Newest Threads

Squirrel_Slayer · 11-02-2010, 05:32 PM

I am not exactly sure on where I stand on this topic. Everyone has some valid points. One question that I have, being that I am from California where it is unlawful for anyone to own a .50 caliber rifle, is why is it this way? Is someone likely to go hold up a liqour store with an Armalite AR50? I would certainly hope not. Is it more likely they are going to hold up a liqour store with a .38 spcl? I think so. If I was able to afford a .50, I have access to a 1000 yard range. This is a viable and usable firearm for me to posess. Slightly irritating to me...

**Yunus** · 11-02-2010, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkt

I'd rather have a neighbor I trust with a nuke in his garage than a deranged son-of-a-bitch who hates my guts with a .22. But I digress.

Would you rather see the military might of this nation rest with the government or with the people?

How 'bout this: States store WMD of every sort, securely and responsibly, as part of the militia's (people's) ordnance. The feds may ask politely for us to use them. Crazy concept, eh? That's how it used to work.

Well I understand the .22 comment, I guess I would respond by saying I would prefer the deranged guy to have a .22 or fully auto weapon rather than NBC weapons.

Having the military might in the states is fine so long as once they are to be used in war they are commanded at the federal level. It's tough enough to get the Army and Air Force to work together (let alone Navy and Marines which are part of the same service) to try to get 50 different states working together during war would be a logistics nightmare and likely a pissing contest that would degrade the war fighting capability.

I imagine if states were in charge of the military budget that California would cut it's military right now due to budget constraints and rely on the rest of the states to pickup the slack. It would create an unfair unbalance that could cause major security issues for the country as a whole. California being a border state might be a bad example but Kentucky might decide to not have a military and just save the money. Fear of a direct military assault on this country is not the same as it was 200 years ago.

**CA357** · 11-02-2010, 05:44 PM

Here in the People's Republik, any LEO may purchase pretty much any firearm they want including a .50 Barrett. As civilians, we are restricted to what is approved. Apparently, shall not be infringed only applies to certain people.

Squirrel_Slayer · 11-02-2010, 05:49 PM

CA, I have seen sighns in places such as Wild Sports that states "Active LEO and retired military personnel are able to purchase .50BMG" if I recall. Is that true? I would think that alot of non active military personnel would be firing these things off if such was the case. Why is it that Rancho Cordova Gun Range can offer their .50 Armalite for use by the public? Is it simply because they have an FFL license?

**CA357** · 11-02-2010, 06:00 PM

I don't think you need an exemption to shoot one, only to own one.
I don't know about Cordova, I haven't been there in quite some time and the last time was to do a transfer.

**orangello** · 11-02-2010, 06:20 PM

I cannot afford, nor do i personally see a real need for me to have a fully automatic or even burst fire rifle, handgun, or shotgun. I wouldn't mind having a claymore or thirty, but i probably wouldn't spend the money on them if i could. I would consider pitching in some money on a full-auto AK with a few buddies, for range fun.

However, i have nooooo problem with other people (citizens) being able to arm themselves with pretty much whatever, small arms wise. I would prefer that the previously mentioned NBC items be restricted to or traceable to a person with a permit of some kind. If you want a tank, and can afford one then go for it.

**Yunus** · 11-02-2010, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangello

I cannot afford, nor do i personally see a real need for me to have a fully automatic or even burst fire rifle, handgun, or shotgun. I wouldn't mind having a claymore or thirty, but i probably wouldn't spend the money on them if i could. I would consider pitching in some money on a full-auto AK with a few buddies, for range fun.

Remove the government fees and artificial price increase due to the ban and you would be able to afford a fully auto if you could afford a semi-auto of whatever gun. What's the difference, a small part and maybe a heavier barrel due to increased heat.

**Cory2** · 11-05-2010, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CA357

Here in the People's Republik, any LEO may purchase pretty much any firearm they want including a .50 Barrett. As civilians, we are restricted to what is approved. Apparently, shall not be infringed only applies to certain people.

hmmm... not a Barrett. Barrett (being based in TN and therefore not being a bunch of sellout bi....) Stopped "selling or servicing" any .50bmg rifles to the california police,in 2004, because they believe (as do I) that the cops shouldnt have anything the civilians do not have.

As for my beliefs on firearms and weapons of war in general and what should and shouldnt be legal. I believe that anything the military has short of weapons of mass destruction (that term makes me sick.. its retarded) should be legal. I think some of the higher end stuff such as howizters or ordnance for aircraft or guns for battleships should require special permits that involve very extensive investigation. However, if the cops are allowed to purchase new automatic weapons at their actual value, not inflated value from a ban, than so should I or anyone else who isn't a violent offender and desires to own one.

In the current situation i think that police should not be able to possess automatic firearms unless they get their own permits and purchase the firearms at full market value (how much it would cost for a civilian... i.e. several thousand) with their own money out of their own paycheck just like anyone else, this includes swat members. Basicly i would prefer our cops to be considered civilians.

**CA357** · 11-05-2010, 03:14 AM

They sell .416 Barretts at the shop. We've sold .50's to LEO's for their own personal use. Barrett won't sell or service to/for law enforcement agencies in CA.

God gave me the right to self defense and 2A confirms it. That's all the permission I need.

billdeserthills · 11-05-2010, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkt

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.

I don't see limits implied in that, nor do I see where it says I have to get a permit. At least at the federal level, there should be no bans whatsoever. On anything.

What individual states do is another matter.

I so hate how it says "Shall Not Be Infringed"
then it gets crapped on all over it

Newest Threads

Newest Classifieds