Skip to comments.
Honolulu PD, NRA Square Off On Rifle Debate
KITV-4 (Hawaii) ^
| 2/22/08
| n/a
Posted on 02/25/2008 8:38:35 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 401-415 next last
To: mamelukesabre
My .50 is a single shot airgun. The .50 is actually .495 round ball. It uses a scuba style air tank to fill the system, providing four shots. It has about 850 fps and a goodly volume of footpound energy (penetrates a 1/4 inch pine board.) I’m not interested in trading it.
To: ozzymandus
My original comment was not meant as an attack against anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights. It was poorly thought out, and should not have been posted. For that I apologize.
222
posted on
02/25/2008 12:25:13 PM PST
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
To: SoldierDad
Great! Then I withdraw my prior request for you to leave FR.
Freepers differ on a wide variety of issues, but one thing that is uncompromising is the 2nd Amendment.
223
posted on
02/25/2008 12:25:29 PM PST
by
GunRunner
(Vote for Obama, because the past is history, the future is yet to come, and platitudes are forever.)
To: kiriath_jearim; SoldierDad
Having picked on soldierdad and having seen him recant. I'll recant the picking too and move on. it's now time to change the thrust.
There are 125 registered owners of the high-powered rifle in the state, with 90 owners living on Oahu.
Wonder what will happen to these registered owners if the rifles are banned?
224
posted on
02/25/2008 12:26:58 PM PST
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
To: GovernmentShrinker
The inclusion of the concept of "legitimate use" is specious. The Constitution and 2nd Amendment do not include or consider the issue of "legitimate use". To do so is judicial activism at its worst.
225
posted on
02/25/2008 12:27:22 PM PST
by
Myrddin
To: GunRunner
I appreciate you’re comments, and I stand with all those who defend the Constitution. My poorly thought comment not withstanding.
226
posted on
02/25/2008 12:29:52 PM PST
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
To: SoldierDad
I’m not mad at you, and you don’t have to apologize to me. I just think it’s funny that so much anger fell on your head for one thoughtless comment. I would have no use for a .50 cal rifle (I’d rather spend that much money on the kind of guns that I like), but if any other law-abiding citizen wants one, that’s fine with me. Nobody that goes to that much expense and trouble to own and shoot a cannon like that is ever going to do anything criminal or irresponsible with it.
To: ozzymandus
Nobody that goes to that much expense and trouble to own and shoot a cannon like that is ever going to do anything criminal or irresponsible with it. A good point. One that I should have considered before posting. Oh well. I can take the heat, and move on.
228
posted on
02/25/2008 12:32:59 PM PST
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
To: PeterFinn
That statement is accurate with a caveat. While a .50 BMG has never been used as a murder weapon, there have been a couple of occasions were a Perp had a .50 in a vehicle with them during the commission of other crime or was using one in and otherwise unlawful action.
Martin Heemeyer had one in his self made tank, but never fired it. Albert Petrosky had one in his truck, but didn't kill that cop with it. There are a few others, but nothing really all that notable and no deaths that I am aware of.
Groups like the VPC like to include .50's in a list of everything seized from various criminal actions as if their hyperventilating over their very presence meant a damn thing. It's all just part of them trying to get yet another firearm banned.
Groups like VPC and Brady are in violation of USC Title 18, sect 241. In most cases, their victim disarmament laws they constantly push should be considered legally equivalent to "accessory to murder".
229
posted on
02/25/2008 12:33:48 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: SoldierDad
In your first post, you said:
“I would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase.”
Then you said that you didn’t want a law banning them. Just how would you keep them from being available without a law? And just how would no law be any more effective than any law that does purport to ban guns or people from getting those guns?
Then you really revealed your ignorance of history when you said:
“To defend ones self from the Government? Not much use is this weapon when a tank is brought in to take someone out, is it?”
Ever hear of the Liberty Pistol? The Warsaw Ghetto?
I would suggest that you do some serious research. You are entitled to your opinion. Your are not entitled to ignore or make up your own facts.
To: from occupied ga
I guess that would depend upon what the lawmakers of Hawaii’s goal is. If they are out to do what was done in Australia, then I guess they’d try and take those weapons from those who legally own them. Given that possibility, I’d say that people should start a campaign to stop that from happening.
231
posted on
02/25/2008 12:37:01 PM PST
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
To: Harvey105
FYI, I’ve recanted my comment form post #3. I didn’t think that comment out very well, and I’ve admitted to that. I’d like to move on from that if possible.
232
posted on
02/25/2008 12:38:30 PM PST
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
To: pabianice
To: Beagle8U; XeniaSt
In the most minute technical aspect, you are correct but you are missing the larger picture.
When it is said that you can buy it over the internet, the implication is that it is done anonymously and without scrutiny. The intent is to scare people and increase pressure to ban this weapon.
The claim is a half truth and therefore a whole lie.
To: pabianice
To: SoldierDad
If they are out to do what was done in Australia, then I guess theyd try and take those weapons from those who legally own them.I'd say that's a pretty good guess. It's what happened in NYC. In '76 the NYC govt required that semiautos be registered. The under the despicable David Dinkins (less liberal than Obama) declared the guns contraband and those who didn't give evidence to the NYC NKVD that they had disposed of the guns were arrested and their property seized.
236
posted on
02/25/2008 12:42:51 PM PST
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
To: SoldierDad
Other than the pure excitement of shooting such a weapon, does this gun have any legitimate purpose for civilian use? I would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase. Wow. Your support for McCain makes more sense now. Mindless state-worship, manifested in rolling back Constitutional rights to protect only what you think is a "legitimate" use of them.
237
posted on
02/25/2008 12:42:54 PM PST
by
Sloth
(If you took an oath to support & defend the U.S. Constitution, can you vote for its domestic enemy?)
To: Sloth
FYI, I’ve recanted my original post as being poorly thought out. Please move on.
238
posted on
02/25/2008 12:44:18 PM PST
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
To: kiriath_jearim
To: SoldierDad
BOR = Bill of Rights, or the original 10 amendments to the Constitution.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 401-415 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson