Forums | MacLife

there haven't been any murders with a .50 .

Well when one happens you can feel free to talk about how there are such a "menace" to society.

Potential menace to society.  Somehow, if given foresight, I don't imagine you'd be against the banning of something that would have prevented 9/11, simply because nothing has happened yet.

How is someone going to kill on the scale of 9/11 with a .50?

...but you are perfectly welcome to discuss them.

thanks

there haven't been any murders with a .50 .

Well when one happens you can feel free to talk about how there are such a "menace" to society.

Potential menace to society.  Somehow, if given foresight, I don't imagine you'd be against the banning of something that would have prevented 9/11, simply because nothing has happened yet.

How is someone going to kill on the scale of 9/11 with a .50?

You're not so good at this whole logic thing, are you?  Unless you don't consider something that will cause under 3,000 deaths a problem to our society, the potential is definitely there:

"They have the potential to shoot down both commercial and private aircraft, helicopters and disable other transportation. A terrorist armed with a .50-caliber weapon and incendiary ammunition could attack oil or gas pipelines and storage facilities, chemical plants and other hazardous industrial facilities."

there haven't been any murders with a .50 .

Well when one happens you can feel free to talk about how there are such a "menace" to society.

Potential menace to society.  Somehow, if given foresight, I don't imagine you'd be against the banning of something that would have prevented 9/11, simply because nothing has happened yet.

How is someone going to kill on the scale of 9/11 with a .50?

You're not so good at this whole logic thing, are you?  Unless you don't consider something that will cause under 3,000 deaths a problem to our society, the potential is definitely there:

"They have the potential to shoot down both commercial and private aircraft, helicopters and disable other transportation. A terrorist armed with a .50-caliber weapon and incendiary ammunition could attack oil or gas pipelines and storage facilities, chemical plants and other hazardous industrial facilities."

That is total crap, but you wouldnt know because you have probably attacked oil or gas pipelines and storage facilities, chemical plants and other hazardous industrial facilitie and shot down private aircraft and helicopters with a .50 in counter strike.

Anyhow Steyr, when did you suddenly decide that anything someone might find 'interesting' should be legal?

When it is legal most everywhere else its interesting to wonder why california bans it

Well I don't think it's all that hard to see why they might not want people running about with large calibre sniper weapons.  Especially considering the recent DC sniper.

that wasnt a .50. Banning .50s arent going to stop sniper shootings.

How many more people would have been killed if they had of used a .50?

Probably none.  The D.C. sniper case is not a good analogy.  However, a .50 could probably do something to an armored limousine, or a jumbo jet, that the other rifles could not.

I would love to see ANYONE who could hit a plane with a .50

there haven't been any murders with a .50 .

Well when one happens you can feel free to talk about how there are such a "menace" to society.

Potential menace to society.  Somehow, if given foresight, I don't imagine you'd be against the banning of something that would have prevented 9/11, simply because nothing has happened yet.

How is someone going to kill on the scale of 9/11 with a .50?

You're not so good at this whole logic thing, are you?  Unless you don't consider something that will cause under 3,000 deaths a problem to our society, the potential is definitely there:

"They have the potential to shoot down both commercial and private aircraft, helicopters and disable other transportation. A terrorist armed with a .50-caliber weapon and incendiary ammunition could attack oil or gas pipelines and storage facilities, chemical plants and other hazardous industrial facilities."

That is total crap, but you wouldnt know because you have probably attacked oil or gas pipelines and storage facilities, chemical plants and other hazardous industrial facilitie and shot down private aircraft and helicopters with a .50 in counter strike.

Ah yes, instead of actually stating why the Physicians for Social Responsibility analysis is wrong (and possibly, providing evidence?  Nah.) you're back to ranting about CounterStrike.  Quite pathetic.

Does someone really have to prove you can't shoot down a plane with a .50 sniper rifle?

there haven't been any murders with a .50 .

Well when one happens you can feel free to talk about how there are such a "menace" to society.

Potential menace to society.  Somehow, if given foresight, I don't imagine you'd be against the banning of something that would have prevented 9/11, simply because nothing has happened yet.

How is someone going to kill on the scale of 9/11 with a .50?

You're not so good at this whole logic thing, are you?  Unless you don't consider something that will cause under 3,000 deaths a problem to our society, the potential is definitely there:

"They have the potential to shoot down both commercial and private aircraft, helicopters and disable other transportation. A terrorist armed with a .50-caliber weapon and incendiary ammunition could attack oil or gas pipelines and storage facilities, chemical plants and other hazardous industrial facilities."

That is total crap, but you wouldnt know because you have probably attacked oil or gas pipelines and storage facilities, chemical plants and other hazardous industrial facilitie and shot down private aircraft and helicopters with a .50 in counter strike.

Ah yes, instead of actually stating why the Physicians for Social Responsibility analysis is wrong (and possibly, providing evidence?  Nah.) you're back to ranting about CounterStrike.  Quite pathetic.

Does someone really have to prove you can't shoot down a plane with a .50 sniper rifle?

Please do.

there haven't been any murders with a .50 .

Well when one happens you can feel free to talk about how there are such a "menace" to society.

Potential menace to society.  Somehow, if given foresight, I don't imagine you'd be against the banning of something that would have prevented 9/11, simply because nothing has happened yet.

How is someone going to kill on the scale of 9/11 with a .50?

You're not so good at this whole logic thing, are you?  Unless you don't consider something that will cause under 3,000 deaths a problem to our society, the potential is definitely there:

"They have the potential to shoot down both commercial and private aircraft, helicopters and disable other transportation. A terrorist armed with a .50-caliber weapon and incendiary ammunition could attack oil or gas pipelines and storage facilities, chemical plants and other hazardous industrial facilities."

That is total crap, but you wouldnt know because you have probably attacked oil or gas pipelines and storage facilities, chemical plants and other hazardous industrial facilitie and shot down private aircraft and helicopters with a .50 in counter strike.

Ah yes, instead of actually stating why the Physicians for Social Responsibility analysis is wrong (and possibly, providing evidence?  Nah.) you're back to ranting about CounterStrike.  Quite pathetic.

Does someone really have to prove you can't shoot down a plane with a .50 sniper rifle?

Please do.

try firing a real gun and you will understand

What irrefutable proof!

Again, beyond displaying to the world that you like guns, you are saying absolutely nothing.

Err, I hate to interrupt this...  But how are you gonna shoot down a plane that's a couple miles in the air?   Provided you're on the ground and have nothing larger than a .50, I think you're in trouble.

Err, I hate to interrupt this...  But how are you gonna shoot down a plane that's a couple miles in the air?   Provided you're on the ground and have nothing larger than a .50, I think you're in trouble.

Why would it have to be miles in the air?  I would imagine that any reasonably smart terrorist would fire at it while it is moving relatively slowly at takeoff or landing. 

My personal musings are not the issue at hand, however.  Certain analysis's of the weapon have found that they could be a threat, and short of talking about counterstrike, Steyr has done nothing to disprove this.

Err, I hate to interrupt this...  But how are you gonna shoot down a plane that's a couple miles in the air?   Provided you're on the ground and have nothing larger than a .50, I think you're in trouble.

Why would it have to be miles in the air?  I would imagine that any reasonably smart terrorist would fire at it while it is moving relatively slowly at takeoff or landing. 

My personal musings are not the issue at hand, however.  Certain analysis's of the weapon have found that they could be a threat, and short of talking about counterstrike, Steyr has done nothing to disprove this.

I dont have to, the article did it for me:

Other gun-rights groups said it is wrong to punish law-abiding Americans for what may or may not happen.

"If this is a good way to make laws, then we ought to ban politicians," Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily. "We know from the past that some of them invariably become dictators, and more of them become thieves. In order to avoid that, we ought to just have no politicians."

Err, I hate to interrupt this...  But how are you gonna shoot down a plane that's a couple miles in the air?   Provided you're on the ground and have nothing larger than a .50, I think you're in trouble.

Why would it have to be miles in the air?  I would imagine that any reasonably smart terrorist would fire at it while it is moving relatively slowly at takeoff or landing. 

My personal musings are not the issue at hand, however.  Certain analysis's of the weapon have found that they could be a threat, and short of talking about counterstrike, Steyr has done nothing to disprove this.

I dont have to, the article did it for me:

Other gun-rights groups said it is wrong to punish law-abiding Americans for what may or may not happen.

"If this is a good way to make laws, then we ought to ban politicians," Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily. "We know from the past that some of them invariably become dictators, and more of them become thieves. In order to avoid that, we ought to just have no politicians."

Having a little trouble reading?  It is late, so I understand.  Your little selection doesn't even attempt to address the possibility that these weapons could be used for the beforementioned actions...  it's a paranoid right-wing nut talking about politicians turning into dictators, that, even if it were true, is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Err, I hate to interrupt this...  But how are you gonna shoot down a plane that's a couple miles in the air?   Provided you're on the ground and have nothing larger than a .50, I think you're in trouble.

Why would it have to be miles in the air?  I would imagine that any reasonably smart terrorist would fire at it while it is moving relatively slowly at takeoff or landing. 

My personal musings are not the issue at hand, however.  Certain analysis's of the weapon have found that they could be a threat, and short of talking about counterstrike, Steyr has done nothing to disprove this.

I dont have to, the article did it for me:

Other gun-rights groups said it is wrong to punish law-abiding Americans for what may or may not happen.

"If this is a good way to make laws, then we ought to ban politicians," Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily. "We know from the past that some of them invariably become dictators, and more of them become thieves. In order to avoid that, we ought to just have no politicians."

Like I said, is it right to assume that just because something hasn't happened yet that it will never happen?

watch steyr run off and never mention this again...