Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/3/2004 5:56:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 6:01:06 AM EST by JIMBEAM]
From DU


CarinKaryn (354 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:22 PM
Original message
A better method of banning dangerous weapons of war


The major failing of the AWB was that it banned some weapons by name, and others by defining them as having certain characteristics or features. All a manufacturer had to do to evade the ban was change the name or slightly alter the existing weapon (for example by grinding off the bayonet mount) and the weapon (with the exact same killing power as before) was now legal.

The definition California is using to ban the .50 cal weapons of war also seems to fall into the same trap. As many of the gun nuts have pointed out, by altering one or two features of the bullet (for example, by making a .49 caliber bullet instead of .50) the ban can be legally avoided.

Here is the definition currently being used by California:

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.

How can we craft a bill that has the intended outcome – to ban large caliber, high power weapons from civilian ownership? I think we need a better definition, one that will be much harder to evade. I’ve got a much simpler way to define what would be banned and what would be ok for citizens to own. Ban by kinetic energy produced by the bullet.

Any bullet that produces over 5000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy as measured at the muzzle is BANNED.

This would allow handgun shooters of the .45 (a very popular size) to keep their bullets as the .45 pistol does not have the bullet weight or velocity to push it over the ft-lb energy limit. If a shooter wants to compensate for the small size of their own weapon buy firing larger bullets, for example a .46 or .50 or .51, fine, as long as the total energy of the bullet does not exceed 5000 ft-lbs. (if the size of the bullet is bigger, the speed of the bullet must be slower to stay under the 5000 ft-lb limit).

Black powder shooters (people who shoot 100 year old guns loaded by hand, instead of from a pre manufactured bullet) could still shoot their old rifles for hunting or target (these rifles are often large caliber, like .55 or ever .69) but their low velocity means low total energy also, so they would be not banned.

Using this system the high ENERGY bullets, the ones that can do the damage, like those sold to Osama and those in the arsenal of the Waco gun nuts, would be banned and no one would be able to evade the law by simply designing a .49 cal bullet that is in effect the same thing as the .50.

What does everyone think? How can we improve this definition?



shylock1579 (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #4

7. And


I think your proposal makes sense. We will never ban guns (and frankly, I don't want to) but at least we can put limits on them. The distance a stray bullet can fly makes a huge difference, as does the damage a close-range bullet can do with the velocities you mentioned. I'd rather be shot in the shoulder by a .50 cal muzzle loaded that lose my entire arm to a Barret Light .50.




Jack_DeLeon (466 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:57 PM
Response to Original message

10. The best way to get rid of weapons of war...


is to ban war.

Instead of just trying to cure the symptoms lets cure the disease.

I propose that the US passes a federal law to ban war.

Once war is outlawed there will be no need for weapons of war.



Jack_DeLeon (466 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:57 PM
Response to Original message

10. The best way to get rid of weapons of war...


is to ban war.

Instead of just trying to cure the symptoms lets cure the disease.

I propose that the US passes a federal law to ban war.

Once war is outlawed there will be no need for weapons of war.






Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:00:23 AM EST
Her idea bans a lot of weapons that have never killed anyone, and leaves untouched all the weapons that should be used to kill her are used to kill people.

It isn't just stupid. It is monumentally insane. It is the absolute opposite of reasonableness and the height of utter stupidity.

I give her the "DU Brainaic Award" of the week!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:00:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 6:01:25 AM EST by DK-Prof]
Yeah - but that would never fly (haha - no pun intended) because that would firmly outlaw any serious hunting rifle cartridge, and they KNOW they they will fail if they go after the hunters.


... and, like Torf pointed out - it woudl attempt to ban things that are rarely used in crimes, like Garands and Remington 700s, but would leave all the cheap handguns untouched.

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:01:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:03:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 6:06:28 AM EST by wedge1082]

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:

The definition California is using to ban the .50 cal weapons of war also seems to fall into the same trap. As many of the gun nuts have pointed out, by altering one or two features of the bullet (for example, by making a .49 caliber bullet instead of .50) the ban can be legally avoided.






ETA - I love my .49 caliber rifle. It is so much lighter than lugging around that 50 cal.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:04:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 6:05:05 AM EST by Torf]

Originally Posted By Sweep:
Bad idea yes, but look on the good side. He just admitted that the AWB had nothing to do with the declining crime rate.



A "He" ???!? CarinKaryn is a he?!? What kind of fruity guy would not only have 1 girls name, but 2 of them, the same ones, back to back?!? Nevermind, this is DU.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:06:38 AM EST
ban war? oh yeah, that'll work ...... hey let's invade America, they are allowed to fight back!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:07:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
From DU


CarinKaryn (354 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:22 PM
Original message
A better method of banning dangerous weapons of war


The major failing of the AWB was that it banned some weapons by name, and others by defining them as having certain characteristics or features. All a manufacturer had to do to evade the ban was change the name or slightly alter the existing weapon (for example by grinding off the bayonet mount) and the weapon (with the exact same killing power as before) was now legal.

The definition California is using to ban the .50 cal weapons of war also seems to fall into the same trap. As many of the gun nuts have pointed out, by altering one or two features of the bullet (for example, by making a .49 caliber bullet instead of .50) the ban can be legally avoided.

Here is the definition currently being used by California:

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.

How can we craft a bill that has the intended outcome – to ban large caliber, high power weapons from civilian ownership? I think we need a better definition, one that will be much harder to evade. I’ve got a much simpler way to define what would be banned and what would be ok for citizens to own. Ban by kinetic energy produced by the bullet.

Any bullet that produces over 5000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy as measured at the muzzle is BANNED.

This would allow handgun shooters of the .45 (a very popular size) to keep their bullets as the .45 pistol does not have the bullet weight or velocity to push it over the ft-lb energy limit. If a shooter wants to compensate for the small size of their own weapon buy firing larger bullets, for example a .46 or .50 or .51, fine, as long as the total energy of the bullet does not exceed 5000 ft-lbs. (if the size of the bullet is bigger, the speed of the bullet must be slower to stay under the 5000 ft-lb limit).

Black powder shooters (people who shoot 100 year old guns loaded by hand, instead of from a pre manufactured bullet) could still shoot their old rifles for hunting or target (these rifles are often large caliber, like .55 or ever .69) but their low velocity means low total energy also, so they would be not banned.

Using this system the high ENERGY bullets, the ones that can do the damage, like those sold to Osama and those in the arsenal of the Waco gun nuts, would be banned and no one would be able to evade the law by simply designing a .49 cal bullet that is in effect the same thing as the .50.

What does everyone think? How can we improve this definition?



shylock1579 (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #4

7. And


I think your proposal makes sense. We will never ban guns (and frankly, I don't want to) but at least we can put limits on them. The distance a stray bullet can fly makes a huge difference, as does the damage a close-range bullet can do with the velocities you mentioned. I'd rather be shot in the shoulder by a .50 cal muzzle loaded that lose my entire arm to a Barret Light .50.




Jack_DeLeon (466 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:57 PM
Response to Original message

10. The best way to get rid of weapons of war...


is to ban war.

Instead of just trying to cure the symptoms lets cure the disease.

I propose that the US passes a federal law to ban war.

Once war is outlawed there will be no need for weapons of war.



Jack_DeLeon (466 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:57 PM
Response to Original message

10. The best way to get rid of weapons of war...


is to ban war.

Instead of just trying to cure the symptoms lets cure the disease.

I propose that the US passes a federal law to ban war.

Once war is outlawed there will be no need for weapons of war.










What a moron
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:08:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 6:14:50 AM EST by Torf]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Yeah - but that would never fly (haha - no pun intended) because that would firmly outlaw any serious hunting rifle cartridge, and they KNOW they they will fail if they go after the hunters.


... and, like Torf pointed out - it woudl attempt to ban things that are rarely used in crimes, like Garands and Remington 700s, but would leave all the cheap handguns untouched.




I think you are giving the idea entirely too much credit. I doubt even these guns would be banned under this idiotic proposal. Basically this bill is the "Bear Gun Ban" bill. What would a borderline cartridge be? A 375 H&H Magnum?

Here are a few of the borderline cartridges, (usually responsible for crimes in the U.S. and widely available at gun shows).

.375 H&H Mag. - 4,697
.378 Weatherby Mag. - 6,062
.416 Rigby - 6,071
.458 Win Mag - 6,133
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:08:25 AM EST
Well, just damn, I'm all for banning war, too!

But I think I will stay prepared in case that Utopia never shows up.

The spread and depth of the idiocy at DU never ceases to amaze me. Their motto ought to be "Morons 'R' Us", but I doubt many of them can figure out the contraction.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:12:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
From DU


CarinKaryn (354 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:22 PM
Original message
A better method of banning dangerous weapons of war


The major failing of the AWB was that it banned some weapons by name, and others by defining them as having certain characteristics or features. All a manufacturer had to do to evade the ban was change the name or slightly alter the existing weapon (for example by grinding off the bayonet mount) and the weapon (with the exact same killing power as before) was now legal.

The definition California is using to ban the .50 cal weapons of war also seems to fall into the same trap. As many of the gun nuts have pointed out, by altering one or two features of the bullet (for example, by making a .49 caliber bullet instead of .50) the ban can be legally avoided.

Here is the definition currently being used by California:

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.

How can we craft a bill that has the intended outcome – to ban large caliber, high power weapons from civilian ownership? I think we need a better definition, one that will be much harder to evade. I’ve got a much simpler way to define what would be banned and what would be ok for citizens to own. Ban by kinetic energy produced by the bullet.

Any bullet that produces over 5000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy as measured at the muzzle is BANNED.

This would allow handgun shooters of the .45 (a very popular size) to keep their bullets as the .45 pistol does not have the bullet weight or velocity to push it over the ft-lb energy limit. If a shooter wants to compensate for the small size of their own weapon buy firing larger bullets, for example a .46 or .50 or .51, fine, as long as the total energy of the bullet does not exceed 5000 ft-lbs. (if the size of the bullet is bigger, the speed of the bullet must be slower to stay under the 5000 ft-lb limit).

Black powder shooters (people who shoot 100 year old guns loaded by hand, instead of from a pre manufactured bullet) could still shoot their old rifles for hunting or target (these rifles are often large caliber, like .55 or ever .69) but their low velocity means low total energy also, so they would be not banned.

Using this system the high ENERGY bullets, the ones that can do the damage, like those sold to Osama and those in the arsenal of the Waco gun nuts, would be banned and no one would be able to evade the law by simply designing a .49 cal bullet that is in effect the same thing as the .50.

What does everyone think? How can we improve this definition?



shylock1579 (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #4

7. And


I think your proposal makes sense. We will never ban guns (and frankly, I don't want to) but at least we can put limits on them. The distance a stray bullet can fly makes a huge difference, as does the damage a close-range bullet can do with the velocities you mentioned. I'd rather be shot in the shoulder by a .50 cal muzzle loaded that lose my entire arm to a Barret Light .50.




Jack_DeLeon (466 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:57 PM
Response to Original message

10. The best way to get rid of weapons of war...


is to ban war.

Instead of just trying to cure the symptoms lets cure the disease.

I propose that the US passes a federal law to ban war.

Once war is outlawed there will be no need for weapons of war.



Jack_DeLeon (466 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:57 PM
Response to Original message

10. The best way to get rid of weapons of war...


is to ban war.

Instead of just trying to cure the symptoms lets cure the disease.

I propose that the US passes a federal law to ban war.

Once war is outlawed there will be no need for weapons of war.










What a moron



The original poster sounded resonable compared to this guy.

But what do I know. I've had one Jack & Coke and am eyeballing another one.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:30:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Here is the definition currently being used by California:

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.





Assuming this is the actual statute in California, all you would have to do is trim the case to 3.909 inches. If so, all of the elements wouldn't be met, therefore it isn't a .50BMG in PRK.

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 8:07:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 8:07:48 AM EST by skid2964]

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
From DU
CarinKaryn (354 posts) Fri Aug-27-04 02:22 PM
Original message
A better method of banning dangerous weapons of war

As many of the gun nuts have pointed out, by altering one or two features of the bullet (for example, by making a .49 caliber bullet instead of .50) the ban can be legally avoided.




Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't !
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 8:20:24 AM EST
The frightening thing about this is that the original poster has a strong knowledge of firearms. He is even knowledgable regarding black powder firearms, something most people think are dead and gone.

I would be very surprised to learn that this poster is NOT a gun owner and NOT a hunter! This is basically proof positive that fellow gun owners do not realize or do not value the true intent of the second amendment!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 8:22:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Glock31:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Here is the definition currently being used by California:

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.





Assuming this is the actual statute in California, all you would have to do is trim the case to 3.909 inches. If so, all of the elements wouldn't be met, therefore it isn't a .50BMG in PRK.



Hell, just seat your bullet deeper! They use OAL to the "tip of the bullet" as a criterion to define what a .50BMG is! Regulating something that they know absolutely nothing about, but are terified of nonetheless.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 8:27:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:

Originally Posted By Glock31:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Here is the definition currently being used by California:

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.





Assuming this is the actual statute in California, all you would have to do is trim the case to 3.909 inches. If so, all of the elements wouldn't be met, therefore it isn't a .50BMG in PRK.



Hell, just seat your bullet deeper! They use OAL to the "tip of the bullet" as a criterion to define what a .50BMG is! Regulating something that they know absolutely nothing about, but are terified of nonetheless.



If you seat the bullet deeper you could lose some potential accuracy! It is hard enough to shoot down satellites as it is. Let alone trying it without your favorite handload! I think trimming the case a little bit would be just the ticket!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 8:30:34 AM EST
"I'd rather be shot in the shoulder by a .50 cal muzzle loaded that lose my entire arm to a Barret Light .50."


I would pass.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 8:43:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By wedge1082:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:

The definition California is using to ban the .50 cal weapons of war also seems to fall into the same trap. As many of the gun nuts have pointed out, by altering one or two features of the bullet (for example, by making a .49 caliber bullet instead of .50) the ban can be legally avoided.




img28.exs.cx/img28/4176/ackbar-trap1.jpg

ETA - I love my .49 caliber rifle. It is so much lighter than lugging around that 50 cal.

but think of all the knock-down power youll be giving up carrying that .49 .....................oh..and "i believe you have my stapler"
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 8:44:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By Sweep:
Bad idea yes, but look on the good side. He just admitted that the AWB had nothing to do with the declining crime rate.



A "He" ???!? CarinKaryn is a he?!? What kind of fruity guy would not only have 1 girls name, but 2 of them, the same ones, back to back?!? Nevermind, this is DU.



I think it's meant as "Caring Karyn".... But you're right, with any luck it probably is a guy.
Top Top