CNN shot thesmelves in the foot.
SnoopisTDI
02-23-2005, 08:18 AM
As I pointed out in the gun control thread a few weeks ago, the mainstream media is well known for lying about anything having to do with gun control in order to further their anti Bill of Rights agenda. Well, the propaganda continues...
A bill was recently reintroduced in the House to have .50cal rifles regulated in the same manner as machine guns. A couple nights ago, CNN had a show about how easy it is to buy a .50cal rifle, and how powerful the guns are.
But they got it all wrong- it appears they purchased the rifle illegally. This means either one of two things:
1.) They intentionally broke the law, in order to deliberately mislead the public(which is nothing new for them), or
2.) Even with all the time they had to set-up the story, and all the help of their vast team of lawyers, they still could not comprehend the existing mess of gun laws.
This should result in one of two things- realization that the laws are BS, or prosecution of CNN.
CNN Violated Federal Firearms Law (http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/6245.jsp)
I didn't see it mentioned here, but I've also read that the ammo used in the show was illegal. I didn't see the show, just heard a lot about it.
A bill was recently reintroduced in the House to have .50cal rifles regulated in the same manner as machine guns. A couple nights ago, CNN had a show about how easy it is to buy a .50cal rifle, and how powerful the guns are.
But they got it all wrong- it appears they purchased the rifle illegally. This means either one of two things:
1.) They intentionally broke the law, in order to deliberately mislead the public(which is nothing new for them), or
2.) Even with all the time they had to set-up the story, and all the help of their vast team of lawyers, they still could not comprehend the existing mess of gun laws.
This should result in one of two things- realization that the laws are BS, or prosecution of CNN.
CNN Violated Federal Firearms Law (http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/6245.jsp)
I didn't see it mentioned here, but I've also read that the ammo used in the show was illegal. I didn't see the show, just heard a lot about it.
codycool
02-23-2005, 09:29 AM
Although I agree that our 2nd amendment should not be messed with, I am a firm believer that .50 cal rifles are not needed for anything. I can understand for maybe sports and recreation, but other than that i dont know. .50 cal rifles are extremely deadly, I saw them close up in iraq!
One could easily be used to take the head off of one of our government officials at well over half a mile away!
One could easily be used to take the head off of one of our government officials at well over half a mile away!
SnoopisTDI
02-23-2005, 10:40 AM
Although I agree that our 2nd amendment should not be messed with
Well, I'm glad you feel that our 2nd Amendment should not be messed with, but I encourage you to research the 2nd Amendment before announcing your support of it.
I am a firm believer that .50 cal rifles are not needed for anything. I can understand for maybe sports and recreation, but other than that i dont know. .50 cal rifles are extremely deadly, I saw them close up in iraq!
One could easily be used to take the head off of one of our government officials at well over half a mile away!
That's the whole point!
In 1938, a man was arrested for violating the 1934 National Firearms Act(NFA). He had crossed state lines with a sawed-off shotgun without paying the $200 tax. This went to the supreme court, challenging that the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment. US vs Miller. In order to get the conviction and display that the NFA did not violate the 2nd Amendment, the prosecution convinced the judge(incorrectly) that a sawed-off shotgun was not a military weapon, and therefor was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. In other words, the Second Amendment specifically protects our right to keep and bear military arms. This would include .50cal rifles.
It wasn't until the 1960s that the "sporting" issue was invented. All evidence from the revolution through the mid-20th century displays that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to own the same small arms as any standing army(which today would include not only the military, but police forces as well).
I've put about a dozen rounds through a few .50cal rifles, and have seen friends send rounds down range for hours on end- so I know what they are capable of. I'm considering buying one for myself. Unfortunately, the ones I'm looking at (the cheapest ones) are between $2000 and $3500 dollars, which usually does not include a bipod, rings and scope, ammo, etc., which will add up to another $1500 easily. I'm not sure if I have that kind of money to be spending on a rifle right now, especially since I'm supposed to be going to Germany in July. But that's neither here nor there.
The main problem with banning these guns is that it will only keep someone like you and I from owning them, but not the terrorists the politicians are using as the scapegoat here.
Well, I'm glad you feel that our 2nd Amendment should not be messed with, but I encourage you to research the 2nd Amendment before announcing your support of it.
I am a firm believer that .50 cal rifles are not needed for anything. I can understand for maybe sports and recreation, but other than that i dont know. .50 cal rifles are extremely deadly, I saw them close up in iraq!
One could easily be used to take the head off of one of our government officials at well over half a mile away!
That's the whole point!
In 1938, a man was arrested for violating the 1934 National Firearms Act(NFA). He had crossed state lines with a sawed-off shotgun without paying the $200 tax. This went to the supreme court, challenging that the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment. US vs Miller. In order to get the conviction and display that the NFA did not violate the 2nd Amendment, the prosecution convinced the judge(incorrectly) that a sawed-off shotgun was not a military weapon, and therefor was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. In other words, the Second Amendment specifically protects our right to keep and bear military arms. This would include .50cal rifles.
It wasn't until the 1960s that the "sporting" issue was invented. All evidence from the revolution through the mid-20th century displays that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to own the same small arms as any standing army(which today would include not only the military, but police forces as well).
I've put about a dozen rounds through a few .50cal rifles, and have seen friends send rounds down range for hours on end- so I know what they are capable of. I'm considering buying one for myself. Unfortunately, the ones I'm looking at (the cheapest ones) are between $2000 and $3500 dollars, which usually does not include a bipod, rings and scope, ammo, etc., which will add up to another $1500 easily. I'm not sure if I have that kind of money to be spending on a rifle right now, especially since I'm supposed to be going to Germany in July. But that's neither here nor there.
The main problem with banning these guns is that it will only keep someone like you and I from owning them, but not the terrorists the politicians are using as the scapegoat here.
fredjacksonsan
02-23-2005, 11:08 AM
Back on topic, CNN seems to have put themselves in a bit of hot water. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.
Twitch1
02-23-2005, 12:22 PM
Lamborginis and Corvettes are not needed for transportation when we have plenty of 'sensible' autos that get us from point A to point B real fine. Performance cars CAN be used to break speed laws and CAN be used to try to out run police if they are used as get-away cars.
In the US and most of the Western world it went past 'need' a long time ago. If it's OK for legitimate shooting competitions to crack off bullseyes at 3/4 mile with 'normal' .30 cal why is it sinister to do it with .50s? The whole point is that it is just plain fun and a challenge.
I'm goinf to the pistol range this weekend with my whole family and several other friends. My wif and daughters shoot and there will actually be more women along this time than men. It's fun puttin holes in paper- that's the bottom line. And there is no restriction on what pistols I can shoot.
Last time I was there a guy had a .454 Casull. Talk about noise! Well he dosen't 'need' that big of a caliber which has quite a long range when compared to other pistols, does he?
We don't need a lot of the crap we own. Who the hell 'needs' a jet ski? Who 'needs' a boat for that matter? Wouldn't it be easy for sleeper terrorists to pick up their buddies beyond the break water and sneak them into the country with explosives? Geez private ownership of boats ought to be banned!!!
What we do not NEED is people attempting to regulate every bit of our lives. No one has ever used a .50 caliber for criminal purpose. That doesn't bother the do-gooders though. Can you imagine the long list we can make of things that possibly might be used by evil-dooers?
I've been on the receiving end of Charlie's .51 cal (that's 13mm compared to 12.7 for .50 cal) and have seen a single round of 5.56 kill at close to a half mile too.
I used to dress and look like a cop driving a full sized company car, a Ford LTD in the 70s. I had people on 3 different occassions in Long Beach walk up to me, a guy in a suit in the detective's car of choice back then and been offered weapons for sale. One was a machine pistol.
Besides the utterly huge international arms market outside out borders where anyone with money can purchase whatever they desire, mofos are selling them daily on the street in Yourtown, USA wherever you live.
It's just more 'feel good' laws that politicians promote to make it look like they're tough on crime. What you don't NEED is a .50 to take off a politicians head a a 1/2 mile when a .308 or old 30.06 of the WW I era will do just fine. If a few of those heads were taken off maybe the slime bag politicos would get the message.
In there are any true ex-combat rifle guys out there then you know the M-16 A2 has an ample radius when scoped too.
Semper Fi!
http://1stbn4thmarines.com//Military-flags-animated/usmc.gif
In the US and most of the Western world it went past 'need' a long time ago. If it's OK for legitimate shooting competitions to crack off bullseyes at 3/4 mile with 'normal' .30 cal why is it sinister to do it with .50s? The whole point is that it is just plain fun and a challenge.
I'm goinf to the pistol range this weekend with my whole family and several other friends. My wif and daughters shoot and there will actually be more women along this time than men. It's fun puttin holes in paper- that's the bottom line. And there is no restriction on what pistols I can shoot.
Last time I was there a guy had a .454 Casull. Talk about noise! Well he dosen't 'need' that big of a caliber which has quite a long range when compared to other pistols, does he?
We don't need a lot of the crap we own. Who the hell 'needs' a jet ski? Who 'needs' a boat for that matter? Wouldn't it be easy for sleeper terrorists to pick up their buddies beyond the break water and sneak them into the country with explosives? Geez private ownership of boats ought to be banned!!!
What we do not NEED is people attempting to regulate every bit of our lives. No one has ever used a .50 caliber for criminal purpose. That doesn't bother the do-gooders though. Can you imagine the long list we can make of things that possibly might be used by evil-dooers?
I've been on the receiving end of Charlie's .51 cal (that's 13mm compared to 12.7 for .50 cal) and have seen a single round of 5.56 kill at close to a half mile too.
I used to dress and look like a cop driving a full sized company car, a Ford LTD in the 70s. I had people on 3 different occassions in Long Beach walk up to me, a guy in a suit in the detective's car of choice back then and been offered weapons for sale. One was a machine pistol.
Besides the utterly huge international arms market outside out borders where anyone with money can purchase whatever they desire, mofos are selling them daily on the street in Yourtown, USA wherever you live.
It's just more 'feel good' laws that politicians promote to make it look like they're tough on crime. What you don't NEED is a .50 to take off a politicians head a a 1/2 mile when a .308 or old 30.06 of the WW I era will do just fine. If a few of those heads were taken off maybe the slime bag politicos would get the message.
In there are any true ex-combat rifle guys out there then you know the M-16 A2 has an ample radius when scoped too.
Semper Fi!
http://1stbn4thmarines.com//Military-flags-animated/usmc.gif
codycool
02-23-2005, 02:01 PM
In there are any true ex-combat rifle guys out there then you know the M-16 A2 has an ample radius when scoped too.
Semper Fi!
http://1stbn4thmarines.com//Military-flags-animated/usmc.gif
Im not disputing the fact that taking .50 cals away would violate our 2nd amendment. I just dont see why anyone would want one. If you want one then so be it, I just dont see the point.
As for the m16a2 800 yards for a point target. As a Marine Corps expert I hit the black 10 times from 500! Are you with 1/4? I was with 3/5 0311!
Semper Fi!
http://1stbn4thmarines.com//Military-flags-animated/usmc.gif
Im not disputing the fact that taking .50 cals away would violate our 2nd amendment. I just dont see why anyone would want one. If you want one then so be it, I just dont see the point.
As for the m16a2 800 yards for a point target. As a Marine Corps expert I hit the black 10 times from 500! Are you with 1/4? I was with 3/5 0311!
Twitch1
02-23-2005, 04:41 PM
I hear ya bro. 0321 -recon in country 69-70. Point about what you and I wouldn't consider useful IS useful and fun for someone else. I don't hunt but those that do are fine with me. I certainly wouldn't want to be negative about something just cause I don't do it.
800 meters is about accurate max for the A2. And even then some shots are skilled luck. Now the M-14 was a nice tool! They had us train on both and we used M-16s.
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/waffen/violent-smiley-043.gif
800 meters is about accurate max for the A2. And even then some shots are skilled luck. Now the M-14 was a nice tool! They had us train on both and we used M-16s.
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/waffen/violent-smiley-043.gif
KustmAce
02-23-2005, 10:06 PM
Was the pun in this thread's title intended?
:rofl:
:rofl:
fredjacksonsan
02-24-2005, 08:36 AM
Im not disputing the fact that taking .50 cals away would violate our 2nd amendment. I just dont see why anyone would want one. If you want one then so be it, I just dont see the point.
Why do soccer moms run around in Ford Excursions when a minivan will do?
Same logic. They want something bigger and more fun.
Why do soccer moms run around in Ford Excursions when a minivan will do?
Same logic. They want something bigger and more fun.
Muscletang
02-24-2005, 10:22 PM
Why does a doctor drive a Ferrari to work when a Geo Metro will do?
Why do guys go out and buy 60 inch TVs when a 30 inch will do?
Why do people get huge speakers for their radios when the ones that came with it will do?
Why do guys want women to get breast implants when the ones they have are fine?
Why do people get expensive DVDs when a cheap VHS will play the same movie?
It's very simple that people want the bigger and better things. Guns are no different in this argument.
Why do guys go out and buy 60 inch TVs when a 30 inch will do?
Why do people get huge speakers for their radios when the ones that came with it will do?
Why do guys want women to get breast implants when the ones they have are fine?
Why do people get expensive DVDs when a cheap VHS will play the same movie?
It's very simple that people want the bigger and better things. Guns are no different in this argument.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025