Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 1, 2005.
iow, the gun lobby is more powerful than the tobacco lobby.
Can you bring matches on a plane? I know that wasn't your point, but I am curious? Just how much are they going to subject innocent passengers to?
How would they know, btw? Lighters generally don't set off metal-detectors, and I empty my pockets how I see fit.
Interesting info about the .50 cal weapon, I didn't know any of that.
Btw, you comment seems exactly right.
Why dont they just declare everything illegal and make us ride our flights Nude.? when is enough enough for the powermongers who want control everything? America has not had TRUE FREEDOM in a long time. We are being micromanaged by our govt reactionary beauracrats who really want to control all aspects of our lives. Do we need 50 calibers in the publics hands ? no, but if we pass enough laws then we all can be considered criminals because chances are you broke one..................were almost there. THE POLICE STATE. it looks to me like Bin Laden has allready won.
for starters, we couldn't show it on TV
Ok, so we ban the .50 caliber rifles. What next? The .475 and the .458? Can't those be used just as well? There are far more threatening issues than .50 caliber rifles that we can take up to protect our airplanes.
And that .50CaliberTerror site is just teeming with sensationalist crap.
if you go to this TSA page, you can d/load a pdf of prohibited items. it'll be out of date soon, this is what it says about carrying on lighters:
According to the link, you don't need to have one on a plane to shoot it down.
The point is, it can be used to shoot a plane down from the ground. Or explode the fuel tanks of any number of different vehicles. Or pierce containers that are used to transport dangerous chemicals.
The comparison shows the studpidity of current regulation, a lighter is considered dangerous (along with nail clippers and other small items), while this product is freely available in most states.
The .50 cal is clearly more dangerous to aircraft safety than a lighter is.
One of the reasons it was manufactured was to target vehicles, and aircraft. Getting your hands on one of these is much easier than getting access to an aircraft these days.
Considering what Lee Malvo and his associate were able to do by themselves with a much smaller weapon, I would hate to think about what they would have been able to do with a weapon like this one.
Sure there are freedom issues here, but why aren't we allowed to own Tanks?
So are you arguing that we should ban the .50 cals, or that we should allow lighters on planes?
Here in BLGM both lobby's are nothing compared to yours.
Weapons: All firearms except for specific hunting guns require a permit (hunting guns are all registered i think). To get this permit the ppl that live in your house and some neighbours will be asked if they are OK with you having a gun. The fact that anybody of age can buy a hunting gun is now being discussed by the parliament. The plan is to only sell to owners of a hunting permit.
I do not oppose this
The only thing the weapons lobby does here is making sure FN can sell their machinery all over the world (parliament needs to aprove on sales).
Tobacco: Belgium was early in adopting a European law that limited/forbid commercials (and billboards and stuff - sry can't come up with a nice word for <dutch>reclame</dutch>). A lot of events here are sponsored by big tobacco companys. The Belgian F1 Grand-prix is just one of them. We thank the car lobby for presuring the government into making an axception to allow tobacco 'reclame' for international events.
Lobby's are kinda weak here although car manufacturers have much to say in belgium. I think we produce the most cars/head of any country in the world. That and our little country is basicly covered with highway.
Now stop playing with fire and go practise some target shooting in the backyard y'all
EDIT: oops, on airline safety... Our national airline went bankrupt a few years ago, so i don't have much to say about that
One is allowed and the other is not, one appears to be much more dangerous than the other.
An airport check in process is a much more controlled enviroment than someone being able to take potshots from around an airport.
Why is there so much concern about one and not the other.
Again, it's not an easy subject to touch upon, freedom issues never are. But having these weapons so easily accessible on the open market seems to be a major faux pas to me.
I am trying to imagine a scenario where a lighter could be considered a threat aboard an aircraft.
Even punctured/heated, the explosion is pretty small and likely to wound the instigator, leaving no clear greater purpose than random mayhem, which can also be caused by too many gin-and-tonics.
If it was to be used to light a fuse of somesort (nevermind how whatever it was attached to got on the plane), the same could be accomplished by matches, which are not yet mentioned as prohibited in the Intelligence/Terrorism bill referred to.
I frankly don't understand the reasoning here.
Well that's not quite what I was asking...
I don't quite know how to answer the question. Why are lighters banned? (among many other silly items) and what purpose does a .50 cal sniper rifle serve society.
Sure, this is a "free" (see ordered liberty) society. But there are plenty of things that are illegal or regulated due to how they can affect the health and welfare of the public.
This would appear to be one of those items.
Just wondering if you thought it would be better to resolve the hypocrisy by banning the rifles, or by re-allowing the lighters.
The problem I have is that many rifles can penetrate a plane's skin. Banning .50 caliber rifles is just a feel-good exercise that doesn't do anything to reduce the threat from .40 caliber rifles, not to mention the larger .30 calibers. I'm reasonably sure that with a well-placed shot someone with a 30.-06 could bring down an aircraft thats taking off or landing. Sure you gotta be a little closer, but that's not hard, is it? So where do we stop in the name of protecting the public? And how protection are we really offering by banning one weapon?
This just feeds into the right-wing propoganda machine that tells people 'look, liberals want to take your guns away'.
This is why the NRA is opposed to everything because as soon as you open the door the govt will use a earlier law or ruling to create another law and another and another and the next thing you know BB guns will be outlawed, so will rubber bands,paperclips,box cutters,pocket knives, and that pen that can be used as a weapon.
Govt control freaks are allways looking for more control. example the idiot known as the shoebomber. we never had a shoebomber in almost 100 years of aviation but because of this one sole idiot, billions have had to remove their shoes everytime when flying. Even domestic flights. The shoe bomber won, sure he sits in jail but he won. we lost a little more freedom. If he ever gets out I would like to beat his arse for this inconvience to the world.
You cant create a law for every situation in the world but the reactionary congress is trying..... and we loose a little more freedom everytime. Cars have killed a million times more people yet we let people who couldnt catch a ball get behind the wheel and drive. We have enough Govt intrusion into our lives we dont need more. If someone gets their kicks out of shooting a 50 caliber let them. Passing laws just in case or as reactionary measures doesnt work and is stupid wasteful and grows the Govt. Are we about Freedom or are we about what the govt says you can and cant do. Wish i had a joint right about now. edit- forgot Govt say i cant have that either something to do with Mexicans and Dupont 50 years ago.
We're talking about the .50 cal here. Other guns come close but none has the fire power of an Apache attack copter. After 1.5 miles the impact of the round is greater than that of a .44 Magnum point blank. Enough to pierce .5inches of steel or 2 feet of concrete. This is an exceptional weapon. The Taliban acquired 25 during the 80s to use in Afghanistan, it is a highly valued weapon.
Banning is one thing, restricting access is another. Schwarzenegger decided that it needed to be regulated and in California you have to be registered to own one, it makes sense to track the whereabouts of weapons like these in case planes start getting downed and people cut in half from 1.5 miles away. Yes, plenty of guns can pierce the skin of a plane, but not with the distance, accuracy and force of this weapon.
Sure Republicans can overlook the fact that they have banned lighters and nail clippers from civilian flights to scream about the left wanting to regulate this weapon, but I think that even conservatives to a large extent will see that this weapon is out of the ordinary.
Where do you draw the line?Link
How many civilian airplanes do you know of with 1/2" of steel for a skin?
Because this could clearly happen right? Slippery slope arguments are ridiculous, there is a difference here. The NRA is unreasonable, perhaps due to where their funding comes from. Those who run the NRA also make pretty good money playing on peoples fears.
I've never been for an outright ban on guns, but some weapons are so potentially detrimental, there has to be some kind of regulation.
And of course, this is from the party that would regulate a womans right to choose, decides what drugs you can and cannot take, and promises to appoint tougher judges and more laws to regulate ordinary citizens. Not to mention the Patriot Acts, violations of constitutional protections conerning right to trial and telling you where you can buy your medicine and where you can't.
That is what it is capable of. I don't imagine fuel tanks are made of paper, nor are rail cars containing dangerous chemicals. They may not be .5 inches of steel, but anything with less armor than .51 is vulnerable to this weapon.
Ok, but what do you propose to do about the rifles that shoot a .458 Win round? Or a .45-70 Government round? Will you be telling me that anything with less that .40" of armor is vulnerable? And just how thick is the skin on planes?
And if you're worried about the effects on a rail car, we've just seen a MUCH more effective way to breach a car containing a hazardous chemical - you derail it. And derailing a train does not require a gun, does it? Hell, a 1/2" steel plate would probably be more effective at derailing and dispersing a dangerous chemical than a Barret. Or you could just park a large SUV on the tracks...
My point isn't that .50 caliber rifles aren't dangerous. They are, no question. But 9/11 was carried out with boxcutters. My point is that terrorists will simply use a different method, and if we've given up more of our freedoms to try to compensate, we're losing. I don't see banning or restricting ownership of a $10,000 gun saving us from any terrorist attack.
Let me remind you that the thugs(terrorist) used box cutters. not 50 calibers to take out Jets. Face it anything can be used as a weapon why dont we outlaw EVERYTHING! or how about a govt camera at every corner?? why not just put a cop in every house? better yet why dont they just arrest everone? In the end its what they want. Control over everything you think say or may do. But in the mean time while going crazy passing all kinds of useless law we have 5 million illegals walking across our border and many of them are allready criminals and this same Govt ignores it. Its so much easier going after the law abiding citizen isnt it.
That's besides the point. It is interesting how you both made the same point however, same source? Regardless, Box cutters are one method, .50 Sniper Rifles are another.
.50 Sniper Rifles are what is at issue. Because box cutters were used the first time, does it mean that .50 cals won't be used at some other time?
The use of box cutters still does not cover the merits and potential threat of having .50 caliber rifles available on the free market available to anyone at anytime with no knowledge of where they are and who is using them.
This is not a realistic argument. You are on the right track though, the actions of our government overseas through corporate influence has brought many of the problems we are facing concerning terrorism, if not all. But for some reason, no one wants to acknowledge that and elect someone who would make the appropriate changes to how foreign policy is executed.
Then to be fair we should do nothing at all, because everything done so far is just as bad.
Just to reiterate, nobody ever claimed that anyone would try to use a .50 cal to hijack an airplane. Ever, ever, ever.
There are lighters for that.