Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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.
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
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.
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.
I 100% advocate for this, as do many of my gun owning and enjoying friends. Most reasonable gun owners I've met are fine with everything non-hunting but pistols be lock-up-at-range. I get that pistols are used in a lot of crime but there are legitimste uses for them outside of shooting other humans (I get coyotes where I live and if ones trynna get at my birds I'm not gonna go get a rifle, I'll reach at my hip for my pistol, for example)
Though, usually, it's also stipulated that support for this idea would require that the currently existing restricted things be brought under this umbrella. I'd love to fire off some illegal as fuck weaponry in a controlled environment where my accuracy can be tracked using modern camera equipment and other cool shit, yakno? Kinda like the idea behind axe throwing or those "destroy shit" rooms
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 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!
Honestly we should outlaw any aggression against Bigfoot. They are a peaceful race.
I'm someone who owns a few guns and even I think owning .50 cal guns is stupid.
The ammo is stupid expensive, it kicks like a cladsdale, and there's nothing you can hunt (legal or otherwise) here that would require it.
cladsdale
Clydesdale
Muzzleloader season....they hunt deer with 50cal. Its not anything like what you think it is.
People also don't know how gigantic and heavy these kind of rifles are. They are mainly to kill vehicules and equipment.
They are mainly to kill vehicules and equipment.
Yeah, not really. Vast majority of .50 cal rounds got expended providing enfilade fire or just locking the T&E to absolutely ravage some poor fuckers at a stand off their small arms can’t hope to deal with. I still nut when I hear “when the long axis of the beaten zone coincides with the long axis of the target”.
I know I’ve fired SLAAP rounds at people through walls more times than I ever fired a fifty at vehicles, and I was specifically on a CAAT team.
I'm not surprised with current wars it ends up being used like that but it was originally intended to destroy materiel. Its grandpa used to kill tanks in early WW2 but they got too armored.
Actually the development of .50 cal and 13.2mm are completely unrelated, .50 cal wasn't used for disabling tanks and development of a gun to use it (the Browning machine gun) wasn't finished until WW1 ended.
I just want to point out that you set up a perfect your mom joke.
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.
Black powder weapons aren't legally considered firearms. You can order them in the mail with no background check.
What are they considered if not firearms, then? Genuine question..
"Firearm" is a legal definition. It's not that they're considered something else, it's just that they don't fit the legal definition of a "firearm".
Don't look at me. Look at the ATF and their weird-ass arbitrary rules and definitions.
Thank you.
Not the ATF, Congress who wrote the laws.
The bill also bans the 1989 SETO corporation arcade game "Calibur .50".