Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ban on 50 Caliber Weapons

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I just wanted to ask one question about this evolving conflict in California. Why are 50 caliber weapons being banned by the legislature, when other weapons (i.e. smg's, pistols, and all projectile firing machines) are legal with a lisence? Aren't they as lethal as the 50 caliber if shot in the right places?

[edit on 4-9-2004 by manhattan]




posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The main reason I would think would be because of their power (can punch through an engine block) and also the fact they have a massive range (1800 meters). Of course thats if your talking about weapons that fire the .50 BMG round, there are also .50 cal handguns and .54 cal black powder guns, both of which are no where near the power and range of the .50 BMG round.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Besides WMD, I think banning weapons like the M-82A1 is crazy.

It's war! War is about winning, not being nice.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Well, why are "ugly" weapons banned as being "assault weapons" when other equally effective and lethal ones which are more attractive and benign looking (pretty checkered walnut and blued steel vs. black plastic and a dull phosphate finish) are not? A "pretty" Remington 7400 hunting rifle is capable of the same rapidity of fire as an AR15 so-called "assault rifle" and is substantially more powerful. The method of operation of both is the same, and neither can be "easily modified in the basement with a file" to fire full auto (THAT is one dumb myth that I fear will be around forever).

Idiotic laws such as "Assault Weapons" bans and the proposed bans in various places on 50 caliber weapons are based on their appeal to public fear and ignorance. Weapons falling into these categories are rarely, if ever, used in the commission of crimes, but bans which feed on the public's fears and which succeed in standing up to legal challenges act as a "foot in the door" to broader restrictions that anti-gun forces have in mind for the future.

Just as an aside, and to pose a question as food for thought......the 2nd Amendment refers to "arms" in general, not one type of arms vs. others. From the beginning of our Republic up until the 1930's, civilians in this country generally had access to more lethal weaponry than the military forces did. Full-automatic weapons were legal for civilian ownership then, and civilian hunters had been using semi-automatic rifles for decades before the Army finally ditched it's bolt-action Springfields for the Garand. Why do you suppose that the government back then suddenly decided that after 150 years it needed to take legal action to ensure that it was better-armed than the general populace......a trend which has continued to this day?

Any ideas?



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Well it is a difference to have a musket for protection against Indians and AK-47 don't you think. Maybe each citizen should have right to own small personal nuke. Just for protection you know...

[edit on 5-9-2004 by longbow]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I really hope they dont ban .50 caliber weapons.
I'd love to own the smith and wesson .50 caliber magnum!
[img]
[/img]
Those bullets look almost as big as my pinky!



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   
There unfortunately really is lttle rhyme or reaso as to why weapons get banned. Its all about public hysteria.
Weapons bans are unfortunately a feel good issue that politicians use to garner public support (much like drugs, being "tough" on crime, and "protecting the children")



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Banning the .50 makes about as much sense as the “assualt” weapons ban, IMO. Who cares how powerful it is? I don’t think there are any documented cases of crimes perpetrated using a .50 caliber rifle and I doubt there will be for quite a while. Sure, it would scare the daylights out of the clerk at whatever store you tried to stick up, but they would probably shoot you with a .357 while you were trying to get the thing through the door.

Seriously though, the more I examine the NRA vs. Anti-Gun argument, it seems more like people who don’t have guns that are afraid of those who do. The only solution for them is to prohibit guns away by whittling away at our rights until their “sensible” gun laws are the status quo. I for one refuse to allow them to tell me what is “sensible” and what is not.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Whats the point in banning? They are really expensive compared to a more deadly AK, 6 shots semi vs 10/30/75+ shots on the faster semi ak, or auto even . And Much more expensive to shoot, those BMG's are $$$, especially the AP ones.


You wont see Joe Gangsta in a drive by with the 50cal rifle


well, lets by em while we still can



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
To those that are against the ban, why? Is it only because you enjoy owning these weapons? I would assume and hope that you don't have a need for them.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
We need to be able to protect ourselves in case of an invasion, ie: China, Canada, Cayman Islands, Grays, or whoever else.
If we wont protect ourselves , who will? The National Guard? From Iraq?



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I don’t need one, but what if I ever should? There are plenty scenarios where a well-armed populace would be much better off than an unarmed one.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
all this mass hysteria over every little thing people are paranoid. they are paranoid to a point where they dont know what they want. its up to us level headed folk to ensure the safety of our people. we should all be arming ourselves to the teeth at this point. how else will we defend our friends and family from the likes of terrorist, rough and tough minority gangsters, corrupt govt, and yes even those dastardly greys. just in case, better safe then sorry right?



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I love how they want to ban a gun that has never killed anyone in a crime. People dont rob banks or do drive-bys with a .50 BMG. The 50 cal rifle is a semiautomatic gun that never has anything bigger than a 10 shot clip. They attack it just for the size of the round. A .50cal is a bad round today is a 30-06 going to be a bad round tomorrow? They will say why would anyone need a 30-06 the same as the talked about the .50 cal now.Its a slippery slope.

In my state they banned only one model of the 50cal, Barrett Model 82A1 thats the ten shot clip one. But I can still buy a Barrett Model 95 with a 5 shot clip
Plus they just came out with a new ten shot clip model Barrett Model M107 which is not covered in the ban can anyone say loophole.

The Barrett Model 82A1 cost about $7,000 without scope yet another reason they are not used in crimes. the are really expensive and impractical to use in a crime.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:50 AM
link   
If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

I really can’t see any reason to ban the 50 cal other than it isn’t “practical” to some. There are plenty impractical things on store shelves today, but they are not made illegal.

If they want to take our guns away, they will do it slowly with legislation that makes it impractical to own any firearm. Like Shadow said, today it’s the 50 cal, tomorrow a .308, until even owing or purchasing a new .22 will be to cost prohibitive for most people to justify.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by para
If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

I really can’t see any reason to ban the 50 cal other than it isn’t “practical” to some. There are plenty impractical things on store shelves today, but they are not made illegal.

If they want to take our guns away, they will do it slowly with legislation that makes it impractical to own any firearm. Like Shadow said, today it’s the 50 cal, tomorrow a .308, until even owing or purchasing a new .22 will be to cost prohibitive for most people to justify.


There is a difference between impractical and dangerous.

By your second argument, one could suppose that by legalizing assault weapons, today its the 50 cal, tommorow a fully auto ak-47, until soon I've got a Mark-19 Grenade launcher mounted onto my pickup. I mean hey, who knows, I might need it right?



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
ever since the dawn of time man has protected himself with a weapon weather it be a large wooden club or a sling shot, bow an arrow or a custom colt 1911 A

man has always used projectile weapons since man was throwing stones at the sun...



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonestownRed


By your second argument, one could suppose that by legalizing assault weapons, today its the 50 cal, tommorow a fully auto ak-47, until soon I've got a Mark-19 Grenade launcher mounted onto my pickup. I mean hey, who knows, I might need it right?


They are attacking the round a gun uses not the function. When you talk about a full auto AK your talking about the function rather then the type of round used. A grenade round is not the same its a grenade not a rifle round.

Criminals dont use .50 cal rifles to mug people,to rob banks, gang members dont use .50 cals. Target shooters and collectors use 50 cals. The 50 cal is often over 45 inches long and often weights well more then 20 pounds and then factor a cost of thousands of dollars. Criminals dont use 50 cals.

Even hunters have used the 50cal . It is possible to kill a bull elk cleanly at more then 900 yards with the 50 cal.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I love how they want to ban a gun that has never killed anyone in a crime. People dont rob banks or do drive-bys with a .50 BMG.



Not that these criminals used .50 cal weapons, but I think this example makes a good case for control laws on automatic weapons. Do you remember this LA Bank Robbery? 16 Officers and civillians were wounded when two men went into a North Hollywood bank and literally out-gunned the LAPD.

A shotgun, rifle or pistol is perfectly capable of providing home defense or self protection. Why anyone outside of the military needs an assault rifle is beyond me.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonestownRed
By your second argument, one could suppose that by legalizing assault weapons, today its the 50 cal, tommorow a fully auto ak-47, until soon I've got a Mark-19 Grenade launcher mounted onto my pickup. I mean hey, who knows, I might need it right?

For one, fully automatic weapons are legal for any US citizen to own, however, they cost a small fortune.

When people actually pushing to have gun rights given back to the individual citizen, an automatic AK-47 in the hands of your average citizen may become a possibility. If that ever happens, I highly doubt that crime rates would skyrocket as most people seem to think. For now, the overall trend seems to be to limit the individual's ability to bear arms.

The "assualt" weapons ban did not make assualt weapons illegal. You could already buy them before and during the ban. It was a stupid piece of legislation that banned cosmetic features of certain types of rifles. It was not the pro-gun people pushing legislation, rather it was a lapse of anti-gun legislation.

As for grenade launchers, those are not guns and don't really much have to do with gun rights.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join