One for the gun lovers

The Coffee Shop
21

You need a federal license for any fully automatic firearm. You don’t need a license for a .50, unless it’s a machine gun.

I doubt Ken’s friend is giving him accurate dope. If he is, the old woodworking fart is probably in serious violation of the law.

And yes, Monty, .50 cal rifles are frequently in use at my local range. There have been, as far as I’m aware, exactly no crimes committed with one.
Several years ago a Barrett .50 caliber rifle purchased legally here in the United States made its way to Northern Ireland where it was used to kill several British soldiers and bring down two helicopters.

22

I stand corrected.

I think, though, that such an incident does not exactly support the argument that we have to ban them to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

23

Oh, I almost forgot to ask: When are we going to ban 5 gallon cans of gasoline and ten penny nails?\

I only advocate banning things that have no pratical use. As for some common items, many are watched and regulated now, like fertilizer . There is no way to stop the low tech car bombs, we have to catch the people before they can act. We have to accept that there will be these types of incedents in the future. But a gun that shoots down helicopters, and can blow up a tanker truck on the hwy, seems like we can do something about that, and very easily and effictively… And that is not from the bottom up as you suggest. I would say that 50 cal is somewhere near the top of that slope, if not at it, in terms of legally bought weapons…Should shoulder fired missles be legal too??? Or is there actually a line that you will not cross???

24

"I think, though, that such an incident does not exactly support the argument that we have to ban them to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. "

I’ll probably regret this, but…you don’t think that a person buying a 50cal rifle and then either sending it or it getting stolen and sent to NI and used by terrorists supports the idea that we shouldn’t allow people to legally buy these weapons because they might fall into terrorist hands?

25

I have probably lost credibility…or never had it, but you need alot of training tp be effective with a .50. Sure you could do some damage close up, but why get a .50 for that when you could do the same damage with a deer rifle?

26

I think the fact that the IRA managed to get one, bring it to Northern Ireland, and shoot down a British helicopter with it shows rather clearly that gun control doesn’t pose much of an obstacle to terrorist groups, and that if AQ is interested in shooting down a plane or whatever with a .50 cal, it won’t matter a whit whether or not American citizens are allowed to own them.

27

I only advocate banning things that have no pratical use.

Handguns? I can’t remember if you favor banning them or not, refresh my memory.

But a gun that shoots down helicopters, and can blow up a tanker truck on the hwy, seems like we can do something about that, and very easily and effictively

Do you think? You can easily and effectively keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, yes. You really think you can easily and effectively keep them out of the hands of terrorists? Come on, be honest. How did that work out for the Brits Matt mentioned? You seriously think that if we banned these rifles, AQ would not be able to obtain them?

How about this: Why don’t you come up with an effective and easy way to keep *terrorists *from getting them? I’m all for that solution, when you invent it.

Be honest, monty. The threat of terrorism is not why you favor banning certain weapons. I would bet that you’d have favored the same ban long before any of the attacks of the recent past. Stop being disengenuous about it.

28

I’m thinking a .50 calibur weapon is very likely at the bottom of the list of items we should be concerned with relating to terrorist threats on the homefront. Although, they are bigger and noisyer, and can kill people 20% deader than a .40 calibur round, so maybe there’s something to that argument.

29

I am thinking that if a few guys with box cutters hasn’t convinced us of the futility of fighting terrorists by gun control, nothing will.

But I really don’t think anyone wants to ban any guns to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Nobody believes it will stop the terrorists from attacking us, and I think everyone who wants a particular gun banned wants it banned regardless of terrorism, and always has. Invoking the GWOT is just a tactic they find convenient in the current climate of fear.

30

So, the fact that terrorists in Northern Ireland got one through a legal purchase tells you we should just keep on letting them be legal? I’m still trying to wrap my head around that. I didn’t know you could use a negative outcome to justify not doing anything to control the same negative outcome.

31

I don’t know that the purchase was legal or not, though it seems that it wasn’t. The point is that organized terrorist organizations are not likely to be stopped from obtaining a weapon as pedestrian as a rifle by a gun ban.

But hey, if you want to think AQ wouldn’t be able to lay their paws on a .50 cal if only we banned them, go on ahead.

32

** Invoking the GWOT is just a tactic they find convenient in the current climate of fear.**

Is anyone actually The War Against Terror (makes for a snappier acronym, I think) as a grounds for more gun control? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that angle, not that it would surprise me if I did.

On that note, I’ve concluded that any presidential candidate who continues to spew the phrase “We are safer, but we are not yet safe” must not only be shunned at the poles, but must also have their tongue surgically removed with a dirty spork.

33

“I don’t know that the purchase was legal or not, though it seems that it wasn’t.”

Really? Cause here’s the scenario we’re talking about:

“Several years ago a Barrett .50 caliber rifle purchased legally here in the United States made its way to Northern Ireland where it was used to kill several British soldiers and bring down two helicopters.”

Sounds like the purchase was legal.

“But hey, if you want to think AQ wouldn’t be able to lay their paws on a .50 cal if only we banned them, go on ahead.”

I think a couple of things. First, I don’t think that just because AQ might get them anyways is a good enough reason for us not to try to keep AQ from getting then from us. Second, I think that if civilians weren’t allowed to buy these weapons legally, there might be less market, and hence less money, and hence less production, and hence less guns, and hence maybe less guns in the hands of AQ. Or, more likely, the same amount of guns in the hands of AQ, but at least we wouldn’t be supporting them with our economy and our legal gun trade. Seems like the principle has to stand for something at some point.

34

“I don’t know that the purchase was legal or not, though it seems that it wasn’t.”
Really?

Yes, really. Straw purchases are illegal, and I have a hard time imagining how else a .50 cal purchased here finds it’s way into the hands of the IRA. But who knows? Matt, maybe, and maybe he’ll fill us in on more details.

It’s not really relevant, though.

The rest of your post is basically an admission that you don’t think keeping them out of the hands of AQ is the real reason for banning them. So, we’re in agreement. Let’s not fight over that.

35

“Straw purchases are illegal, and I have a hard time imagining how else a .50 cal purchased here finds it’s way into the hands of the IRA.”

I find it difficult to believe that you have such limited imagination, especially given the significant IRA-friendly Irish population in this country. Also, I suppose I was going with the given scenario, instead of deciding it was probably wrong. If you are going to disregard the givens of the problem, then I guess that makes it much easier to come up with any result you want.

"…“you don’t think keeping them out of the hands of AQ is the real reason for banning them.”

I guess it’s more of us not handing them to them, but ok.

36

I find it difficult to believe that you have such limited imagination, especially given the significant IRA-friendly Irish population in this country.

Yeah, that’s what I was imagining, actually. A pro-IRA American citizen who buys a .50 cal to ship to the IRA. An illegal purchase, in other words.

Of course, I suppose it’s feasible that there was a pro-IRA American citizen who just happened to have purchased a .50 cal years prior, for his own legitimate use, then heard from a little bird that the IRA wouldn’t mind having a rifle just like his, so he gifted it to them. Which transfer is illegal, but at least the original purchase would have been technically legal. For whatever that’s worth.

** I suppose I was going with the given scenario, instead of deciding it was probably wrong. If you are going to disregard the givens of the problem**

It wasn’t some hypothetical Matt cooked up to give our brains some exercise, commodore. It was an actual event. And as I’ve said, I don’t find it likely that the gun was purchased legally. If Matt has more information that shows the purchase *was *legal, he is free to post it.

It’s still not relevant, really. And banning .50 cal rifles will not make us an iota safer from AQ. And I maintain that nobody who wants them banned is motivated by the threat of terrorism. They want them banned for other reasons.

37

“A pro-IRA American citizen who buys a .50 cal to ship to the IRA. An illegal purchase, in other words.”

And yet, purchased through all the perfectly legal channels that would define a “legal” purchase for all practical extents and purposes.

“Of course, I suppose it’s feasible that there was a pro-IRA American citizen who just happened to have purchased a .50 cal years prior, for his own legitimate use, then heard from a little bird that the IRA wouldn’t mind having a rifle just like his, so he gifted it to them.”

Or, more to the point, the rifle was bought perfectly legally by a run-of-the-mill citizen, but was then sold and/or stolen subsequently and made it’s way to Ireland. Either way, the result is the same, and the rifle entered the market legally, which is the whole point.

“It wasn’t some hypothetical Matt cooked up to give our brains some exercise, commodore. It was an actual event.”

Yeah, thanks for the explanation, but I knew that already. However, since we have only what we were told about the real situation, I didn’t really see any reason to assume away the elements of the scenario arbitrarily.

"If Matt has more information that shows the purchase was legal, he is free to post it. "

So, Matt tells you about a legal purchase, you decide he’s wrong, and HE has to prove himself right? Seems like you complained about a similar tactic being used against you not so long ago.

"They want them banned for other reasons. "

In general, I agree. However, the same argument made in the case of this 50cal could and is being made for other more prolific weapons that are falling into enemy hands and being used against our Soldiers or our allies.

38

So, Matt tells you about a legal purchase, you decide he’s wrong, and HE has to prove himself right?

Matt doesn’t have to do anything at all, and I’m not accusing him of anything. I’m only saying that it doesn’t seem to me that the original purchase was legal, because I find it highly unlikely that it was anything other than a straw purchase, which is, still, illegal.

Without additional details, I’m going to stick with that judgement. That’s all.

To be honest, I’m not all that interested in that side argument. It still isn’t relevant.

**the same argument made in the case of this 50cal could and is being made for other more prolific weapons that are falling into enemy hands and being used against our Soldiers or our allies. **

Do tell.

39

“Do tell.”

Well, substitute AK-47 for 50cal. There’ that was easy.

40

Well, substitute AK-47 for 50cal. There’ that was easy.

Uh . . . There are a lot of AK-47’s purchased in the open, private market being used against our soldiers?