There's no reason for a civilian to own a .50 cal rifle.

[PhinPhan1227]

It's no good for hunting, you can't use it to defend yourself, it's only got three uses outside of the military...getting your rocks off at the rifle range, bragging to your friends, or killing people. The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow people to own dynamite or automatic weapons outside of certain licensed specialists...and a rifle this powerful is no different.

[cnc66]

Originally Posted by PhinPhan1227

It's no good for hunting, you can't use it to defend yourself, it's only got three uses outside of the military...getting your rocks off at the rifle range, bragging to your friends, or killing people. The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow people to own dynamite or automatic weapons outside of certain licensed specialists...and a rifle this powerful is no different.

you are correct sir.... I sure would love to shoot one tho...

[ohall]

Originally Posted by PhinPhan1227

It's no good for hunting, you can't use it to defend yourself, it's only got three uses outside of the military...getting your rocks off at the rifle range, bragging to your friends, or killing people. The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow people to own dynamite or automatic weapons outside of certain licensed specialists...and a rifle this powerful is no different.

If you give them this they will want all guns gone P1227. I believe that is why NRA and their lobbiest won't give an inch.

In a perfect world I totally agree with your assessment here.

[Wildbill3]

Some info that may be lacking, why some desire to own the .50 cal.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news...ocal-headlines

...She soon wanted a greater challenge -- Martha Rendeiro began her career in target shooting six years ago with a Walther .22-caliber pistol, a lightweight beginner gun, and worked her way up to the .32-caliber handgun

....In Connecticut, about 1,700 .50-caliber guns are registered, state police Sgt. Gregory Kenney said. Of those, about 40 would fall into the .50-caliber sniper rifle category targeted by the bill, Kenney estimated.


....One of the reasons people don't own them is that they are expensive. A top-of-the-line Barrett M82AI .50-caliber sniper rifle retails at $7,775, according to the Barrett Firearms Web site. The ball ammunition, half an inch thick and 51Ž2 inches long, is pricey, too -- about $1.50 per bullet.

Gun store owners in lower Fairfield County said requests for .50-caliber rifles are rare.

"We don't have people lining up to buy these things," said Paul Hiller, owner of Hiller Brothers Hunting and Fish in South Norwalk

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by PhinPhan1227

The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow people to own dynamite or automatic weapons outside of certain licensed specialists...and a rifle this powerful is no different.

Can one make the argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to 18th Century firearms? I dare somebody to make an attempt

[Wildbill3]

http://www.tednugent.com/news/terrorism_excuse.shtml

Now it is the 50-caliber rifles' turn, especially with California
outlawing the sale of these guns since the beginning of the year. For
years gun-control groups have tried to ban 50-caliber rifles because of
fears that criminals could use them. Such bans have not been passed
these guns were simply not suited for crime. Fifty-caliber rifles are
big, heavy guns, weighing at least 30 pounds and using a 29-inch
barrel. They are also relatively expensive. Models that hold one bullet
at a time run nearly $3,000. Semi-automatic versions cost around
$7,000. Wealthy target shooters and big-game hunters, not criminals,
purchase them. The bottom line is that only one person in the U.S. has been killed with such a gun, and even that one alleged case is debated.

[Wildbill3]

One More, Debunking the arguments against the .50 caliber...

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2762

The mainstream media has once again demonstrated its profound commitment to printing lies and distortions to further American disarmament. This time the target of their dishonesty is the .50 BMG caliber rifle.
Before you read this dissection of the numerous falsehoods being promoted by dedicated gun prohibitionists, I'd like you to know something about me:

Not only do I not own a .50 BMG caliber rifle, I've never had the good fortune of shooting one.

[Ferretsquig]

If someone bought one and knocked off baby bush owuld you want them banned? Supposedly they have a range of a couple miles.

Its not only 50 cal guns, its MP5's, M14's, AK47's.... Noone should have access to these weapons. Anyone who is clever enough for forge a gun dealer's liscence can go online and buy an AK47 for 300 bucks.

[Wildbill3]

Originally Posted by Ferretsquig

If someone bought one and knocked off baby bush owuld you want them banned? Supposedly they have a range of a couple miles.

Its not only 50 cal guns, its MP5's, M14's, AK47's.... Noone should have access to these weapons. Anyone who is clever enough for forge a gun dealer's liscence can go online and buy an AK47 for 300 bucks.

Who said anything about deer hunting, I don't even have to debate you on this, the couple of things I posted already rendered your arguement useless

[ohall]

Originally Posted by Ferretsquig

If someone bought one and knocked off baby bush owuld you want them banned?

Something just ain't right with you man.

[Wildbill3]

One more tidbit...
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2762

Unlike the former Soviet Union and other socialist/communist countries, Americans’ right to own things isn’t based on need, but on the concept of individual freedom. For example, the latest Corvette goes far faster than any speed limit anywhere in this entire nation -- and people have died in America in fancy, speedy Corvettes while nobody has died from .50 BMG caliber rifle fire here. Again, even if they had, that would be no reason to ban them. If it were, cars, knives, swimming pools, plastic bags, baseball bats, hammers, bicycles and numerous other items should have been banned long ago -- because they've been misused to do harm and cause death.

[ohall]

Originally Posted by Wildbill3

One more tidbit...
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2762

That is an excellent point.

[GreenMts]

Originally Posted by Wildbill3

One more tidbit...
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=2762

Depends how you read the amendment. This is the argument the amendment is an affirmation of individual rights. However, it can easily be taken to mean states right vs . federal control. The 'militia" could be a right of the state in the face of the possibility of a standing federal army. This is possibly a comprimise to state rights issues at the time of the convention. Also there is the language - 'well regulated' in the amendment. This could be taken to mean militia is not given carte blanche. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right but exactly how and what arms is open to interpretation and regulation by the government.

[Wildbill3]

Originally Posted by GreenMts

Depends how you read the amendment. This is the argument the amendment is an affirmation of individual rights. However, it can easily be taken to mean states right vs . federal control. The 'militia" could be a right of the state in the face of the possibility of a standing federal army. This is possibly a comprimise to state rights issues at the time of the convention. Also there is the language - 'well regulated' in the amendment. This could be taken to mean militia is not given carte blanche. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right but exactly how and what arms is open to interpretation and regulation by the government.

I don't think that has relevence to this post, we are assuming that a U.S. citizen has the right to have firearms. Next people are argueing that you shouldn't be allowed to have a .50 cal, based upon X, Y, Z. Now I just set about debunking or finding evidence the banning the .50 Cal for x,y,z really isn't a good reason to ban the use (by legal means) of the .50 cal, thus there shouldn't be a reason to ban the .50 cal.

If you want to talk about gun ownership itself then we may have to start another thread.

[GreenMts]

Originally Posted by Wildbill3

I don't think that has relevence to this post, we are assuming that a U.S. citizen has the right to have firearms. Next people are argueing that you shouldn't be allowed to have a .50 cal, based upon X, Y, Z. Now I just set about debunking or finding evidence the banning the .50 Cal for x,y,z really isn't a good reason to ban the use (by legal means) of the .50 cal, thus there shouldn't be a reason to ban the .50 cal.

If you want to talk about gun ownership itself then we may have to start another thread.

No. I am not debating the right of citizens to bear arms. It is pretty clear they do have that right. But it is also pretty clear (to me) that the government (state or federal) can regulate this. I bring up regulation because the article seems fairly anti regulation of fire arms unless someone is a felon. So in that sense the author seems a bit extreme though he does do a good job of debunking the arguments against .50 cal.