Congress goes after .50BMG rifles

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by FerrariAKL, Aug 5, 2007.

  1. Yeah I pretty much agree with Steven Segal on this one. After reading this entire thread I still have yet to seea valid reason why these should be banned.
  2. Except that none of those are true. I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll err on the side of stupidity. (yours)

    1. Why do you think they use machine guns to shoot down airplanes, huh? Because you need alot of #$%#ing bullets, thousands of rounds to even HIT an airplane, let alone bring one down.

    2. No man-portable firearm has been able to take on a tank since the 1930s. Period.

    3. So? You can do that with a standard-caliber rifle. And you know what? More than 99.999% of the people who could buy a BMG rifle don't have the expertise to perform such a feat.

    4. Like scaring Dianne Feinstein. That's mayhem I'd encoruage.
  3. At the end of the day there eventually is going to be one nutcase who is going to kill people with one and they will ultimately be banned.

    What people will overlook is the next would be nutcase will have to use semi-auto handguns up close killing even more people around them. To me a nut shooting targets with a ($5000+) bolt-action rifle at a great distance (where it's $2 a round to learn off of) seems alot safer than a nutcase with a handgun if you think about it...

    As for me, the more armed we are, the better. "If we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them."
  4. For those of you who like anime, watch the third episode of Trigun. A couple crooks try to knock over a bank, but everyone, EVERYONE in town is packing heat. Guess what happens?

    For those who advocate the restriction or total abolishment of gun ownership, consider this...

    The good and decent people in this world far outnumber the criminal element. What do you think would happen if every person on the street was packing?
  5. He is a part of the militia, which serves military functions if ever the need arises.
  6. So?
  7. That depends on how they do it, there ARE extremely reactionist people out there. And it doesn't take many to get national attention that the government wouldn't like.

    Guns always have made a difference, a military made up of volunteers sworn to uphold the constitution are gonna have a hard time going against their oath...and some portion of 80 million armed individuals...which make up said military.
  8. Nanny state, you say?
  9. "I can't tell if these are jokes or not.

    1. How the #$%# would it shoot down an airplane? You dickweeds don't seem to understand the challenge in striking a target moving a few hundred miles per hour on take off or landing...the only times this would even be remotely possible. Assuming by some work of Allah it actually DID strike a plane where the hell is it gonna hit that would disable it? The pilot? We have copilots too. An engine? They have more than one. The fuel tanks? It won't ignite. And you thick retards keep forgetting that I could achieve the same results minus a couple tenth's of an inch diameter with any of tens of millions of more common calibers.

    2. The last tank that could be pierced by a .50 cal round was from WWI, stfu.

    3. So does any other rifle.

    4. They could cause all sorts of mayhem with a few chemicals at your local store. Or with a car. Or with any object. Your point is null, not to mention that criminals use all those objects far more often to "cause all sorts of mayhem" than they do with a .50 BMG rifle."

    - Steven Segal...pages ago. I am awesome.
  10. Those are the points of the article, I was just copy&pasting for lulz.
    I never said to ban anything.

    I just think gun ownership is stupid.
  11. #161 Will939, Aug 9, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Yeah, bad advice. Your position is ridiculous.

    That would be like me saying, "Well we haven't had a hurricane in a few months, so I guess there won't be another one ever."

    National security is the duty of the federal government, when they fail it is my duty. My own protection is my responsibility and no one else's. Helping stop an out of control government is also my duty, by lobbying, or in extreme cases, by the rifle.

    Your carefree attitude is the what turns good countries into shitholes. Do I have fun, do I enjoy the freedoms I have, do I appreciate what a good place I'm in? Of course, but it is retarded to believe that it will stay the same forever. There have been numerous times in our own history when our homeland was invaded or attacked by foreigners, the government has become out of control, civil war broke out where the armed population became the last line of defense. As I said RIGHT NOW everything is fairly peachy, within my lifetime we faced a very real threat of nuclear obliteration. How can you be so obtuse to think that in the future everything will be exactly the same?
  12. While I think it is stupid for them to do such things they have money to blow on money. But surveillance is only one piece of the pie, government control over my life is another. Be it in the form of high taxes, restriction of liberties, or whatever else.
  13. it is the ONLY legitimate case.
  14. I'm an optimist.
    I'll just live my life. If the huns get past our military and into my streets, I'll just have to stand in front of a tank or something and use my hippy liberal powers of persuasion .
  15. You posted them twice in response to why we should ban these rifles. If you don't believe them to be correct then why the hell are you taking this position on the issue? You did in fact say that you support them being out of civilian hands, that would be a ban.

    Yea, we know, but the rest of us aren't afraid of them or our fellow citizens.
  16. Not everybody is a hippy liberal douche.
  17. Calling Canada a nanny state for having higher taxes is a bit ridiculous, though. It's not like guns are outright illegal here or something, they're still in a quarter of households. They just have a licensing system for owning them. And, in a similar fashion to driver's licenses having tiers for what vehicles you can drive, so too do these have tiers for what guns you may own.
  18. If one recurring bit of advice comes to mind it is "Shit happens." Why is it such a bad thing to fight now to keep these rights in case they come in handy later? Not to say that they don't come in handy now between hunters and 2.5 million defensive uses a year.
  19. I was a bit over the top.
  20. All I can say is that based on the reputation of politicians in general, why should they be completely trusted with the future of our country?
  21. This thread has just proven one #$%#ing thing that was so evident even many decades ago, liberals are #$%#ing ignorant when it comes to firearms and are scared of them. Banning firearms is not a solution and not a mean to eradicate criminality or the trash living in your neighbourhood. Liberals passed the 500s&w for a too dangerous gun without firing it. The 500s&w magnum was mainly designed as a hunting cartridge but of course it could do some nice clean up in some areas as do the 454 casull, 475 wildey magnum, 500 special, 500 corbon, 50ae, 44magnum or 41 magnum. I see nothing wrong with owning a caliber 50ae or a 577 holland and holland express. In France shortly after Chirac was elected in 1995, he banned a right or a license to be more accurate that would enable the citizen to buy a gun legally for his self defense. But can the police be everywhere at all the times? No. It is not by banning guns that you solve problems.
  22. Guns dont kill people, robots do!!! <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/angry.gif"></A>
  23. Why are you making of yourself such a stupid ignorant dipshit? You have no knowledge about guns and the gun ownership in general, plus the robot argument is effing stupid and gay.
  24. Ok, now I understand. Rights should be based on need. Gotcha.
  25. Yeah, us citizens just need to relax and stop thinking. We have a great government. We should just trust them and let them do the thinking.

Share This Page