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?
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.
Operation fast and furious
You want the US army not to have 50 caliber rifles? That might not be a good idea
Depends what side you are on
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.
Why do you think I’m not aware?
Because you start implying that the US is the bad side.
I didn’t imply any morality to either side
I just said a weak US army helps the other side
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.
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.
That’s crazy talk! Are you a fucking leftist? I am
Left or right is an economic axis. Has nothing to do with guns.
I was just ribbing you but wholly disagree on your view of the political continuum. And I was speaking of freedom, not guns. As I thought you were…
Sorry I did not understand. To be honest, I still don’t lol
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!
Why can’t non-hunting firearms just be relegated to shooting range ownership? Legitimate question for gun owners, no sarcasm intended.
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.
They literally just gave you one in “disabled people”
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.
Wow this is lever-action erasure and I won’t stand for it.
Hey maybe don’t talk about guns if you don’t know about guns.
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?
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.
Unless you’re hunting Bigfoot, what in North America is big enough that you need a god damn .50 for?
(And if you are hunting bigfoot, your guns should be confiscated)
I just want to point out that you set up a perfect your mom joke.
I don’t care if it’s needed or not. The state should not have a monopoly on violence. Under No Pretext.
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!?)
Great! Nukes for everybody!
Well I want a tank
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.
Hell yeah, shall not be infringed baby
Desert eagle in .50 ae will take down a bear or moose…so alaska
.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.
You clearly haven’t been hunting ever…there is literally a season that’s just muzzleloader rifles and they’re almost always 50cal.
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.
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.
Even black powder?
I get it, but I think muzzle loafers deserve an exception. I don’t care who you are, if you bring a muzzle loader to a fight you deserve to use it*.
*so long as it isn’t a track-mounted muzzle loader
Muzzle loaders aren’t firearms, tho. Or at least fly under vastly different regs.
The bill also bans the 1989 SETO corporation arcade game “Calibur .50”.
Oh good, maximum stupidity. Banning .50 caliber weapons without discussing any other calibers, as if .51 and .49 are both substantially safer.
Do politicians all eat lead during their induction process?
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
