RKBA Defense; strategies to defend the .50cal

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Don't Tread On Me

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
2,214
Location
FLORIDA
I'd like to start what I hope is a more productive thread than the usual panic threads we see here.


I predict that there is a good chance that we'll see our enemies attempt a ban on .50bmg or .50cal "sniper rifles"....The prototype ban was successful in California, and I can't see why it couldn't be successful nationally.


I've written in past threads about why I think this is possible. In a nutshell, the main reason why it might be possible is that, aside from using a purist's view of the Second Amendment, it is VERY HARD to justify or defend the .50bmg to the moderates (because they have a moderates view of the RKBA). The classic "what do you need that for" is a tough one to answer to suit their way of thinking. With semi-autos, it was easy - we said they are functionally and effectively no different than hunting-style semi-autos. The argument against the .50cals IS about effectiveness, and there's no getting around that.


So guys, let's use our creative juices and try and see what kind of clever, hard-hitting pro-.50cal arguments we can come up with. If we can form some good ones, we can say them over and over again here and on other forums, thus getting other gun owners to use them IF such a ban were to hit the floor. Not only do we need support in the form of political activism, but we also need to win the dialog/debate.


Any ideas?
 
A lot of folks use the .50BMG rifles for long range target shooting, and sometimes even for hunting big game. However, we shouldn't be barred from owning things we don't NEED. That's a slippery slope to a Nanny State. If you want one, and you can plunk down the few grand you need to buy one, there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to have one.
 
I know, I hate that argument because it concedes to the notion that firearms are based on needs.


Still, it does work for the casual moderate in politics that will take notice on an issue, and then promptly forget a month later.


This is one interesting gun to defend, because to do it, as a RKBA movement, for the first time ever - we might actually have to make our main arguments from a Second Amendment purist perspective. That hasn't happened. The RKBA movement has always used a needs-based justification, or any other number of flawed arguments in the past. Never has the pure RKBA ever been the big gun. Remember the AWB? How many times did literally thousands of pro-RKBA say "real machineguns are already banned/registered by law/NFA"....which concedes that its ok to ban or register certain classes of firearms - especially based on effectiveness or capacity to inflict damage.
 
The classic "what do you need that for" is a tough one to answer to suit their way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Those who define the terms invariably win the arguments.

I believe the moment we allow the self-styled "moderates" to redefine rights in terms of demonstrated so-called "need," we've conceded everything to the anti-Second Amendment bigots.

Would we let them redefine freedom of speech in terms of so-called "necessary" or "beneficial" communications? Do web sites have to pass a so-called "sporting use" test before receiving government licenses? Are book publishers and distributors and individual book shops required to perform background checks with a federal law enforcement agency before selling books to individuals and keep written records for 20 years? How would those self-styled "moderates" feel if buyers of pornographic magazines, say, or sewing magazines were required to pay a $200 tax to the Treasury Department before taking home their purchases?

I believe we've already conceded nearly everything to the self-styled "moderates," and it's won us nothing but further infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. I believe the self-styled "moderates" are merely a segment the leftist extremists who've chosen to be somewhat more sophisticated in speech writing than the Kennedys and Schumers and Feinsteins and Kerrys.

I believe the only intelligent, honorable response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is to refuse the question and demand that the interrogator stop playing antagonistic word games and start dealing with us respectfully.

It seems to me we need to reject so-called "need" discussion out of hand and reassert the Second Amendment in terms of inviolable rights: as often as we meet the enemy on his ground at the time of his choosing under rules of engaement he has written, we not only lose, but will necessarily continue to lose.
 
Last edited:
Standing Wolf, I agree.


We've always used flawed arguments to fight for the RKBA. It worked (depending on your perpsective) because of the nature of the firearms in question. This time, it isn't so.

Regardless of what you or I say, if the .50bmg had a "need"...that is exactly what the majority of the RKBA would argue. It is the default behavior of people. It works in the short run to win small gun debates, but you lose in the long run by agreeing with the gun controllers.

So, the question is becoming if we need to start making what I like to call, purist arguments for the RKBA. Or the true support and true position of the RKBA.

I didn't intend this to become a discussion of the greater strategy of the RKBA movement, but rather to focus on the .50cals in specific - since we're likely to deal with that, if not an AWB or a magazine capacity ban.

One thing we can do is debunk the claim that the .50bmg is the choice of terrorists. Our enemies are riding the terrorism bandwagon for their agenda.

Another thing is that we can argue that .50bmg's are not used in crimes.

We can also argue the true effectiveness, in that it doesn't shoot down helicopters and 747's from 2 miles away.

If we argue they aren't used in crimes, or they're not terrorist weapons - we're using a flawed argument, since then what happens if some criminal or terrorist uses one, does that mean they should be banned? We don't ban things because a few individuals misuse them.

I remember the Brady Camp beating the pulp out of the NRA in a few press releases by basically going back and digging up statements by the NRA concerning semi-autos during the AWB days. That's what happens when you use weak arguments like these - they come back to bite you. There are literally dozens of TV clips of pro-RKBA activists on the news from all the various RKBA organizations using the old argument that "we're not advocating legalizing machineguns, they're already banned - these (AW's) are semi-autos no different than hunting rifles"

You know, the strategy for the entire existence of the RKBA movement has been to try and win at all costs, just live for the day - even if that means accepting awful terms. It has been to compromise, or do sell out one particular class of firearms for another, or to just concede.


That's why I'm posting this thread. I'm hoping someone has something we can say or use. I have little faith in the pro-RKBA orgs. They will use awful arguments, will likely be defeated, and only cause more harm with their compromising to appear mainstream or moderate.

We have thousands of members here on THR, most of which I believe are pretty much ready to switch the dialog in the history of the RKBA to a NO COMPROMISE stance. To stand our ground. To put the foot down. We lose everytime with compromises.


Somebody with a lot more brainpower than I have is going to have to think of something.
 
We lose everytime with compromises.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

Every time we let ourselves be defensively cornered into defending individual firearms and individual types of ammunition, or objecting to individual new "reasonable compromise" federal and state laws, (background checks, waiting periods, one gun a month prohibitions, et cetera,) we've allowed shameless anti-Second Amendment bigots to seize the lead.

Instead of passively defending .50 caliber firearms, I believe we ought to stand up and aggressively advocate reopening the market to post-1987 fully automatic firearms. We've done a fine job of aggressively advocating shall issue concealed carry in nearly all the states. Now isn't the time to rest on our laurels, but the time to force the anti-Second Amendment bigots onto the defensive.
 
Ah, yes - but you see the problem there Standing Wolf?


We pursued concealed carry - by license. Not Vermont style. We said "let us carry if we are good citizens with FBI checks, finger prints, pictures, training, and a license we must renew" aka - with your permission only.


That entire issue was pushed across the nation from a gun control perspective. It was either that - or no carry. That's the compromise part. Like it or not, we lost the culture war in America (not as bad as California or Illinois lost it), but we lost it across America in terms of owning or carrying guns without permission. That is generally viewed as unacceptable by the masses.


So, as you can see, not even concealed carry was won with a true RKBA argument. It was not won by being a Right. It is a state-issued priviledge that can be taken away at any time, for reasons by which THEY set the standards for. The state needs much more justification to take away your rights, but not your concealed license.


Should we just say, ".50 caliber, because it's OUR Right" ....and that's that. You know, on House and Senate floor debates, not a single representative (except maybe Ron Paul) has ever argued that it is a RIGHT. They all pull out crime stats and argue other nonsense. That says a lot if you think about it. Says alot about the true status of the RKBA.


The RKBA is far from safe. It is all but wiped out. Yet, the NRA has a video called "the restoration of the Second Amendment" as to imply they did it. HA!


Hate to be a pessimist, but we might for once argue the RKBA and see the whole country basically argue against it. It is amazing that people will side against their own liberty. They've all been fooled into believing it's not their right to begin with. If it never was your right, then you don't have a problem losing what you never had. That is the core issue with most Americans.
 
Should we just say, ".50 caliber, because it's OUR Right" ....and that's that. You know, on House and Senate floor debates, not a single representative (except maybe Ron Paul) has ever argued that it is a RIGHT. They all pull out crime stats and argue other nonsense. That says a lot if you think about it. Says alot about the true status of the RKBA.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think so too. Why is this our right? Because it says so in the 2nd? If we just argue that and let the antis take up the fear mongering with faulty crime stats and apocalypse scenarios, we're opening the 2nd up to be repealed. What'll we say then? If everyone else believes that guns are bad and the source of all evil and that the 2nd is detrimental to the country, then the constitution will certainly be amended, and it won't be a "right" anymore. And there'll be nothing left to say. That's why nobody just argues for it that way. It's a terrible way to argue for it.

Why is this a right? It's not just because it says so in the constitution. This is something every progunners need to reflect on in order to preserve the 2nd through the following generations.
 
One thing we can do is debunk the claim that the .50bmg is the choice of terrorists.
Click to expand...
What if it were common for terrorists to use the .50 BMG? Would that mean we would not have the right to keep and bear a .50 BMG rifle?

Another thing is that we can argue that .50bmg's are not used in crimes.
Click to expand...
What if it were common for criminals to use the .50 BMG? Would that mean we would not have the right to keep and bear a .50 BMG rifle?

We should never use crime statistics to justify our right to keep and bear arms, even if they work in our favor. This is due to the implications inherent in the argument.
 
The .50 is just a rifle. Bigger than most, with a slower rate of fire. Not slower mechanically. Recovery from recoil is a fact of shooting. Power balanced against a rate of fire. In the time it takes to aim and fire a .50 three times a man could fire a smaller rifle a dozen times or more effectively.

IT IS JUST A RIFLE, AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
 
Get the word "need" out of their arguments. If they want to compromise, fine, they can ban .50s AFTER they ban everything else we don't "need", including cars, TVs, makeup, furniture, "organic" food, fast food, designer clothes, etc.
 
I have found most anti's to be pretty dumb, and about ballistics and the difference between smokeless and black powder they will know nil. So you can try to use this appoach....

Show them a .58 cal or bigger Flintlock or muzzleloader and say well what about this? Is this gonna be illegal too? It's shoots an even BIGGER bullet!:eek:

You want to ban the .50 because it looks modern and you are told it is evil, but this here big old flinter is OK?

The anti's out there aren't bothered with facts, use thier own idiocy and splitting hairs against them.

Only thing I hate about the modern .50's is I can't afford one yet.
 
Sorry I'm not more help. But I wanted to say something because I believe WE will face this obstacle shortly.

You could explain that 50 caliber muzzle loaders have been around for a long time. So why would it be any different?

You could explain that no crimes have been committed with the 50bmg.

Don't some states allow huning large game with the 50bmg? So it is a hunting rifle.

Argue they are heavy and generally don't hold more than 1 shot at a time, unless they are several thousand dollars.

Explain that just because a gun is illegal, that won't prevent criminals/(I will use the buzz word of the day...TERRORIST) from obtaining this sort of weapon.

You always have the, if you want to ban only items we need then we should ban oil that last 15K miles, plasma televisions, and titanium fishing reels.

Explain why the second amendment is in the constitution and that more lives have been lost from actions taken by governments than all terrorist activities combined (I made that up but I bet it is true).

And most important, I feel this is inevitable, save big $$$$ so when the ban comes you can buy one before it goes into effect.

You probably knew all this, but it is the best I can do.
 
This is one interesting gun to defend, because to do it, as a RKBA movement, for the first time ever - we might actually have to make our main arguments from a Second Amendment purist perspective. That hasn't happened. The RKBA movement has always used a needs-based justification, or any other number of flawed arguments in the past. Never has the pure RKBA ever been the big gun. Remember the AWB? How many times did literally thousands of pro-RKBA say "real machineguns are already banned/registered by law/NFA"....which concedes that its ok to ban or register certain classes of firearms - especially based on effectiveness or capacity to inflict damage.
Click to expand...

There is nothing "moderate" about the Second Amendment. The entire Bill of Rights is radical--as it should be. It puts up a wall around our basic civil liberties and empowers citizens at large to man that wall with requisite force.

We can dance around the social utility of the .50 or we can bravely make the case for it as something We the People have the right to own. Somewhere along the line it became unmentionable to remind those in power that they govern by our consent and that we retain the right, and the means, to oust them when they stray into tyranny.
 
As others have said you don't start defending your rights on your own ten-yard-line.

The .50bmg isn't dangerous. KELO is dangerous. McCain-Feingold is dangerous.

We are going to have a lot more aggressive in the defense of our liberties over the next few years or utterly lose them.
 
I believe that the only way to defend the 50cal is to make the case to every gunny everywhere that banning a single firearm places EVERY firearm at risk. If you can't make it personal, the vast majority of the gun owning public simply will not understand or care.
 
How would those self-styled "moderates" feel if buyers of pornographic magazines, say, or sewing magazines were required to pay a $200 tax to the Treasury Department before taking home their purchases?
Click to expand...

Excellent post as usual.

Good way to fight this? Buy one! If prices came down and ammunition was cheaper to buy or reload, more people would have one and more people would be pissed off over the threat of a ban. Because this is still a "niche" gun of sorts, there isn't enough resistance yet. Mark Serbu makes one of the least expensive, if not the least expensive .50s on the market, and it's on my list, believe me.
 
carterbeauford, It's on my list too :) Got to fire one (only one bullet too) a while back, that thing is awesome, all I can say. I like the looks of the muzzle break on the Serbu as well...sleek looking rifle for a .50.
 
Lee makes a .50BMG press that lists for $231. Serbu makes .50BMG rifle for a little over $2,000. It is entirely within reach.

My line of reasoning is, I'm already pissed they are trying to take them away from my compatriots, once they try to take away mine it's ON :mad:

Apply this to a greater percentage of said compatriots, and you get mobilization. People think because they don't own one it won't affect them.
 
Slippery slope indeed. Although we can fight for our rights based on need, it is a hard arguement when we are talking about weapons, especially very powerful ones. The best argument IMO for the weapon is based on the true intention of the 2nd Amendment.

Them:Why do you need a gun?
Me:Why do you need the 1st Amendment? :pause: Same reason. When the only speech and press you have is that run by the govt, you no longer live in a free state. When only the police have guns, you live in a police state.

We must argue the case of freedom and liberty. That is the justification for the 1st amendment. It is the only real justification for the Second.

If they win the argument that the 50 has an extraordinary range, then they will win the argument against every caliber that has long range.

If they win the argument that the 50 can can penetrate steel armor then they win the argument for every cartridge than can penetrate armor, then it will be every cartridge that can pierce steel, then concrete, then body armor then... Then we will have nothing but Air Soft.

Them:We don't want to ban your hunting rifles.
Me:You lie.

Now please pass the tin foil, I need a new hat.
 
I just want to say this is an excellent thread so far.

I think that the only proper response should be that it is a right and the rights we have cannot be taken away simply because someone else does not like me exercising them.
 
more lives have been lost from actions taken by governments than all terrorist activities combined (I made that up but I bet it is true).
Click to expand...

In the 20th century, governments killed over 200 million of "their" people in peacetime. Then there were a few wars. Then there was the FDA...

Anyway, all the non-state terrorist casualties together would be a rounding error in any one of the major genocides.
 
I have stopped several people by explaining that there is a practical maximum range for .30 caliber rifles, and the slightly larger magnums. For a marksman who has maximized the practical range of the .30 caliber rifle, the only way to go longer or more accurate is to get a larger round. The definition of 'small arms' limits them to one half-inch in caliber. Someone who wants to go to the maximum possible range must eventually use the largest possible bullet.

I also remind tham that these rifles have never once been used in a crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top