US Senate and .50 Cal

[Third_Rail]

that can reach out from a mile away and take off your head

Handloads and an accurate 30-06. Handloads and an accurate 300wsm. Handloads and an accurate 338Lapua. Handloads and any number of hunting cartridges.



Do you get the point yet? It's not the weapon, it's just a tool. It's the person using it.

 

[bnolsen]

Ugh I hate to post this guys, but here's a handful of crimes where the criminal used a .50

http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm

As always, criminals should be illegal, not inatimate objects.

 

[赤悪魔]

Nothing to worry about those people were all gun nuts and in dooms day cults too. They would never take a gun away unless otherwise respectable people in the community intended to use them for ill-fated means.

On the other hand, there was a Dr. in Tampa with ties to the RNC and other terrorist Groups. He owned a late model Jeep come to think of it

Ok the real point is this NO ONE NEEDS .50 Cal. There is no animal in the northern hemisphere that would require hunting with such a firearm.

 

[Third_Rail]

Ok the real point is this NO ONE NEEDS .50 Cal.

No one needs a computer, either. No one needs a fuel inefficient car. No one needs a .50BMG rifle.


However, the last happens to be guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

 

[赤悪魔]

"guaranteed"

LOL I Bet your car and computer were both "guaranteed" when you first got them.


things change
AWB it has happened once

 

[Third_Rail]

Wonderful, one of the rare LEOs that gives the rest a bad name.



When even you aren't allowed a firearm, like UK police, we'll see how funny you think it is to have criminals still being armed regardless of laws.

 

[artherd]

Ok the real point is this NO ONE NEEDS .50 Cal. There is no animal in the northern hemisphere that would require hunting with such a firearm.

I don't 'need' firearms for hunting. That's a tertiary use.

I 'need' and have a right to have them, to throw off a government that has strated from it's power granted of, for, and by the people.

Not in so many words, I have a need and a right and duty to put an API round through the armored limousine of anyone who starts, let's say, rounding up and executing all muslims/gays/whiteies/whatever.

 

[赤悪魔]

My level of training and education raise the standards of all in my profession
To say I give LEO a bad name shows your nothing but an arrogant and foolish poster who attained his status by simply posting often. The senior member title should be reserved for those whom have earned it. Just like the Title Law Enforcement Officer.

Instead of attempting a silly personal attack on some one who is willing to communicate with you, tell us what have you done to preserve this oh so important right?

 

[Third_Rail]

If you have this level of disrespect for the second amendment, I shudder to think what you think of the rest.



To answer your question, even though it isn't my job to protect the Constitution and the BoR, I do.

I write letters, I make phonecalls, I contribute money to NRA, GOA, GOAL, ACLU, and JPFO whenever I can. I talk to people about why our rights are important, and I really do seem to get through quite a bit.



What do you do to preserve our rights?

 

[c_yeager]

Ugh I hate to post this guys, but here's a handful of crimes where the criminal used a .50

not a single murder on that list. Even the VPS couldnt come up with an example.

Ok the real point is this NO ONE NEEDS .50 Cal. There is no animal in the northern hemisphere that would require hunting with such a firearm.

You are correct. As the 2nd ammendment clearly states "Being that hunters are great people the right to keep and bear (ha) impliments of hunting shall not be infringed."

Oh wait.

 

[rick_reno]

You do realize that a Jeep Cherokee killed more people domestically this week then a .50 caliber rifle has killed in oh forever!!!. Has a .50 ever been used domestically in a murder?

To be specific - that was a GREEN Jeep Cherokee and California is taking measures to ban them from being near railroad tracks.

This effort by Levin won't go anywhere - he must have forgotten his party isn't in charge any longer.

 

[赤悪魔]

Let me set THR straight before its users have Aneurysms and stroke out. Normally I would rather direct traffic and clear the scene; in lieu of administering first aid.

I protect and I provide service. I thinks it funny how my personal believe that there is no legitimate use for a .50 firearm in the hands of most civilians, is just that, a believe.

However, irrational emotional outburst only accomplishes a diminishing affect on statements given here on THR. Furthermore the attention these statements draw only deepens the concern about should these firearms be available.

The 2nd amendment strengthens and weakens in the whims of popular opinion. Appearing to emotional detracts form a persons convictions to advocate the 2nd amendment. Society fears instability in all forms and gun issues that appear to be advocated by irrational citizens only strengthen the fence sitters to side with the opposition

Please note the prior AWB
Guns that look like an AK are all the same as an AK
After 10 years the statistics do not lie
Most banned firearms were never used in the numbers indicated prior to the legislation refuring to the number mass crime sprees

Now think more recent while the ban was still in effect.
The two armed gunman who rampaged after robbing a bank. They were doped up on tranquilizers and adenine. Everyone fears this type of crime regardless of personal political views

I personal enjoy the 1st amendment. Also I see the second as a legitimate way to protect against egregious injustice. (yes interment camps happened once i.e armored car remarks)


I tend to Play Devils Advocate but my knowlage is based on the facts

 

[Zak Smith]

Like shooting fish in a barrel-

my personal believe that there is no legitimate use for a .50 firearm in the hands of most civilians

vs.

Also I see the second as a legitimate way to protect against egregious injustice. (yes interment camps happened once i.e armored car remarks)

Your esteemed position as Law Enforcement Officer does not grant you the authority to determine what is LEGITIMATE USE by ME, as long as I am not harming others. (Even then, it's the congress that make laws and the courts that judge, not yourself.)

Keep your hands to yourself, and off my stuff. That's about as polite as I can put it.

[ link to LARGER image ]

FUN is a legitimate purpose, unless the facists or socialists have taken over--

[ link to LARGER image ]




-z

 

[Justin]

Every time the topic of banning the .50 BMG comes up, everyone scrambles to point out that it hasn't been used in any real crimes (Sparks assertions not withstanding.)

[preaching to the choir]

I submit that this is a bad line of thinking. According the the BATF, .22 rimfire rounds are far and away the most popular round for criminal use. Should the lowly .22 be outlawed because it is so prevalent in crimes? Should .25, .380 or 9x19mm be outlawed because criminals overwhelmingly choose to employ them?

I don't care if every criminal in the nation is running around with a .50 BMG or FiveSeven, or whatever the latest anti-gun boogeyround is. I fail to fundamentally understand why any one of us should feel that we have to justify the continued legality of a round based on its lack of use by criminals.

Are the antis stupid for demonizing a particular gun or type of ammo because of it's perceived scariness?

Yes.

But we're nearly as stupid for blithering on about how such a round hasn't been used in crime. So what? Our collective response should be to point out that if one is not a criminal, that they have no business passing laws governing one's behavior or choice of loudenboomer.

Ok. I'm done ranting now.

[/preaching to the choir.]

 

[saltydog]

There are no common sense gun laws. Common sense should tell you that no law is going to stop a crime. Laws are passed to keep "good people oppressed" while the criminal element continues to do "its thing"

 

[Bruce H]

I hearby declare Carl Levin a danger to me and hearby request he be outlawed.

 

[GEM]

Don't worry, GWB will support a ban on 50 BMG rifles as part of his clever plan to make sure they are not banned.

Sorry - couldn't resist. Oh, well - let's change the constitution so Ah-nuld can run. That might help.

PS - no one needs to hunt while there is chopped meat in the supermarket. Ban all hunting rifles. I saw a commercial for Burgers on 60 minutes.

 

[Ktulu]

I hearby declare Carl Levin a danger to me and hearby request he be outlawed.

The guy has been in office for a bazillion years. I vote against him every time I get the chance, I write him letters telling him to not back things like the assault weapons ban, all to no effect.

I don't know what's worse, Carl Lenin or the clowns that repeatedly vote him back into office.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Double Ditto what Justin said. Engaging in debate whether a particular firearm is used in crime lends credence to the notion that our RKBA is somehow negotiable or forfeitable. It's not.

 

[RealGun]

Allying with Justin and RileyMC, there is no point in being lured into a debate justifying a gun's use when the Constitution (2A) makes it a moot point. What is debatable IMHO is where the cutoff is between common arms and WMDs for private ownership. A simple test in my mind is that I want access to any weapon available to the police, whether local, State, or Fed. There is no constitutional basis for the police having superior firepower. There is a constitutional basis for a citizen to have personal arms firepower on par with the same carried by any potential foe.

 

[Art Eatman]

There is at least some small value in pointing out that a particular firearm has not been used in crimes, or has had little use in crimes: You're pointing out that some sort of ban is "an answer, searching for a (non-existent) problem".

I really don't care if somebody has an Abrams tank and a boxcar's worth of ammo for it. The pertinent laws are those dealing with destruction of roads, damaging property of others, and excessive noise. "Need" has damn-all to do with anything. Were there even a modicum of common sense extant in the world, "Rights" would not be an issue...

Art

 

[artherd]

I protect and I provide service. I thinks it funny how my personal believe that there is no legitimate use for a .50 firearm in the hands of most civilians, is just that, a believe.

I personal enjoy the 1st amendment. Also I see the second as a legitimate way to protect against egregious injustice. (yes interment camps happened once i.e armored car remarks)

I don't see how you can belive these two opposites, and remain a sane person.

"no legitimite use?" My legitimite use is to GUARENTEE those internment camps NEVER happen. This will only be so as long as I and the other 80million firearm owners provide an active deterrant.

Period.

 

[Dave R]

There are two reasons no one has ever committed a murder with a .50 rifle:

1. They are big and heavy. Too big to carry concealed. To heavy to carry very far.

2. They are expensive. Just about the most expesive firearms around, except fine collectors pieces and double rifles.

Ronnie Barrett was right when he called .50BMG rifles "expensive toys." On 60 minutes. Unfortunate choice of words, but essentially correct. Other than competition, recreation is the primary use.

Statistically, I believe the gun used most commonly in murders is a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver.

So why are we banning a rifle that has never been used in a murder? Its not about safety or crime prevention. Its just about banning another kind of gun.

And why is ALL gun control legislation labeled "common sense" legislation these days? I have some "common sense" gun legislation for you. Its called the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Sawdust]

So why are we banning a rifle that has never been used in a murder? Its not about safety or crime prevention. Its just about banning another kind of gun.

Because you can shoot an airplane out of the sky with one.

Jeez, why do we have to keep telling you this?



Sawdust

 

[赤悪魔]

FUN is a legitimate purpose

LOL SKS were fun too those were taken away
Driving Fast was fun too That was taken away

Fun is not an entitlement granted by the bill of rights

How about this, there should be training required in order to own such a powerful firearm?

Here is how it works
Laws are pasted
Department Polices Change to address the new laws
I apply the changes in the practice of law enforcement to fit detrimental guidelines and uphold office safety

My enjoyment of the 2nd amendment is simple. I don’t judge who is entitled to own a fire arm the laws due.

You see gun ownership is a responsibility. My status as LEO allows me to own firearms most posters here would love to have. However it would be irrational and irresponsible for me to keep such weapons in my house and attempt to rationalize the situation by saying “FUN is a legitimate purpose†I an currently not on any special details or entry teams where pre mentioned arms would be of use.

I post here because I saw an offensive post were a HR member was advocating murder of entry team officers and the thread was actually about shotguns or pistols as a choice for home defense

I looked at the pictures Mr. Smith you see this is a perfect example of what I mean when I say no legitimate use. You have to drive out to the desert just to fire it. Now I am sure it is on hell of a thrill to touch it off. But there is no provision for fun in the 2nd amendment.

Have a nice day