.50 rifle ban...worth fighting?

[TooTaxed]

I've fought for gun rights all my life, being quite active in the election campaign processes, writing letters to the editors, spoke at meetings. I fought hard against the AWB, because it was such a rediculous thing. I shoot my own AR-15 and Cetme frequently...both fun guns on the range.

But, I believe the NRA squanders a lot of public goodwill by fighting ferociously against bans of extreme weapons of no practical sporting value, such as full machineguns and, now, .50 rifles based on the Browning .50 cartridge. I have fired many types of machineguns, at one time owned a Sten Mark II, and, when I was in high school on Okinawa, a nice Jap Mod 96 LMG. I'm satisfied that civilians can legally own and shoot full machineguns under the current controls. But, the .50's and FMGs, especially subguns, are especially adaptable for criminal and terrorist use.

I question whether the .50 rifles are worth defending. They are very heavy and unweildy, not practical for hunting, and there are very few places, other than in the empty expanses of our West, where thay can be fired safely. I am concerned that the NRA will waste a lot of public good will...and resources...by fighting for these extreme guns.

Comments?

 

[munk]

I'd fight the ban, I will fight any ban proposed about the fifty.

It doesn't matter to me if you consider it of no sporting usefulness; that is a nonsense phrase anyway, a BATF invention. The Second Amendment is not about Sporting Usefullness.

It doesn't matter if you or I have no use for the fifty- someonelse might. And as a mattter of fact- I want one. They shoot these in competition at long yardage and I think it would be great.

There are going to be limits on the Second just as there are limits on all rights in the BOR. That's Ok. I think the Fifty may be a good place to stop.

I'm sorry you are not going to fight for the fifty. What other weapons do you consider irrelevant to the Second Amendment? Subguns? Do you mean semi auto or the real thing? You said you were satisfied with the paperwork regarding fully auto weapons. That includes sub guns and MG's. Could you clarify?


munk

 

[Sindawe]

The 2nd amendment is NOT about protecting our firearms for hunting and sporting use. To the dedicated antis, ALL firearms are "extreme". Ban the .50s, then go on to the next step, the military pattern rifles, then the "sniper" hunting rifles, etc, etc...

 

[lostone1413]

I hope your not naive enough to think they will stop with just a ban on 50cal. Think back first it was the Saturday Night Specials then it was the Plastic Guns like Glock then it was the AWB Now it is the 50cal and the cop killer bullets. I don't own a 50 or an AW rifle But the ones who own them have as much a right to own them as I do my shotguns and handguns. The anti gun crowd would love to split us up. As far as the NRA goes and i've been a life member for over 20years What I see is that they are way more interested in Sport shooting and hunting then the reason the 2nd amendment was really writen for. A good example is who GWB put in as AG. Without the gun owners GWB wouldn't have got elected Yet the NRA not a peep about who is the AG. To me the GOA believe way more in the real reason for the 2nd.

 

[io333]

It's just part of their strategy: to wear you down. In your case, it's working.

In modern life, and especially in all things legal, wearing the other side out is the primary tactic.

I too am worn out, but I keep at it. The only thing that can fight their wearing us out, is wearing them out! Just look at them like an old pair of jeans. KEEP BENDING AT THE KNEE!!! We're winning!!!!

 

[Pilgrim]

Giving up the .50 BMG rifles will not make them happy nor will it make them leave us alone.

Pilgrim

 

[45R]

Yes its worth fighting...there is now a ban on such rifles in CA. I personally never had a chance to shoot one until the first of this year. They are alot of fun.

 

[2nd Amendment]

What do "sporting purposes" have to with it? :banghead:

 

[TimRB]

As others have pointed out, lack "sporting purpose" is completely immaterial.

All bans must be fought every time. As we've seen, California has banned 50BMG rifles, and now other states are jumping on that meaningless bandwagon.

The gun-grabbers know full well that these rifles are *never* used in crime, but they don't care, either. They just want to ban guns. They want to ban them all, but they know that's not politically possible so they're willing to take it one gun at a time.

Tim

 

[Henry Bowman]

extreme weapons of no practical sporting value

It is worth repeating that the Second Amendment -- and the rights and responsibilities that go with it -- has nothing to do with "sporting value." :banghead:

 

[unreal45]

Every gun is worth fighting for!

 

[R.H. Lee]

But, I believe the NRA squanders a lot of public goodwill by fighting ferociously against bans of extreme weapons of no practical sporting value, such as full machineguns and, now, .50 rifles based on the Browning .50 cartridge

Who decides that?

But, the .50's and FMGs, especially subguns, are especially adaptable for criminal and terrorist use.

No offense, man, but I can't believe you're a Texan.

Anti-gun legislation is incremental. Every measure that limits/restricts/infringes in the RKBA must be vehemently opposed. Don't buy into the 'reasonable regulation' argument.

 

[CB3]

Fear

Those who would vote to ban .50's fear them, and perhaps with full justification. Could a .50 be part of a civilian-owned arsenal that a government run amok would prefer not to have pointed at its members?

You bet.

THAT's what the Second Article of the Bill of Rights (The Second Ammendment) is all about.

Shooting one is just fun, and great sport, especially if you work on long range accuracy.

Using one for Second Ammendment purposes would be fearsome, awesome, and possibly incredibly effective.

Some day a criminal or terrorist may figure out a use for one in his activities, but that is still no reason to ban them. It may just be a .50 in the hands of a civilian that stops the nefarious lout.

Ban cars and pickup trucks! Criminals and terrorists use them! etc.

CB3

 

[hrb02]

I shot a 50BMG once here is the PRK. It wasn't for hunting or sporting, it was just for fun (and lot's of it). Now I can't do that--or at least I have to drive to NV to do it.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -James Madison

Beware the gradual abridgement of your 2A rights...

 

[GEM]

1. The RKBA is not about sport. It has nothing to do with it. Sport is like bowling. The RKBA gives the citizen instruments of lethal force to protect self and family against evil doers and tyranny. There is a separate argument about owning WMD but I chose not to engage that. The 50 BMG is not that gun.

2. The crime rate with these weapons is incredibly low. Thus they have little threat - they have been used by the IRA but that was a rare event and the 25 ACP is quite more the killer.

3. The attack is clearly a slippery slope attack. This is a technique used by extremists to attack basic rights by instituting a small change or law and then coming back for more.

For example (and you may agree with this tactic in other cases, depending on your politics), the use of partial birth abortion as way to start banning all abortions. Same technique. It's a low probablility event and seems horrendous as does owning a 50 BMG. Horrors, horrors!

After the BMG - no sporting use: bye, bye - high caps, ARs, 338 Lapua SNIPER rifles. Most sporting use with firearms could be satisfied with bolt action and single shot guns. In fact, a pseudogun organization ran this pitch - bolt actions guns are OK - nothing else is.

If one studies the loss of gun rights, you will find gun owners in the UK adopted the sports strategy. Save our sport. They banned humanoid targets, tactical gear, etc. etc. The same was done in Australia. Faced with gun bans, they emphasized that a sport was being banned. They thought that the Australian strong sports culture would save their guns. It didn't.

The NRA is perfectly correct in fighting this, if you believe that you are fighting for a basic right as compared to a louder version of bowling.

 

[Estela216]

Of course you should fight it! Call your reps, it only takes a couple minutes. Please understand that many of these "anti-.50" proposals are very vague in the way they are worded. You may not approve of the .50 bmg round or its non-sporting use but you may be a muzzleloader who has a .50 caliber rifle. All that is needed for the anti-gun lobby is to get a foot in the door. Don't even let in toe brotha!!!

 

[Car Knocker]

TooTaxed,

Please define "practical sporting value". Thank you.

 

[The Freeholder]

When I was a kid, you could mailorder a 20 mm antitank rifle. Then came the GCA, and now they're "destructive devices".

Now it's .50. then it will be the .458 SoCom and so on and so forth. Next stop Great Britain.

The line is drawn already, and worrying about their sporting utility is simply wasting effort. It isn't about do you need one, but about yourr God-given right to have one. Defend your rights or lose them.

 

[Phil Ca]

A Reverand Niemoller in pre WW2 Germany once said; "They came for the trade unionists and since I was not a trade unionist I did nothing; they came for the communists and since I was not a communist I did nothing; they came for the Jews and since I was not a Jew I did nothing, then they came for me and there was no one to help me." (not precise wording but close enough)

Translate that to the following: "They came for the "Saturday Night Special" and since I did not have one I said nothing; they came for the 400 Holland and Hollandd Nitro Express and since I did not own one I said nothing; they came for the Boy's Rifle in .20 mm and since I did not have one I said and did nothing; they came for the .50 caliber BMG and since I did not have one or consider that anyone else really needed one I said and did nothing again; then they legislated against my Browning double 12 gauge bird gun, my National Match Garand and my Colt Officers Model Match in .38 Special and no one spoke out on my behalf."

The "antis" have been fractionalizing the gun community for decades. The commies have been practing gun control around the world for almost a century and nazi hordes disarmed people in all the countries they entered looking for "Lebensraum". If the people holed up in the Warsaw Ghetto would have had as many arms available to them as, say six people on THR that have a nice collection, they would have been able to take out many more of the nazi horde than they did already. What if each German houshold would have had at least one rifle and 50 rounds of ammo, and more importantly the will to use it to save themselves???

I have been rebuffed by Democrat politicians when I have called in the past to speak out against the hi cap magazine ban in California. I have had a female staffer laugh outloud and tell me that it did not matter what I thought, it was a "done deal" already.

I have read rplies on threads on various gun boards that state how the writer will just give up his arms when they come to collect them. better that person should sell them now or turn them in to the nearest redemption center. How many people will really stand and deliver at their front doors when the "grabbers" drive up???

 

[Augustwest]

I'm ag'in any sort of abridgement of RKBA, but would like to point out that Amendment II is arguably more applicable to .50 cal arms than to, say, a Wingmaster or a 10/22.

 

[Zrex]

I think you stayed in California too long.... it has effected your brain.

Can you list for me all the crimes committed with legally owned machine guns or .50 cal rifles?

Also, please point to the part of the second amendment that explains that if a firearm is not sporting enough or "too extreme" then your right to own it can, in fact, be infringed.

 

[WT]

I think there is an old axom of war ......

"If you defend everything, you defend nothing."

Personally, I don't care if the fifty stays or goes. I'd rather not see the NRA spending lots of money on the 100 or so guys who own a fifty and ignore the 100,000 or so guys who own a common revolver.

 

[motoman]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
We don't need our own people talking about "reasonable" gun control, or extreme guns. It doesn't help our cause. I want a .50 some day when I can afford it. They look like fun

 

[csmkersh]

I'd fight any gun ban; the caliber or guage is immaterial.

 

[longrifleman]

What part of "divide and conquer", don't you folks in favor of banning the .50 understand?