This is what I did with my afternoon.

[Mark_T]

Originally Posted by Timco

Good thing California banned the .50 before a single crime was ever committed in the entire US!

There, now that is good, pro-active law-making. Why wait until some nutjob gets his hands on a Browning machine gun and opens up on a shopping mall. There's no need for any private citizen to have a .50

Does that apply to the .50 cal handgun cartridges as well?

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

There, now that is good, pro-active law-making. Why wait until some nutjob gets his hands on a Browning machine gun and opens up on a shopping mall. There's no need for any private citizen to have a .50

Does that apply to the .50 cal handgun cartridges as well?

Dude, you drank the Koolaid.....

Biggest "feel good" law ever. It weighs a ton, ammo is scarce, it costs a ton of money, very few can load for it, the scope is as much as a used car, and they banned it before it could do any harm. Dumbest thing I have ever heard, and a total waste of time. But, someone somewhere feels good about it, and that's what counts, not facts.

Just the sound of it...BROWNING MACHINE GUN!!! It's .50 BMG ammo. NOT a full auto Browning Machine Gun. Bolt action, single shot.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

Those "right to keep and bear arms" provision were made in another era when the was a real need for them that is no longer true today, and that provision is being used by individuals to own property that, in many cases, is simply inappropriate to be in private hands, just because it's "fun"

Here's an example. Here in Canada, firearms laws are continually being made more restrictive, but when the law changes, 'grandfathering' provisions are written into the new law that basically say that if you legally owned one of these now-prohibited firearms prior to a certain date, you are allowed to keep it and given a special permit, and there are often special conditions attached to its use. That's the back story.

Where I am going with this is that back when I was involved with shooting sports I had the opportunity to fire several legally ownerd fully automatic weapons - Sterling, Sten, Thompson, USAS12 (OMG!!) Uzi... I even got to stand with an UZI in each hand and chatter them both together - tell me that doesn't make you feel like Arnold. My point being that it was an incredibly fun experience and one I would repeat anytime, but I would never ever try to make the case that my fun was so important that these incredibly dangerous weapons should be legalized and put carte blanche into the hands of private citizens who have absolutely no justifiable reason for owning them, other than that they are "fun".

And this is how I feel about assault style rifles. There is no justifiable reason for owning them. "But i like them and they're fun" is not a justifiable reason and certain is not reason to put aside public safety. The fact that they are presently semi-auto is irrelevant. Every one of them can be fairly easily modified to full auto. Combine that with a couple of jungle-clipped banana mags and you have an assault weapon that simply could not be possible with your standard 5-round hunting or target rifle. To me, the need to protect our kids from the occasional whackos that get their hands on these guns completely outweighs personal enjoyment. There's lots of other great hobbies out there - pick one.

It's not that all of those types of guns shouldn't be in private hands, it;'s that some private hands are not stable or mature enough to own them.

As for the constitution thing, it also allowed for slaves and women could not vote. Yes, another era, but here we are and it still has authority over this issue.

A semi auto AR style gun cannot be easily modified to shoot full auto. Biggest lie around.

BTW, I own a Sterling SMP and an M1 Thompson, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and a 1927 Thompson (Al Capone era) among other fun guns.

No one said fun was the reason. It;s the constitution that allows me to own them. I need no other reasons.

[Mark_T]

Originally Posted by Timco

It;s the constitution that allows me to own them. I need no other reasons.

And that is the whole problem with the Americans pro-gun group. You are so concerned about your rights that you have completely lost sight of what is right.

[RawleyD]

removed

-RD

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by RawleyD

Just to play devil's advocate..
I replaced part of your quote with similar comments about our beloved cars.

And there ARE people out there that make the same remarks about high-powered cars.

A little food for thought. :dance:

I am not going to lie you did a good job making that statement sound like it was originally that way.

[Mark_T]

In Canada, we have gone after the handgun:
-Magazines over 10 rounds prohibited
-Barrel lengths less than 4" prohibited
-permits are available to transport cased handguns directly to and from the range only
-nobody gets either open or concealed carry permits unless you are a police officer or an armed guard transporting valuables. (The guards only get S&W model 10's)

The only exception I ever saw approved was three government scientists were given permits to carry a .44 mag revolver in a holster while working. This was because their work involved darting and tagging polar bears and there was a risk the bear might regain conciousness while they were still sitting on him. I saw lots of carry permit applications from northern bush pilots - all declined.

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

In Canada, we have gone after the handgun:
-Magazines over 10 rounds prohibited
-Barrel lengths less than 4" prohibited
-permits are available to transport cased handguns directly to and from the range only
-nobody gets either open or concealed carry permits unless you are a police officer or an armed guard transporting valuables. (The guards only get S&W model 10's)

which pales in comparison to the UK. But, seems to work for Canada. Thankfully lawmakers here in the US know those things would not stand. Different strokes. That being said I doubt many murders would be stopped because the shooter only had 10 rounds.

There, now that is good, pro-active law-making. Why wait until some nutjob gets his hands on a Browning machine gun and opens up on a shopping mall. There's no need for any private citizen to have a .50

Sarcasm???? It is hard to tell. Seeing as the ma deuce has not been illegal to buy for years... disregarding prohibitive price and any persons lack of ability to hip fire it.

[Mark_T]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

That being said I doubt many murders would be stopped because the shooter only had 10 rounds.

Just the mass murders, and that was the point of the restriction.

The magazine restrictions were a direct result of the Marc Lepine incident.

The 4" bbl restriction was an attempt to get rid of the "Saturday Night Special" type guns - cheaply made, highly concealable, readily available.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

Just the mass murders, and that was the point of the restriction.

The magazine restrictions were a direct result of the Marc Lepine incident.

The 4" bbl restriction was an attempt to get rid of the "Saturday Night Special" type guns - cheaply made, highly concealable, readily available.

Look up mass murders. How many used a gun? Ted Bundy? John Wayne Gacy? Berkowitz? Ramirez? Any guns used there?

A pistol would have been more effective at Newton, but an evil black gun was used and is now branded, not the mental health people who missed this kid, or his own stupid dead mom who gave him access. Why try to pick out the unqualified ones when we can simply ban them all, right?

[OKCShooter]

Holy "the Government is here to protect us", Batman.

Do you Libs take ANY responsibility to protect your Families?

Bad guys have guns regardless of the gun restrictions, why do you want law-abiding citizens to be limited?

Seriously, Man up.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by OKCShooter

Holy "the Government is here to protect us", Batman.

Do you Libs take ANY responsibility to protect your Families?

Bad guys have guns regardless of the gun restrictions, why do you want law-abiding citizens to be limited?

Seriously, Man up.

Telling someone to man up because they choose not to own guns doesn't help us look mature. It plays their "obsessed" and "compensating" game of name calling and put downs.

Same for the " I don't dial 911 (with handgun pic)" . So, you shoot out a fire or shoot someone that needs help? Totally redneck.

Or "this house protected by The Lord and a handgun. If you come in uninvited, you may meet them both" signs. Wow. That makes us look normal....NOT.

We need to rise above that. I quit trying to help my liberal friends see the light a long time ago because they have the right to not partake just like I have (for now ) the right to own guns and choose to do so. It doesn't make them any less of a man, just ignorant. (KIDDING!!)

[OKCShooter]

Originally Posted by Timco

Telling someone to man up because they choose not to own guns doesn't help us look mature. It plays their "obsessed" and "compensating" game of name calling and put downs.

Same for the " I don't dial 911 (with handgun pic)" . So, you shoot out a fire or shoot someone that needs help? Totally redneck.

Or "this house protected by The Lord and a handgun. If you come in uninvited, you may meet them both" signs. Wow. That makes us look normal....NOT.

We need to rise above that. I quit trying to help my liberal friends see the light a long time ago because they have the right to not partake just like I have (for now ) the right to own guns and choose to do so. It doesn't make them any less of a man, just ignorant. (KIDDING!!)

I don't care about looking "mature". I care about retaining my rights to protect my self/family without libs crying about it.

I can't believe that a simple picture of a stored firearm makes people cry like babies.

[Mark_T]

Originally Posted by OKCShooter

Holy "the Government is here to protect us", Batman.

Do you Libs take ANY responsibility to protect your Families?

Bad guys have guns regardless of the gun restrictions, why do you want law-abiding citizens to be limited?

Seriously, Man up.

Tired old pro-NRA rhetoric that simply doesn't hold up

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

Tired old pro-NRA rhetoric that simply doesn't hold up

Some yes, some no. I have a couple handguns for protection. No big deal. My SA rifles are a hobby. They can be used for that, but it not why I own them.

When the left throws every "for the children" and "military assault style automatic machine guns" argument out there, we're not expected to use the constitution or self defense or every sensible reply as well?

[Mark_T]

Well gents, this has been fun. I don't think either side came out with anything new but, given the number of times this debate has been waged, that's not too surprising. We've all got our lines down pat by now, and we sure know which buttons to push!

Timco - is your Garand a National Match? Would love to see a pic.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

Well gents, this has been fun. I don't think either side came out with anything new but, given the number of times this debate has been waged, that's not too surprising. We've all got our lines down pat by now, and we sure know which buttons to push!

Timco - is your Garand a National Match? Would love to see a pic.

Just a 1942 service rifle, mint condition but used. Springfield. My 1903A3 is a Singer.

I have the full length bayonet for it and the cut bayo, and the grenade launcher shuttle.

[Timco]

The wood & steel are the best...

[Mark_T]

that wood is gorgeous. Original?

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

that wood is gorgeous. Original?

The WWII guns are all original. As a collector I wouldn't buy a reassembled or pieced gun.