Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 8/23/2001 9:01:08 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:09:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:17:01 AM EST
My "Pocket Rocket" is actually a justifiable homocide waiting to happen.
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:18:12 AM EST
Looks like I discovered my next gun purchase. I only wish he was right about their price and availability!
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:22:31 AM EST
THAT IS SO ASSININE!!!! I really hate these idiots. [puke]
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:25:14 AM EST
damn it, i'm so sick of this crap. 50's have been available since like, the 70's and there has never been one used to commit a crime. and if "pocket rockets" were banned, what would stop thugs from concealing full sized pistols? There just exposing a problem that doesn't exist. "pocket rockets" aren't even that much smaller than full size pistols.
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:28:38 AM EST
Where do they get this stuff. Guns do what they are supposed to do, they shoot fast moving projectiles! What is there to regulate? [beer]
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:28:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:35:08 AM EST
Same old horse shit from the anti-gunners.
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:35:50 AM EST
This isn't really about the .50 cal or "Pocket Rockets", what this is about is establishing manufacturing regulations over the firearms manufactures so that they can be sued if someone mis-uses their product. Several states have passed laws prohibiting these suits. California Supreme Court just rejected a suit because the gun manufactures were protected. They want control so they can sue the manufactures out of existance. So they spread fear to the public with this BS. By the way if you read about the law that was submitted to ban pocket rockets, it says pocket rockets are only used by criminals, but it exempts the police from the law because every police firearm would fall into the pocket rocket definition.
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:37:31 AM EST
Fuck 'em. I gave 'em the gospel for us. ============================================== I am writing to respond to the article written about rifles chambered for the .50 BMG round. Instead of explaining why "one gun is no worse than another", I will simply address the gun control issue as a whole. As an owner of a .50 BMG rifle, please realize when you call to "ban" it, you aren't talking to politicians, the "government" which many of you have come to solely rely on for your well being, or anyone else. You are talking to me. Me personally. Ladies and gentleman, the gun control debate does not exist. That’s right. To all of us, either pro or anti gun, this whole facade we call a debate is nothing more than a public forum to preach to our respective choirs. Why? Because the line has already been deeply drawn in the sand on this issue. You either support gun rights or you don’t. There is nothing I can say to an anti-gunner that will raise their head from the juvenile and idealistic sand in which it is buried that will convince them that, once they get their wish of banning guns, or a certain type, they still are subject to the criminal element and their guns. They simply don’t see it. Nor is there any anti-gun "for the children" decry that will cause Americas 60,000,000 honest gun owners to idly allow their rights to be infringed. I believe it was Schiller who once said "Opposition never converts the enthusiast, but merely acts to enflame him." So what does this mean to all of us so deeply entangled in the non-existent gun control debate? It means that, and I can find no way to sugar coat this, people will get hurt. The antis, on their crusade to save us from guns, will one day have to come and get me because I own them. Or maybe I will simply get sick and tired of my rights and property being threatened, and will go to get them first. Either way, "one heck of a storms a brewin." So let’s all, pro and anti gun a like, at least come together on the fact that we are fooling ourselves when we try to debate this matter. It will all ultimately come down to; not discussion; not debate; not quotes from our founders; not the oft cited gun death statistics from the "35 other Industrial nations." It all boils down to you, as anti gunners, having to one day look me, an honest law abiding citizen in the eye, and tell me to give up 220+ years of our rights, 170 years of my personal familial shooting heritage, and my personal, private property; all for an ideological platitude (banning guns or a certain type) that has proven through out history to be inconsequential at best, or detrimental at worst. Let it be known that when this time comes, gun owners will have a big chip on our shoulders. And if you want our guns, well, it will then be up to you to knock that chip off. Landon S. Morgan Florida
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 10:17:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 10:28:44 AM EST
the anti-'s are just looking for something to single out so that they can ban it. If they start yipping about something and no one raises a fuss the figure they can sneak in a work out a ban. Anti's probably figured the .50 bmg was easy to demonize, and few people owned it. They also knew that some of those "hunters" wouldn't care if the banned .50's, no one could hunt with it any way. The whole, sue the gun makers for the misdeeds of the person who posseses a gun. Kinda like suing Intel for internet porn that was acccessed by kids, at home. Or the family of a drunk driver, who manages to kill himslf, suing Ford saying the car should have been drunk proof. It's an interesting legal theory, but I think most people see it for what it is, BS.
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 10:29:51 AM EST
Well put, Landon. Here's my letter to the editor (that will never see print):
It's nice to see Tom Diaz (senior policy analyst of the Violence Policy Center) is still out there trying to frighten the public. In his recent op-ed piece "Sniper rifles: the lethal - and legal - weapons of war" (August 22) he continues the time-proven tactic of trying to scare us into believing that banning guns will somehow make us "safer". I find it fascinating that an organization that calls itself the "Violence Policy Center" focuses EXCLUSIVELY on violence committed with FIREARMS. I guess the recent drownings of five small children by their mother and the knifing deaths of six family members by a deranged man just don't qualify for "policy study". Let's get it in the open - the "Violence Policy Center" is a group determined to see private ownership of firearms outlawed, and they will do anything and say anything to reach that goal. And they're not shy about it either. From their own website (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm) they discuss their agenda: "...assault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America's gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America's gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons: a.. It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an "old" debate. Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 10:31:23 AM EST
Part II:
Let's see, they couldn't frighten us with "Saturday Night Specials" (inexpensive firearms even poor people can afford to defend themselves with), "Cop-Killer bullets" (that were designed by cops for cops and have never been used in the commission of a murder), "Plastic Firearms" (the Glock pistol that is currently the "weapon of choice" for police departments across the country - and that contains over a pound of steel rendering it easily detected by airport metal detectors and looking just like a gun to an X-ray machine regardless of the rantings of Sen. Feinstein), "Armor-piercing bullets" (even though ANY rifle bullet suitable for deer hunting can defeat ANY "bullet-proof" vest used by any police department today), then the horror of "assault weapons". "Anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun". Translated - the American public is ignorant - let's keep using that to frighten them into doing what we want. Well, they had some success with that, finally, but it's never enough for those who think guns CAUSE crime. So now they must use the "Sniper rifle" and the "Pocket Rocket". One is too big, the other too small - a "homicide waiting to happen," he says. Like Goldilocks, is there a gun Tom Diaz thinks is "just right"? Somehow, I doubt it. There are tens of thousands of the .50 caliber rifles Mr. Diaz protests in the hands of shooters and collectors in this country - in fact, that's what he's decrying. Trust me, if there was a single incident that he could point to demonstrating the evils of this particular design, he would have. The "pocket rocket" phenomenon is the outgrowth of the concealed-carry laws that now some 34 states have passed. These are small, lightweight guns in effective calibers, designed for those who wish to carry a concealed weapon. Remember, these are the same people who told you that Florida would become "The Gunshine State" if concealed carry was allowed? There would be blood in the streets, shootings over sale items at Sears! What actually happened? Crime went DOWN - and it has gone down everywhere concealed carry laws have been passed. Apparently the "mindless 'more guns make us all safer' mantra" isn't so mindless after all. However, Mr. Diaz points out what COULD happen if one is misused, not what HAS happened. He's right about that. But apparently Mr. Diaz is unfamiliar with the concept of "prior restraint". Look what can happen if someone has access to a bathtub, or a knife, or, say, several hundred pounds of fertilizer and diesel fuel. You cannot restrict the rights of all based on what someone MIGHT do. Mr. Diaz, if you wish to change the gun laws in this country, stop trying to do an end run around the Constitution. There is a written procedure for changing the basic law of the land - try to get an amendment passed to LEGALLY nullify the Second Amendment. Until then, stop trying to scare the public stupid. We're not buying it.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 10:53:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: the anti-'s are just looking for something to single out so that they can ban it. If they start yipping about something and no one raises a fuss the figure they can sneak in a work out a ban. Anti's probably figured the .50 bmg was easy to demonize, and few people owned it. They also knew that some of those "hunters" wouldn't care if the banned .50's, no one could hunt with it any way.
View Quote
kinda like the 94 crime bill and a lot of hunters not giving a shit becouse they think "who the hell needs one of those?".
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 8:53:17 PM EST
Does anyone know when the last time a innocent civilian was killed by a "pocket rocket"? Or the last time a .50 caliber rifle was used to commit a bank robbery? They banned the AR-15 from using all the goodies, while most violent crimes at that time were committed using pistols. Did the ban on assault weapons really work? No. They confused law abiding citizens (cuz criminals don't follow the gun laws anyway) and those who try to enforce the gun laws. Politicians don't do their homework, they just waste people's time and money.
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:07:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:09:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By mad_dingo: Does anyone know when the last time a innocent civilian was killed by a "pocket rocket"? Or the last time a .50 caliber rifle was used to commit a bank robbery?
View Quote
What the heck is a "pocket rocket" anyway ??!?? Is this the new Millenium term for Saturday Night Special ? LOL
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 9:17:08 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 10:06:19 PM EST
Yeah, we need to the Treasury Department regulating firearms bcause they already have "a lot" of firearms experience. They have a lot experience in screwing up and loosing their own inventory of hardware, why would we want bumbling dipshits in gov.org regulating the already most heavily regulated industry in America?
Top Top