Here's an example. There are a number of people (regular civilians like you and me) who have crafted "Quad Minis," which is a rig that mounts four six-barreled miniguns on frame that is in turn mounted on a gimbal, so that it can swivel and rotate, and you can point it anywhere.
Each of the four miniguns fires 7.62 x 51 ammunition (much more powerful than what the M16 fires) at the rate of -- and this is *NOT* a typo -- 6,000 rounds per minute (the typical machine gun fires at a rate of less than a tenth of that). That gives the rig an effective rate of 24,000 rounds per minute. These guns are very accurate, and each is trained on the exact same spot. Using it, you can literally cut through a car in about three or four seconds. Should anyone be able to own one of these? You bet. Here's why. First, the cost. These civilian-transferrable guns alone sell on the open market (legally, with proper papers) for between $50K and $300K each, so between $200K and $1.2M for the rig. No shit. Then the ammo. Let's just say you want to fire a couple of quick bursts that amount to a total of, say, about twenty seconds of fire. That's 8,000 rounds, which costs between $2,500 and $4,000 if you are loading your own from components, or more than $8,000 -- a buck a round -- if you're firing new factory ammo. Now consider the legal vetting that was done on the owner before he could even *think* of touching that weapon: local check and sponsoring signature of the top leader of the law enforcement organization of the owner's municipality, state bureau of investigation background check, federal bureau of investigation background check, and a full INTERPOL check. Then the BATF checks their own records just to make absolutely sure. Now ask yourself: in what crime do you ever, ever see this person using this weapon? Respectfully, Adam Phillip Churvis President Productivity Enhancement > -----Original Message----- > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:59 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Obama coming after the guns > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It could be argued that the 'arms' would encompass the firearm and > the > > ammunition. > > Out of curiosity, what are people's opinions about the limitations of > the 2nd Amendment? Few, if any, people seem to have problems with > hunting rifles. Hand guns for personal defense seem to be pretty > middle-of-the-road. > > But what about those that take a more absolutist standpoint? Where do > we draw the line in terms of firepower? Assault rifles, hand grenades, > rocket launchers, nuclear weapons? At the end points it seems absurd, > but I'm not really sure that there is an obvious line to draw and I'm > curious about where people would draw the line and why. > > And what about the issues surrounding it, like background checks, > trigger locks, types of ammunition, mandatory firearms education > classes, etc? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:279772 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
