More ban 50 caliber bs


PDA






LAR-15
February 11, 2006, 09:26 PM
THE .50 CALIBER SNIPER RIFLE
WHY CONGRESS MUST ACT
The fifty-caliber sniper rifle belongs on the battlefield, not in our streets. Congress
should strongly regulate the sale of these military weapons to civilians. Here’s why.
The fifty-caliber sniper rifle is a dream weapon for terrorists. The gun can:
• Destroy virtually any target: The gun can take down an airplane, pulverize concrete
bunkers, destroy armored vehicles, or penetrate several inches of steel, a three and a half
inch manhole cover, or a 600-pound safe.1
• Hit targets from over a mile away: The gun is accurate from a distance of 2,000 yards
and is “effective” up to 7,500 yards – over four miles. As a leading authority noted,
Barrett Firearms, the major .50 caliber weapon manufacturer, “promoted the weapon to
wreck several million dollars worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars worth of
cartridge.”2
• Evade law enforcement: A terrorist could fire over a mile away from its intended target
and assassinate officials in armored vehicles, bring down airplanes or helicopters, fire
into office buildings, onto bridges, or reach any number of targets. The RAND Corp.
was “unable to identify any truly satisfactory solution” to a potential scenario where
terrorists used these weapons to target parked or taxiing aircraft.3 When David Koresh
and his Branch Davidian followers employed .50 caliber weapons at Waco, the FBI’s
Bradley fighting vehicles provided little protection.4
The weapon is readily available to civilians, including suspected terrorists.
• Under current law, any person who is at least 18 years old and is not a felon or otherwise
prohibited by law from purchasing a firearm, can purchase an unlimited number of these
guns. This includes suspected terrorists on the No Fly list, dangerous persons the federal
government has listed in the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File, as well as
“straw purchasers” for criminals. Some states allow children as young as 14 to lawfully
possess these weapons.5
1 Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons, Minority Staff Report, Committee on Government Reform, United
States House of Representatives, May 3, 1999.
2 Id. at i.
3 Big Rifle a Terrorist Tool?, CBS News, Jan. 9, 2005.
4 The Big Gun (II), Sixty Minutes Segment, Run Date: Mar. 20, 2005.
5 See Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons at 9. See also 18 U.S.C. § 922; Gun Control and Terrorism: FBI
Could Better Manage Firearm-Related Background Checks Involving Terrorist Watch List Records, United States
Gov Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters, Jan. 2005.



Congressional report found that these weapons “have become widely available in the
civilian market.” Dealers who will sell these weapons to civilians are easy to find on the
Internet.6
There is no good reason that would justify placing citizens at risk from these weapons.
• As the Chicago Tribune wrote, “unless one is hunting mammoths or dinosaurs, it’s hard
to justify the sporting need for a nearly 5-foot-long weapon that fires the largest
commercially available cartridge in the world.”9 Ronnie Barrett, the industry
manufacturing leader of .50 caliber rifles, offered this justification for the sale of these
weapons to civilians: “It’s a toy. It’s a high-end adult recreational toy.”10
• Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) recognized that this weapon does not belong
on the streets when he signed the nation’s first law banning possession and sale of the .50
caliber rifle. Several states are considering similar legislation.11 But unless Congress
passes a national law, these firearms will continue to be easily available to terrorists,
criminals and other violent people.
6 Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons.
7 Suspect Organizations and Individuals Possessing Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons, Minority Staff
Report, Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, Aug. 17, 1999.
8 The Big Gun (II).
9 Editorial, Dangerous Gun Fun, The Chicago Tribune, Apr. 14, 2005.
10 The Big Gun (I), Sixty Minutes Segment, Run Date: Jan. 9, 2005.
11 Big Rifle a Terrorist Tool?

If you enjoyed reading about "More ban 50 caliber bs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kodiaz
February 11, 2006, 09:29 PM
Destroy any target? :what: :what:

I want one. I want one.

LAR-15
February 11, 2006, 09:29 PM
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the .50 caliber
sniper rifle has a dangerous history of criminal misuse. This can only worsen as the weapon
becomes cheaper and more readily available. ATF has linked .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles to
drug dealers, international drug cartels, militia and terrorist groups and a religious cult.
As part of an investigation for the House Committee on Government Reform, Government
Accounting Office investigators traced .50 caliber sniper rifles seized from crime suspects and
found that many of the weapons were discovered at “the scene of some extremely troubling
criminal activities” including international terrorism and foreign drug cartels. GAO investigators
concluded that “the accessibility of these weapons in the United States is becoming known
worldwide.” See Long Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons, prepared by Government
Accounting Office for U.S. House of Representative, Committee on Government Reform, May
3, 1999.
The following summarizes just a few of the cases in which .50 caliber sniper rifles have been
identified:
 An international drug cartel in Mexico was discovered with a .50 caliber sniper rifle and
100 AK-47s at the scene of a multiple homicide shootout. The Los Angeles Police
Department assisted Mexican authorities in tracing the .50 caliber sniper rifle to a gun
dealer in Wyoming.12
 A member of the radical Mountaineer Militia in West Virginia was arrested by federal
agents in a plot to bomb an FBI office. A search of the suspect's home recovered a .50
caliber sniper rifle.13
 ATF agents reported that the Branch Davidians at Waco fired .50 caliber sniper rifles at
ATF agents attempting to execute a search warrant. ATF had requested the use of
Bradley Fighting Vehicles to execute the search warrant because the Bradley is believed
capable of withstanding .50 caliber firearms. But the Bradley's were not used and four
agents were killed.14
 Two members of a doomsday religious cult in Montana that built underground bunkers
were convicted of using false identification to stockpile ten .50 caliber sniper rifles along
with hundreds of other firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition.15
12 Suspect Organizations and Individuals Possessing Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons at 10; Office of
Special Investigations, U.S. General Accounting Office, Briefing Paper: Criminal Activity Associated with .50
Caliber Semiautomatic Rifles, presented to representatives of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform,
July 15, 1999, at 4.
13 Suspect Organizations and Individuals Possessing Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons at 10.
14 Suspect Organizations and Individuals Possessing Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons at 7; Briefing
Paper: Criminal Activity Associated with .50 Caliber Semiautomatic Rifles at 4.
15 Suspect Organizations and Individuals Possessing Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons at 7; Briefing
Paper: Criminal Activity Associated with .50 Caliber Semiautomatic Rifles at 3.

A survivalist in Georgia stockpiled 115 firearms, including two .50 caliber sniper rifles,
100,000 rounds of ammunition, and silencers. The tax protestor, who had purchased the
firearms with false identification, was arrested in a joint raid by ATF and the IRS.16
 Seven suspects with two .50 caliber sniper rifles were arrested by the U.S. Coast Guard in
the Caribbean in a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro by using the .50 caliber sniper rifles to
shoot down his plane off the coast of Venezuela.17
 .50 caliber sniper rifles have been recovered by state police from drug dealers in
California, Missouri and Indiana.

gc70
February 11, 2006, 09:44 PM
Apparently the Department of the Treasury didn't know there were any .50 BMG rifles at Waco, or if they did, they did not list any in their report about the Weapons Possessed by the Branch Davidians (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/treasury.html).

Standing Wolf
February 11, 2006, 10:49 PM
Heck, I hear those mean terrible awful horrible evil malicious malodorous .50 caliber rifles cause cancer, too.

BigRobT
February 11, 2006, 10:57 PM
And next will be the .416, the .338 Lapua, and on down the line........

It really sickens me that the person who did that "manufactured" video with all of the "hollywood" special effects has made the .50 cal rifle into the evil thing it has become. I've seen the report that the 50 cal rifles they had in Waco were NEVER used. There are even some theories they were planted. Once again, our "wonderful" Government wants to rape the Second Amendment and ALL that it stands for.

ElTacoGrande
February 12, 2006, 12:52 AM
And next will be the .416, the .338 Lapua, and on down the line........

And then we'll get to the other side: "These bullets are too small! You can't hunt with a 22 cal bullet in a rifle; it's only good for killing people, so ban them!" The same thing has happened with handguns: 5.7mm is too small! 50cal is too big! Lorcins are too cheap! Custom 1911s are too expensive (and banned in California for that reason)!

Lucky
February 12, 2006, 04:18 AM
Man, there's just no reasoning with you. They give you a good reason every time, but it just goes in one ear and out the other.:neener:

cracked butt
February 12, 2006, 05:56 AM
And then we'll get to the other side: "These bullets are too small! You can't hunt with a 22 cal bullet in a rifle; it's only good for killing people, so ban them!" The same thing has happened with handguns: 5.7mm is too small! 50cal is too big! Lorcins are too cheap! Custom 1911s are too expensive (and banned in California for that reason)!

And ban 30-30's as well because they are... well, ....they are just right.

Edit: I think banning 30-30 ammunition could have been the best thing goobermint could have ever done to spur a RKBA civil rights revolution. I was secretly hoping for Fat Ted to get his way on that one.

Lucky
February 12, 2006, 06:17 AM
Let me say, right off, that I don't suggest anything, propose anything, support anything, or plan anything.

But, I have to point out:

If you wait for other people to revolt, you will wait forever. Hoping that some action will goad a few more people into outrage, seems like a fool's errand.

I'm just going off the top of my head here, but revolts always seem to be small things that happen, and then grow large. They don't grow large and then happen. I'm not sure of the reasons, but that's just the way they seem.

So when you hope that some cartridge will be banned, that's a small thing affecting large numbers, not a large thing. That's probably why they do little small increments at a time, because they don't want a fire to start and spread.

BostonGeorge
February 12, 2006, 08:34 AM
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the .50 caliber sniper rifle has a dangerous history of criminal misuse.

It's amazing to me that the author makes this staement and then skirts around the issue of the .50's use in crime. As far as I can tell, the only support for this statement is in the multiple incidents of possesion by alleged 'potential' criminals. :rolleyes: :barf:

Stickjockey
February 12, 2006, 12:46 PM
the only support for this statement is in the multiple incidents of possesion by alleged 'potential' criminals.

Yup. I saw not a single incident where the rifles were actually used in a crime, with the possible exception of the Waco thing. Then I saw gc70's post and even that was shot down.

mrb302
February 12, 2006, 12:57 PM
The way I see it, anything with these sources:

3 Big Rifle a Terrorist Tool?, CBS News, Jan. 9, 2005.
4 The Big Gun (II), Sixty Minutes Segment, Run Date: Mar. 20, 2005.

might as well be disregarded. That cuts out almost half the argument.

Lucky hit it right on the head. If you want to totally ban firearms then you start small. Ban .50's, and then some other small % feature, and then another caliber, and then...blah, blah, blah.

Before long we'll be left with just out .22 single shot pistols limited to a 4 inch barrel or less. Total BS.:barf:

At this time I would like to say... Join the NRA and support the 2nd amnedment.
[mrb302 climbs off the soapbox]

TooTaxed
February 12, 2006, 02:16 PM
LAR-15 is quite correct. His reasons are valid, and the arguments I see for not banning .50.s are not.

Consider: .50s are not useful for hunting...and it is extremely hard to find a range where an owner can shoot one legally (I've tried...can't even shoot them on our Ft. Benning range)...how far is the nearest one to you? Shooting them on a 100-yd or two hundred yard range gets a bit rediculous. There aren't any official target matches where they can be used in our match programs. The same is not true for other cartridges such as the .338 Win Magnum.

On the other hand, they are extremely useful for terrorist activities, such as anti-vehicle use and very long range sniping.

I lived in the Washington, DC/Arlington VA area back when the ban on machineguns was proposed...and the NRA came strongly against it, attacking some very popular congressmen. We lost...and the NRA has never regained the faith and trust the American people had in that area up to that point.

Let us not make a similar foolish mistake with .50s!! We should NOT fight to protect guns primarily useful to terrorists. If we do so, more distrust against the NRA will occur, and future battles on very valid issues will be much more difficult.

ServiceSoon
February 12, 2006, 02:31 PM
So you are saying let them win this one?

Maybe before that happens you should buy one, because I dont see them taking them away if they were purchased legally before the ban.

TooTaxed
February 12, 2006, 02:32 PM
LAR-15 is quite correct. His reasons are valid, and the arguments I see for not banning .50.s are not.

Consider: .50s are not useful for hunting...and it is extremely hard to find a range where an owner can shoot one legally (I've tried...can't even shoot them on our Ft. Benning range)...how far is the nearest one to you? Shooting them on a 100-yd or two hundred yard range gets a bit rediculous. There aren't any official target matches where they can be used in our match programs. The same is not true for other cartridges such as the .338 Win Magnum.

On the other hand, they are extremely useful for terrorist activities, such as anti-vehicle use and very long range sniping.

I lived in the Washington, DC/Arlington VA area back when the ban on machineguns was proposed...and the NRA came strongly against it, attacking some very popular congressmen. We lost...and the NRA has never regained the faith and trust the American people had in that area up to that point.

Let us not make a similar foolish mistake with .50s!! We should NOT fight to protect guns primarily useful to terrorists. If we do so, more distrust against the NRA will occur, and future battles on very valid issues will be much more difficult.

CZ 75 BD
February 12, 2006, 02:33 PM
source?

Art Eatman
February 12, 2006, 02:34 PM
"We should NOT fight to protect guns primarily useful to terrorists."

Okay, fine. That eliminates concern over the .50BMGs. They haven't been used by terrorists. PRIMARILY they're used by target shooters who are members of organized clubs. The next most common use is by the US military.

Art

Otherguy Overby
February 12, 2006, 02:47 PM
I lived in the Washington, DC/Arlington VA area back when the ban on machineguns was proposed...and the NRA came strongly against it, attacking some very popular congressmen. We lost...and the NRA has never regained the faith and trust the American people had in that area up to that point.
You were alive and in DC in 1934? The NRA was there, too? The National Firearms Act was about placing a prohibitive "tax" on the unPC weapons of that time.

Or, are you mixing up the 1994 "assault" weapon ban with machine guns?




Let us not make a similar foolish mistake with .50s!! We should NOT fight to protect guns primarily useful to terrorists. If we do so, more distrust against the NRA will occur, and future battles on very valid issues will be much more difficult.

Aha, the Neville Chamberalin approach to maintaining your gun rights, "we'll just give them up a little at a time". Peace in our time, appeasement regardless the cost strategy

Stickjockey
February 12, 2006, 02:53 PM
and it is extremely hard to find a range where an owner can shoot one legally

I know of at least one 1000-meter range within 40 minutes of my front door.

On the other hand, they are extremely useful for terrorist activities, such as anti-vehicle use and very long range sniping.

First off, this is the same argument used to "ban" so-called "assault weapons" in 1994. How many times did we hear, "This is the preferred weapon of criminals?"
Should we then ban Ferraris because they might be used in illegal street racing or drunk driving?

Second, I don't believe the government should be able to ban possession of an inanimate object based on how it might be used. Too close to "thought crime" or maybe a "Minority Report" scenario for me.

bcolorado
February 12, 2006, 02:59 PM
In a similar vane we should ban the luge. There are very few places to do this and more people get injured each year luging than participating in 50 cal matches.

Merkin.Muffley
February 12, 2006, 03:05 PM
Legislation like this won't go anywhere, and even if it did there is no way President Bush would sign it. He's on our side.

Maxwell
February 12, 2006, 03:42 PM
Legislation like this won't go anywhere, and even if it did there is no way President Bush would sign it. He's on our side.

The danger is that it will because the majority of folks out there dont know and likely dont care what a .50bmg rifle is worth. Its use has been limited, and the legends of the easily concealed ultimate tank impailing weapon will long preceed it in many voters minds.

I am concerned that Bush is not the friend of rkba that some people may paint him as. The AW ban was not torn down with any level of force, batfe has not been restrained, and he has other important things on his agenda.

If they bury this ban with some other "must pass" law, he will sign it.

The anti's have a simple line of reasoning: "If you dont need it, lets ban it!". A .50 weapon does not have many civilian uses to fall back on. Our problem is not only selling rifles, but exposing those fun-police who masquerade as "concerned citizens" in an attempt to play the fear card.

benEzra
February 12, 2006, 04:39 PM
Consider: .50s are not useful for hunting...and it is extremely hard to find a range where an owner can shoot one legally (I've tried...can't even shoot them on our Ft. Benning range)...how far is the nearest one to you? Shooting them on a 100-yd or two hundred yard range gets a bit rediculous. There aren't any official target matches where they can be used in our match programs. The same is not true for other cartridges such as the .338 Win Magnum.
Incorrect.

On the other hand, they are extremely useful for terrorist activities, such as anti-vehicle use and very long range sniping.
No, they're not. What percentage of terrorist attacks over the last 20 years have been carried out by (1) attacks on motor vehicles using precision rifles, and (2) very long range sniping? The number is either zero or very close to it. Compare that number to the number carried out by improvised explosives manufactured from common household chemicals. You can make a much better case for banning household chemicals...

And if you grant that a rifle that has never been used in a terrorist attack in this country (or in any murder, AFAIK) is somehow so "useful only to terrorists," what do you do when they come back next year to ban the .338 Lapua on the same grounds?

The prohibitionist group that invented the .50 caliber hysteria, the Violence Policy Center, advocates for the banning of ALL "sniper rifles" on its web site, including those chambered for the .30 calibers. Not to mention all handguns, all nonhunting-style rifles and shotguns, all long guns with protruding handgrips, etc. etc. etc.

I lived in the Washington, DC/Arlington VA area back when the ban on machineguns was proposed...and the NRA came strongly against it, attacking some very popular congressmen. We lost...and the NRA has never regained the faith and trust the American people had in that area up to that point.
In 1934? I think you're misremembering here. Machine guns and all other automatic weapons are restricted under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

If you're thinking of the AWB, the AWB was the ruin of the gun prohibitionist movement on the national stage. Had we not fought that particular bait-and-switch, we'd be suffering under a nationwide ban on modern-looking rifle stocks and over-10-round pistols and rifles, AND the anti-gun lobby would be looking to consolidate and expand their victories. Instead, we fought it, we kicked a lot of the anti-gun zealots out of Congress over it, and the prohibitionist lobby is reeling.

Giving the prohibitionists what they want today does not keep them from getting what they want tomorrow.

Let us not make a similar foolish mistake with .50s!! We should NOT fight to protect guns primarily useful to terrorists. If we do so, more distrust against the NRA will occur, and future battles on very valid issues will be much more difficult.
Define "valid issues."

The current modus operandi of almost the entire gun prohibitionist movement is to LIE about the capabilities of this or that civilian firearm, via massive exaggeration or outright fabrication. Pick a gun the average American isn't all that familiar with, and fabricate a scare story to try to get "that gun" and as many others as possible banned. You see it over and over.

If we choose not to challenge their lies on the .50 issue (no, these rifles CANNOT penetrate a Bradley, they CANNOT shoot down a plane, they CANNOT be used to take out a target four miles away), what will you do when they make the SAME lies about the .338's? And the fast .30's?

LAR-15 is quite correct. His reasons are valid, and the arguments I see for not banning .50.s are not.
LAR-15 is not on your side. He prefaced the crosspost by pointing out that the list of lies was "BS."

gc70
February 12, 2006, 04:50 PM
We should NOT fight to protect guns primarily useful to terrorists. If we do so, more distrust against the NRA will occur, and future battles on very valid issues will be much more difficult.So you want to give up on the .50 BMG. How will you feel after that appeasement when Teddy Kennedy again hauls out his proposal to ban that vicious, armor-piercing terrorist tool called the 30-30?

Soybomb
February 12, 2006, 05:17 PM
Consider: .50s are not useful for hunting
So I shouldn't hunt with it. Great, I don't think I own a gun that would be useful for hunting anyway. I don't hunt afterall. You know the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting right?

engineer151515
February 12, 2006, 07:02 PM
........
The fifty-caliber sniper rifle is a dream weapon for terrorists. ..........



The only "dream weapon" I've seen terrorists use are pirated jet airliners.

If the .50 BMG was such the snots, it would have been used already to bury us.

BigRobT
February 12, 2006, 08:13 PM
So I shouldn't hunt with it. Great, I don't think I own a gun that would be useful for hunting anyway. I don't hunt afterall. You know the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting right?


Hmmm, strikes me odd that most of the early rifles were right around .50 cal. Most of the hunting was done with them. Granted, a 50BMG might be a bit overkill for the average deer, elk, or moose, but it most certainly could be used. Over half of my rifles are those EBRs. My 30.06 is a Remington 710 and I own a 30-30. Every single one can be used for "hunting". Chai Vang didn't care that his SKS was an EBR. A 20 round clip and he killed 6 people and injured two more. Other than the Branch Davidian compound, I have not heard of the .50 cal being used in ANY criminal activity. I remember back in the mid 80s to mid 90s, the thought was that IF a terrorist was to take out a commercial jetliner, they would probably use some sort of shoulder fired missile. I would be more concerned with a heat seeking missile, than a bullet. There are STILL arguements that TWA Flight 800 was taken out by a missile. I discount them because no terrorist group has ever come forward to claim that action. It's like many people have contended, no matter what is banned, criminals will still acquire the weapon they want & use it. The only people that will be affected by these laws are the decent, law abiding citizen.

ralphie98
February 12, 2006, 09:21 PM
Ya know... I haven't even thought about getting a .50, mostly because I can't afford to feed and care for it (much less purchase one) but every time I see one of these articles it makes me want to get one. I just wish i had the cash to buy one and a place that I know of to shoot one. If they ever pull some stunt like banning them nationwide, I'm warming up the credit card.

boofus
February 12, 2006, 09:25 PM
If .50BMG rifles didn't cost as much as registered machineguns I'd have gotten one by now.

As it is they are priced way out of the range of the typical gun owner and even NFA enthusiasts. We'd rather get the FNC or Sterling or Uzi instead of a semi-auto .50

When NFA owners start to bitch about the price of a certain type of gun you can bet it's too expensive for the avg joe.

progunner1957
February 12, 2006, 09:38 PM
The Barrett model 99 .50 cal. single shot has a MSRP of $3675 American last time I checked. It is a good beginner .50 and is "the working man's .50 cal.":D Not cheap, but within reach, if it is something you really want. The semiauto .50 - the model 82A1, goes for a MSRP of $7775 American, for the big spender.

Cosidering that it is not that hard to spend $3000 A. on a custom 1911, the model 99 is within reach, if you want to make it a priority.

The big 50's may not be the most practical gun to own, but I'd LOOOOOOOOVE to have one - what a great way to
P1$$ on the antigun bigot's parade!!

.50 cal. rifles are like front doors - no home in America should be without one.:D

telomerase
February 12, 2006, 10:26 PM
We should NOT fight to protect guns primarily useful to terrorists.

Wow, you should have told the Minutemen in 1775 before they started that battle over the cannon they were hoarding. You're a little late. (You are aware that before 1934, Americans had machine guns, artillery, tanks, aircraft faster than the Army Air Corps.... i.e. whatever they wanted?)

Besides, you know the real agenda here is to ban any civilian guns that can stop Californian governors from the future.

TheArchDuke
February 12, 2006, 10:53 PM
I didn't read the entire thread so if anyone brought this up, I appoligise. But the quote that scares me the most is this one:

"...it’s hard to justify the sporting need for a nearly 5-foot-long weapon that fires the largest commercially available cartridge in the world"

Well if we ban the .50 cal, the next size down will be the largest commercially available cartigde in the world. Where do we stop? 22 short?

Lucky
February 12, 2006, 11:04 PM
Umm, guys, I think a moderator ought to do something, because it looks like Tootaxed's account has been hacked. The same thing was posted twice, first posted, then posted in response to a response to the first post. Who does that? No-one, except maybe ppl who hacked an account.

Who on Earth could follow this site for 4 years and then post such antiquated arguments against your .50's?

Probably too many threads that linked to the DU, they followed the trail back, or something.

gc70
February 13, 2006, 01:32 AM
Lucky, I've had the same thing happen with duplicate posts as TooTaxed. Sometimes the board will quit responding just after you post a message (at your end it doesn't look like the post went through even though it did) and you keep trying to post until you get a "successful post" response from the board. At any rate, the post goes through twice and looks a bit funny.

Spiphel Rike
February 13, 2006, 06:56 AM
As a guy who wishes I could buy whatever gun I liked, I'll have to say that the .50 should be owned by anyone who can, just to piss off the antis. If i got myself sufficiently cashed up I know i'd at the very least consider a .50 if it was legal and if I had a place to use it. A good counter proposal would be to request a government subsidy on .50 BMG ammunition, to make using the .50 more affordable.

50caliber123
February 13, 2006, 10:42 AM
I say keep em'. They're ours, and belong to us. The cartridge is based on a german anti-tannk round from WWI, the german 13mm, and was developed in the US in 1918. Between 1918-1933, people could and did own the browning machine gun that fired these rounds. After 1934, people still did own these weapons, just had to pay the $200 Federal Tax. Are single-shot rifles and the Barrett .50calibers that much more dangerous than the Browning M2 Machine Gun? Hardly. These weapons are ours, and should not be given up for "homeland security" or any other reason. The people on this message board who do own them have never committed any crimes. So anyone that's anti is basically saying "I don't trust you as my neigbor if you own that .50BMG rifle, but if you own a Remington 700 in .30-06 or an AR its ok." Sounds like the anti's are really starting to nitpick on one small issue of the alrger whole at a time.

MudPuppy
February 13, 2006, 11:21 AM
Every single point was an outrageous lie--consider:
ATF agents reported that the Branch Davidians at Waco fired .50 caliber sniper rifles at
ATF agents attempting to execute a search warrant. ATF had requested the use of
Bradley Fighting Vehicles to execute the search warrant because the Bradley is believed
capable of withstanding .50 caliber firearms. But the Bradley's were not used and four
agents were killed.14

There were indeed 4 agents killed, but they died inside the house--remember the news video of them tearing at that black curtain on the top of the roof?

I believe these "news" reports are funded by terrorist organizations--the reason the 911 terrorists were so successful was the way the attacked a target that guaranteed UNARMED civilians. It's a well known fact that the ranks of the terrorists are not only fearful of engaging troops on a battlefield, they are equally frightened of the US Citizens that are armed. America has a long history of citizens standing up to protect themselves--that's not unnoticed.

We need to apply the same restrictions to the freedom of press that those jokers would like to see imposed upon the RKBA.

"If you're anti-gun, you're pro-terrorist."

XD_fan
February 13, 2006, 04:53 PM
Its interesting the US government gave the Mujahadeen Stingers instead of .50s. I think this was mainly because they wanted the Muj to actually shoot down Soviet aircrat instead of at them. If you follow the non-MSM media you will see reports of American and British Coasties using .50s and such to destroy the engines in go-fast smuggling vessels. Typically anywhere from 12 to 20 rounds are fired to accomplish this feat. This in the hands of a "professional marksman". Granted this is typically from a moving helo shooting at a moving boat and makes things a tad bit more difficult. While is is true a shot through a jet engine will pretty much destroy it so will a 20 lbs. goose that gets ingested in flight. A 2 cents washer will do the same thing.

I continue to see the use of "sniper rifle" in the MSM with regard to the .50. The military did not and for the majority of use obtain .50 rifles to kill people at long ranges. It is/was employed a vehicle assault weapon and as an EOD tool. But it seems to be in fashion now that any weapon cabable of or wearing a scope is a sniper weapon. Likewise the color black is somehow now acquainted with lethality. I have a Model 700 Rem 30-06 with a wood stock and a Var-X II scope. I also have the same gun in stainless in a black synthetic stock with a 4x scope on it. Which is more lethal? According to my flaming liberal neighbor the "black gun" (His words) is a sniper rifle while the other one is just a hunting gun. This despite the that even with my eyes I can consistently put a round in the bullseye at 300 hundred yards while I'm hard pressed to do the same a 100 with the "black gun".

The entire .50 cal, sniper rifle, assault weapon thing is about fear and hysterics. I refer back to my neighbor. I do and have carried for years. He knows this and has told me on many occasions he isn't comfortable with it. This is based on his feelings that if he carried a gun he'd probably shoot someone over an argument. "It's right there to use after all." When I express the thought this has more to do with his self-control and morals he pooh-poohs the whole idea that he isn't a moral beacon of responsiblity. He never seems to be able to reconcile the fact that I have a gun within reach 24/7 yet I'm able to go about my business without killing people over stealing my shopping cart at Costco.

It is up to us as American citizens to recover the state of our Nation to what the founders intended. None of them were of the opinion that somehow one is not responsible for one's actions. Yet today, it seems that every criminal or irresponsible act is due to some outside force that takes over and forces these actions. Until we remember and act, as a society in whole, that individuals are and most be accountable for their actions we're doomed to continue this downward spiral. As an example I point you to the comments of Jim and Sarah Brady as reported on Drudgereport.com with regard to the VP's shooting of a hunting companion. Accidental, negilent, improper hunting, whatever; to make something like this a political point is to see the core of the problem.

azredhawk44
February 13, 2006, 05:20 PM
I am concerned that Bush is not the friend of rkba that some people may paint him as. The AW ban was not torn down with any level of force, batfe has not been restrained, and he has other important things on his agenda.


No kidding! +1 to that.

Reading between the lines shows that Bush moved the BATFE from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department. Now they are effectively tasked with arrests, enforcements and monitoring rather than collecting taxes as they were intended to do.

I can actually see a sporting use for a 50BMG.

Polar bear hunting, anyone?:neener: If I went to Alaska hunting caribou, moose, big browns or polar bears I would want to take a shot from so far away the bear didn't know I was there. 500 yards minimum.

Overkill? Why are they such a favored sniper rifle for 1000yard shots and longer? Because they are perfectly effective on human targets. Considering that moose and bear can take more damage than a person, there's my first choice.

Rumpled
February 13, 2006, 11:31 PM
If .50BMG rifles didn't cost as much as registered machineguns I'd have gotten one by now.

As it is they are priced way out of the range of the typical gun owner and even NFA enthusiasts.

Boofus, I disagree. I consider myself a typical gun owner. (Well, maybe not typical, I don't even have a 1911 yet ) My .50 BMG cost me less than $2k. I got it because it was being banned in my state.

Many "typical" gun owners spend that much on a decent rifle, shotgun or 1911.

If you enjoyed reading about "More ban 50 caliber bs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!