N.J. pushes ban on .50-caliber firearms...

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by GAGunOwner, Mar 6, 2007.

  1. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

     
  2. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    Time to buy that barrett, after the AWB prices of "assault wepons" skyrocketed.
    Last time I checked AP rounds were not available to civilians, heck when I was in the Marines, we had trouble getting AP rounds.(granted it was budget related)
    To be honest though, I have no use for a .50cal chambered rifle, give me one and I'll probably sell it. I'll stick with that Springfield M1A scout/squad I have been lusting over.

    I'd love to see where they got the information that a .50cal can take down an airliner. I've actually had an opportunity to fire an M2 .50cal many times, and I seriously doubt those claims. If you can score a sigificant hit on a moving jetliner, landing or taking off, you are lucky as heck. I'd be willing to bet that any impact on a jetliner would be insignificant, and only force a emergency landing, if the aircrew even noticed.
     

  3. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    If, and this is a big IF, a high-powered round hit an airliner in flight, there is potential for a serious problem, depending on the point of impact. OTOH, the kinds of problems that a non-explosive round would cause are those for which pilots are trained. The most significant that comes to mind would be loss of engine (or engine fire) at low altidude and low airspeed. Serious pucker factor, but not catastrophic. (Training includes lots of engine dumps at rotation.) Loss of cabin pressure at low altitude is a non-event.

    The only thing that comes to mind that would really ruin your day is a fuel tank explosion, which would require a pretty accurate shot. Fuel tanks are pretty tough, and engineered and placed to be protected against FOD.

    Hit the right spot on an aircraft rotating/climbing/accelerating at something greater than 150 knots, from a distance of a mile? Regardless of the marksman, i think it would be a pretty "lucky" shot.
     
  4. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    Jet Fuel (also known as JP8) is very, very stable. You can put a cigerette out in that stuff.
    Open Air Burning Temp. 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)
    Flash Point 38 °C or 100.4 °F (with proper fuel/air ratio)
    Autoignition temperature: 210 °C or 410 °F

    The worst that would happen is a fuel leak.
     
  5. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    So how many crimes have ever been committed with a .50 rifle?

    The defense rests.
     
  6. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    But its not about what crimes have been committed. Its about how we feel about the idea that they could be committed in the future. It's an attempt to buy votes by attacking a group of people that is relatively insignificant to the politician with an argument that will sell to most people. Its a pattern that I find distasteful but has been repeated many times by those in power (regardless of political affiliation) due to its effectiveness.

    What's really funny is that the politicians trying to ban .50 cal rifles are likely the the same ones that go ballistic when a news story comes out about the Pentagon planning for scenarios that could happen, like the invasion of Iran.
     
  7. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    No, it is not likely they are the same ones, they ARE the same ones.

    In their reality, they are more afraid of the ficticious actions most likely seen in a movie than anything that is going on in the real world. Which I sometimes find funny (banning manufacture of plastic handguns that could go through metal detectors, which in the real world have never existed).

    What I find scary is that they think the ends justify the means. Which is bad in itself until you add in their warped view of reality that the ends represent. 2 examples,
    1. To get to a world without gun violence, you have to get rid of guns. Which means you have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. Which also means you have to lie and otherwise distort history.
    2. To get to a world where Pres. Bush has lost the Iraq war, you have to make sure that whatever is attempted has the least likely chance of succeeding. Which means down playing or stopping any talk or restrictions on Iran for providing men and material (like 100 of 800 brand new 50 cals sold to Iran being found in Iraq). It also means trying to restrict the number of US troops availible for action by adding un-neccessary requirments that must be met before deploying.
     
  8. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    It's just the old "foot in the door" technique. If we can't ban all guns, let's start off by banning a few and then we'll work on the rest of them.

    It's like the assault weapons ban. Didn't do a thing, in and of itself, but it was a start.

    Much like banning full auto made after 1986. They just keep nibbling away. Eventually, if they keep nibbling, they'll get it all.

    And then, to quote a pretty tired bumper sticker cliche, "When guns are outlawed..."

    Unfortunately, they can make a case to many people that some guns are just too dangerous for civilian ownership.

    Ergo, those guns, and only those guns, should be prohibited. Next, we'll move on to another category we can scare people about... Eventually, they will win........ if they are allowed to do so.

    A little nibble here. A little nibble there. Eventually, it's all gone. And we can all sleep better because the world is finally a safer place for the children!

    It's always, "for the children". Guns, drugs, alcohol, porn, whatever some people don't want the rest of us to have... Gun bans and liquor bans and porn bans and drug bans and any other ban you can think of are all just different sides of the same coin. People imposing their version of morality on everybody else.

    I don't like porn, but I support people who don't want to see it banned. I hope people who like dirty movies feel the same about .50 caliber weapons and other guns. Those of us in persecuted minorities need to stand up for each other, even if we have to hold our noses while doing so...

    If we don't, the "banners" will win.
     
  9. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    That's how I feel. I support all people's rights, even if I don't agree with how they use them, it's all or none in my book.
     
  10. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    Well I didn't want to say that cuz I don't have the time to verify that. :wink:

    +1. That's another nasty strategy I despise. :x
     
  11. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,207
    28
    48
    There are alot of round alot of rifles that have this capability. My brother has 100 steel jacketed "armor piercing" rounds for my 7.65 caliber Mauser. Are they going to ban 100 year old antiques?
     
  12. viper32cm

    viper32cm New Member

    760
    0
    0
    Lies all of it

    I guess this was what it was like 20 years ago when the Glock "plastic gun" scare was all the rage.

    An anti never got a pesky thing like reality get in the way of their politics.
     
  13. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    Many years ago, when I was in Basic Training, we used AP cartridges because the army had tons (probably hundreds of tons) of them left over from Korea, WWII and probably WWI and the Spanish-American War...

    I remember the tips were painted black, to designate AP. We were told it was a safety measure as they would cleanly penetrate a guy leaving a small exit wound. Fortunately, we never had to put that particular theory to the test.

    Here's some interesting info about 30-06 ammo:

    http://www.olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_30-06.php




    .