Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
On 2005-01-08T12:54:25-0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > >What else would the PATRIOT act do? That's a particularly malicious That was scarcasm. > >psychological trick on the part of the miserable bastards who named it. > >It doesn't so much matter that it's obvious. > > Somehow, I don't think the bastards were hoping for the kind of > "Patriotism" I have in mind: Large caliber guns to protect our > constitutional freedoms, or at least to make it damn costly for individuals > to carry out orders trying to take them away. It's the socially conservative public at large who have fallen prey to the association between the PATRIOT act and patriotism. I did not intend to suggest that you or most other cypherpunks members have. -- "War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
What else would the PATRIOT act do? That's a particularly malicious psychological trick on the part of the miserable bastards who named it. It doesn't so much matter that it's obvious. Somehow, I don't think the bastards were hoping for the kind of "Patriotism" I have in mind: Large caliber guns to protect our constitutional freedoms, or at least to make it damn costly for individuals to carry out orders trying to take them away. -TD
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
On 2005-01-06T12:06:40-0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > > Well, I used to be pro gun-control prior to the Patriot Act. Guess the > Patriot Act made me something of a Patriot. What else would the PATRIOT act do? That's a particularly malicious psychological trick on the part of the miserable bastards who named it. It doesn't so much matter that it's obvious. I should like to take this opportunity to remind that it's an acronym, and therefore is properly written in all caps. The taboo against YELLING should carry over to the acronym, making people subconsciously dislike it. -- "War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
"Roy M. Silvernail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What leads you to believe that was accidental? Most likely the fact that Michael Moore is pro-gun control. It shows a certain level of cognitive dissonance to say "guns aren't the problem! Ban guns!" Of course, in Michael Moore's case, that level of dissonance was long ago demonstrated (and surpassed). -- Riad S. Wahby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
Tyler Durden wrote: And come to think of it, "Bowling for Columbine" has the accidental affect of making it clear that Guns themselves are not the problem in the US. What leads you to believe that was accidental? -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not "It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFT SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
Well, I used to be pro gun-control prior to the Patriot Act. Guess the Patriot Act made me something of a Patriot. And come to think of it, "Bowling for Columbine" has the accidental affect of making it clear that Guns themselves are not the problem in the US. -TD From: "Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:45:22 -0800 At 09:53 AM 1/4/05 -0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: >Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the governor, said Mr. Schwarzenegger, a >Republican, had made his position clear during his campaign. > > "It's a military-type weapon," Ms. Carbaugh said of the .50 BMG, "and he >believes the gun presents a clear and present danger to the general public." Ms C has earned herself a few hundred footpounds, or a few meters of rope and tree-rental. The Constitution explicitly protects our right to bear military (not animal-hunting) arms. -- An RPG a day keeps the occupiers away.
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
At 09:53 AM 1/4/05 -0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: >Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the governor, said Mr. Schwarzenegger, a >Republican, had made his position clear during his campaign. > > "It's a military-type weapon," Ms. Carbaugh said of the .50 BMG, "and he >believes the gun presents a clear and present danger to the general public." Ms C has earned herself a few hundred footpounds, or a few meters of rope and tree-rental. The Constitution explicitly protects our right to bear military (not animal-hunting) arms. -- An RPG a day keeps the occupiers away.
RE: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
John Kelsey wrote > Interesting questions: How hard is it for someone to > actually hit an airplane with a rifle bullet? How often do > airplane maintenance people notice bulletholes? Damn hard. There's a reason winghunters use shotguns, and anti-aircraft guns are full auto. The only way an attacker would have a chance is to stand at the end of the runway, and fire while the plane passes overhead. I have heard of police choppers and ultra lights being fired on from the ground, but never a commercial flight in the US. The scenario the gun-grabbers posit is someone doing this with tracer rounds. Commercial aircraft do not have self-sealing tanks, and if the attacker is incredibly lucky he might be able to start a fire. 50 BMG can be effectively used in anti-material roles, but firing on planes in the air is not one of them. Barrett actually tried to make an shoulder-fired AA model at one point, but abandoned it as impractical. As has been pointed out, 50 BMG rifles have never been used in the commission of a felony. They are being demonized because they Look Scary (check out www.barrettrifles.com). Peter Trei
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
Interesting questions: How hard is it for someone to actually hit an airplane with a rifle bullet? How often do airplane maintenance people notice bulletholes? My understanding is that a single bullethole in a plane is not likely to do anything serious to its operation--the hole isn't big enough to depressurize the cabin of a big plane, and unless it hits some critical bits of the plane, it's not going to cause mechanical problems. I don't think the bigger .50 round would fundamentally change that. So this could be one of those things that just happens from time to time, without getting much press. (Most people have never heard of phantom controllers either, but they're a real phenomenon, and they seem at least as dangerous as some nut with a rifle taking potshots at landing planes.) --John
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
A timely report. A documentary is due out shortly which includeds the likely assassination of officials with such army-of-one weapons. Sniping is the chink in VIP protection armor. Why? Because ego-driven assholes lust to be seen, and best, photographed outside the armoring of vehicles, aircraft and structures. The very targeting head shot snipers are trained to patiently wait for are the ones photographers are paid to arrange just so, Sergeant York turkey-calling, "over here sir." Who was the freedom fighter who smilingly welcomed death by public appearance. Archduke, Reagan, JFK, Masouf, or Abe himself. All those pissed off, well-tested snipers from Operation Iraqi Freedom on all sides. The Secret Service claims you cannot spot a serious assassin ahead of time, that braggarts and threateners are not the real thing -- sorry 'bout that outing Tim. More at US Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center: http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac.shtml
California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/national/04guns.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=> The New York Times January 4, 2005 California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On By CAROLYN MARSHALL AN FRANCISCO, Jan. 3 - California has become the first state to ban a powerful .50-caliber long-range rifle that gun control advocates portray as a military firearm that could easily fall into the hands of terrorists bent on assassination or shooting down an airplane. Under the ban, which was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in September and took effect on Jan. 1, it is now illegal to manufacture, sell, distribute or import a weapon known as the .50-caliber BMG, or Browning machine gun rifle, a single-shot weapon widely used not only by law enforcement officers and the military but, more recently, by civilian sport shooters as well. The new law limits possession to those who already own the rifle; they have until April 30, 2006, to register it or face a misdemeanor charge. Gun rights advocates fear that the California legislation will prompt other states to follow - similar efforts have been undertaken in New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and Virginia, but have failed - and enthusiasts are already devising ways to alter the gun and so circumvent the law without breaking it. Another result of the law is that in the weeks before it took effect, people rushing to buy the limited supplies of .50 BMG's descended on gun shops throughout California. Now that it is in force, some of the gun's out-of-state makers and distributors have threatened not to sell any of their firearms or services here. "We all think it's the first step toward banning sniper rifles," said Michael Fournier, owner of the Gun Exchange, a shop in San Jose. "They keep chipping away a little at a time. Eventually they'll try to get them all." A lawyer for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, a lobby that fought the legislation, said that for the first time gun control advocates had managed "to demonize" a firearm that gun proponents and lawmaker allies say has never been used to commit a crime in the United States. The lawyer, Chuck Michel, said the .50 BMG, which weighs 30 pounds and can cost $2,000 to $8,000, was typically bought by collectors, shooting range enthusiasts and skilled competitors. "Criminals don't carry around very pricey, very heavy rifles," Mr. Michel said. "They want handguns they can conceal." The .50 BMG rifle, patented in 1987 by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing of Murfreesboro, Tenn., was designed as a sniper weapon for law enforcement and the military; it was widely used by American troops during the Persian Gulf war of 1991. Manufacturers say the rifle is accurate at a range of up to 2,000 yards, more than a mile. It fires bullets five and a half inches long described as powerful enough to rip through armor, much less the thin aluminum skin that covers commercial airliners. "They can pierce the skin of an aircraft," said Daniel R. Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a central supporter of the law. "It could be used to shoot down an airplane. And we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it." The legislation's author, Assemblyman Paul Koretz, a Democrat from West Hollywood, concedes that street criminals would most likely view the .50 BMG as too much gun for the typical robbery or drive-by shooting. Rather, the law is intended to help keep the weapon out of the hands of "terrorists, general nut cases and survivalists," Mr. Koretz said, citing government reports suggesting that it had been used in assassinations overseas and that at least 25 had been bought by Osama bin Laden. Mr. Michel, the lawyer for the gun rights group, said that adopting the ban in the name of fighting terrorism was without merit. "The terrorist can get a nuclear dirty bomb or a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher," he said. "The .50-caliber is just a peashooter in comparison." But while there is no conclusive evidence that the .50 BMG rifle has ever been used in the United States to commit a felony, it has nonetheless been seized from American criminals' arsenals. A 1999 briefing paper from the General Accounting Office, predecessor of the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, said, "We have established a nexus to terrorist groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs, international drug cartels, domestic drug dealers, religious cults, militia groups, potential assassins and violent criminals." A side effect of the new law is the ill will it has instilled toward Mr. Schwarzenegger among gun rights advocates. Many of them supported him for governor, and maintain that his signing the legislation was an act of betrayal. "You know what we call hi
