Gov. Christie refuses to sign 3 gun bills, including version of weapon ban he called for

[derby378]

Source: The Star-Ledger

After months of pressure from both sides of the gun control debate, Gov. Chris Christie today refused to sign three controversial gun control measures sitting on his desk — including a version of a weapon ban that he had called for.

Christie altered two bills, sending them back to the Legislature — a massive measure (S2723) known as state Senate President Stephen Sweeney’s “centerpiece” to overhaul the way the state issues firearms ID cards, and legislation to require New Jersey law enforcement agencies to report information on lost, stolen and discarded guns to federal databases (A3797).

But the governor completely axed a bill that would ban the Barrett .50 caliber rifle(A3659), which is the most powerful weapon commonly available to civilians. Christie had called for a ban on future sales of the weapon in his own package of violent prevention measures outlined in April.

In his veto message delivered this evening, Christie said that his proposal to ban the weapon was more narrowly tailored than the bill the Legislature passed, which would have also required owners to give them up.

Read more: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/christie_nj_gun_control_bills_legislature_governor_2016_president.html

[Deep13]

1. Didn't he also veto gay marriage?

Dick governor becoming more dickish to run for POTUS.

[madashelltoo]

2. I will never understand the Christi love affair.

He is screwing New Jersey residents royally and all I hear is how wonderful he's doing. Privatized the prison system with his buddy and it's criminal what they have done to it. He put on a big show for money for Sandy victims . . . Big deal. We'll find out soon enough the funding was re-routed to some fat cat pet fund. Don't like him . . . Never have.

[CTyankee]

41. If he runs against Hillary in 2016, maybe she'll goad him into yelling at her with that snarl on his

face that women voters will find oh so charming! Do it, Hillary!

[Blue_Tires]

44. +1000

[SunSeeker]

3. Craven douchebag. It's all about Christie, not the safety of Americans. nt

[Duckhunter935]

4. have to love

gun confiscation

[SunSeeker]

8. More like cannon confiscation.

The Barrett 50 was marketed to the military as being "able to bring down a modern jet." Rachel just did a great piece on it, showing the marketing pamphlets.

No civilian should have a Barrett 50.

[NickB79]

11. Yeah, when it's parked on a runway

Shooting one down from the sky with a shoulder-fired rifle? Not a chance in hell.

Even the caliber isn't used any longer in fighter jets for dogfighting; they've upgraded to the much larger 20mm cannon, firing at mind-boggling speeds.

[Duckhunter935]

13. I disagree

she showed some marketing by the manufacturer trying to sell it. It does not work for that purpose and that is why it is not used for that. I like Rachel but she was big time pushing a bogus point on that. You just can not bring down a modern jet with one. Why do you think back when they did use 50 caliber for air defense it was quad 50's. It does not work, not accurate enough, that is why red-eye and stinger were developed.

[derby378]

14. You do realize how high commercial aircraft flies, right?

A .50-cal Barrett has no hope of bringing down anything at those altitudes. Anything that could is listed on the NFA registry and thus illegal unless you have a Federal permit. I say leave the Barrett rifles alone.

[SunSeeker]

15. A civilian has no legitimate need for a .50-cal Barrett.

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:44 PM - Edit history (2)

It could bring down an aircraft. But I think, as another poster noted, I don't need to post how. I wish the gungeoneers were right and the Barrett was utterly worthless and harmless. Alas, I live in reality.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. The U.S. does not have a Dept. of Needs.

I don't have to show a need to a federal bureaucrat before I buy something. All I "need" is the want it and have the money for it, unless it has already been made illegal.

Ban the .50 and somebody will market a .49. What will you do then?

[NickB79]

17. Already done: the .416 Barrett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett

The cartridge was designed as an improvement to the .50 BMG cartridge, a common machine-gun and rifle cartridge.

Fully legal AND more potent than the caliber it replaces. Damn.

[SunSeeker]

18. Government is all about meeting our needs.

We need education, security, infrastructures, etc. That is the whole point of government: to do what we cannot do as individuals or what is more efficiently done collectively.

This involves a weighing of interests to determine the action that is best for the population as a whole.

The public's need for safety far outweighs your desire for a dangerous gun for which you have no legitimate need.

And yes, if some irresponsible gun manufacturer decided to sell a .49, that should be banned too.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. How many crimes have been committed with a .50?

I mean crimes committed. If you go to VPC you will find that their number is padded. They count mere possession by a criminal as being a crime committed. They count crimes in other countries. (How will outlawing the .50 in the U.S. stop crimes in other countries?) How many of those that they list could have been done ONLY by a .50? Some of them could have been done by a handgun.

Only three real crimes in the U.S. have been done by .50s. One of those was at close range and could have been done by a handgun. So you are left with only two crimes where being a .50 was a factor.

That is over a period of about 15 years. So you are getting excited over nothing.

Since you would also ban the .49, what is the maximum caliber you would allow? I already know the answer, you would ban all guns from civilians.

[SunSeeker]

20. Why wait for a disaster before enacting common sense gun laws?

Should we have let terrorists take pilot classes until after they flew a plane into a building?

We need common sense gun control like in Australia. Aussies have guns, just not military style weapons. And ever since they enacted those laws, their mass shootings have stopped.

[Duckhunter935]

28. how many did

they have prior?

Whats military style? looks or function?

A Remington 700 bolt action rifle is a military weapon

My Mosin is a military rifle
my Colt 45 is a military weapon

[derby378]

96. I've heard this argument before

Mexico's gun laws appear to be even tougher than Australia's, and look how much carnage has been going on down there. There is no "one size fits all" approach to violent crime involving firearms.

[SunSeeker]

97. Mexico is NOTHING like Australia.

Sadly, they share a border with us and we are flooding their country with weapons. Because of our schizophrenic love of drugs while at the same time keeping them illegal, we are keeping their criminal drug lords in business...and they have overrun Mexico.

We need to legalize drugs and control guns. That will benefit our country and the world, especially Mexico.

[derby378]

98. While I am in favor of liberalizing marijuana laws and thus denying Mexican cartels their profits...

...the bulk of Mexico's gun laws were passed in 1967, when the nation was essentially ruled by a military dictatorship. I'll agree that more needs to be done towards drying up the shipments of guns over the border, but the suffering has been going on for a long, long time.

[Duckhunter935]

30. .338 Lapua Magnum

must ban them, longest confirmed sniper kill, 2,707 yd

7.62x51mm NATO had a 1,367 yd kill, ban them?

Sharps .50-90, 1,538 yd sniper shot in June 1874

The M24 Sniper Weapon System (SWS) is the military and police version of the Remington 700 rifle, ban the 700 hunting rifle?

[rrneck]

21. Modern commercial aircraft

are capable of takeoff with one engine disabled. They do it all the time with bird strikes and compressor stalls. System redundancy and multiple engines make disabling a commercial aircraft on takeoff or landing impossible with a rifle.

[SunSeeker]

22. We're not talking about an ordinary rifle. nt

[rrneck]

23. Against a 360 ton aircraft, it's a popgun.

The most you could do is damage one engine. Maybe. Otherwise you'll just punch a half inch hole in it and make it turn around and land again. That's assuming you shot it after the point of no return. Otherwise they will just hit the brakes and stop. And you will have to do that with a rifle that is five feet long and weigsh about thirty pounds deployed from a line of sight location close enough to accurately target the aircraft. The training to accomplish that task would require a highly skilled marksman with years of training.

It would be easier to smuggle a stinger missile into the country and use that.

[SunSeeker]

24. That's not how the manufacturer describes it.

Are you saying the manufacturer is lying?

[Duckhunter935]

27. yes

trying to get government contracts. I spent 20+ years in air defense. I think I know what I am talking about.

[SunSeeker]

33. Every time someone tells me they know what they're talking about...

I know they don't, just like whenever someone says "trust me," and especially so when it comes to anonymous internet posters.

[rrneck]

62. You believed "Rachel". nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Ouch! Even I could feel the sting from that one...

[SunSeeker]

93. You think it's clever to suggest a weapons manufacturer would commit a felony and lose contracts?

I'm not saying it's inconceivable, but why is it likely Barrett would lie (as opposed to an anonymous gungeoneer on a discussion board)? If Barrett lied, it would be readily discerned. No one has disputed Barrett's claims, notwithstanding our usual suspects here.

You do realize lying to the feds about the specs of a weapons system will not only result in felony charges, but....and this is the worst part as far as the 1%ers who own these corporate death merchants...it will cost you future federal contracts, i.e. MONEY. This is not like some ad on TV for hair cream. Lying to feds as opposed to consumers is a much riskier business.

BP lied to the feds, was charged with felonies and now they're not getting contracts (hence their whiny lawsuit that will go nowhere).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/bp-sues-government-oil-spill_n_3746314.html

[rrneck]

29. Yes.

The value of a .50 is not the power of the cartridge. Its value is its effective range. You can engage a target a mile away. But to do that you need somebody sufficiently trained to accurately fire it at that difference.

At a few hundred yards its no better than a deer rifle.

I'd be interested to see a link making that claim.

[SunSeeker]

32. Rachel showed the marketing materials on her show. nt

[Duckhunter935]

36. no one ever

lies or embellishes the truth to win a government contract. They do and that is the same with all advertising.

You must be very gullible, I am sorry. If they were that effective I am sure we would be using them as an air defense weapon. We do not and the only one even used is the back up weapon on the Avenger weapon system. It is a machine gun mounted to the moving turret. As far as I know never been able to shoot down live aircraft. Try that with a 50 caliber Barret handheld.

The Vulcan was the last gun only air defense weapon, Gatling gun that fired 20MM rounds at a very high rate of fire—around 100 rounds per second

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan

Learn something new every day....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TWQ-1_Avenger

Upgun, The modification was designed to allow the Avenger to perform unit and asset defense on top of its air defense mission. The right missile pod was removed and the M3P .50 cal machine gun was moved to the pod’s former position.

Machine gun not good for air defence so it was modified for ground defense.

[Paladin]

40. Thanks for the information. Please stay out of my neighborhood. (nt)

[rrneck]

49. Ms. Maddow is wrong.

She is a talking head on television that makes a living telling people what they want to hear.

I googled certain terms like "bullet hole in airplane" and found the following. Research online is pretty easy if you take the time to do it. Apparently Ms. Maddow needs to beef up her research staff. Maybe she could send some of her public relations and marketing people to help.

This a bullet hole in an airplane.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2013-05/rear-seat-gunners-midway

National Naval Aviation Museum, Pensacola, FL - As Aviation Radioman Second Class Oral “Slim” Moore looks on, Ensign William Carter points to friendly fire damage their Dauntless suffered over Midway on 4 June. Low on fuel, the pair were forced to land on the atoll’s Eastern Island after a fruitless search for the Japanese task force that day.

This is Aloha Airlines 243 that suffered extensive structural damage when the roof of the cabin blew off at 24,000 feet. It made it home.


There is no way in hell a semi automatic rifle can cause enough structural damage to a commercial aircraft to bring it down. The only way to even approach the problem is to make the aircraft unflyable. That means damage the systems that operate the control surfaces of the aircraft or the engines that power it. Commercial aircraft employ system redundancy to ensure that if one system fails, another will be there to take its place. So, for example, there isn't just one hydraulic system, there are three. So if you want to disable the electrical or hydraulic systems of a 747, you would have to have to put a half inch wide bullet in exactly the right spot on a three hundred ton two hundred and forty foot long airplane going two hundred miles an hour three times.

Now, about this rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82
The long effective range, over 1,800 metres (5,900 ft) (1.1 miles), along with high energy and availability of highly effective ammunition such as API and Raufoss Mk 211, allows for effective operations against targets like radar cabins, trucks, parked aircraft and the like.

If you want to shoot down an airplane in flight, the mechanics are really no different from upland game hunting. You're just shooting at a moving target in the air. So if you're shooting at a phesant, or a clay target if you prefer, if the target is moving laterally across your field of vision you have to "lead" it, which is to say you have to shoot where it's going to be rather than where it actually is. Of course, if you want to minimize that effect, you could always get in front of the airplane and shoot at it that way, but other problems arise.

If you shoot the plane before it has progressed down the runway too far to stop, the pilot will just hit the brakes and do exactly that. If you wait too long to shoot the plane to try to make it crash in a flaming heap of terroristic horror, it will be going about two hundred miles an hour and rising into the sky, thus creating the moving target problem again. That creates a very narrow window of opportunity to take aim and make your three impossible shots. Not to mention the fact that you have just disabled a three hundred ton airplane heading straight for you. Now, you can always exploit the long range capability of the .50 to reduce the parallax between you and the target, but if you move far enough away to do that your target, meaning the exact spot you have to hit on the plane three times, will be smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

Of course, all this assumes you will be able to find somebody that can actually shoot that accurately. And that person will have to establish a position from which to do his marksman magic. Have you ever been to an airport? People tend to notice guys walking around the neighborhood with a five foot long thirty pound rifle. So if you want to get close enough to make your impossible shot, you'll have a lot of explaining to do, and if you get far enough away for proper concealment, the shot will not just be impossible, but the entire notion becomes silly.

If fact, the entire notion is silly anyway. And just a few minutes with google proves it.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Manufacturers lie all the time. So what else is new?

Despite all the scare about terrorists using the .50, none have. It has some strong disadvantages for terrorist operations. It is expensive, large, heavy, loud, can only be used against a precise point target, and it requires a person to be there to operate it. Bombs are cheaper, smaller, lighter, can be used against area targets, and can be left to explode later after the terrorists has already escaped.

[Paladin]

39. Sounds like you've given this a lot of thought. (nt)

[rrneck]

46. It doesn't take a lot of thought.

It just sounds that way because you haven't given it any thought at all.

[Paladin]

48. Guilty as charged.

I freely admit that I've spent no time considering the subject of bringing down planes with firearms. Do you have a problem with that? (Extra points for an honest, detailed response.)

[rrneck]

59. I don't have a problem with whatever you choose to consider or not.

And I don't have any need to score any points with you.

If you have no interest in the subject of guns I don't think any less of you for it. Lots of people don't like them or have any use for them, and that's fine.

Do you vote? Since guns periodically become a political issue in this country, and that issue often as not results in legislation to regulate them, I would think any responsible voter would have at least some passing knowledge about the thing being regulated. How can anyone hope to make an informed decision as a responsible citizen without some basic knowledge about the world around them? I mean, it's not like firearms are new development. The technology is only 725 years old.

Do you ever fly on an airplane? I would think that in the interest of self preservation if nothing else, you might have considered how someone might shoot down the airplane in which your are riding. I mean, it's not like commercial aircraft have not been in the news lately as tools of terrorists.

But I'm being silly. Of course you've thought of all those things. How could you not? So the real question is why would anyone claim to have never considered how a terrorist might shoot down an airplane with a rifle? In your case, I have no idea. To claim otherwise would be an ecological fallacy, and that's not fair to you. So I will have to generalize.

------------------------------

Why would anyone claim to have never considered a possibility even though that possibility has been brought to their attention repeatedly over a period of time? Well, since there is a reason for everything and I don't like to think the worst of people, I expect is has something to do with group dynamics and tribalism. People want - need - to be members of a group. There are many ways to go about that and some are better than others. Preferred methods would include actually being a productive member of that group through the contribution of intellectual or physical capital. You know, actually helping people. But through the miracle of industrialization and marketing, there are other ways.

Group affiliation can also be secured through affectation. All one has to do is say the right words and use the right products to be considered the member of a group in our consumer culture. Linguistic taboos become thought crimes in the best hear no evil tradition, and certain products become evil totems and symbols of the depravity of the "other tribe". This way ideology becomes a sort of social plumage that can be donned, and discarded, at the wearers convenience. Such ideologies are at best useless and generally detrimental to society as a whole. People who embrace them don't have any skin in the game, and when the time comes for them to put up or shut up, they typically choose the latter by merely selecting new plumage.

But the real issue is not people's motivation for why they say and do things, but who provides the things they say and do. And why.

Ideologies have become products. They are developed and marketed like dish soap. The social conventions that have traditionally held cultures together have become products and the people that embrace them frequently confuse human relationships with brand loyalty and research with smart shopping. Religion, politics, war, peace, life and death are just the source of a revenue stream for a hyper wealthy cadre of individuals who no more embrace them than they would embrace a leper. They use the media that they own to employ talking heads to tell people what they want to hear as a substitute for critical thinking. Rush and Keith, Rachel and Glenn are all in the same business, and business is good.

The result is a body politic without a head. We are paying the owners of this country to divide us and making them rich doing it. We are all becoming casualties in the culture wars for profit because too many people seem to think all they have to do is buy the right stuff to be good citizens. We are being balkanized for profit.

You can always pay one half of the poor to kill the other half.
Jay Gould 1836 - 1892

[Paladin]

63. Huh?

OK, I'll accept partial blame for not stipulating that, in addition to being detailed, your response had to be coherent.

And FYI, I've been a firearms owner for more than 50 years. I know quite a bit about guns---I just don't dwell on the use of guns as a means of harming aircraft. Your completely baseless claim that I do in fact have such thoughts says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about me, and none of it is good. Kindly stay the fuck out of my neighborhood.

[rrneck]

66. LOL!

Oh, so you do know about guns! Good for you. Fifty years! Wow. And your handle is Paladin. And you're trying to tell me that you never considered how one might bring down an aircraft with a rifle? Please.


Sounds like you've given this a lot of thought.

[Paladin]

71. You poor thing. (nt)

[rrneck]

73. Is that the best you can do?

I took the time to give what you asked for and suddenly you've become strangely taciturn. How can that be?

Maybe you should give it some thought.

[Paladin]

74. You poor thing. (nt)

[rrneck]

85. Not thinking yet.

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe your handle has nothing to do with Paladin press. Maybe you have delusions of being a warrior in Charlemagne's court. Well, maybe not. Maybe your'e this Paladin. Although "have gun will travel" carries with it certain unfortunate connotations regarding firearms and aircraft. I dunno, maybe you're this paladin. Anyone would like to be considered a" A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion", although such activities usually involve weapons, so there's that.

Well, at least only one of those "paladins" would consider shooting down an airplane with a rifle, although the other ones might if they got the chance.

You didn't give that handle much thought, did you? Remember this?

Linguistic taboos become thought crimes in the best hear no evil tradition, and certain products become evil totems and symbols of the depravity of the "other tribe".

[Paladin]

89. You poor thing. (nt)

[rrneck]

92. It's not so bad.

Posting from a phone waiting for my garlic fries. They smell like victory.

[Paladin]

99. Thanks for keeping me posted. Glad to see you're easily satisfied. (nt)

[rrneck]

100. Glad you're up to the task. nt

[Duckhunter935]

26. and still not bring it down

better off with a regular hunting rifle. A 50 would require mounts to hold it and being very heavy and hard to move fast you would not hit the aircraft.

[SunSeeker]

34. Jets follow fixed takeoff and landing routes at airstrips. No fast movement required.

Just a humongous bullet, like the .50.

[Duckhunter935]

37. OK

try shooting a target moving 150-200 MPH with a handheld rifle weighing 40 pounds with small projectile. Remember you must lead it and you only have a couple of shots. Even if you were lucky enough to hit the small engine, planes still fly on one engine.

Yes a 50 caliber bullet is very small for that purpose, the army uses at the smallest 20MM rounds

Blue tip is 20MM

[NickB79]

38. Humongous? Not really

I have on my desk a loaded .50 BMG incendiary tracer that a friend gave me (he pocketed it as a souvenir from Army training).

Is it big? Sure; it's bigger than any deer rifle round I've ever fired. But when you look at it objectively, the bullet itself is only the length and diameter of your thumb. Against a living target, or an engine block of a truck, it's plenty humongous. Against a 747 airliner with 4 engines, each bigger than my car? Not so much.

[SunSeeker]

67. Yes, really.

That's a .50 all the way on the left; a .22 (typical handgun bullet) all the way on the right.



http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/16/20056084-christie-vetoes-measures-on-gun-violence?lite

.50 Caliber Guns in use -

Barrett Sniper Rifle - Kill shot through brick wall at a mile distance (WARNING: this video may get you overly...um...excited):

The .50 cal has no conceivable use for a law abiding citizen. It's a specialized weapon for the battlefield, designed to rip up an airplane wing, blast through the plates of an armored vehicle and blow up its gas tank (using incendiary tracers like your little keepsake) and stop a truck dead in its tracks. It has no business being owned by any civilian on the streets of our cities. Anyone who would want to buy one is dangerously unbalanced, IMHO.

[rrneck]

68. Wrong again.

I took the time to explain this to you above.

The sniper in the video had a spotter who had to tell him how far off the first shot missed. That's how hard it is to hit at long distances. You know, that whole time to hit a moving target thing.

The incendary tracer mentioned above is simply a tracer round. The incendiary part is a pyrotechnic charge in the base that allows the shooter to see where the bullet goes. It won't "rip up an airplane wing". You are thinking about military ordinance that is illegal for civilian use. Here, I've done some more research for you. You're welcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
The Raufoss Mk 211 is a .50 caliber (12.7×99mm NATO) multipurpose anti-matériel projectile produced by Nammo (Nordic Ammunition Group, a Norwegian/Finnish military industry manufacturer of ammunition), under the model name NM140 MP.[1] It is commonly referred to as simply multipurpose or Raufoss, which refers to Nammo's original parent company: Raufoss Ammunisjonsfabrikk (Ammunition Factory) in Raufoss, Norway, established in 1896. The "Mk 211" name comes from the nomenclature "Mk 211 Mod 0" used by the U.S. military for this round.

Remember that image you found on "Rachel's" blog? She probably got it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG
.50 BMG cartridges are also produced commercially with a plethora of different bullets and to a number of different specifications.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Tracer, M1

Tracer for observing fire, signaling, target designation, and incendiary purposes. This bullet has a red tip.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Incendiary, M1

This cartridge is used against unarmored, flammable targets. The incendiary bullet has a light blue tip.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Ball, M2

This cartridge is used against personnel and unarmored targets. This bullet has an unpainted tip.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor-Piercing, M2

This cartridge is used against lightly armored vehicles, protective shelters, and personnel, and can be identified by its black tip.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor-Piercing-Incendiary, M8

This cartridge is used, in place of the armor-piercing round, against armored, flammable targets. The bullet has a silver tip.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Tracer, M10

Tracer for observing fire, signaling, target designation, and incendiary purposes. Designed to be less intense than the M1 tracer, the M10 has an orange tip.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Tracer, M17

Tracer for observing fire, signaling, target designation, and incendiary purposes. Can be fired from the M82/M107 series of rifles.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor-Piercing-Incendiary-Tracer, M20

This cartridge is used, in place of the armor-piercing round, against armored, flammable targets, with a tracer element for observation purposes. This cartridge is effectively a variant of the M8 Armor-Piercing Incendiary with the added tracer element. Can be fired from the M82/M107 series of rifles. This bullet has a red tip with a ring of aluminum paint.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Tracer, Headlight, M21

Tracer for use in observing fire during air-to-air combat. Designed to be more visible, the M21 is 3 times more brilliant than the M1 tracer.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Incendiary, M23

This cartridge is used against unarmored, flammable targets. The tip of the bullet is painted blue with a light blue ring.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Ball, M33

This cartridge is used against personnel and unarmored targets. Can be fired from the M82/M107 series of rifles.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Saboted Light Armor Penetrator, M903

This cartridge has a 355 – 360 gr (23.00 – 23.33 g) heavy metal (tungsten) penetrator that is sabot-launched at a muzzle velocity of 4,000 ft/s (1,219 m/s). The 0.30 in (7.7 mm) diameter sabot, which is designed to break up at the muzzle to release the penetrator, must also survive the gun environment until launch. It is injection molded of special high strength plastic and is reinforced with an aluminum insert in the base section. The cartridge is identified by an amber sabot (Ultem 1000). For use only in the M2 series of machine guns. This round can penetrate 19mm of steel armor at 1500 yards.[9]

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Saboted Light Armor Penetrator-Tracer, M962

Like the M903, this is a Saboted Light Armor Penetrator (SLAP) round, with the only difference being that the M962 also has a tracer element for observing fire, target designation, and incendiary purposes. It uses red colored plastic sabot for identification. For use only in the M2 series of machine guns.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Ball, XM1022

A long-range match cartridge specifically designed for long range work using the M107 rifle.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, M1022 Long Range Sniper

The .50 Caliber M1022 has an olive green bullet coating with no tip ID coloration. The projectile is of standard ball design. It is designed for long-range sniper training and tactical use against targets that do not require armor-piercing or incendiary effect. It exhibits superior long range accuracy and is trajectory matched to MK211 grade A. The M1022 is ideal for use in all .50 Caliber bolt action and semi-automatic sniper platforms.[10]

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor-Piercing-Incendiary, Mk 211 Mod 0

A so-called "combined effects" cartridge, the Mk 211 Mod 0 High-Explosive-Incendiary-Armor-Piercing (HEIAP) cartridge contains a .30 caliber tungsten penetrator, zirconium powder, and Composition A explosive. It can be used in any .50 caliber weapon in US inventory with the exception of the M85 machine gun. Cartridge is identified by a green tip with a grey ring.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, MK257 Armor Piercing Incendiary Dim Tracer

The .50 Caliber MK257 API-DT has a purple bullet tip. The bullet has a hardened steel core and incendiary tip. The .50 Caliber MK257 is used in machine guns M2, M3, and M85. Dim trace reduces the possibility of the weapon being located during night fire and is visible with night vision devices only.[10]

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor-Piercing-Incendiary-Tracer, Mk 300 Mod 0

As with the Mk 211 Mod 0, but with a tracer component. This cartridge likely can be used in any .50 caliber weapon in US inventory with the exception of the M85 machine gun, as with the Mk 211 Mod 0.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor-Piercing-Explosive-Incendiary, APEI-169, M02

This cartridge is used against hardened targets such as bunkers, for suppressive fire against lightly armored vehicles, and ground and aerial threat suppression. It is generally fired either from pilot-aimed aircraft-mounted guns or anti-aircraft platforms both produced by FN Herstal.[11] It is identified by a gray over yellow tip.[12] A tracer variant of it also exists.

Here is the federal law on explosive ammunition. You read it, I don't have time to do it for you.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atf.gov%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2Fdownload%2Fp%2Fatf-p-5400-7.pdf&ei=UtETUvGqBpKM9ATJp4GAAQ&usg=AFQjCNE-PbjCStSnPCrDjBh5RBy_7mPEcw&sig2=caYlbidS-nv09fcnu6Tqmw&bvm=bv.50952593,d.eWU

[SunSeeker]

76. LOL. Quantity does not equal quality. Your links did not dispute anything I posted. nt

[rrneck]

79. Wrong still again.

Why don't you explain how a .50 rifle with civilian ammunition could actually bring down an airplane. So far at least three people have given you information that you should have found for yourself and you have failed to return the courtesy.

Here's a hint. Try looking somewhere besides some talking head's blog or an overhyped television show. Actually, you could have used the video for information. How do you think I found out what kind of ammunition he used?

[SunSeeker]

81. You have not disputed it. Their posting irrelevant nonsense is not a "courtesy." nt

[rrneck]

82. Of course I did.

With pictures and everything. So far all you have done is parrot a talking head on television.

If you think someone can shoot down a commercial aircraft with a Barrett rifle, explain how it could be done.

[SunSeeker]

84. Why would you want to own a Barrett? nt

[rrneck]

86. I wouldn't.

But in terms of the rhetorical "you" people who like to target shoot enjoy the challenge. It's not easy to hit something the size of a pie plate a thousand yards away. People shoot Barrett rifles for the same reasons they do any physically demanding sport from snowboarding to tai-chi.

To my mind, the gun problem in the United States is not one of partisan politics, rebellious militias, blood thirsty yahoos, or penis size. It's a consumer problem. We have a lot of guns for the same reason we have a lot of bedspreads, throw rugs, four wheelers, televisions, lawn furniture, and other assorted solutions for modern living.

Back in the day if you had a shotgun in the corner and maybe a revolver that's all you needed to defend home and hearth. Most of the gun problem is just product inflation, and the issue is another manifestation of the same. The gun front in the culture wars makes lobbyists and professional bloviators money and provides lazy politicians with low hanging fruit to feed the base.

[SunSeeker]

87. Then why do you object to it being banned?

Wouldn't it be a lot better for people to get their exercise with snowboarding or tai chai instead of trying to steady that cannon? And if you agree that it's a consumer problem, wouldn't making it unavailable keep the insane/terrorists/gun idiots from acting on their compulsion to buy this military weapon?

[rrneck]

88. Banning the rifle would be an exercise in futility.

That Barrett won't do anything any other high powered rifle will do. But banning it brings with it significant cost. There are the outright costs of legislation and enforcement. If you shut down Barrett industries it will cost jobs. Those workers and everybody they know votes. And if they don't know and vote, the NRA will fix that. It will cost political capital, and we certainly don't have any of that to spare. And the greatest cost is that banning that rifle will energize our political opponents with no hope of any real payoff. You might energize a liberal base that would never vote Republican, but that's it. Meanwhile such legislation will prove to everybody on the right and in the center that Democrats /Liberals pass stupid laws and use big government to interfere in people's lives unnecessarily. And the proof will be that you have passed a law that will do absolutely nothing because Democrats couldn't be bothered to check a few wiki links to see how a gun actually works.

[SunSeeker]

90. I disagree. I think this will cost Christie.

He thinks it's fine that a civilian can own a military weapon that shoots bullets the size of carrots, that will slice through a SWAT tank. Nope, this stance will not help him. But I will agree it is not as damaging to him as his anti-abortion stance.

[rrneck]

91. Politically hurting republicans is good.

But he's probably just feeding red measures to his base.

[SunSeeker]

94. Yay. We finally agree.

[rrneck]

95. Yep.

We had a nice chat. Thanks!

[NickB79]

104. Then you get a smaller but still as dangerous round to replace it

See post 17: Barrett already has a replacement on the market where the .50 has been banned, using a smaller bullet but fired at a faster speed so that it's actually MORE lethal than the .50-cal.

People who like to shoot these kinds of guns aren't going to just shrug their shoulders and take up snowboarding. They'll just replace them with whatever's legal, and keep on shooting.

And since the .50-BMG is almost 100 years old, we get advanced 21st century replacements on the market instead.

[SunSeeker]

105. Then we need to ban that crazy shit too.

People evading the law is no reason to just throw up our hands. People run stop signs, but we still have stop signs.

[NickB79]

106. And that's where you screw up

Ban a .416-caliber firearm? That ban would then encompass a shitload of legitimate hunting firearms (big game rifles, target rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc) that have calibers above .416.

And obeying the letter of the law is not "evading" it. Using your stop sign analogy, if the law says I have to come to a complete stop, that doesn't mean I have to come to a complete stop, wait 5 minutes, and then drive off. If I pause a few seconds and go, I'm not breaking the law.

[SunSeeker]

107. Nope, shotguns and single action hunting rifles would be allowed.

Like they are in Australia. I think the Aussies provide an excellent example of how to implement reasonable, effective gun control.

[CTyankee]

42. but...but...it's a "slippery slope" doncha know! First they come for your .50-cal Barrett, next

you'll be in a FEMA prison...



Oh, here

[SunSeeker]

47. LOL

[rrneck]

69. The slippery slope is thinking anybody can shoot down a three hundred ton airplane with a rifle. nt

[CTyankee]

70. That's not the issue I was thinking of. what aeronautic equipment that gun can or cannot

shoot down is irrelevant and frankly, silly. But, oh well, better to focus on that...

[rrneck]

72. Tell that to

all the fearmongers out there.

https://www.google.com/search?q=.50+can+shoot+down+a+plane&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a#fp=d8984c93dd031be2&q=the+barrett+will+shoot+down+an+airplane&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&safe=off&spell=1

Maybe the issue is that there will always be a "biggest gun a civilian can own".

Or maybe the issue is that there is no such thing as a benign bullet.

Perhaps the issue is that all rifles are dangerous, thus making them partisan low hanging fruit for people who consider pacifism just another feather in their social plumage.

I dunno, what do you think the actual issue is?

[CTyankee]

78. Oh, I dunno...just off hand perhaps because it is "the most powerful weapon commonly

available to civilians" according to this story.

[rrneck]

80. Like I said...

there will always be a "most powerful weapon commonly available to civilians". Why does demagoguery become fact when it confirms your bias?

[CTyankee]

83. You know what they call that kind of question?

It's known as the "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of thing...

ah, here's the description I was looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

enjoy!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. You don't need to post that.

[SunSeeker]

77. You're probably right. I'll delete it. nt.

[branford]

5. Is this really a surprise?

His veto was necessary if he ever intends to seek the Republican nomination for president.

[AudioXzibit]

6. Barrett 50?

I never seen anyone who actually owns one of them. I'm actually against gun control.

[quakerboy]

7. So you say he is exploring a run for the presidency?

[Historic NY]

9. Big Boy Chris must be afraid of the NRA fatwa.

[blkmusclmachine]

10. Someone has ambitions for 2016 as a "Moderate."

No change.

[kelliekat44]

12. He want his cake and to shoot it too! This should change the minds of lib Dems is they

thought they should vote for him.

[Marrah_G]

25. He wants to be president

[TekGryphon]

31. I'm just couch quarterbacking, but I feel like Christie will be easy to beat..

He's just too big of a record as a panderer.

He masquerades as a moderate, and fits that costume whenever it helps his state get support from the feds, but otherwise he panders to the right-wing nutcases.

This gun bill, the gay marriage veto, and countless others should see him handled easily.

[CTyankee]

43. Can't wait to see Hillary get into his anti-choice stand if they run against each other in 2016.

And his anti-gay stuff, and pro-gun flip flop...

[Kingofalldems]

45. I see the gunners have taken over this thread

We even get to see bullet porn. Fabulous.

Looks like they support the republican too.

[SunSeeker]

50. Yup. There haven't been that many gun threads, so they're hungry.

They swarmed on this like piranhas, desperately trying to defend an indefensible gun.

[hack89]

51. Why is this gun indefensible?

of all the guns to ban, you would think this is at the bottom of the list.

Aren't handguns the real problem?

[SunSeeker]

52. LOL. What took you so long to find this thread, hack? nt

[hack89]

54. Not going to answer a reasonable question I see.

it kills me - you will ban a gun that is never used in crime while ignoring guns that kill thousands. No wonder the gun control movement is a smoking ruin.

[SunSeeker]

56. Right back atcha. nt

[hack89]

57. Thanks for your help

I sleep well at night knowing you are on the other side.

[SunSeeker]

65. Good. That's just how I like it. nt

[ManiacJoe]

53. Someone had to bring the facts to the conversation when the antigunners did not.

[SunSeeker]

55. They offered only opinion as to the .50, while only offering

...links as to regular rifles or bullet holes clearly NOT created by the .50.

When a post ends with something like "trust me, I know what I'm talking about, " that does not make it a fact.

[ManiacJoe]

58. Feel free to ask questions if you are still confused.

The gunners are always willing to help educate folks who are willing to learn.

[SunSeeker]

60. I'm not confused. Propaganda ia not "education." nt

[ManiacJoe]

61. Glad you cleared THAT up.

[NutmegYankee]

101. Wow, this thread is priceless

The "gun safety" people are ranting about a governor who didn't want to enact confiscation of legally acquired firearms, and instead only wanted to ban future sales, but when challenged always reply " who said anything about confiscation?".

Even better was the accusation that a pro-RKBA DUer was in league with Christie, who obviously is an anti-union anti-poor fuckhead, but delightfully ignored that the leading star of the opposing side is a classic 1%er republican asshole whose crown achievement is the constant daily stopping and illegal searches of Black and Latino males. You know, in the name of "safety".

Skinner was absolutely right about this in ATA. This issue is hopeless for a real discussion.

[rrneck]

103. Discussion has nothing to do with it.

It's all about faith.

[gopiscrap]

102. What an ass wipe trying to play both sides again