More ban 50 caliber bs
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
engineer151515
Member
LAR-15 said:
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
Member
Soybomb said:
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
Member
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.
B
boofus
Guest
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.
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
member
.50's can be had, if you want one
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."
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$$ on the antigun bigot's parade!!
.50 cal. rifles are like front doors - no home in America should be without one.
The Barrett model 99 .50 cal. single shot has a MSRP of $3675 American last time I checked. It is a good beginner .50 and is "the working man's .50 cal."
Not cheap, but within reach, if it is something you really want. The semiauto .50 - the model 82A1, goes for a MSRP of $7775 American, for the big spender.Cosidering that it is not that hard to spend $3000 A. on a custom 1911, the model 99 is within reach, if you want to make it a priority.
The big 50's may not be the most practical gun to own, but I'd LOOOOOOOOVE to have one - what a great way to
P1$$ on the antigun bigot's parade!!
.50 cal. rifles are like front doors - no home in America should be without one.
telomerase
Member
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
Member
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?
"...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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 152
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 640
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
Member
Every single point was an outrageous lie--consider:
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."
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."
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.
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
Member
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?
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.
boofus said:
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.
- Status
