law abiding responsible gun owners unintentionally eh? Your arguments only reinforce my initial claims. Quit trying to invent some supposed holes in my logic their laddie. I can be an advocate for gun rights at the same time understanding and consenting to the fact that such items do need to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of the lawless. Hardcore Harry
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: people''s ablity to reason.... 4/26/2005 4:20:14 PM
I can be an advocate for gun rights at the same time understanding and consenting to the fact that such items do need to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of the lawless. I REALLY wish more people would.... Did I read that in this bill''s wording? I didn’t need to, I wasn''t specifically addressing the bill in question You should have stated that, I thought you were talking about this specific ban... thanks for the clarification. so just what are referring to when you mention ""armor piercing"" ammunition? This is specifically what I am questioning as per this broad wording that plays upon well meaning folks such as you. Exactly! I''m not a gun guy so I don''t know the details. But I do know there are some guns and ammo designed specificly to perice armmor... ie, to have a greater than average peiercing strength... the teflon ""cop killers"" were desinged by cops to go through cars and windows and stuff. Sure it gets really vauge, because any object of the right dimintions travling at the right speeds will perice body armor. Thats why I THINK the law now on ""armor peircing"" rounds is case by case... any round capable of peircing armor fired from a handgun is only avaliable to police and military. But this is what I''m talking about... insted of saying things like All gun control is out to destroy the constitution in institute a new Nazi regime is retared... just as bad as the gun control nuts who say, no one should own a gun. We need common rational and REASONING people to logical look at and define laws that allow for safty AND our rights to personally own guns. When attitudes like ""all gun control is bad"" get perpetuated you get things like this. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0504e.asp An artical that argues amor peircing rounds should be avaliable to everyone because... ""criminals... sometimes wear body armor when committing crimes?"" the ablity to reason has been destoryed.... :(
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: exactly . . . 4/27/2005 12:18:47 AM
hieHavoc, I couldn''t have said it better myself. I too would like to know when the Geneva Convention trumped the Constitution of the United States! I''m waiting...... ....tumbleweeds........silence. There is no better sign we are under attack than when politicians seek to ban certain types of arms. Fully empowered Constitutionally concerned American civilians will never submit to any ban on military grade arms!
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: I know exactly . . . 4/27/2005 12:12:03 AM
Curmudgeon, your interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct. However, Barrett .50 cals are being used by soldiers. To adhere to the Geneva Convention limitation to .30 caliber is to deny the advancement in technology and relegate our right to arms to obsolescence. Since when did the Soviet Union restrict themselves to the .30 cal limitation? So we must be violating the Geneva Convention with the .50 cal rifles our military is currently using!
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

again, you don''t know what your talking about.... 4/26/2005 3:48:27 PM
Other guns that would be construed as being larger than 50 caliber also include a great many muzzleloaders used in sport and recreation. I for one ain''t giving up my period Trade Gun which is 62 caliber folks! From the NRA''s summary of Federal Gun Laws. Antiques Antique firearms and replicas are exempted from the aforementioned restrictions. Antique firearms are defined as: any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898, and any replica of a firearm as designed above if the replica is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire ammunition, or uses fixed ammunition, which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels or commercial trade, any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. Why not find out if you have a reason to bitch before you start bitching..... thats what I mean by peoples ablity to reason is gone.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Re: again, you don''t know what your talking about.... 4/26/2005 4:19:27 PM
Now Sidewalk do you really think that once the gun grabbers have gotten all other firearms out of private ownership that they will be satisfied????? I made a point of specifically including weapons such as my trade gun because I know for a fact that some states such as Illinois made absolutely no distinction between bore diameter and type of firearm in several of their recent attempts to get outlaw 50 caliber rifles such as the Barrett. They even went so far as to INCLUDE any and all weapons above and including said bore diameter regardless of what type of firearm they were. Would such a ban include weapons such as the flintlock trade gun I mention? Probably not. Is it possible? Absolutely yes. Hardcore Harry
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: again, you don''t know what your talking about.... 4/26/2005 4:23:52 PM
Now Sidewalk do you really think that once the gun grabbers have gotten all other firearms out of private ownership that they will be satisfied????? Do you really think EVERYONE advocating gun-control is a ""gun grabber"" Would such a ban include weapons such as the flintlock trade gun I mention? Probably not. Is it possible? Absolutely yes. AGain, I thought you were refering specificly to the california law... So I do agree its possible... do you think it would ever REALLY happen?
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: Re: again, you don''t know what your talking about.... 5/2/2005 1:01:26 AM
[Do you really think EVERYONE advocating gun-control is a ""gun grabber""] What else do you call it? Gun Control is not about acquiring or keeping guns. Look at the pride and joy of the gun control movement, the justifiably repealed Assault Weapons Ban. ""Ban"" has nothing to do with allowing people to acquire firearms. Regardless of a gun control advocates intent, the end result is the same: GUN CONTROL=GUN GRABBER.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Sidewalk and Curmudgeon are both suffering under the delusion that: 4/27/2005 12:01:18 AM
Thanks, Harry, it''s nice to know there are those like yourself who have actually been there, done that, and purchased the whole T-shirt company who understand what is at stake in this debate. As you well know, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thanks for being vigilant.
propnutPosts: 199

Mark, I think Patrick Henry said it best... 4/27/2005 7:05:16 AM
Henry, Patrick speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1778 Topic: Arms Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Once again, you give the anti-gun people an inch, they will take a mile.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Mark, I think Patrick Henry said it best... 4/29/2005 5:42:36 AM
Propnut, those are words I wish all Americans lived by. I do make an effort to adhere to those principals, which is why I am so vocal and willingly subjected myself to the accusations of being a ""gun nut"" during the darkest days of the 1993-1995 Constitutional crisis. Nowdays, the terms ""gun nut"" and ""right wing extremist"" are badges of honor for me, although in reality I am reasonable and thoughtfull. It''s amazing how making a stand on principal creates so many advisaries!
Jaime KenedenoPosts: 1468

I ll stick with a.... 4/27/2005 6:41:21 PM
22-250 all day long!
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: I ll stick with a.... 5/2/2005 1:56:41 AM
Jaime, that is your right to choose the arm of your choice. Unfortunately, some want to make that decision for us! That is unacceptable.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: Ronnie Barrett, Patriotic American 4/27/2005 12:06:08 AM
Sidewalk, this is going to be fun!!! Point by point.... [Its propoganda trying to sell more guns... he dosn''t get into deatils, its emotional ""the sky is falling"" ""their coming to get us"" retoric] RONNIE BARRETT IS NOT THE ONE TRYING TO BAN THE .50 CALIBER RIFLE!!!!! You can properly blame any politician who seeks to ban firearms for ""the sky is falling"" rhetoric. If politicians would RESPECT OUR RIGHTS, we would have no need for such ""propoganda."" [http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?] Why do you use such thoroughly discredited sources as the Brady campaign. You might as well reference the Nazi Party to research the virtues of being Jewish! [{In the never-ending battle to destroy our Constitution, more ""big lie"" propaganda is being dumped on our elected officials.}] [Stuff like that is propoganda... Gun control people arn''t ploting in a dark room what next they can to to ""destroy the constitution"" If you dissagree their ideas have signifigant benifits thats one thing, but playing on peoples emotions is simple propoganda, the same thing many of the gun control groups use.] Again Sidewalk, if such groups would respect the Constitution and leave our Second Amendment alone, then we would have no basis to play on any emotions. Here is a concept gun banners don''t get. By seeking to ban or restrict the civilian''s right to aquire arms, gun banners actually create the demand for such arms and sales consequently rise. The rhetoric you talk about would not exist if the gun banners would not try to destroy our right to arms. Gun banners by definition have to be offensive. Pro Second Amendment advocates are on the defensive, why? BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTECTING SOMETHING THEY ALREADY HAVE FROM SOMEONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO TAKE IT AWAY!!!! [I''ve got a question... why does anyone need a .50 cal semi-automatic rifle? Its obviously not good for home defense, do you really hunt with it? is there anything left after you hit your target?] It''s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs! Why do you need the car you drive. Why do you need the computer you use. Why do you need to have a radio. It sucks when others determine your ""needs"" for you, especially when those ""needs"" are actually RIGHTS! [if you just HAVE to have that .50 cal gun to shoot paper targets I''m gonna think your lacking in other manly departments.] The old default, when you can''t win on merits, impune the ""manliness"" of your opposition by subscribing the the failed Freudian concepts that our actions are a result of our latent desire to have sex with our Mommy to compensate for our ""shortcomings"". Nice try! [So... whats the point of selling them to the public?] Because this is a free country where Citizens have rights. The case can well be made that .50 Caliber arms are Constitutionally protected Civilian Political Power Tools. Take Care, Mark
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: Re: Ronnie Barrett, Patriotic American 4/27/2005 9:15:03 AM
RONNIE BARRETT IS NOT THE ONE TRYING TO BAN THE .50 CALIBER RIFLE!!!!! Never said he was, hes fighting the ban becuase if he can''t sell them to the general public that a big chunk of the market he''s missing out on. Why do you use such thoroughly discredited sources as the Brady campaign. Well, I didn''t use any of their opinions, just two sourced facts about the Barrett marketing campain. When no one wants to buy it, he builds up the ""destructive capablities"" then we people start wondering if terrorists might get ahold of them and cause problems he argues the EXACT opposite. I''m left with the conclusion SALES are his only goal... why else would his description of the guns ""destructive capablities"" change with the times? You can properly blame any politician who seeks to ban firearms for ""the sky is falling"" rhetoric. Again, with that logic we sould have tanks RPG launchers, sholder fired missles and all that cool stuff, avalible for an affordable price at your local wall-mart. Again Sidewalk, if such groups would respect the Constitution and leave our Second Amendment alone Their not gonna, There will allways be a push for gun control in this country. So... you can either snap like a rubber band into the other direction, makeing sure ANY progess in any direction is slow cumberson and difficult.... OR, you can do like the NRA did in the 80''s and what and anaylys all proposed legislation and work to get laws that protect rights and safty... The way the ''86 armor peircing rounds law got passed is the system working as it should. Here is a concept gun banners don''t get. By seeking to ban or restrict the civilian''s right to aquire arms, Like rocket launchers or howitsers The rhetoric you talk about would not exist if the gun banners would not try to destroy our right to arms. And there in lies the rub... THEIR heated retoric wouldn''t exist if you didn''t oppose viciously any common sense approach at gun control.... which came first the chicken or the egg... he started it, no he started it, no its his fault no its yours..... its a very childlike situation the gun debate has ened up in. Both sides want it all, and refuse to stop and think about things. Pro Second Amendment advocates are on the defensive, Thats good, you should be on the defensive... But have some perspective to what your defeding... how does a .50 cal gun fit into second amendment rights? you keep saying, ""any military arms"" but you accept the idea that the 2nd ammendment only applies to what the common soldiers carry... That gives us a neat and easy and definable line between 2nd amm. protected and not... why not run around repeating THAT over and over, insted of ""no ban on any gun ever"" It sucks when others determine your ""needs"" for you, especially when those ""needs"" are actually RIGHTS! Again, is it your ""right"" to own a bradly tank or rocket launcher? Because this is a free country where Citizens have rights. The case can well be made that .50 Caliber arms are Constitutionally protected Civilian Political Power Tools. Then why don''t you make that case, show speicificly how .50 cal guns are protected by the 2nd amendment... So far I''ve failed to come across anything reliable that expalins WHAT type of arms are protected, the concencious seems to be what ""ordanary soldiers"" use... I see that as the ""standard issue"" equipment. So make your case mark, don''t just scream ""the sky is falling the Nazis are comming its the end of the world""... thats just bad for everyone invovled. Make your case, site speicific evidence that explains WHAT type of arms are constitutionally protetecd, then show how the .50 cal guns fit into that catagory... anything other than that is simple childish banter.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ronnie Barrett, Patriotic American 4/29/2005 5:56:30 AM
Sidewalk, please show me where and when I advocated [Again, with that logic we sould have tanks RPG launchers, sholder fired missles and all that cool stuff, avalible for an affordable price at your local wall-mart or we should have ""Like rocket launchers or howitsers""]. With all your research prowess, you''ll come up empty on that one. Again, you miss my point. Ronnie Barrett is not spreading propoganda, he is defending his rights and our rights against those who should be leaving our rights alone in the first place. How can we resepect the gun banners if they don''t even respect our Constitution! The only logical response under these circumstances is to defeat the gun banners at all costs. The gun banners have everything to gain and the gun owners have everything to lose. All compromises come at the expense of the gun owners, not the gun banners. Gun banners are no better than a common thief in this debate. Everything I have said before on this should suffice as my ""case"", but I will prepare a more detailed ""case"" when time allows.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
The case for Second Amendment protection of .50 cal rifles 4/29/2005 6:32:14 PM
The case for .50 caliber arms being protected by the Second Amendment is strong. First let''s look at what is not protected by the Second Amendment: >Bombs, grenades, mines, and other explosive devices. >Vehicles such as aircraft, tanks, warships, and other craft. >Nuclear weapons. >Rocket launchers, TOW missles, stinger missles and any other missle system. Now let us look at what is protected by the Second Amendment: >Firearms issued to soldiers. >All individual arms such as bow & arrows, knives, and guns of all types. >Military style semiautomatic assault rifles enjoy explicit protection due to the fact they are the quintessential arms of our time, and any attempt to ban or regulate them or their magazine capacity is in effect repealling the Second Amendment. Now we have the parameters, what category does the .50 caliber rifle fall into? It is basically a heavy duty assault rifle and as such enjoys explicit protection under the Second Amendment. If that isn''t good enough for you, .50 caliber rifles definitly fall under the ""pnumbra"" of the Second Amendment. That arguement is irrefutable! Hey, If the ability to have an abortion can be found under the ""pnumbra"" of the 4th Amendment when no such action is sanctioned, a clearly defined arm must enjoy 2nd Amendment protection. That is unless you don''t define .50 cal rifles as arms! After all, how many deaths have occured due to criminal activity with .50 caliber arms? NONE. And how many deaths can be attributed to abortion?????? 40+ million and counting!!!!! And to think anyone want''s to ban .50 caliber arms........
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

If the .50 Barrett . . . 4/29/2005 8:30:39 PM
. . . is a heavy duty assault rifle so is the M60 and I guess the M2 is a super-heavy duty assault rifle and the 106mm Recoiless Rifle is a super-super heavy duty assault rifle and the . . . The .50 Barrett is a crew served weapon exactly like the M60 and the M60 actually weighs less BWAHAHAHA!!! Abortion is a religious issue. Don''t like abortion, don''t have one. Anyone who believes that a single cell is a person has a screw loose.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: If the .50 Barrett . . . 4/30/2005 7:03:46 AM
Curmudgeon, semiauto verions of the M60 are legel to own without a class III license, are they not? We are not talking about fully automatics here. However, if the .50 caliber were successfully banned, I think we should then advocate for unbanning of fully automatic arm to compensate for the loss of the . 50 cals. What say you?
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

I''m not aware . . . 4/30/2005 7:59:49 AM
. . . of any semi-auto versions of the M60 but a person can legally own an automatic weapon by getting a background check and paying the tax. I had a MAC 10 for a while.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: The case for Second Amendment protection of .50 cal rifles 4/30/2005 7:10:39 AM
And one more stong piece of evidence for the protection of the .50 cals: We currently own them now and until the recent Kalifornia ban, the right to own them has gone uninfringed for these many years since the .50cals were invented! Once again, a right we already possess is under threat of being stolen from us by the gun banning thieves of our rights.
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

There are currently . . . 4/30/2005 7:14:49 AM
. . . thousands of people who legally own machine guns and other fully automatic weapons. I sure the process for owning a .50 Barrett will be the same. I think it would be waaay cheaper to just buy some Viagra in Pregresso.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: There are currently . . . 4/30/2005 7:18:33 AM
But I want my .50 cal and my Viagra too! Who says I can''t have both?
dannoynted1Posts: 553

Re: There are currently . . . 4/30/2005 7:33:25 AM
minutemen in progresso not willing to sell you one minute men a thing.....
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: There are currently . . . 4/30/2005 7:51:31 AM
Please explain? What is the significance of your statement in relation to this thread? I''m not being facetious, just curious.
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

I haven''t been . . . 4/30/2005 8:03:41 AM
. . . a one minute man since high school unless I am in a hurry then thirty seconds is enough. Mexican screw about a good as they do everything else.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: I haven''t been . . . 5/2/2005 1:03:48 AM
LOL! Curmudgeon, does this explain why you are the King of One Liners?
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: The case for Second Amendment protection of .50 cal rifles 4/30/2005 2:27:36 PM
First let''s look at what is not protected by the Second Amendment: >Bombs, grenades, mines, and other explosive devices. WHY NOT? Show me some text, so court ruling, some precident that specificly shows WHY thouse aren''t protected. Now let us look at what is protected by the Second Amendment: >Firearms issued to soldiers. >All individual arms such as bow & arrows, knives, and guns of all types. >Military style semiautomatic assault rifles enjoy explicit protection due to the fact they are the quintessential arms of our time, Again, SHOW ME. I do remember an assult wepons ban... did anyone ever rule that was ""unconstitutional"" if not, obviously assult wepons DON''T enjoy 2nd ammendment protections.... until someone rules otherwise.... sure the law was allowed to lapse, but the was never a challange to the constitutionality of it in court was there???? What are you basing all these ideas on? if your setting parameters, you really need to define them, AND SHOW THEIR VALIDITY... just because mark said so isn''t good enough. Now we have the parameters, what category does the .50 caliber rifle fall into? We have parameters you pulled out of your butt, show me something hard, some documentation? some review or disscussion from the founding fathers, show me something other than your opinion.
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

We just . . . 4/30/2005 2:53:49 PM
. . . assumed that every educated person was familiar with The Federalist Papers.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: The case for Second Amendment protection of .50 cal rifles 5/2/2005 1:32:35 AM
Sidewalk, bombs, grenades, mines, and other explosive devices have not been commonly owned ever by the population at large. In addition, the term ""arms"" in the Second Amendment is normally understood as all manner of rifles, pistols, and shotguns especially those which are capable of fulfilling a military purpose (i.e. in relation to the citizen army at large known as the militia). ""Arms"" have never been interpreted as explosive devices. [Again, SHOW ME. I do remember an assault weapons ban... did anyone ever rule that was ""unconstitutional"" if not, obviously assault weapons DON''T enjoy 2nd ammendment protections.... until someone rules otherwise.... sure the law was allowed to lapse, but the was never a challange to the constitutionality of it in court was there????] WE THE PEOPLE HAVE RULED THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED!!! We ruled by throwing out the tyrannical legislators who supported it. We ruled by exercising civil disobedience and buying assault rifles in spite of the ban. We ruled by making sure the ban was repealed. We The People have owned assault rifles since their inception for over 60 years. We The People have claimed that right and we will not relinquish it, even if another illegal ban were somehow passed. When guns are outlawed, the outlaws are the politicians who enact such bans! [What are you basing all these ideas on? if your setting parameters, you really need to define them, AND SHOW THEIR VALIDITY... just because mark said so isn''t good enough.] Just because Mark says so is good enough!!! But in order to satisfy your question, let me allow some other distinguished authorities on the subject to chime in: ------------------------------------- No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. ------------------------------------- Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787). -------------------------------------- Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. ------------------------------------ Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all? Patrick Henry-Virginia Constitutional Convention, June 2 through June 26, 1788. ------------------------------------- [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... ---George Mason -------------------------------------- The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. Zacharia Johnson ------------------------------------- The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers. ------------------------------------ Sidewalk, can you show how our Country''s Founders would support your side like they support mine?
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ronnie Barrett, Patriotic American 4/30/2005 2:17:40 PM
Sidewalk, please show me where and when I advocated [Again, with that logic we sould have tanks RPG launchers, sholder fired missles and all that cool stuff, avalible for an affordable price at your local wall-mart or we should have ""Like rocket launchers or howitsers""]. With all your research prowess, you''ll come up empty on that one. Right now, your saying citizens should be able to buy .50 cal semi-autos. Even though as crum has pointed out, they are issued to units not people, they arn''t ""what the common soldier carries"" Something that you''ve said is the line of whats 2nd ammendment protected or not. So here you are arguing for a wepon thats a specialised wepon, not a standard issue... so takeing that logic further, RPGs arn''t standard issue either, netier are tanks... you''ve allready cross your own line, so where is the line? Again, you miss my point. Ronnie Barrett is not spreading propoganda, he is defending his rights and our rights against those who should be leaving our rights alone in the first place. You don''t think the fact his company is one of the biggest manufactuers of .50 cal guns plays any effect on his dessision making process? Not bias in the least is he? Plus, you''ve never anwserd for the fact of his changing descriptions of ""destructive capablities"" to suit his purpose. In the sales literature he used to push it on the govenrmnet he hyped it up, talking about doing millions of dollars in damage with a few bucks in shells..... But when they question is praticality in civilian use... ""its not that destructive"" How can we resepect the gun banners if they don''t even respect our Constitution! Again, YOU said the line on 2nd ammendment protection is if its the standard weponary of the US military. .50 cals aren''t, M16s are ""standard issue"" So it looks like your doing your part to destroy the constitution also. Gun banners are no better than a common thief in this debate. Do you agree or dissagree with the 1986 law banning any ammo capable of perieceing body armor.
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

I disagree . . . 4/30/2005 3:27:25 PM
. . . of course, as would anyone with a brain larger than a pea. Cartridges capable of piercing body armor include every center fire rifle cartridge as well as the lowly .22 Long Rifle. Why don''t you think before you speak?
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: I disagree . . . 5/2/2005 1:44:54 AM
Your right, Curmudgeon. ""Armor piercing"" ammo bans are just another attempt by the gun controllers to advance their discredited agenda by any means possible. Truth has no relevance to gun control advocates.
Jaime KenedenoPosts: 1468

You know Mark...... 4/27/2005 1:42:32 AM
all Anarchist must be pro Gun rights? Unless they are smart and bullet proof? I will take my chances with my hands when defending my home. It is that I have children and You cannot see who you are shooting in the middle of the night when it is dark. It is of my opinion that one is at a disadvantage when in the same room as I am if they are threatening my family. Even if they do have a gun! I will take those odds all day & night long!
Jaime KenedenoPosts: 1468

Re: You know Sidewalk....... 4/27/2005 2:22:21 AM
If they took away all of the rights of U S citizens to bare arms; do you think that nobody would have guns anymore. BAA! Gone and everybody follows the rules right? Not hardly! The good guys will no longer have the firearms but you can bet your ""$50 per roll toilet paper"" (all of it) that the criminals would be stockpiled. Mark, do you have a concealed carry license? You Curmy? I like the law and would like to obtain the license and a Desert Eagle to Boot!
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

I don''t . . . 4/27/2005 6:05:29 AM
. . . have one but I never let it interfere with my need to protect myself on occassion. If I need an assault rifle I can alway find some female clerk or motor pool type and just take it.
sidewalk_cipherPosts: 2661

Re: Re: You know Sidewalk....... 4/27/2005 9:17:06 AM
try reading... show me were I said we sould get rid of all guns... This is what I mean by reason is dead.
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Re: Re: Re: You know Sidewalk....... 4/27/2005 11:10:49 AM
Sidewalk wants to ban my period trade gun!!! Help help help I have you know I am a force to be contented with ever 40 seconds or so and then only if you are within 50 yards of me when I am shootin ole Betsy. My experince is the smoke and the noise are usually enough to send folks diving for cover. Got some funny stories bout letting one off dove hunting and folks runnin from all over thinkin it had exploded in my hands..heh Hardcore Harry
HardcoreHarryPosts: 1770

Re: Re: Re: Re: You know Sidewalk....... 4/27/2005 11:14:10 AM
Bah! Meant to say contend with instead of contented with. Perhaps it freudian, who knows. Hardcore Harry
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: You know Sidewalk....... 4/29/2005 6:24:20 AM
I do not have a concealed carry license. I do favor the law but have not utilized it.
dannoynted1Posts: 553

Re: You know Mark...... 4/27/2005 3:29:12 AM
them anarchists must got all the arms they need to be ready to deny mine anarchy is ready and able to backup themselves against any and all come to think of it anarchy should be ready willing and able to take the ""justice"" anarchy''s lawlessness provides.... there is no place like home...
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Re: You know Mark...... 4/29/2005 6:26:48 AM
Point well taken, although your definition could also apply to elitists too..... Curmudgeon, the elite anarchist or the anarchist elite?????
dannoynted1Posts: 553

Re: Re: Re: You know Mark...... 4/29/2005 6:37:11 AM
neither the elite will never pigeon hole themselves with the anarchist label heaven forbid it become common knowledge...
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
The end result of not defending the .50 cal 4/30/2005 6:57:49 AM
This is legislation currently working it''s way through the Illinois Legislature. Because of the Chicago''s contingent of ""representitives"" desire to ban all guns in Illinois just like as is in Chicago, this proposal is being ramroded through. Notice they are trying to ban .50 caliber rifles and assault rifles. This should be clear evidence the firearms most protected by the Second Amendment are any firearms politicians want to ban. --------------------------------------- Bill Status of HB2414 94th General Assembly Short Description: CRIM CD-BANS SEMIAUTOMATIC House Sponsors Rep. Edward J. Acevedo - Monique D. Davis - Karen A. Yarbrough - Harry Osterman - Barbara Flynn Currie, Linda Chapa LaVia, Deborah L. Graham, Sara Feigenholtz, Mary E. Flowers, Richard T. Bradley, Joseph M. Lyons, Michelle Chavez, Charles E. Jefferson and Elizabeth Coulson Last Action Date Chamber Action 4/15/2005 House Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 new 720 ILCS 5/24-1.8 new Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Prohibits the knowing manufacture, delivery, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons, assault weapon attachments, 50 caliber rifles, and 50 caliber cartridges. Provides for an affirmative defense to a violation for peace officers, correctional institution employees and officers, members of the Armed Services and Reserve Forces of the United States, and the Illinois National Guard while these persons are in the performance of their duties. Establishes penalties for violations. Prohibits the knowing manufacture, delivery, and possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device (a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition and any combination of parts from which such a device can be assembled). Establishes penalties for violations. Requires a person who possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device on the effective date of the amendatory Act, within 90 days after that date, to destroy the device, render the device permanently inoperable, relinquish the device to a law enforcement agency, or remove the device from the State. Establishes as an affirmative defense to a violation, the delivery or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device while in the performance of their official duties by peace officers, correctional institutional employees and officials, and members of the Armed Services or Reserve Forces of the United States or the Illinois National Guard. House Amendment No. 1 Deletes everything after the enacting clause. Reinserts the provisions of the bill, with these changes: (1) eliminates provisions relating to 50 caliber cartridges, bayonet mounts, and grenade launchers; (2) eliminates affirmative defenses; and (3) establishes exemptions. House Amendment No. 2 Deletes provision that defines a ""semiautomatic rifle"" to include a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. Provides that the exemption from the provisions of the amendatory Act relating to peace officers applies whether or not the peace officer possesses the weapon in performance of his or her official duties. Exempts from the provisions of the amendatory Act, events sanctioned by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources taking place at the Sparta Shooting Complex and transportation to and from such events if the weapons are broken down in a non-functioning state or are not immediately accessible.
Capt CarralesPosts: 3167

This passed"
100 plus threads!!!! All about GUNS!!!! Such a hot topic!
curmudgeonPosts: 3232

If you want one that will go 200 . . . 5/1/2005 8:19:11 PM
. . . start one about abortion, another topic in which men are strangly interested.
skwardupntruPosts: 1482

Re: If you want one that will go 200 . . . 5/2/2005 1:07:25 AM
ICK !!!!
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: This passed ""100"" Posts!!! Bin einer Uberthread, Ja? 5/2/2005 1:51:50 AM
Capt, this is one of the most passionate political subjects in existance. Here''s why, the gun banners have such a visceral hatred for guns and gun owners they would gladly imprison all the Second Amendment supporters who will never relinquish their rights. Gun Controllers have nothing to lose while Second Amendment supporters have everything to lose, including their property, Liberty, and even their very lives! With the stakes so high, the passionate stances and rhetoric are reflective of that.
skwardupntruPosts: 1482

As Well 5/2/2005 2:09:23 AM
That was as well put a staement on the issue as I have Heard Thanx
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: As Well 5/2/2005 2:19:33 AM
Your welcome, skwardupntru. This issue is literally one of ""Give me Liberty, or give me Death"" in the same manner as Patrick Henry at the Virginia Convention. With so much at stake, the Second Amendment supporters can not afford to lose. I''m glad I was able to summarize it to a short factoid.
skwardupntruPosts: 1482

Re: Re: As Well 5/2/2005 3:03:51 AM
This is a topic near and dear tom y heart and I look 4-ward to discussing it more as it is indeed a topic of increasing importance. Hope to engage you again Mark Good Night 4 Now David
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Anti-American 5/3/2005 6:41:10 AM
Bay City News Wire FEINSTEIN SEEKS TOUGHER REGULATION OF RIFLE 05/01/05 12:40 PDT By Bay City New Service Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced Friday the introduction of legislation that would classify .50-caliber rifles in the same category as machine guns or sawn-off shotguns. The legislation would change the .50-caliber''s classification as a ""long gun,'''' requiring all future sales to go through a licensed gun dealer and a background check on the buyer, Howard Gantman, a Feinstein spokesman, reported. If the legislation passed, the Internal Revenue Service would also record all future purchases of the weapon under the National Firearms Act. The U.S. military commonly uses the large weapon, which California banned in 2004, as a sniper rifle. According to Feinstein, the destructive power of the rifle makes it different than a standard rifle, requiring more safeguards before a person can purchase the weapon. ""For instance, a sniper atop the Washington Monument (with a .50-caliber rifle) could target anybody or anything within a four-mile radius, including the White House, the Capitol, every building on or around the Mall, and aircraft flying in and out of Reagan National Airport,'''' Feinstein said in a statement. The rifles are currently classified in the same category as .22-caliber target rifles and .30-06-caliber hunting rifles.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Re: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Anti-American 5/5/2005 12:44:20 AM
Here it is, the mother of the gun banners spews her hatred for us Americans in the form of the ban we were all anticipating. Notice the sinister reference to ""Sporting and hunting purposes"". This qualifier is an enemy to the Second Amendment. When you see it, you know the presenter is an enemy of the right of WE THE PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS. ------------------------------------- Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) S 935 IS 109th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 935 To regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons designed for the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and components of the Nation''s critical infrastructure. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 28, 2005 Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. CORZINE, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance ------------------------------------ A BILL To regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons designed for the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and components of the Nation''s critical infrastructure. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) Certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range .50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly being sold in the United States 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 components of the national critical infrastructure, such as radar 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. (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. SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF .50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. (a) In General- Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking `(6) a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.'' and inserting `(6) a .50 caliber sniper weapon; (7) a machine gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (9) a destructive device.''. (b) Definitions- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 5845 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining terms relating to firearms) is amended by adding at the end the following: `(n) Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapon- The term `.50 caliber sniper weapon'' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in .50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant of .50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.''. (2) MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF RIFLE- Section 5845(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining rifle) is amended by inserting `or from a bipod or other support'' after `shoulder''. SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall only apply to a .50 caliber sniper weapon made or transferred after the date of enactment of this Act.
mark blankenshipPosts: 1112
Let Freedom Ring!!!!!!!! 1/14/2006 3:41:49 AM
Written 9/13/04 As we watch the sunrise today, we watch the glorious sunset of the hideous ban on our arms. For the first time in 10 years we have a huge chunk of our freedom back. The assault weapons ban is dead! This is a culmination of 12+ years of hard work for me. I would like to thank our host, Eric von Wade for the outstanding work he has done on this issue. Thanks also to the millions of Americans who have worked and VOTED to make the end of the ban possible. Thank God for people of character in Congress like Tom Delay, Bill Frist, and Ron Paul. Even our local representative Solomon Ortiz had it right and consistantly voted against the ban. Thanks also to the NRA, NRAILA, GOA, SAF, CCRKBA, JPFO, Firearms coalition, Guncite, Keep and Bear Arms, and AWBan Sunset. On this day I can say something without fear of repercussion, ""I exercise my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms"". I can also now vote for President Bush. Unfortunately, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. What the assault weapons ban did to the Second Amendment, Campaign Finance restrictions do to the First Amendment. Then there''s the misaplication of the Patriot act. Seems a Constitutionalist''s work is never done.