Arnold Bans 50 Caliber Rifles in California

[p0ink]

U.S. National - Reuters Schwarzenegger Bans Rifle in Support of Gun Control
yahoo | Tue Sep 14 | Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Breaking with Republican lawmakers who oppose gun control and a Hollywood film career filled with gun play, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) has signed a bill banning .50-caliber BMG rifles, an aide said on Tuesday.

Reuters Photo

The large-caliber, high-powered rifle is used by the military and police to shoot at long-range targets, including ones more than a mile away.

Civilian owners of the weapon typically use the rifle at firing-ranges and for big-game hunting, but with armor-piercing ammunition the rifle can penetrate concrete shelters and lightly armored vehicles.

Critics of the rifle argue there is no reasonable civilian use for the weapon. They say it could be used by terrorists to shoot at oil refineries and airplanes, or by snipers against people. Gun rights advocates maintain the weapon has not been used in a crime in California.

Despite his gun-toting film career, Schwarzenegger is in favor of some gun controls, including the 10-year federal ban that expired on Monday on certain semiautomatic firearms known as "assault weapons," said his spokeswoman Terri Carbaugh.

"He's committed to keeping the public and law enforcement as safe as possible," said Carbaugh. "This lines up with his philosophy that reasonable gun control measures are necessary to accomplish that objective."

 

[p0ink]

ok, so he bans a rifle that has never been used in a crime before, so he can keep people 'safe'?

um..hello? the average person cannot even afford a 2-12g 50 caliber rifle. who is he kidding about not wanting these to 'wind up in the hands of criminals'?

too bad he had to fuck his state like that, because Barrett rifles, the leaders in the 50 caliber industry, has promised never to sell any of their products to california police, SWAT, or california guard units again.

 

[MAX 300]

OMG, what an anti-gun nut. Does that mean he will also prevent people from their constitutional right to own RPG launchers and shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles?

Just how are you supposed to shoot incoming aircrafts down now?

 

[Dial_tone]

Great business plan....we can't sell to residents so we won't sell to law enforcement either. Pure genius.

 

[p0ink]

Great business plan....we can't sell to residents so we won't sell to law enforcement either. Pure genius.

sometimes it's not about making money.

not like this is going to hurt barrett, since they are the main 50 cal manufacturer for the united states military.

 

[manny78]

I wonder how would someone use a .50BMG in a crime. These rifles are heavy and the recoil is punishing for any newbie...

Nothing compares to a .50BMg for big game hunting

 

[Lestat]

I don't see the problem here...

.50 caliber has no place in a civilian's hands.

 

[p0ink]

I don't see the problem here...

.50 caliber has no place in a civilian's hands.

speak for yourself, not the millions of americans who actually value freedom and the constitution.

 

[p0ink]

I wonder how would someone use a .50BMG in a crime. These rifles are heavy and the recoil is punishing for any newbie...

Nothing compares to a .50BMg for big game hunting

yeah, no shit. no fucking criminal is going to lug around something as big as a 50.

 

[Testosterone boy]

This was idiocy.

Props to barrett for flipping the bird to the enclosing police state.

 

[Lestat]

speak for yourself, not the millions of americans who actually value freedom and the constitution.

I'm all for personal freedoms and liberty, but there really isn't much reason you or I should own a .50 caliber weapon, its pretty simple.

There are far bigger issues in my mind anyway, what about drugs? prostitution? What the fuck man.. those are things that ARE used every day by pretty normal Americans, yet they are constantly persecuted. Lets get the priorities straight.

 

[Delinquent]

I'm all for personal freedoms and liberty, but there really isn't much reason you or I should own a .50 caliber weapon, its pretty simple.

There are far bigger issues in my mind anyway, what about drugs? prostitution? What the fuck man.. those are things that ARE used every day by pretty normal Americans, yet they are constantly persecuted. Lets get the priorities straight.

Has drugs or prostitution ever threatened your livelyhood or your freedom? The right to bear arms is there ro protect us in case the people do in fact have to fight the government. If that is the case, why can't the people of this country posess SOME of the weapons that our governement uses. I'm not saying that ballistic missles and shit should be allowed but like was said before, normal criminals aren't gonna grab a behemoth like a .50 caliber to mug you.

 

[vinylgroover]

speak for yourself, not the millions of americans who actually value freedom and the constitution.

hand me a violin

 

[HS Lifter]

hand me a violin

LMAO

 

[Testosterone boy]

Great business plan....we can't sell to residents so we won't sell to law enforcement either. Pure genius.

It was a long term decision to possibly discourage other states from following suit.

This law is easy pickings for someone who wants to flex their muscles. Who is going to stick up for the .50 cal.? About 300 owners?

New laws like this is great ammunition for the conspiracy and police state guys.

 

[Lestat]

Has drugs or prostitution ever threatened your livelyhood or your freedom? The right to bear arms is there ro protect us in case the people do in fact have to fight the government. If that is the case, why can't the people of this country posess SOME of the weapons that our governement uses. I'm not saying that ballistic missles and shit should be allowed but like was said before, normal criminals aren't gonna grab a behemoth like a .50 caliber to mug you.

the more guns and gun owners out there.. the LESS safe I feel.

Why? Because I don't ever anticipate having to rise up against the government with a 9mm pistol.

i do, however, worry about the teenage kids next door getting ahold of their dads gun and messing around with it.

I do worry that I could be robbed at gun point.

I do worry that people, even friends, loved ones, get emotional and could do harm to themselves or other with access to a weapon.

Drugs and prostitution tend to bring crime, and that is a valid issue. I am not for legalization outright, but i think things needs to be done.

 

[HS Lifter]

the more guns and gun owners out there.. the LESS safe I feel.

Why? Because I don't ever anticipate having to rise up against the government with a 9mm pistol.

i do, however, worry about the teenage kids next door getting ahold of their dads gun and messing around with it.

I do worry that I could be robbed at gun point.

I do worry that people, even friends, loved ones, get emotional and could do harm to themselves or other with access to a weapon.

Drugs and prostitution tend to bring crime, and that is a valid issue. I am not for legalization outright, but i think things needs to be done.

LOL good points.

I bet poink owns a rambo bandanna.

 

[UA_Iron]

speak for yourself, not the millions of americans who actually value freedom and the constitution.

I bet you supported the patriot act too.

 

[p0ink]

I feel....I don't ever anticipate...i do, however, worry....I do worry...I do worry...i think...

sums up your whole argument; all emotion and no logic or fact to back it up. by chance, do you vote democrat?

 

[Debaser]

sums up your whole argument; all emotion and no logic or fact to back it up. by chance, do you vote democrat?

All emotion and no logic, eh? I remember when you tried to justify the beating and rape of a man with a tree-branch because he peeped on a girl. Your justification? He had it comin' to him? You're by far one of the most illogical, emotion-driven nuts on here.

 

[p0ink]

All emotion and no logic, eh? I remember when you tried to justify the beating and rape of a man with a tree-branch because he peeped on a girl. Your justification? He had it comin' to him? You're by far one of the most illogical, emotion-driven nuts on here.

yes, all emotion and no logic because it has already been shown that the more legal, law-abiding gun owners you have packing, the more crime drops down. look at every state's crime stats before and after they adopted CCW laws.

oh yeah, and please bump that thread up. because i remember saying that they were over-the-top by beating him and sodomizing him with a tree branch for over an hour. i advocated using lethal force if he were to break into your home.

get your shit straight, moron.

 

[p0ink]

I bet you supported the patriot act too.

and i bet you have you no real suggestion on how to deal with terrorism effectively.

it sure is easy to sit back and criticize, huh?

 

[HS Lifter]

and i bet you have you no real suggestion on how to deal with terrorism effectively.

it sure is easy to sit back and criticize, huh?

Im not a political science major, but do you think "minding our own damn business" help prevent terror?

 

[p0ink]

ahh...the blame america first and always crowd.

 

[HS Lifter]

ahh...the blame america first and always crowd.

answer the question, its legit. Instead of rolling your eyes like a little school girl.

 

[UA_Iron]

and i bet you have you no real suggestion on how to deal with terrorism effectively.

it sure is easy to sit back and criticize, huh?

pull the f*ck out of isreal, stop supporting the jews. Stop being over in the middle east, stop thinking we could change things over there. Practice isolationism.

You think retaliation will magically fix things? No. They're more inclined to pull more stunts like that now that we gave them 1000's of reasons to.

Simple logic has been thrown out the door. Neo-conservatism must die.

 

[Debaser]

yes, all emotion and no logic because it has already been shown that the more legal, law-abiding gun owners you have packing, the more crime drops down. look at every state's crime stats before and after they adopted CCW laws.

oh yeah, and please bump that thread up. because i remember saying that they were over-the-top by beating him and sodomizing him with a tree branch for over an hour. i advocated using lethal force if he were to break into your home.

get your shit straight, moron.

Actually, you didn't post at all on the thread. I had you confused with austin316, you two are remarkably similar. Or I could have been thinking about the thread where you justified murder in that security guard fiasco, even though it was clearly not self-defense. But my point still stands that your sense of "logic" is laughable.

Oh, and what an interesting tidbit about the CCW laws. I'd like to argue further on that topic, but in case you forgot, this is about 50-caliber rifles.

 

[p0ink]

Oh, and what an interesting tidbit about the CCW laws. I'd like to argue further on that topic, but in case you forgot, this is about 50-caliber rifles.

yeah, this involves taking away firearms from the legal, law-abiding citizens, unlike CCW which gives them more freedom.

face it, the more firearms are restricted the more crime goes up.

 

[HS Lifter]

Pig,


I like how you avoid UA iron's and HS lifter's posts.

 

[fogg88]

kind of ironic, considering his trademark use of D.E. 50's in many of his films.

 

[Lestat]

sums up your whole argument; all emotion and no logic or fact to back it up. by chance, do you vote democrat?

This will probably be the first year I vote democrat actually.

Why?

Because no amount of money is worth the price of freedom.

I am not willing to take a small take break, but give up personal liberty to the likes of Ashcroft and the patriot act.

I don't like being lied to either. The tax break was a scam. It didn't help my family, sure my dad got like $1500 more take home pay, but do you know how much more he has to pay for my brother's public college education??? a hell of a fuck lot more then $1500. Those government subsidies HELPED people like me get to college, get educated, and go one to help make the CEO of my company a lot of money. Sure it has worked out well for me as well, I make decent money, I'm happy... but I took full advantage of grants and subsidized loans.. these are paid for by tax dollars.. tax dollars that many repuglicans would like to see eliminated.

You'll likely wise up one day. Things are changing man.. big time. I was a very comfortable republican for many years... smaller government, more money in my pocket.. great things! But at what price?

I'd glady pay 5% more in taxes to have the right to do anything I want with my body.. to marry anyone I wanted... those little things... things that this country was FOUNDED to protect.

Oh and stem cell research? Why does fucking religion STILL play a role in major decisions with regards to medical research? I thought we had separation of church and state here.

Seriously p0ink, I like you, we've chatted before one on one... I like reading your posts and a lot of the stuff you post.. but as one smart guy to another, please do me a favor and just really take a look at your core beliefs and values...

its so crazy that the elite and rich can convince so many working class people to just regurgitate these arguments that are bold face lies... its sad... so sad.

That's not emotion talking, thats logic, sound logic.

 

[slickdadd]

We are very behind in terms of seperating our country from religious ideals compared to other western countries. Notice how we overract to things such as the janet jackson super bowl incident, while nudity is broadcast on live network tv in many other countries on a daily basis. We are told and told again we are free, and while we are to some extent, we aren't as free as many other western countries. Religion within our leadership has a lot to do with that, if not the majority.

 

[Robert Jan]

who gives a shit if he banned such and such a type of rifle you guys are acting like gun laws are the very essence of politics. They're hardly even relevant IMO

Im not really pro or against public gun ownership i honestly just dont give a shit whats so damn important about them

So you can fight an invasion- who in their right mind would invade the USA with or without home guns?

So you can overthrow the government? you guys take more shit from your government than we would in my country I can tell you that.

Then there is the argument that you can kill a burglar with them well burglars are really very harmless. they arent boogie men. They are losers, bout 20-24 yr old usually, who just want to nick a DVD or VCR and run. If you switch on the light they run away. They are shit scared to get caught for burgling usually, killing woudln't even cross their minds.

How many people get killed a year by somebody that broke into their house?

If he knew the burglar and was an enemy, disregard. If I had made enemies I'd want a gun too.

to me they're toys and people who put too much importance in them are little silly boys. Unless you all have crazy serious enemies over serious issues. then I'd want guns too.

 

[gregory]

who gives a shit if he banned such and such a type of rifle you guys are acting like gun laws are the very essence of politics. They're hardly even relevant IMO

Im not really pro or against public gun ownership i honestly just dont give a shit whats so damn important about them

So you can fight an invasion- who in their right mind would invade the USA with or without home guns?

So you can overthrow the government? you guys take more shit from your government than we would in my country I can tell you that.

Then there is the argument that you can kill a burglar with them well burglars are really very harmless. they arent boogie men. They are losers, bout 20-24 yr old usually, who just want to nick a DVD or VCR and run. If you switch on the light they run away. They are shit scared to get caught for burgling usually, killing woudln't even cross their minds.

How many people get killed a year by somebody that broke into their house?

If he knew the burglar and was an enemy, disregard. If I had made enemies I'd want a gun too.

to me they're toys and people who put too much importance in them are little silly boys. Unless you all have crazy serious enemies over serious issues. then I'd want guns too.

Ummmmm like, NO! Are you derranged?

 

[Robert Jan]

Ummmmm like, NO! Are you derranged?

Well explain why you disagree with the post.

 

[danielson]

im guessing they were worried about the terrorism aspect of it....being able to take down bigger targets with it


So just regulate the guns more stringently....

 

[gregory]

too much to go into but you assume some things that are not true. First off gun laws only take arms away from law abiding citizens, whom are not criminals. Now criminals don't give two shits about the law, so any gun banning law is laughable to them. Law or no law criminals do and always will own guns. LAWS don't apply to criminals, i wish everyone got that through their head (not you per say), laws apply to law abiding people. It's a simple fact.

Ahem, you can't seriousley assume that a burglar in your house is not there to hurt you. Seriousley now, if someone enters your house they are capable of anything. But let's say they don't have a gun. But pull our a baseball bat or a carving knife, then what? Would you rather have a knife as well and engage in a knife or a bat fight? Not me sir, I'll pull out my 45 point and ask nicely for the burglar to get down and call the 911. Guns are the ultimate equalizers and should be used with respect.

I don't buy into the logic of disarming citizens to protect themselves and their children from well...Themselves.

Also Guns for the public are the fourth leg in the American system of checks and balances. It's an idea the USA was founded and built upon, to enpower it's citizens.

 

[bluepeter]

Please explain to me why someone needs to own a gun like this, or an Uzi or any other such weapon. You want to have the right to own a firearm? Go ahead but there is no reasonable use by a civilian of such a weapon.

 

[gregory]

Please explain to me why someone needs to own a gun like this, or an Uzi or any other such weapon. You want to have the right to own a firearm? Go ahead but there is no reasonable use by a civilian of such a weapon.

Explain why they would not? Just because you don't agree with some people's hobbies you should not project your mentality on them. BTW, i don't own any guns.

What if you're a collector? What if it hanging on your basement wall makes you feel more masculine and drop bigger loads, who cares, if you like it and can afford it, you should have it.

 

[bluepeter]

Explain why they would not? Just because you don't agree with some people's hobbies you should not project your mentality on them. BTW, i don't own any guns.

What if you're a collector? What if it hanging on your basement wall makes you feel more masculine and drop bigger loads, who cares, if you like it and can afford it, you should have it.

I would feel infinitely more comfortable knowing that anyone who might suddenly go postal does so with a Glock rather than a .50 Caliber

 

[manny78]

Please explain to me why someone needs to own a gun like this, or an Uzi or any other such weapon. You want to have the right to own a firearm? Go ahead but there is no reasonable use by a civilian of such a weapon.

For the same reasons people own cars with more than 100HP...

 

[manny78]

Since this is a major concern for some big game hunters, I'll move this one to the outfoorsmen forum.

 

[bluepeter]

For the same reasons people own cars with more than 100HP...

Nice analogy. How much more dangerous is a car (which, by the way, does not have the primary purpose of killing something) with 200HP than one with 100HP? Now, how much more dangerous is a .50 caliber with armour piercing bullets than a simple handgun?

 

[gregory]

I would feel infinitely more comfortable knowing that anyone who might suddenly go postal does so with a Glock rather than a .50 Caliber

Actually the glock would be more deadly, given it's conceability, rate of fire and ease of aim. Bigger is not lways better in a "going postal" situation.

 

[gregory]

Nice analogy. How much more dangerous is a car (which, by the way, does not have the primary purpose of killing something) with 200HP than one with 100HP? Now, how much more dangerous is a .50 caliber with armour piercing bullets than a simple handgun?

Actually a better comparison would be a 100hp civic vs. a 600hp Viper.

 

[bluepeter]

Actually a better comparison would be a 100hp civic vs. a 600hp Viper.

OK, so which is more deadly? Keeping in mind that you are using them as designed....

Then use the handgun and the .50 caliber as designed and tell me which is more deadly.........

 

[gregory]

Something can't be more or less deadly when used as designated. Dead is a very final state. A bullet through the head from a glock, a 45 or a 50 cal are all equally deadly.

 

[bluepeter]

Something can't be more or less deadly when used as designated. Dead is a very final state. A bullet through the head from a glock, a 45 or a 50 cal are all equally deadly.

Not true. I can kill you through some armored vehicles with a .50 caliber, could I do the same with a normal handgun? A .50 caliber is designed for such a purpose which is why IMO, it has no place in civilian hands. If you want to own a handgun to protect yourself, knock yourself out.

 

[manny78]

OK, so which is more deadly? Keeping in mind that you are using them as designed....

Then use the handgun and the .50 caliber as designed and tell me which is more deadly.........

The car is more deadly, according to every statistic available on this planet. People die every day while using their car as designed. Guns are made to shoot bullets. To shoot at what ? That's up to you. COuld be a target, animal, human.... cars are made to drive. To drive where and how ? Once again, that's up to you. But obviously, there's more people misusing their car than people killiing other folks every year.

 

[bluepeter]

The car is more deadly, according to every statistic available on this planet. People die every day while using their car as designed. Guns are made to shoot bullets. To shoot at what ? That's up to you. COuld be a target, animal, human.... cars are made to drive. To drive where and how ? Once again, that's up to you. But obviously, there's more people misusing their car than people killiing other folks every year.

100% true but a car is still not designed to kill something, a gun is.

 

[hooch]

LOL @ you gun nuts...!! How in the world can you justify allowing civilians to own a 50 Cal sniper rifle???

 

[manny78]

LOL @ you gun nuts...!! How in the world can you justify allowing civilians to own a 50 Cal sniper rifle???

You don't need to justify your rights.

 

[bluepeter]

You don't need to justify your rights.

Explain why it should be your right to own such a weapon........obviously has nothing to do with defending yourself, unless some armoured tanks decide to invade your property.

 

[manny78]

Explain why it should be your right to own such a weapon........obviously has nothing to do with defending yourself, unless some armoured tanks decide to invade your property.

Who are you to decide what's good and what's not ? Next thing, you'll be the one telling us we don't need gear, BigMacs, porn and convertible cars.

Did you know that the US laws consider anything over .50 as a Class III while canadian laws allow you to buy anything which is why I can own a M-203 grenade launcher and a 14.5mm anti-tank rifle (with the ammos....). If Canada consider this to be normal, then I think it should since we're in some liberal fucktard country....

 

[bluepeter]

Who are you to decide what's good and what's not ? Next thing, you'll be the one telling us we don't need gear, BigMacs, porn and convertible cars.

Did you know that the US laws consider anything over .50 as a Class III while canadian laws allow you to buy anything which is why I can own a M-203 grenade launcher and a 14.5mm anti-tank rifle (with the ammos....). If Canada consider this to be normal, then I think it should since we're in some liberal fucktard country....

I'm not saying I should decide and as for Canada, my humble opinion doesn't change. They obviously don't need them either.

Keep in mind dude that I'm not some gun control advocate here, I'm simply stating that nobody requires weaponry like this. Right to bear arms? Go ahead, I don't really care. Right to defend oneself and ones home? Knock yourself out. None of these rights requires weaponry such as we are discussing here.

 

[manny78]

I'm not saying I should decide and as for Canada, my humble opinion doesn't change. They obviously don't need them either.

Keep in mind dude that I'm not some gun control advocate here, I'm simply stating that nobody requires weaponry like this. Right to bear arms? Go ahead, I don't really care. Right to defend oneself and ones home? Knock yourself out. None of these rights requires weaponry such as we are discussing here.

If you go by actual needs and what this or that requires, we might end up in the Stone Age. I actually find many items useless including some firearms. Nobody really needs a full auto, not even the cops since these are so inaccurate, greater recoil and tend to break faster. That's why for example the RCMp has no full-auto weapons and they still do they job pretty fine. But that doesnt mean people shouldn't have one. That's up to you if you find a purpose to these. The cool factor is the only reason for me to keep one.

 

[newpump]

Newpump hides his nice M82A1 from the anti-gun nuts....

 

[gregory]

I think Arnold did the right thing here. Think about it, as a prominent politician he has a lot of people to appease. So instead of passing any more ridiculous laws against firearms he appeased both sides by making a very intimidating weapon illegal, now to the average lay person given the snipings of the past it's a great thing. And to the gun enthusiast, it's a gun that 99.9% will never own anyway. Brilliant way to really make both sides happy, if you think about it.

 

[John C Calhoun]

Do any of you asslicks realize how heavy and difficult to use this weapon is? Its not some little Saturday night special you stuff into your pocket and rob a liquor store with. Its used for big game hunting - Look at the replies from Manny. Some people own it because its their hobby. I have a colleage that is a lisenced gun dealer with a collection of guns worth well over 100k. Most of his guns serve no useful purpose - things like civil war guns or American revolution replicas. Its his hobby and his right - owning something like this does not mean a crme is going to be commited with it any more than owning a Ferrari means you will try to race down main street like you are a Michael Schumacher.

 

[Firebaall]

.50 cal rifles are used by many long range shooters in competitive sport shooting. That bill just took away a recreation from those ppl that they enjoy. There was no reason to ban these weapons. And I thought Canadian gun laws were crazy.

You ask what legitimate use these firearms have....there you go.

 

[newpump]

Good point. I love every anti-gun nuts general response to owning a gun. It is ALWAYS "tell me why you need it". uh.. NO. I don't HAVE to, it is a constitutional RIGHT. but, as a side note, .50 cals are GREAT for target shooting at long distances (which I consider a very difficult and challenging sport to master), have VERY LITTLE use in crime (.50 cals have never been used in crimes - see many posts on how hard it is to conceal one of these puppies), are expensive (beyond the means of most gang bangers) and are generally well put together and excellent quality rifles (reliable, accurate etc). Do I NEED? it? well, no... but how many OTHER things do I own that I don't need???? well, lets just run down the top 10:

1. TV
2. Computer
3. Motorcycle
4. Large house
5. Car with over 90 HP
6. Stereo
7. Gym Membership
8. Fashionable Clothes
9. more than 1 pair of shoes
10. Deck on my house

I don't NEED any of those items. Not one. Not a single one. In fact, all anyone REALLY needs is basic shelter, food and water. Is that a good basis to determine if we should make a law AGAINST those items? Of course not, that is silly. The whole "tell me why you need it" angle is a great way to enact some truely useless laws.

The other major arguement I saw was "the only purpose of a gun is to kill people". Um... no. Guns are made for a variety of reasons, here are the biggest uses for a gun:

1. Target practice (LOTS OF FUN!!)
2. Home/work defense (not so fun)
3. Investment (many guns have good collectable value - the .50 cal is one type of gun that DOES)
4. Competition shooting (related to target practice, but for more advanced shooters - even seen in the olympics)

Of the 4 "reasons" to own I gun that I mentioned above, only 1 relates to "killing". Now, as has been stated, MANY MANY MANY items that we have in our daily lives CAN be used for killing, as CAN a gun. Cars can be used to run TONS Of people over in a crowded area - and are also excellent as bomb devices. How often do we hear in the "FUD" (Fear, Uncertanty and Doubt) driven media about a car that was used to bomb large numbers of people in the middle east? I think that happens FAR more often than a .50 cal gun is used to "bring down a plane" - I feat which I argue is next to impossible BTW. Should we ban cars? MAybe only "BIG" cars? I mean, BIG cars carry more explosives, right? So they must be more dangerous, Right? Why do you need a "big" car anyway? See the point? Please, PLEASE THINK before you react to emotionally driven agruements. Liberal idiology relies on the "emotion" factor (FUD etc) - which is one of the major reasons that most major news organizations are liberal bias. Look beyond the FUD.

 

[Guvna]

If you go by actual needs and what this or that requires, we might end up in the Stone Age. I actually find many items useless including some firearms. Nobody really needs a full auto, not even the cops since these are so inaccurate, greater recoil and tend to break faster. That's why for example the RCMp has no full-auto weapons and they still do they job pretty fine. But that doesnt mean people shouldn't have one. That's up to you if you find a purpose to these. The cool factor is the only reason for me to keep one.

EXACTLY. If I see one more post with the words "why do you NEED," I am going to fucking scream. There are only about 3-5 things people "need" to live. Any argument that starts with "why do you need" is inapplicable, irrelevant, and just plain ignorant.

 

[Guvna]

k to newpump, gregory, and manny, for saving me many many words before I saw this thread.

 

[PolfaJelfa]

Arnold is a closet democrat... i would never support him and i am a Republican. He is a tool....supports anti steroid legislation, abortion, anti 2nd ammendment. I have ZERO respect for him. He is a selloout and a flip flop just like John Kerry. I would vote for any democrat before voting for him, i hate democrats but i do respect the ones who openly talk about their tryanical views.. More so than "Republicans" who have nothing in common with the party.