Should .50 BMG rifles be banned or restricted?

I just finished watching the 60 minute piece.

Short story. Rifles that shoot the .50 BMG round can shoot a lot of lead fast and far (2000m) and legally they are treated like any other rifle. This rifle is one of best of the big bore rifle (IMHO).

The main point of the story was that if terrorists got their hands on one they could do some serious damage (e.g., shoot at a plane when its landing or taking off).

It is an expensive gun (ranging from $2 - $10) and the ammo is relatively expensive. Not many citizens have them, but apparently citizens are the gun manufacturers bread and butter. Citizen primarily use it currently for target shooting at long distances and big game. Of course, I am sure there are those who want one just in case they have to fight a tyranical gov't.

Me, I say no. I don;t want the fear of terrorism to take away another liberty.

ps. What happened to the other thread on this topic?

There are a lot of things 'terrorists' can get a hold of and use (like, uh, planes).

I used to work in the gun business, we sold a lot of dies for 50 bmg and I knew many of the customers. The real threat we as the people always saw was from the government - not our fellow citizens. And perhaps we were right back then, * has killed a helluva lot more people that anyone I have ever known with a .50 or any other gun.

While a terrorist CAN get a hold of and use a plane, we actually try to prevent that from happening. We actually keep a no-fly list of people not allowed on planes. We disarm people before they get on planes.

Fact is, when we see something that can be used as a terrorist weapon, we take a tiny, tiny step to stop them from using it. Heck, even if Bush is more dangerous than a big gun, we TRIED to stop him.

But no attempt is made to stop the terrorism with guns. We know a fifty can make a good terrorist weapon, just as we know it makes a good military weapon, and yet refuse to make it difficult to obtain.

I saw the same type of story on one of the news shows like 60 Minutes, 20/20 etc. From the gist I got from reading about the story and from the other thread it seems this time they are leaning towards terrorists instead of assasins as the ones who will use this weapon. If a terrorist is going to want to bring down a plane they will. We can ban every damm weapon that is legally sold in the US and they will still get one to bring down a plane. So why should we take away the rights of those who have legally bought this weapon in the off chance that a terrorist is going to buy one adn take pop shots at aircraft.

The DC snipers proved how effective sniper rifles are at terrorizing populations. Why make it possible to be even more terrorizing? As far as the second amendment protecting freedom, the most fascist government we've ever had is the most progun. In fact the NRA brags about "working out of the White House". So much for the 2nd amendment crowd defending our freedoms.

I am sorry, but nobody is going to be able to discuss any gun matter rationally if people say something as incredibly stupid as saying a rifle that can punch a hole in quarter inch steel plate at three hundred yards is for "big game", unless "big game" is some sort of terrorist slang for American tanks.

... I hear they use it to hunt Elk in big sky country from serious distance. Kind of like varmint shooting with a .223, but on a much bigger scale.

but it ain't fishing.

Fact is, that some idiot could misuse a weapon to kill an animal doesn't make it a rifle for hunting.

I suspect it is somebody with a complex looking for a reason to shoot his big gun.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

thanks,

Wickerman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x97410