Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 1/10/2005 6:00:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:03:00 AM EDT
I don't want or need a .50, but to be honest, I may have to put one on the wish list just in case....
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:15:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 6:17:27 AM EDT by Q3131A]
Typical liberal bias. They set up the consevative side and then let the liberal side directly dispute the conservative argument.

Barrett:

But he scoffs at critics who claim that .50-caliber rifles are too dangerous in the hands of civilians. "The .50 has an excellent record. You know, as far as the abuses with .50-caliber rifles, they are so few, if any, that all other calibers ought to aspire to have as good a record as it has," says Barrett. "And it's a long rifle. When you hear people say it’s a criminal’s weapon, this is 5-and-a-half feet tall, or something like that. This is not a weapon that a criminal would use."


POS Diaz:

Diaz says the .50-caliber rifle made by Barrett and other manufacturers is a menace in the hands of terrorists. "This gun is designed and built to smash things up and to set things on fire," says Diaz. "It’s a battlefield weapon. Yet it is sold as freely on the American civilian market as a .22 bolt action rifle."

What's wrong with Barrett's product?

"I'm glad Ronnie Barrett makes his rifle for our military forces. I think it's a great thing on the battlefield," says Diaz. "I just think that there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it."

But isn’t any gun in the hands of a terrorist a threat?

"Well of course any gun is. But it is a gun that is unparalleled by any other small arm available to civilians," says Diaz. "We control every other kind of weapon of war you can think of – machine guns, plastic explosives, rockets. But this thing has flown under the radar for about 20 years."

Why would you need a weapon this powerful if you're not fighting a war? "It's a target rifle. It's a toy," says Barrett. "It's a high-end adult recreational toy. Any rifle in the hands of a terrorist is a deadly weapon."



Then bring in the police to give validity to the anti argument and scare tactics:

But New York City’s Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says the .50-caliber rifle is in a class by itself. He agreed to show 60 Minutes just how powerful the .50 caliber is.

First, a police sharpshooter fired the NYPD’s own .30 caliber sniper rifle at a steel target. Downrange, three football fields away, the three shots from the .30 caliber rifle bounced off the half-inch thick steel.

"You can see it hasn’t penetrated it," says Kelly.

Then the sharpshooter fired three rounds from a Barrett .50-caliber rifle at the same target.

"Went right through," says Kelly. "It is clearly a weapon of war, a round to be used in a wartime situation. It’s appropriate for the military. The effective range is about 2,000 yards. It’s a very formidable weapon."

In other words, if the NYPD’s range had been 20 football fields long, instead of three, the .50-caliber rifle – firing ordinary ammunition -- still would have been devastatingly effective.



Then let the liberal propose the "solution":

Diaz wants Congress to pass a law requiring, at a minimum, records to be kept of who’s buying .50-caliber rifles.

"The real question here is we do not know who has these terribly destructive rifles," says Diaz. "No one in the United States government knows who has these guns."

"Aren't records kept when a gun is sold," asks Bradley.

"The answer is no," says Diaz.



Then say the the government is not doing enough and we need less freedom:

Under the Brady Bill, sales records of guns used to be kept for 90 days, which enabled the FBI to check the names of gun purchasers against terror watch lists.

A year ago, at Attorney General John Ashcroft’s initiative, Congress reduced the period of record keeping from 90 days to 24 hours. That’s the policy that’s in effect today.



Summary:
Pro:
1. The gun isn't used in crime.
Anti:
1. This gun is designed and built to smash things up and to set things on fire.
2. It is a terrorist threat
3. It is uncontrolled
4. It is a weapon used by the military
5. The police are afraid and you should too
6. The rifle is too destructive for subjects to own
7. We need more laws
8. The fed.org is not doing enough. Subjects have too much freedom
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:33:01 AM EDT
i went and clicked on the guns in america link and it brings up a page that shows you statistics /state and a timeline "right to bear arms" which goes through what law was made when.. then they just happen to slip in colombine "Teen-agers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold kill 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School, fueling a new campaign on gun control." out of no were and it doesn't even fit into their law timeline they seemed to be following.

and then i realized what site i was at and it all made perfect sence... CBS. need i say more.
Top Top