They are taking our guns away !

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
N.J. to Consider .50-Caliber Gun Ban

By TOM HESTER Jr.
Associated Press Writer

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- New Jersey is looking to become the second state to outlaw a powerful gun that critics say can be used by terrorists to shoot down an airliner.

Democratic lawmakers and Ceasefire NJ, an antigun group, unveiled a plan Monday to make it illegal to sell .50-caliber weapons in New Jersey.

California is the only state with a similar law. Maryland strictly regulates the rifle by requiring enhanced background checks and other requirements for its purchase, according to Legal Community Against Violence, a public interest law center that favors gun control.

Supporters argue the guns are inappropriate for civilian use because they can fire armor-piercing rounds that can penetrate and ignite chemical plants, refineries and rail tank cars. The guns, which resemble large hunting rifles, are accurate up to 1 1/2 miles.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NJ_GUN_BILL?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Darn! what will the sportsmen squirrel hunt in NJ with? ....
 
N.J. to Consider .50-Caliber Gun Ban

Holy cow! I didn't even know you could buy 50 cal ammunition. 50 cal is armour-piercing ammo, the kind that can piece lightly armoured military vehicles and airplanes.

Who's hunting Deer or fowl with 50 cal?
 
Some people are dumbasses and might hunt with such weapons. But less us remember the 2nd amendment isn't for hunting its about being armed to fight against an oppressive government. Having a 50 cal weapon would be useful if we ever had to fight our own government.
 
Cypress said:
N.J. to Consider .50-Caliber Gun Ban

Holy cow! I didn't even know you could buy 50 cal ammunition. 50 cal is armour-piercing ammo, the kind that can piece lightly armoured military vehicles and airplanes.

Who's hunting Deer or fowl with 50 cal?
Click to expand...
Most people who would buy these are either in a Militia or collectors.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Some people are dumbasses and might hunt with such weapons. But less us remember the 2nd amendment isn't for hunting its about being armed to fight against an oppressive government. Having a 50 cal weapon would be useful if we ever had to fight our own government.
Click to expand...

What do you think the upper limit of armour-piercing ammunition that a private citizen should be able to buy? .60 cal? Rocket propelled grenade?
 
Yeah, why can't I buy a 105 mm howitzer anyway ?

It would be good for coyotes, especially with cluster bomb rounds.
 
Damocles said:
Terrorists wouldn't buy them legally, so outlawing them wouldn't help to begin with.
Click to expand...

And what would make you say that ?

didn't wwe train them to fly planes, sell them boxcutters, etc....
Of course they would buy them legally if they could, they plan on dying for allah anyway.
 
uscitizen said:
And what would make you say that ?

didn't wwe train them to fly planes, sell them boxcutters, etc....
Of course they would buy them legally if they could, they plan on dying for allah anyway.
Click to expand...

If I were a terrorist, I'd buy them legally if it was an option.
 
Cypress I'm sure you'd find this crazy but I would say any weapon that can be used that doesn't create collateral damage by nature. So Biological, Chemical, Nuclear and Super explosives could be barred from civilian use although I don't think the government should be allowed to have these weapons either.

Some weapons are unnecessarily cruel like Napalm and I greatly oppose them. However I don't think the second amendment could be construed to allow for a ban on napalm based weapons.

The second amendment is probably the part of the constitution that more than any other part doesn't plan for future contingencies.

I listed the above weapons because they automatically violate other protected rights by their use. One might argue that Napalm violates the right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment but it would be a weak one I think.
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah, why can't I buy a 105 mm howitzer anyway ?

It would be good for coyotes, especially with cluster bomb rounds.
Click to expand...
I think you can. Get one of those Mercenary rags. They have ads for that kind of stuff. Shoot you can even get a former military helicopter...
 
Cypress I'm sure you'd find this crazy but I would say any weapon that can be used that doesn't create collateral damage by nature.

Fair enough. So you DO believe there are limitations on the second amendment. So do I.

I don't see any reason that a private citizen, who is not part of a state well-regulated militia, should have a right, or a need for armor piercing ammunition.
 
uscitizen said:
And what would make you say that ?

didn't wwe train them to fly planes, sell them boxcutters, etc....
Of course they would buy them legally if they could, they plan on dying for allah anyway.
Click to expand...
The likelihood of them passing the background investigation seems slim... But heck, they'd probably use stolen IDs. But then they wouldn't really be buying them legally.

I don't think they'd buy these at all. Their goal is to scare with mass killings not shoot up the joint and get imprisoned.
 
Damocles said:
I think you can. Get one of those Mercenary rags. They have ads for that kind of stuff. Shoot you can even get a former military helicopter...
Click to expand...

Yeah with the military grade gear removed. No vulcan cannon :(
I can also buy an old army tank, but no coax gun, turret gun or functioning cannon.
 
Damocles said:
The likelihood of them passing the background investigation seems slim... But heck, they'd probably use stolen IDs. But then they wouldn't really be buying them legally.

I don't think they'd buy these at all. Their goal is to scare with mass killings not shoot up the joint and get imprisoned.
Click to expand...



The likelihood of them passing the background investigation seems slim...

You're a gun guy right? Surely you've heard that republicans have fought tooth and nail, to protect the gun show loopehole, where background checks are waived.

All a terrorist has to do is go to one of those public gun shows.
 
Cypress said:
Cypress I'm sure you'd find this crazy but I would say any weapon that can be used that doesn't create collateral damage by nature.

Fair enough. So you DO believe there are limitations on the second amendment. So do I.

I don't see any reason that a private citizen, who is not part of a state well-regulated militia, should have a right, or a need for armor piercing ammunition.
Click to expand...
The regular citizen isn't going to use these, they'd just have them. What makes it so difficult to let them? They've been legal to purchase up to now, what makes you think that they are now especially dangerous? When was the last time you heard of somebody shooting up the town with one of these? Honestly. A citizen buying these against future contingency of a possibly overbearing government seems to me to be the very epitome of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Especially considering the writing on the subject of the founders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top