Okay, but this should also apply to the military and police. (Redundant, I know.) We don’t want someone stealing rifles and selling them to cartels, right?
Yeah shit on the US all you want but for all it’s horrific shortcomings, I prefer the US a hundred times over, say, China or Russia and so do you, you just don’t know it yet, apparently.
Don’t know if you’re aware or if it’s the point, but that’s EXACTLY what the US government has done repeatedly. Selling the cartels weapons as “undercover stings” and then losing track of the weapons and people. Which means all they did was literally sell weaponry to the cartel.
Most Americans aren’t aware of this routinely happening, so I wasn’t sure if you’re comment was aware or not.
This seems like a bit of an odd way to accomplish what they are trying to do. The law seems to target the export of these weapons to cartels rather than US individuals who simply do not use .50 cal weapons in crimes.
The added component which allows victims to sue manufacturers reminds me of the scene in Thank you for Smoking where they discuss suing general motors if one of their vehicles is used during a drunk driving accident. It’s pretty dumb and undermines the whole law.
Banning .50 caliber weapons without discussing any other calibers, as if .51 and .49 are both substantially safer.
Don’t think they have a problem with the caliber… I think they have a problem with a popular American anti-vehicle rifle easily being acquired by the Cartels.
There’s no super popular and known of .49 or .51 caliber, but if Barrett made one I’m sure they’d try to ban it too.
Serious question: Are anti-material rifles commonly used by cartels? They seem like overkill when AR-15 style rifles are cheaper, more plentiful, easier to use, easier to conceal, and are probably more effective against people.
Serious question: Are anti-material rifles commonly used by cartels?
Yes but for different uses than a normal gun would be used for. The Mexican police and army have been trotting out more of their armored vehicles to try and combat the cartels. .50 Cals and other anti-material rifles function as the counter to those armored vehicles while being a lot cheaper than a smuggled rocket launcher.
You can find lots of videos of them using them, especially on reddit, can’t exactly remember what sub though, Cartel stuff is banned from r/combatfootage
This is AGAINST the Constitution! Guns shall NOT be INFRINGED and the 10 Commandments SHOULD be in Schools while Religion is used to WRITE LAWS! THAT’S what the Constitution SAYS LIBTARDS!
But it’s OK. God told them to do it. God is OK with genocide against enemies of the faith. Says so in the Bible. 1 Samuel 15, Ezekiel 9, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20 /s
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What regulated American militia do you belong to? We have been so quick to jump to defend the later part of the amendment that we have completely dismissed the first part.
I am a gun owner. I love my ar-15. I was in the Army. I did 2 tours to Afghanistan. I am also very liberal. If a law was passed that expanded on the actual enforcement of the well regulated militia text, I would support it. Instead, we have no regulated militias in America at all, and a bunch of gun nuts that keep screaming “shall not be infringed!!” While ignoring all the rest of the text.
Yeah, not really. Vast majority of .50 cal rounds got expended providing enfilade fire or just locking the T&E to absolutely ravage some poor fuckers at a stand off their small arms can’t hope to deal with. I still nut when I hear “when the long axis of the beaten zone coincides with the long axis of the target”.
I know I’ve fired SLAAP rounds at people through walls more times than I ever fired a fifty at vehicles, and I was specifically on a CAAT team.
I’m not surprised with current wars it ends up being used like that but it was originally intended to destroy materiel. Its grandpa used to kill tanks in early WW2 but they got too armored.
Actually the development of .50 cal and 13.2mm are completely unrelated, .50 cal wasn’t used for disabling tanks and development of a gun to use it (the Browning machine gun) wasn’t finished until WW1 ended.
.50 would take down a rabbit, too. But you could do the same with a .22 and actually have a body to recover. It’s still overkill even on a grizzly or moose.
I hunt semi-regularly. I just don’t use a god damn .50 for it because it’s totally unnecessary and I don’t wanna lug a gun that big around.🤦♂️
That dumbass Desert Eagle y’all got after seeing The Matrix or the Barret to pretend to be God from NAVY seals just be burning a hole in your holster. You wanna see some shit explode. You wanna have fun. You wanna exercise your rights as an American. Don’t tell me you need it for hunting.
The 2nd isnt for hunting, I have a DE, it’s a collection piece and comes out when people want to shot it. It’s a completely waste of a gun. Its two big and way to heavy for anything daily carry. And no one I know carries one, hell I highly doubt anyone really carries one. They’re not cheap either. And 50cal muzzleloader season is just fine for hunting, it seems most of you got your knowledge about 50cal from movies… it’s a large round but it’s not going to blow a deer apart.
For a muzzleloader hunting, the firearms are generally not designed for use with smokeless powder. The higher pressures generated could cause fatal failures. Generally, “real” black powder or a black powder substitute like pyrodex is used. These both burn more slowly and generate less pressure than modern smokeless powder, resulting in lower muzzle velocities.
In order to hunt ethically (not to mention legally), this necessitates taking the “classic” approach of throwing a bigger bullet to make up for the impact of velocity on the muzzle energy. Hornady’s data shows that it takes a .50 caliber, 250gr bullet to reach the muzzle energy of a .308 caliber, 175gr load.
If you ever watch the movie Oppenheimer, it used used a lot of poetic license. You know where he was when the bomb went off? In a tank, with extra steel. He motored out to ground zero and remotely took a soil sample.
Liberals, and I count myself as one, always bring this “need” argument. Meanwhile, there is no other right where they would question need.
I have shitloads of guns I don’t “need”. The vast majority are for fun. Even the more practical guns are mostly for fun.
Know why? Because I can do that if I want to. The 2A exists and the courts have historically upheld it. That’s one sentence, two facts.
While we’re at it, let’s question why the largest gun purchasing demographic “needs” guns. Ya know, women, minorities and LGBT folks. Go ask them.
Also, “The fascists are coming! Disarm yourselves! And if it’s not too much trouble, we’d like the government to know exactly who owns what.” (In case Trump wins again!?)
To be fair, there isn’t a whole ton of legitimate reasons why civilians need .50 cal rifles. I wonder if republicans will oppose the bill because anything that infringes on the rights of guns is abhorrent to them. Or if they’ll champion it, because Mexican Cartel’s use .50 cal rifles.
I’m willing to bet it’ll be the first option, because just like the border bill, they don’t want anything that’ll take away the drum they like to beat to rile up their base. If they only like complaining about a problem to scare people, and actively avoid fixing that problem.
I 100% advocate for this, as do many of my gun owning and enjoying friends. Most reasonable gun owners I’ve met are fine with everything non-hunting but pistols be lock-up-at-range. I get that pistols are used in a lot of crime but there are legitimste uses for them outside of shooting other humans (I get coyotes where I live and if ones trynna get at my birds I’m not gonna go get a rifle, I’ll reach at my hip for my pistol, for example)
Though, usually, it’s also stipulated that support for this idea would require that the currently existing restricted things be brought under this umbrella. I’d love to fire off some illegal as fuck weaponry in a controlled environment where my accuracy can be tracked using modern camera equipment and other cool shit, yakno? Kinda like the idea behind axe throwing or those “destroy shit” rooms
This would make shooting ranges a prime target for break-ins by highly professional organized crime syndicates and terrorist groups looking to arm themselves, which they don’t have the means to protect against.
There isn’t really a hunting versus non-hunting firearm is the primary reason. People do use AR pattern rifles to hunt in certain states. Disabled hunters can find that the rifle is easier to handle where a more “traditional” style rifle isn’t as well. It’s just a really tough distinction to even start making.
It’s a very easy distinction. A semi-automatic rifle is not a hunting rifle. A hunting rifle is a bolt-action. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for any private individual to own a semi-automatic rifle.
Bolt action has nothing to do with hunting rifle. As the person you replied to stated, people use a wide variety of rifles and other weapons to hunt with based upon what they are hunting, where, and their own physical capabilties. Semiauto rifles have been sold as hunting rifles for the last 80 years.
A semiautomatic rifle is 100% a hunting rifle, because it’s designed for hunting other humans. There is a legitimate reason for private individuals to own one: disabled, elderly, and women can use easier due to its ergonomics.
Could you imagine a world where we socially gated hobbies based on your physical abilities?
Oh and it’s for big gov to decide what’s a legitimate reason? It’s still bullshit that we can’t own surface to air missiles for property defense, A LEGITIMATE REASON!!!
there isn’t a whole ton of legitimate reasons why civilians need .50 cal rifles.
We should be asking the opposite question. What are the legitimate reasons civilians should not have them? I can’t think of any. .50 cal weapons are not used in crime or mass shootings.
By default, everyone should be able to do everything. We impose restrictions when the costs to personal liberty outweigh the benefits to society.
You were making a point about freedom (weren’t you?). Why should we be allowed to do something rather than why not? I was insinuating you were radically left for that suggestion here on the ‘land of the free’. There was some gun talk in there but my comment wasn’t intended to provoke that discussion. Hope that helps? Party on, Comrade. Be excellent to each other!
Add comment