CS: Target-.50 Peacekeeper
From: Pete Ansbro, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hunting of game and vermin I understand. I also recognise and accept > target shooting. I am also in favour of the concept of legal > preparedness for self-defence. > > Where does 50 cal fit in any of these? > > Ertarget shooting? Gotcher! You're in danger of falling into the old trap of selectively, and subjectively, discriminating against someone else's preferred sport on the basis of calibre/gun type. Ban 50 cal today and step by step, we'll all be down to .177 air rifles of less than 12 ft/lb! Where does any motor sport fit in with society's need for a motorised transport system? Same argument. Can we get back to intent please? If I fancy owning a Lee Enfield .303, it's because I'm interested in shooting with a bit of history - not because I have plans to form a small third world army. Pete Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Target-.50 Peacekeeper
From: "Alex Hamilton", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm still intrigued as to how they could define it without also banning lots of other things - which would be outside the scope of an order under Section 1(4). Going by the draft guidance the Home Office is concocting they still have yet to realise that if .50BMG was banned people could use, say 20mm instead. I think basically ACPO have been reading USA Today for too long. They don't seem to realise our gun laws are completely and totally different. Steve. __ I think we spend too much time examining the detail of proposed legislation and taking delight in pointing out that it will be too complicated, unenforceable, difficult to administer or that will also affect types of guns that should be outside its scope. Do ACPO really care if 50 cal. muzzleloaders will also be banned. Is it really a valid argument that if there is no evidence that a type of firearm has ever been used for illegal purpose that it should be permitted? On that basis everybody should be allowed to own a 25 pounder canon!! If any piece of stupid legislation is difficult to administer, they can engage thousands more civil servants and police and double the FAC fees to finance it - that will be no problem at all. I agree with Totty that any prohibition should be resisted because it is an erosion of freedom and those purporting to act in the interests of public safety should be required to prove that the private ownership of "whatever" constitutes danger to the public. But, we need to show that we are sensible too and that we are not demanding to be permitted to own firearms that only have military application, just because they are bigger, can kill at longer range, go off with a bigger bang .etc. So, what is the attraction of .50 cal? Very good for long range sniping? Is that a sport? Hunting of game and vermin I understand. I also recognise and accept target shooting. I am also in favour of the concept of legal preparedness for self-defence. Where does 50 cal fit in any of these? Alex -- The point that I was making is that an order under Section 1(4) has to relate to something that is "specially dangerous" and not available in significant numbers pre-1988. An order banning anything in .50 would obviously not be legal on that basis. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Target-.50 Peacekeeper
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Like you suggested before, it only needs someone to neck 50BMG down a bit - >and guess what? They have! See latest version of 'The Accurate Rifle' >magazine. >Cheers >VinceB >-- >I assume you mean the .50 Peacekeeper. > >Steve. Steve, & Vince, If your devious law makers are anything like our (US) lawmakers, then be prepared for a law that not only outlaws the actual firearm, but the ammunition as well, and any derivative of the casing. Better to fight against any law, than to have worry about the devil in the details of one. -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET -- I'm still intrigued as to how they could define it without also banning lots of other things - which would be outside the scope of an order under Section 1(4). Going by the draft guidance the Home Office is concocting they still have yet to realise that if .50BMG was banned people could use, say 20mm instead. I think basically ACPO have been reading USA Today for too long. They don't seem to realise our gun laws are completely and totally different. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Target-.50 Peacekeeper
From: "VinceB", [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you haven't already done so, I strongly urge you to write to the FCC about the proposed bans on .50BMG rifles and long- barrelled revolvers, there is a serious risk of them being prohibited. Steve, Like you suggested before, it only needs someone to neck 50BMG down a bit - and guess what? They have! See latest version of 'The Accurate Rifle' magazine. Cheers VinceB -- I assume you mean the .50 Peacekeeper. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
