House Rejects Effort on (.50-caliber) Rifle Restriction

[quaoar]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-super-rifles,1,7995946.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON -- The National Rifle Association and its allies in the House beat back an effort Thursday to restrict gun manufacturers' exports of high-powered, .50-caliber rifles that can bring down jet airliners from a mile away.

By a 278-149 vote, the House killed an amendment by Rep. James Moran to block .50-caliber exports to civilians. He said the guns are dream weapons for terrorists.

"These are unparalleled weapons, and I'm not trying to restrict them in the United States," said Moran, D-Va. "I just don't want them sold by arms dealers."

But gun rights advocates, with backing from the powerful NRA, turned aside the amendment.

[RalphReedsWreckedEm]

1. Don't complain. Buy one.

A nation of liberals armed with .50 cal sniper rifles?

I would bet that the deformed GOP masses would shut their damn mouths pretty darn quick.

[quaoar]

2. Plus

It's probably good for squirrel hunting -- you shoot the squirrel and then hunt for any remains.

[ElectroPrincess]

8. Don't forget your mini-squeegee and tweezers ...

while mopping up those varmints.



BTW my Dad said that their family was "so poor" that they couldn't afford to waste ammo. As a boy in the 1930s, he had to run along side the rabbit and feel it's ribs first - before deciding if it was worth "wasting a bullet" on killing' it for dinner. Now that's harsh! LOL

A cal .50 - where's the sport? It's only purpose is to create massive kill zones. It's effects are awesome in a very horrific way.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

13. he hehe

Hunter 1: Squirrel's behind that tree! Let me move around for a better shot

Hunter 2: Don't fucking move man, I got this little squeaky bastard. get my bag.

[Dave Reynolds]

3. The NRA are shitheads,

but I have searched and asked many times about how this gun could bring down a plane. No answers, just BS.

[Xithras]

4. The hype about the .50's is all scaremongering.

They can't bring down a plane, or blow up a train. You'd have to be an absolutely phenomenal shot to even HIT an aircraft, and even then the odds of you hitting anything important are less than miniscule.

As far as I know, there has never been a single crime committed in the United States with a .50 caliber rifle. You can buy four assault rifles for the cost of a single .50 and do FAR more damage.

[acmejack]

7. I fear you err

What type of guns did the P 51 Mustang carry? It had a pretty good record of shooting down aircraft, if my history is correct. .50 Cal ammunition is available in a variety of types, such as incendiary, armor piercing, high explosive, so perhaps you would care to reconsider your claims.

[hack89]

15. The P51 had six guns and fired hundreds of rounds...

big difference from a single shot rifle.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. To be fair

The P-51 was an .50 machinegun and had a much higher rate of fire than these puppies.

That said, I would take bets that a .50 firing at a jet on take off (a very critical period) could take out an engine and possibly cause the loss of the aircraft. This is certainly the case for smaller aircraft as opposed to big jets.

You would have to be a good shot, but it's all about location, location, location. Once the plane gets beyond about 1,000 feet you aren't going to hit it.

I wouldn't want to be a cop dealing with a some clown in body armor and .50 sniper rifle.

[acmejack]

18. OK perhaps a poor example let's address the ammunition.

I am a veteran, and have operated a M2 MG, so I know the difference between a machine gun and a sniper weapon. The point I am attempting to make is that a plane on final could be taken down with a single explosive or incendiary round.

[Richard Steele]

22. And the same scenario "could be" created by almost any rifle, not just .50

Calibers. There's almost nothing on a modern passenger jet that would stop ANY rifle round bigger than a .22 rimfire.

[slackmaster]

23. A plane could be taken down by any well-placed projectile

The probability of downing one with any small firearm, even a machine gun, is very small.

[Xithras]

28. Aircraft aren't that fragile.

Mythbusters ran a great episode yesterday, where they tested the old Hollywood legend of the single bullet taking down a plane. THEY COULDN'T DO IT. Fully pressurized, even blowing out an entire window with an explosive charge didn't do any real damage to the plane.

There's only two potential ways to bring an airliner down with a rifle. Shoot the fuel tank, or shoot an engine.

1) Fuel tank: Wing tanks are nearly impossible to hit because they'll be perpendicular with most shooters, giving them practically nothing to target. Even if you shot an incindiary into the center fuel tank, you'd have to deal with the fact that jet fuel isn't explosive. You could probably start a small fire on board, but the rate of fuel leakage from an inch wide hole is going to be so small that the pilot will have plenty of time to turn the plane around and land.

2) Engine: First, for any jet with more than two engines, this isn't a concern. For two engined jets, you'd have to have an incredible streak of bad luck for this to work. First the round would actually have to HIT the engine...no small feat at the ranges and speeds we're discussing (most people would call it miraculous). Then you'd have to hit it SQUARE enough to actually punch through (the laws of physics still apply, and aluminum can deflect a lead bullet if the angle is too shallow). THEN you'd have to assume that the bullet actually hit something critical. Much of the mass of a jet engine belongs to its combustion chamber, and a small hole in that really isn't going to have any effect on anything. You would have to hit a small critical gear, or sever an oil line, in order to cause a seizure that would stop the engine. We're not talking about hitting an airliner with a bullet here...we're talking about hitting some very tiny engine parts that are moving at high speed without even being able to SEE them at a range of over a half mile.

Believe it or not, the most vulnerable spot on a plane is the cockpit, which is why jets have TWO people capable of flying the plane.

[slackmaster]

83. You got two out of three...

There's only two potential ways to bring an airliner down with a rifle. Shoot the fuel tank, or shoot an engine.

Add "shoot the pilot" and you have the Trifecta.

:D

[Kelvin Mace]

89. I concur

Final or take off is the perfect time for such an attack. Anything else is going to be next to impossible. But, as I said, I had to be fair.

<g>

[Xithras]

26. No reconsideration needed.

The P51 could fire thousands of rounds a minute and was generally CHASING the aircraft it shot down at the same speed. .50 cal rifles, in the hands of a highly trained expert, MIGHT fire 15 to 20 rounds a minute. The speed differential between a stationary sniper and a 150+ MPH plane on a takeoff roll would make hitting one practically impossible.

Anyone who can hit a 10 foot wide target moving at 100+ MPH at a range of a half mile or more has godlike reflexes. There are target shooters who practice for decades who could never pull that one off. I've been shooting rifles for 20 years and couldn't even come CLOSE.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wuushew]

11. The threat is taken seriously by those concerned

Most Likely and Most Dangerous" Threat Scenarios at LAX

(arranged from most dangerous to least dangerous)

Large truck bomb – Could cause death and destruction at curbside, baggage areas and airport departure level.

Curbside car bomb – Could cause many deaths in right lane in front of skycap waiting lines.

Luggage bomb -- Number of deaths in screening area would depend on number of people standing in line.

Un-inspected cargo bomb – If detonated aboard an aircraft, could kill hundreds of passengers.

Insider-planted cargo bomb -- Placed aboard an aircraft by an airport employee with access to the plane, it could kill hundreds.

Air operations attack -- Armed terrorists could scale airport fences and attack fuel areas, runways and aircraft.

Public grounds attack -- Well-equipped attackers could block airport entrances, overwhelm airport police, and kill many civilians.

Air traffic control tower or utility plant -- A car or truck could carry a bomb that could destroy the airport’s control tower or a utility plant.

Man Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS) -- RAND predicts such a missile attack would "result in destruction of an airliner less than 10 percent of the time."

Sniper attack -- A sniper with a .50-caliber rifle, located on property adjacent to LAX, could fire approximately 50 rounds within five minutes.

Mortar attack -- Similar to an attack on London’s Heathrow Airport by the IRA, a mortar attack on LAX "might disrupt operations for several days, but it would kill few people on average," said RAND.

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/feb_05_02/safeguard_lax.html

[Chi]

46. Damn nice find wuushew, Damn nice find 8) n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

51. Doesn't matter how may rounds you fire

Ifyou can't hit the target. I doubt that even a military-trained sniper could hit a target the size of an engine block (the "kill zone" on an aircraft) from a distance of a mile or more when the target is traveling at 150 mph or more -- I don't know the take-off and landing airspeed of a jet liner.

Having missed a full-sized buck from a distance of less than 100 yards, I can't imagine being able to hit an aircraft -- hit it at all, much less take it down -- from that distance.

[Gabi Hayes]

66. Guess what? I'm going to SHOOT one of these babies in two weeks

along with a 30 cal Browning air cooled machine gun

German Mk 42 and 34 machine guns

various submachine guns

assault rifles, and other stuff

this will be at an army base in KY, near or at the mint.

they have a huge shooting range, and the gun nuts I'm going with do this once or twice a year with the above-mentioned ordnance, ALL fully legal and registered

here's the Browning....my friend sent me a picture yesterday



so I'll let you know what it's like, and what these nutty experts have to say

[-..__...]

85. Better break out the Ben-Gay.

Sniper attack -- A sniper with a .50-caliber rifle, located on property adjacent to LAX, could fire approximately 50 rounds within five minutes.

Someones shoulder is going to be awful sore in the morning after firing 50 50BMG rounds within 5 minutes.

[quaoar]

5. Maybe this is how

This is from the LA Times article:

The .50-caliber rifle is the most powerful firearm in wide circulation. It can penetrate thick steel used to armor personnel carriers and is accurate at distances greater than a mile. Moran said that if someone were to use the weapons from such distances, he easily would evade law enforcement.

The risks associated with .50-caliber weapons gained attention this year after CBS' "60 Minutes" aired a report demonstrating the ease with which .50-caliber rifles could be exported to overseas militias.

[BiggJawn]

6. Well, a LOT of weapons are "accurate at distances greater than a mile"

But NOT in the hands of MOST mere Mortals.

Moran has watched too many Steven Segal movies....

[wuushew]

9. Yes that 60 minutes segment mentioned Waco

holes were being shot in APCs necessitating the deployment of very heavy tanks to the siege.

I would like to know who is buying these firearms and if such people are members of extremist religious groups or white supremacist organizations(the far more likely source of terrorism in this country).

[Xithras]

19. So? I can hit a target with my .30-06 at a mile too.

And unlike the .50's, my .30-06 holds multiple rounds and can be fired standing up and moving. They can pierce buildings, cars, bodies, and body armor like butter, and at short range solid core aught-six rounds can punch through all but the thickest metal. A .30-06, in case you're not aware, is a standard hunting cartridge, they can be bought for a few hundred bucks at Walmart, and there are tens of millions of them in private hands in the US.

Like I said, it's scaremongering. There's nothing special about the .50, and little it can do that others can't. No terrorist in his right mind would spend a thousand-plus bucks on a single shot .50 caliber rifle, when there are FAR more deadly firearms that make FAR more effective sniper rifles.

So why are they picking on the .50? Because there aren't that many .50 owners, so they make an easy target. Just about every hunter in the US owns a .30-06 on the other hand, so taking them on would be political suicide.

[saigon68]

67. This is why-- (In my blue state WI)

Our DINO Raving left wing Draft dodger of a Governor-- will exit stage left next year.

He has a 41% approval rating and uses shit like this to turn off thousands and thousands of ex-Democratic union members with his drivel. He is very anti-gun anti-sports and pro abortion. He is toast.

[Endangered Specie]

55. IIRC alot of weapons are accurate to a mile...

namely the old late 19-early 20th century military rifles (such as a Mauser or Springfield), are probably capable of a miles accuracy (though youd need a scope, obviously).

[jmowreader]

29. If you can bring down a plane with this rifle...

you have marksmanship skills beyond parallel.

Field Manual 23-65 teaches troops to shoot down airplanes with the M2 Browning machine gun. NATO 12.7mm rounds are the same in the rifle as in the MG, so "obviously" you can shoot down a plane with a .50-cal Barrett sniper rifle, right?

Never mind the fact that the Browning fires hundreds of rounds per minute and the Barrett fires as fast as you can pull the trigger to empty its small magazine.

Okay, devil's advocate time: You're Billy Bad Ass with a Barrett. A regular Waco Kid. If you could hit a fuel tank with one of these rounds, you'd shoot the plane down. You could fuck up the plane if you could hit an engine--civil aviation engines aren't made to be shot at. You're not the Waco Kid; you can't hit something that small.

Now! You could raise havoc with this gun on our nation's highways: shoot a few truck engines and you'd clog up a major arterial.

[davepc]

81. The real threat to passenger airliners in this country is the SA-7

But whens the last time you heard ANYBODY in congress talk about doing things to make airliners safe from man portable surface to air missiles?



If anybody is serious about protecting passenger airliners from being shot down then they should be addressing the proliferation of man portable SAM's. Such missiles have already been employed by terrorists in Iraq to shoot at Boeing 7x7 series airplanes.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main

Also on Saturday morning, a DHL courier plane landed safely at Baghdad International Airport after a heat-seeking surface-to-air missile hit one of its engines, according to military sources at the airport. No one was injured.

The aircraft had just taken off when it was hit by a SAM-7, sources said. A fire in one of the engines was extinguished after the plane landed, the sources said.

http://home.nycap.rr.com/mismedia/SAM/SAM%20Use%20in%20Current%20Terrorist%20Operations.htm

Despite large caches of weapons being discovered by US forces, there may be 5,000 to 7,000 unaccounted SAMs in Iraq, mostly SA-7s, according to military officials.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/11/28/missiles/index.html

Al Qaeda tapes obtained in Afghanistan by CNN show how to fire a SA-7 missile.

If any terrorist or anybody else wants to shoot down a jet plane they're going to use one of these, and not try and skeet shoot a plane moving 200+ mph with a 30lb bolt action rifle from a mile away.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Dick Cheney voted against banning "cop killer bullets" when in Congress

Guns, Religion and money are SACRED in this country. They must be left to do as they will. Regardless of the intrusiveness of the Patriot Act, there have not been nor will there be any restrictions on the easy purchase of weapons.

The real danger of this particular weapon is as a sniper rifle.

[slackmaster]

24. A lot of Democrats voted against that one too

It would have banned most hunting ammunition.

[PurityOfEssence]

47. bummer

Dicky's killed more than a thousand farm-raised little birdies since he's been de-facto president.

Anyone who needs to preserve ALL killing mechanisms has problems. Anyone.

Real problems.

Real problems that they need to explain.

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. A gun like that is no toy, it's a killing machine

why something like that is even manufactured for consumer sales is beyond me.

[slackmaster]

20. People use them for long-range target shooting

It's a very challenging and expensive sport.

Some people have to have the largest and most powerful whatever.

Some people are always going to try to ban the largest and most powerful whatever.

Some people have to have anything that someone else is trying to ban.

Bottom line - Use of .50 BMG rifles in crime is almost unheard of. The weapons are far to big, heavy, and expensive to be practical to any criminal.

[The_Casual_Observer]

27. Maybe in the US, however, the issue seems to be the foreign sales

It doesn't take a great deal of imagination see what kind of damage these do world wide.

[slackmaster]

71. They've been available world-wide since the 1970s

And frankly it's not very difficult to make a single-shot rifle from a surplus machine gun barrel and a billet of decent alloy steel.

If availability of 50 caliber rifles was going to be a factor in international crime, terrorism, insurgency, or whatnot we would have aleady seen it happen.

[tabasco]

30. Truly unbelievable. No civilian use whatsoever.

I ran .50 cal ranges in the Army. I've seen Army snipers in action in Somalia with the .50 cal sniper rifle. Easily penetrates concrete block structures. No hunting applications at all. OTOH, a great potential danger to law enforcement.

Target practice? Get a fucking .22, you fucking nutbags.

The gun culture of this Nation is sick and twisted if it denies the need for regulation of these powerful weapons.

[VegasWolf]

14. Ya, never know, maybe there are a few T-Rex's still walking around

from a couple of thousand years ago when god made man and dinosaurs walk side by side. A .50 caliber ought to stop that monster in its
tracks. Good for aliens also.

[truthisfreedom]

17. aside from dropping a charging elephant, of what use are these behemoths?

i mean really? what good are they?

[slackmaster]

21. Target shooting - see my reply #20

No big mystery.

[geckosfeet]

61. So,, using a 22 for targeting shooting is considered what,,, girly ???

Christ effin almighty,,,, I could close my eyes and point a 50 caliber weapon at something and hit it. There would not be much left but damn,,, it sure would be fun blowin sumthin up.

[NickB79]

68. If you can target shoot at 1000 yds with a .22 rifle, I bow down to you

Your marksmanship skills are beyond reproach if that is the case.

"I could close my eyes and point a 50 caliber weapon at something and hit it."

Really? Damn, and here those morons in the US military have actually been training snipers on target ranges and wasting thousands of dollars worth of ammo per sniper. What the hell were they thinking, when a person can just close their eyes and BAMMO, hit the target dead-on?

[geckosfeet]

73. Please, no bowing required. I have not picked up a gun in years

and my eyes are not what they used to be although I used to have a very steady hand.

The military has legitimate needs for training people to properly use these weapons.

I am not sure that I understand the requirement for using a 50 round over a 22 round for target competition, sport or practice though.

[slackmaster]

70. That's not at all how it works

People set up paper targets at distances of 1,000 yards or even more. A .50 BMG round makes a half-inch hole in the target.

...it sure would be fun blowin sumthin up.

That is indeed the case. It is fun to blow things up.

[applegrove]

25. I just saw the minute by minute account of Reagan's shooting.

Two seconds: six shots with exploding bullets! What is wrong with freepers? He was their hero?

[jody]

31. Replies to this thread demonstrate an amazing ignorance

re modern .50 caliber rifles. A few hysterical gun grabbers get headlines over a rifle that is not a threat to aircraft.

If .50 caliber rifles were so deadly to aircraft, guerrilla forces in Afghanistan and Iraq would have already used them against such easy targets as ubiquitous U.S. helicopters. They could precisely target helicopters from miles away as hysterical gun grabbers allege and eliminate deaths and damage to Iraqi civilians. Since that has not occurred, I conclude that a .50 caliber rifle is not a threat to fixed or rotary wing aircraft.

[quaoar]

32. Would armor-piercing rounds with this gun

penetrate an armored Humvee?

[wuushew]

33. yes

http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/50cal.htm

[jody]

35. Depends on the armor but probably yes depending

on range and retained energy of the bullet.

Browse DoD article "Marine Armor Kit to Upgrade 'Hummers'", extract below, at http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/articles/2004-12/ta120204c.html
and note that an armor kit might weigh from 1,800 to 3,400 pounds and a Humvee’s payload is from 4,450 lbs to 3,750 lbs. See Military Humvee Specifications

QUOTE
According to Maj. James Washburn, a Marine Corps Systems Command project officer who has also worked on the program, “It’s a huge task to match armor protection against the evolving threats while staying within the carrying capacity of the wheeled vehicle fleet. You simply can’t retrofit a Humvee to match the armor protection of a main battle tank.”

“Our main objective is to make sure that Marines get the best protection possible in the time frame that they need it,” Washburn noted.

“Obviously the specifics are classified, but the MAK is designed to protect Marines from the prevalent threat of (improvised explosive device) attacks and other ballistic dangers,” said Rodgers.
* * * * * * * * * * *
The kit is modular, and can provide a minimum level of protection at 1,800 additional pounds, or full protection at around 3,400 pounds.
UNQUOTE

[quaoar]

37. In that case

it seems like a good idea to not allow this weapon to be exported -- which is what the legislation was calling for.

[jody]

40. The bill was not just about exports, IMO it was a back door step

to banning .50 caliber rifles for domestic use.

[quaoar]

41. For export -- That's what the story says

Do you have anything to support your opinion?

[jody]

43. Nope, just decades of fighting for RKBA that's left me with a distrust

of "gun grabbers". They've been trying to ban .50 caliber rifles for several years and this bill is part of that campaign.

If the bill were to pass, then the argument would be made that if the .50 caliber rifle is to dangerous to export to second and third world countries, the rifle must be banned in the U.S. with it's larger number of vulnerable targets.

[Zynx]

42. Pretty easily - the Humvee is NOT, repeat, NOT an armored vehicle

A .50 cal will pretty much laugh at any bullet proofing you can plausibly put on a vehicle that has four wheels.

But so will larger hunting rifles - ballistic material that can stop full-length .30 cal and higher is pretty rare stuff.

[unionwelder]

53. agree !

Like Zynx says the humvee was designed to replace the jeep not the APC. Everybody likes to decry the troops being sent into war with defective humvees but they are not armored vehicles!

[brentspeak]

34. Why is it "gun grabbing" to prevent consumer sales of this rifle?

The public can get legally get all kinds of firearms, already.

[jody]

38. The term"gun grabber" is used to identify those who would ban

all handguns or all guns. It is also sometimes used to identify those who would control or limit possession of firearms to a very select few so that law abiding citizens are effectively prevented from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

In the present context, those who want to ban .50 caliber rifles are essentially the same "gun grabbers" I defined above.

The .50 caliber rifle is used legitimately for competition and other shooting sports.

Please remember that the arguments used against a .50 round of ammunition will also be used against a .499 round of ammunition, and on down the scale.

"Gun grabbers" in England have proposed that all guns be banned that fire a projectile with 0.5 joules of muzzle energy, that's greater than a Daisy BB gun. :shrug:

[tabasco]

45. So by your logic no weapons can be regulated.

How can we prohibit bazookas? After all, then they would want to prohibit 2.99" rockets and everything under.

Plan to do much "self-defense" with a .50 cal ? :eyes:

[jody]

49. Obvious question but why don't you get both sides of the issue by

visiting DU's "Gun Rights & Gun Control" forum?

My own answer is that the federal laws we have at present TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS and
TITLE 26, Subtitle E, CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS, perhaps with some minor tweaking, are adequate.

The problem is that neither Republican or Democratic administrations have enforced those laws and Congress has neither funded nor demanded that those laws be enforced.

[VegasWolf]

36. Agree with planes. What about armor proof vests and bullet proof glass?nt

[jody]

39. Yes. n/t

[Zynx]

44. Rip right through just about any plausible amount

No Kevlar is rated to withstand a .50 BMG. It's gross overkill in this regard. Class IV protection, the highest it goes IIRC, is only rated against .30-06.

Ballistic glass is similar. Once someone starts using rifles more powerful than an AK-47, most bullet-resistant glass is just going to be blown apart.

So a .50 cal will beat them easily, but so will a lot of smaller stuff, mainly large hunting rifles.

[geckosfeet]

48. who the f*ck needs a 50 caliber weapon !!

Anyone who says they need something like this should be on some kind of list of registered owners. This is a military type weapon. Going out to do a little target shootin will the 50 cal today Wilbur ??

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

52. Well, yes....

People with .50 cal really do take them out target shooting.

I personally don't understand why some people need cell phones (terrorists use them to coordinate their activities, you know), but I'm not talking about having them banned.

[unionwelder]

54. Who needs?

On that subject who needs a car that can go faster than 70? Can your car go faster than 70? How about motorcycles? Can your motorcycle go faster than 70? Just 2 examples of people who can own stuff that they isn't necessary but its America so if it goes fast you can buy it!

[neverforget]

58. I love these arguments! But cars can go really fast! A car is not

designed to be a weapon. It is designed to transport people/goods from point A to point B. A .50 caliber sniper rifle is designed to shoot a very large caliber bullet long distances at a target. This rifle was designed for the military as a SNIPER rifle. In other words, the targets were human. Civilian uses for a rifle of this caliber must be for the newly evolved armored deer.

[jody]

62. I believe the .50 caliber rifle was used for target shooting before

it was adopted by the military.

[geckosfeet]

59. I have nothing against guns. But a 50 caliber weapon is extreme.

A more apt comparison is a car to a semi or even a train. Its simply beyond what is needed to poke holes in a target or take down a pheasant, deer, bear or moose. Don't try tell me you hunt rhinos in down there in armadillo land.

As long as owners are registered and the government takes responsibility for allowing these things into our communities,, but I don't trust them to do that. Come to think of it,,,, I don't trust anyone who says they need a 50 caliber weapon.

[Endangered Specie]

60. I suspect most people buy this gun...

for the same reasons they buy big SUV's:
big
loud
expensive
'manly'


it boils down to mans need to own the newest and best, to be a cut above the rest, its competition, just with whose got the biggest barrel, so to speak.

[slackmaster]

75. A couple of problems with your position

Right now .50 caliber is the largest weapon that takes fixed ammunition that is legal for unrestricted sale to civilians. Anything larger is a destructive device subject to the same kinds of federal regulations we have on machine guns, explosives, etc.

That's where the bar is set, and you haven't presented a compelling reason to change it. People who like to shoot large weapons have a legitimate concern about a slippery slope that would be created by such a change. What's next, their .460 Weatherby or .458 Winchester rifles? Those aren't "needed" for any North American game animals. But there isn't, and there shouldn't be, a needs test for people to own things unless you can show a bona fide reason, as we have with prescription drugs and military weapons. People buy and use things they don't need all the time. That's called liberty.

Think about the outcome of this little episode in the House of Representatives, geckosfeet. How will the publicity about this failed bill affect public ownership of .50 BMG rifles?

A) People will stop buying them because someone is trying to ban them, or

B) It won't make any real difference, or

C) Thousands of people who were considering buying one will decide to run up their credit cards now so they can get theirs before a ban is eventually enacted; not to mention people who tend to do things just because someone wants them not to.

I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

[napi21]

56. I don't really see these as weapons for terrorists.

They are a novelty for some people, who IMO are just a bit nuts. Both my hisband and my sons would love to have one, and when I asked why...they said because they're cool!

They won't buy any because they are very epensive to buy and the ammo is VERY expensive!!! I laughed when I saw the TV sho saying that people buy them for target practice! You better have a lot of disposable income to shoot targets with this bad boy.

Terroists are much more likely to look to machine guns, bomb materials and things that can do a lot of damage in a short time but be reasonably concealed.

If it makes these idiots feel good to spend their $$ on a 50 cal. let 'em do it!

[Endangered Specie]

57. I tend to think that .50 rifles ought to be regulated...

like any other weapon (background checks, registration, required training).

I think people should be more concerned with auto-pistols, SMGs and smaller caliber assault rifles, which are far more likely to be used in crime.

It would take a pretty stupid criminal to try and burglarize someone with a .50 rifle in hand.

[geckosfeet]

63. Good point. But lets presume legal and lawful gun owners. It just

boggles my imagination why anyone would feel the need to own something like this. I know there are collectors and the occasional owner who has to go out an blow up trees every weekend,,, but jeez,,, shotguns and smaller caliber rifles are adequate for hunting.

Don't' they use 22's in the Olympic target competitions? You don't need to blow something up to know you hit it.

[Endangered Specie]

64. I posted above why I think people buy these weapons...

Ill repeat again, it really sums down to testosterone, showing off, having the most toys, being the "alpha male" of sorts. Some people have a need to own the biggest, loudest, most expensive thing of a certain field; another example is big SUVs. On that note I would argue that SUV's are more dangerous to you or me than a .50

I should note that, strictly speaking, saying that someone doesnt "need" it, or that it doesnt serve a percievable 'good' purpose is by no means critera for banning something. People have used that (flawed) argument to try and ban everything from porn to alcohol to speech. (three things I happen to enjoy very much)

[geckosfeet]

72. Well ok. I understand the testosterone factor. I don't see it

as a legitimate reason for owning a 50 caliber weapon. Or any other weapon for that matter. I would not want a testosterone driven person running around my town with that kind of fire power. Same thing for a vehicle of any sort.

But thats just me. Not that I am not guilty of screamin out the window on the road.

As far as the "need it" argument,, I think that need is the basis for almost any human behavior. You are referring to your rights to own or take part in.

Yes we have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. I am advocating strict gun control measures that work. Part of any sane gun control program, would include the realization that as we work our way up the fire power food chain, we must regulate in proportion.

I DO NOT want my neighbors setting up mortars, rpg's, or firing 50 caliber weapons in their back yards on the weekends cause its fun to blow something up and they need to vent glandular overdrive.

People do not need to have 50 caliber weapons in contemporary American culture.

[Endangered Specie]

77. Isnt it illegal for them to fire ANY weapon in their backyard?

unless its a very rural area. and I do agree that we need measueres to ensure safety, such as required background checks, stricter punishments, required safety courses, and age limits.

"People do not need to have 50 caliber weapons in contemporary American culture." that is not a logically valid argument for banning such a weapon. What if I were to say that you didnt need to worry yourself with computers and the internet... you dont need them, therefore were gonna ban them (aamof, thats what North Korea does).

I can understand why people dont want .50 cals roaming without some sort of strict regulation, but if you are going to argue banning them, please do not use the "people dont need them" argument.

[geckosfeet]

88. Well,,, no I am not arguing against banning any weapons. I am

saying that if people are going to be allowed to own and discharge 50 caliber weapons, that regulation needs to be strict.

Where I am coming from is that I frequently run into people hunting with shotguns and rifles while I am out walking my dog or hiking. In some cases, within a few hundred feet of my back yard. Needless to say, it is quite disconcerting. It is even more disconcerting to think of 50 caliber weapons being discharged that close to my home.

As far as the need argument, I do not see the sense in what you are saying. It is a false comparison. I think what you mean is that people have a right to own firearms. People do not need to own firearms. However, there is a distinction to be made between having an overt need to do something and having a right to do something.

Do I have the right ask the guy with the shotgun to stay farther than the state mandated distance from my backyard ? I know I have an emotionally driven need to tell him to take his gun and get the hell away. But the state says I do not have the right.

[NickB79]

69. A .50 BMG does not "blow things up"

A standard FMJ round from a .50 BMG is not, repeat, not in itself explosive. It is designed to hold together upon hitting hard targets, therefore is will not break apart on impact. True explosive-tip rounds for the .50 BMG are already virtually impossible for civilians to own.

If you shot, say, a concrete block with a .50 cal rifle, it would blow that up. But so would almost any large .30 cal hunting rifle, such as a .300 Winchester Magnum. On animals such as deer, a .50 cal bullet will simply punch a .50 cal hole in and out, with limited expansion.

Yes, they use .22 rifles in the Olympics. Until the 1960's/70's, they also had high-power rifle competition, using .30 cal rifles such as the .308 Winchester (the civilian designation for the current military sniper cartridge, the 7.62x51 NATO round). That sport was removed simply for lack of 200/300/600 yd ranges at many Olympic sites.

[geckosfeet]

74. Speaks to my point.

Discharge and ownership of weapons should be regulated. I DO NOT want people hunting 200 feet from my house with one of these things or any thing else for that matter.

Yes. I was using "blowing things up" euphemistically. So,, shoot me.

[slackmaster]

76. Discharge and ownership of firearms is already regulated

Where I live, state and local laws dictate where I am allowed to discharge firearms. People who have been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, people adjudicated as mentally incompetent, those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, and anyone under a restraining order for domestic violence are not allowed to even possess a firearm.

[mbperrin]

65. Good! I think everyone should own two at least as long as we have

a bunch of moronic, asshole, lying fundie politicians around!

[Endangered Specie]

78. If I had to be attacked by a street thug...

(hypothetical situation)
and I got to choose what type of gun he used from the list:
1 - auto-pistol
2 - sawed off shotgun
3 - machine pistol/sub machine gun
4 - small caliber hi-cap assault rifle
5 - .50 BMG rifle

I would most surely choose #5. Think about it, this type of weapon aint exactly concealable, I would see him coming (unlike #1-4). ALso, street thugs dont usually 'aim' well, which is usually why theyd pick #1-#4, and would try the old "spray and pray" method, cannot do that with #5. Also, he probably wouldnt get more than one shot off, as the recoil would probably drop him on his ass, that or the sound would drop him in pain (your avg street thug doesnt have correct posture, or hearing protection). Finally, the gun is so heavy compared to the others I would probably be able to run away.


THe moral of this little story is that people who advocate gun control (such as myself) should refocus there efforts on other more "human deadly" guns (namely, ones that are proportionally used more in crime).

[FubarFly]

80. And what if you wanted to..let's say..

target a schoolyard from a comfortable distance?

What would you use then?

The reasons for regulating these weapons far exceed the inconvenience from owners having them regulated. And no, regulating is not the same as, nor is it a necessarily a prelude to, banning.

[Endangered Specie]

82. If youve read my previous posts youd know

I want to see .50cals, like all weapons regulated, other weapons need more regulation/outright banning.

and to answer your hypothetical question, the best weapon would be an assault or semi rifle not in .50BMG. 50 cals are not the only weapons which are accurate at long distances.

it should also be noted, that people like the highway sniper did exactly that, used a low cal assaulr rifle, and that .50's havent been used in crime.

[FubarFly]

84. Well, then we agree.

The issue isn't whether a .50 caliber has been used in crime, the issue is how easily it could be. The same goes with any other weapon. Registration, licensing, and training are all preventative measures. And frankly, the more effective those laws are, the less need there is for discussion about banning.

[whatever4]

79. Funny

It's funny, I didn't know there was a vote on weapons recently. I've been worrying over the idea that the Admin will, after the win out over the impeachment, try to pull in the left by disarming us, by appealing to gun restrictions. It will be so easy for them to do. After they crush the attempts to impeach this monster, so many liberal-leaning folks will want to believe we need weapons restrictions. If things become violent on our streets, in our nation, it will seem like the perfect "fix" for the problem. The left will want to believe it's a step in the right direction, finally. That belief will be played on, imho.

I said a ton about it on www.truthout.com Town Meeting. Just a theory, for what it's worth. Were I of that mindset, it's what I'd do. Make them believe you want to make them "safer". Make them all equally helpless.

You know, could I say it, screaming into the void here at the end of a long thread, one of so many today, I'll go with weapons restrictions... just as long as our authorities are subject to the same weapons restriction. I don't want cops outgunned as a general rule, but I do not want the people to be terribly outgunned either.

Just my 2 cents on that whole issue of gun control. Sure, I'll give them up. Just as soon as all those "in control" of us give up theirs as well. Or are our lives less important than those of the authorities? Less meaningful? Are we less trustworthy? Than THIS admin? I think not. I'd say, even going on percentages, people here are FAR more emotionally stable and less abusive than what I've seen in the folks that make up our Admin.

And they ruined Iraq, with running into their homes, confisgating any weapons the military said "wasn't allowed". These actions are not beyond these people. And if I can think of it... so can they.

Guys who hate guns, and think we're out of touch with wanting the individual to have access to firepower... please, even if you don't trust people to handle their weapons well enough to ensure the safety of the general public...please let us hold onto them just a little while longer, until the monsters are out of power.

If they're never out out power, it will soon cease to be an issue. Either way. Weapons or no, we the people will never have access to the kind of firepower and other methods of inflicting harm that the military has. We will never match them toe to toe; overall general access to moderate firepower is the only thing we have.

Don't let these monsters screw with it.

[-..__...]

86. The 50 BMG is easy to villanize...

that's why the anti-gun types are in a lather over it.

It's big...

It's scary looking...

It's loud...

It can strike targets at ungodly distances...

Who needs one for hunting?...

Blah, blah, blah.

Anti-gun legislation is pretty much at a standstill.

With a few exceptions at the some State levels, they haven't had a significant victory in years.

Achieving a ban on the 50 BMG would give them a sorely needed father in their cap and give them something to crow about.

To them, banning the 50 BMG has as much to do with attempting to regain lost ground as much as it does protecting society from some perceived threat.

[davepc]

87. And focusing our attentions it diverts us from REAL THREATS

like the SA-7.