As most of us who possess weapons know, various politicians are pushing to outlaw .50 caliber rifles, often adding the term "sniper rifle" to them in order to make it sound scarier to the media and ignorant public. Their reasoning behind this? You can shoot someone from an extreme distance and the bullets are "armor-piercing", another phrase tossed out to scare the public. Often included are horror-story hypothetical situations with crazed bell tower snipers shooting people through concrete walls, cars, and other obstacles from more than a mile away.
Now what's wrong with that? First off, anyone who pays good money on a .50 cal rifle is going to know what he's doing when he gets it, that's all there is to it. Nobody is going to just plop down some cash and buy one on a whim. And no one, even if they're total idiots, is going to shoot through another object to hit someone unless it's transparent. You can't see the target, so how are you going to hit them? Especially if you're at extreme range already to begin with?
There's no such thing as a "sniper rifle". Grab your dictionary and look up sniper. Under the definition, ANY rifle can be termed a sniper's weapon. My black powder muzzle-loader is a sniper rifle.
Second, they state that it should be banned because it can be used to shoot people at extreme distances. No shit? That's what they were made for. That's what a rifle does. You're not going to use a big-ass gun like that to shoot someone standing two feet away from you, now are you? With my .264 I could shoot someone in the eye from 500 yards. That's not anywhere near the distance I could shoot somebody with a .50 cal or many other guns for that matter, but I'd call that extreme distance. Heck, I'd stencil the words "Reach out and touch someone" on it if it wouldn't make people look at me funny.
Armor piercing, another catch phrase to scare people into voting into illegality. This is the main point they try to use to intimidate the prospective voters, ranting over and over how you can shoot someone wearing body armor, through a cinderblock wall, and other vivid descriptions. Well you know what? My .45-70 shoots through cinderblocks just fine, and it doesn't have the power a .50 BMG possesses. Heck, my little Taurus 9mm automatic pistol will punch right through most body armor at anything under ten yards, and that's just with over-the-counter buy-it-discount-at-Wal-Mart ammunition, not even the good stuff.
They're cracking down on people who own .50 caliber rifles as if they were terrorists. A man bought a .50 BMG hunting rifle, legally, from a gunstore. The store owner had gotten it illegally. The state passed a law making it illegal to own one just a few days after he had bought it. So what happens? They profile him as a terrorist, storm into his house, and arrest him, with a bail of $2.6 million. They still haven't found the rifle.
So... what's your opinion on the whole issue? Should .50 BMG be banned and anyone who owns one treated as a criminal or worse? Are fifty-caliber rifles legitimate weapons for civilians to own? Would you own one if you could, and why? Let's hear it.
_________________ Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.
DNI'd by actor_au
|