D

Eric, the NRA promised their members that Obama is a socialist and he wants to limit all Americans to single shot hunting firearms and fifty rounds of ammunition.

The good thing about the NRA members running to Walmart to over arm themselves is that money isn’t going into the NRA coffers.

Dumb NRA, all that loot lost.

Anyone just now getting around to stockpiling is pretty late to the game.

Amateurs.

Eric, why you always got to be such a b**ch?

People with a lot bigger brains than yours are concerned about gun control.

Seriously — who sounds more paranoid? Gun owners who from 1994-2004 were banned by law from buying standard capacity magazines and certain kinds of rifles, or this guy:

“What is the underlying motivation . . . to buy assault weapons?” asked Agger, a sociology and humanities professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote There Is a Gunman on Campus: Tragedy and Terror at Virginia Tech. “Part of me worries this is an expression of the need for people who disagree with Obama to arm themselves because they entertain the thought that there could be armed conflict or possibly race war.”

#3 Since the Texas economy is doing better than the rest of the country, all those deportations must be helping us, right Eric?

(It’s called the Fallacy of Composition)

The husband of that women who was shot last weekend on the infield of the TMS by a .50 caliber round started his own website

http://www.50caldanger.org/

Local news has been doing a poor job covering this. His website has been staying current on the developments. Kind of interesting to see how all this pans out.

In regards to the Democrats taking away guns: I would be more worried about the Californication of gun laws than outright bans. Stock up on high capacity magazines etc. Might also be a good time to get one of those surplus M1 Garands from the Civilian Marksmanship Program before the liberals kill the program.

Same tards who freaked out about Y2K

Gordon I like your gun. Can you teach me to shoot sometime? I hear you are REALLY good.

I told all my hunter-type friends, via facebook, to gather their guns. What could possibly go wrong?

Trey’s right, of course, an M4 is specifically a carbine. But if that’s the biggest nit he can pick with the article, geez…

A carbine is generally considered to be a subset of the rifle family. It’s a rifle with a shorter barrel.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/carbine

Gun control? I’m just worried about the judgement of the new prez whose first major appointment post election is the former overseer of the freddie mac debacle. Rising above partisanship. After 8 years of bull**** from the right, now its time for 8 years of bull**** from the left. Go politics!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900&page=1

Bill:

My daughter says she believes it was a Desert Eagle that was used in the TMS incident and not the gun featured on the website you provided.

Just a thought….

@Jim – 8 years? Let’s not anoint the guy with four more years before he’s even started his first four…

@Tim

Why shouldn’t they?

List the number of crimes committed with a 50-cal rifle over the past two decades.

As to the second request, how do you conflate rifles with grenade launchers?

Opps…I was just informed the guy with the gun came forward! HAHAHAHA.

You can tell I never pay attention to local news!

Since when do people have to provide documented reasons to exercise their rights?

It’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs, and not the Bill of Things I Have to Convince Everyone There’s a Reason For.

Guns don’t kill people! It’s those little bullets that come out of them that do…

Gordon, no, I’m not ready some football. I’m still trying to understand this male fixation on their “guns”. So go away.

I am secure enough in my heterosexuality to type the following phrase… “I love Trey.”

Does anybody have two tickets to the gun show?

Corrections:

typo. left out the word “for”. Eliminated the ® in my name. Now back to this gun thing.

all this talk of guns and gunnery makes me hungry for some Call of Duty 4. Who wants some?

Josh: Did you watch Tuesday night? This guy will run the country into the ground and everyone will still be waiting by their mailboxes for their puppies to arrive in the mail to make them feel better about it. Pending another 9/11, this guy gets elected again. Come to think about, a 9/11 might help this guy, if he wears that stern face, meditative face and blames it on Bush.

I’m with Tim on this. One functioning small to medium size gun per household.

@ Trey: I can’t find a single crime committed with an M1 tank, either.

That’s silly. How many privately owned 50-cals are out there, versus how many privately owned M1 Abrams?

At some point, a gun is too big to be owned by the general public.

50-cal muzzle loaders were pretty much a standard from the Revolutionary era to the Civil War. This is not a new pinnacle.

50-cal shooters are enthusiasts, and I can’t find a single crime except a few cases of possession by felons barred from owning guns anyway. So I see no danger.

Same reason there are limits on the size of engines in cars. I argue that 50-cal is too big.,

You’re saying a collector, racer, or other enthusiast can’t buy an engine bigger than what is available on car lots? And shouldn’t be able to?

As to accidents — nothing in life is completely safe. If you want to ban an inanimate object based on its capacity to be involved in fatal accidents, the 50-cal rifle is not exactly a good starting point.

It’s a big, black, scary looking rifle that in the hands of a skilled shooter can put lead in a group at up to 2000 meters. Few outside dedicated enthusiasts own one, and they are hideously expensive to acquire and maintain.

You’re looking for a threat that doesn’t exist.

@ James: Okay, I made that up. But you can’t, like, have a 1,200-hp car, right?

Your historic perspective on the 2nd Amendment is mostly correct, i.e., that “The Second Amendment was written at a time when a good portion of the Continental Army’s cannon and mortar came from privately held stock.” However, this is not “one of the reasons for civilian ownership,” it is THE reason.

The Supreme Court got it wrong initially in Miller, but, as with many other SCOTUS decisions, they can’t go back now because of groups like the NRA and other lobbyists.

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but does the First Amendment actually mention an informed electorate? Or are we now trying to decide legislative intent from 200+ years ago?

Can we separate .50 caliber weapons here?

I own a .50 TC Hawken muzzleloader, and have hunted with it for years. It fires one shot, with a bullet traveling so slowly that Tim’s 1200-hp car could probably outrun it.

Let’s not confuse that with the .50 M107 sniper rifle, which can shoot through schools (gratuitous Johnny Dangerously reference for ya). Let’s not even confuse it with the .50 Desert Eagle, which though extremely powerful for a pistol, packs way less punch than the 30-06 most people use for deer hunting.

This photo is proof positive that sometimes people with a big gun alredy have a face to protect it.

I’m a proud Texan hunter. Last weekend I legally harvested a 10 point buck. I brought it home and took it to Kuby’s for processing. My favorite rifle is a .224 magnum Weatherby. It used to be enough for hunting in San Saba County. Now I prefer a larger .270, not because the deer are getting larger but because we have a bad hog problem.

7 years ago the county was largely hog free. Today, the hogs are so bad, they have wrecked the land beyond belief. They are a scourge. Gone are the quail, rabbits, road runners and a lot of other wildlife. Anyone who has had land infested by hogs know the devastation they cause.

I’ve heard about a guy out in West Texas manufacturing .50 caliber rifles specifically for hog hunting. I’m all in favor of a large caliber swine rifle.

What you guys should be scared of is someone riding around Dallas Country Club in one of these: http://www.dehogger.com/

I’m pro hunter/shooter but the 50 cal sniper rifles should come under Class III license requirements. The potential danger/risk, especially with armor piercing ammo, is unnecessary. It also extends needlessly the protection perimeter required for Presidential security. That being said, I’d love to shoot one.

One medium to small gun per person? Oh, please. I’m no where near being a true gun nut (see Trey?) and I have 4 rifles, 3 shotguns, and 2 pistols. Oh, and 3 airguns for Starlings, English Sparrows, and tree rats.

The dude with the .50 caliber rifle near the TMS was shooting at a target in front of a 20 foot berm on a homemade range. He was shooting at the target from 1250-1500 meters(yards) away. If you know much about rifles, you know that at really long distances even the twitch of your heart beating will move the round 10-15 meters off target at a distance of 500m(5 football fields). The 20 foot berm he was using is woefully inadequate. I mean, we’re taking 1/2 a mile away.

I don’t have any problem with people owning .50 caliber rifles. They are so expensive and hard to lug around that the chances of someone using it in an actual crime are basically zero.

Half the ranges around here will not let you even shoot an SKS so I wonder what the point of owning such a high powered .50 rifle would be in North Texas. Sorta like owning a snowmobile in the 214.

@Trey

I agree with you that you have the right to own any gun, grenade launcher, tank, etc.. he wants. I personally don’t care what you own. I think what people find baffling is the desire to want to own such a dangerous weapon that has no practical purpose outside of war. Tim equates a 50 cal rifle to a rpg because as a non gun enthusiast, they are equally ridiculous to own. It’s like me, not a race car driver, wanting to own an alcohol fueled funny car and you saying “why not a jet engine car”. I have no use for either, but I certainly wouldn’t equate their capabilities. Having said all this, I think there is an easy solution to gun control. Automaitc life sentences for anyone who commits a crime with a gun in their possession, regardless of wether it is used in the crime. End of story. Own all the guns you want, but if you use them to commit a crime, you will pay dearly. And if you have felony, life for simply being caught with a gun in your possession.

@ steve

Agreed! Totally agreed!

@ Steve and his yes men and woman:

Some people collect cars, some people collect stamps, and some people collect guns/weapons/etc.

I’m not a hunter or a gun lover, but I can appreciate another person’s hobby. Sure, you have some zealous nutbags out there who are a little too ammo-ed up, but you also have folks who see the guns as a finely crafted piece of history, displayed in their home and rarely, if ever, discharged.

And JB, LIFE in prison for a joint in the car while rolling through a stop? The question begs, what are YOU smoking? Prisons are already overcrowded with minor drug offenses as it is. I guess you’d be ok with your taxes skyrocketing to pay for all the new inmates??? Get a grip.

@ brett

sar·casm (sär’kāz’əm)
n.
1) A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2) A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

I think we need a snark indicator.

@ Brett
Nowhere did I say anything about restricting ownership of guns, in fact, I believe I sympathized with wanting to own/collect something even if it seems crazy to other people.

@ jb
WOW! First off, I think any logical person would have read my comment and NOT assumed I was talking about driving citations or jaywalking and such. I am sorry I am not a lawyer or politician and have no experience writing legislation. Secondly, I dumbfounded that anyone would have a problem with much much stiffer penalties for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm. You really don’t find that a reasonable solution? I mean, the argument that people have the right to bear arms because it’s in the BOR’s is antiquated at best. The Founding Fathers were attempting to guarantee that a newly created government would always be accountable to the people and that by expressly allowing ownership of guns they were attempting to ensure that the American majority always had the means to protect itself from an oppressive government. In fact, several of these men beleived that the threat of revolution was the only deterrent keeping a democratic society true. I say it’s antiquated logic because we may have the numbers and some guns, but we certainaly don’t have the technology (F16’s, Abrams Tanks, drones, etc…). We are no threat to the American Government, therefore, militias (and your right to bear arms) serve no true purpose. However, guns are entrenched in American society and culture and simply prohibiting or even attempts at contorolling who purchases them are useless because there are always ways around when guns are so plentiful. IMHO, the only way out of this mess is stricter penalties for those who use their guns irresponsibly.

Forty years ago I was in a hospital in Japan along with a bunch of other young men who had been hurt in Nam.

When I read of the fifty caliber round falling into the RV my first thought went back to a conversation with a crew chief on a Chinook back then. He explained that a fifty was deadly at about five thousand feet because it would be tumbling when it hit the ship.

I had to wonder if some fool with a fifty caliber sniper rifle hadn’t missed an airliner and what goes up always comes back down.

“We are no threat to the American Government, therefore, militias (and your right to bear arms) serve no true purpose.”

So in other words:

‘‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.’’

– Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

I’d rather dust off my antiquated BOR’s with a .50 caliber, thank you.

Jeez Trey, I think you’ve lost your ever lovin’ mind.

If there ever was a civilian that presented a threat to the crazies it’s our President elect.

Now do you think for a minute that Obama or any of his supporters are going to change their position for a minute on their agenda because there’s a kazillion crazies out there with deer rifles?