50 caliber weapons
Just asking... Is there any legitimate use for these?
The 50 Caliber terror site has obviously struck a nerve with those on the right, and I need some info.
Personally, I feel that handguns should be banned. I also feel the same for silencers and large caliber weaponry. Ditto for exploding, incendiary and armor piercing rounds. I can accept the hunting argument and the home defense, although I would never personally own a gun for either reason.
My first reason for opposition is that none of these weapons are good for home defense unless the thugs in your neighborhood have graduated to armored personnel carriers.
The second reason is that it is really useless to hunt with any of these weapons. Here in Illinois, the deer don't wear body armor. And I can't imagine anything useful being left after Bambi gets plugged with a half-inch round. I've met a number of hunters who have tried to make hunting more challenging by going to a bow and arrow or black powder.
The third reason, and I hate to bring it up, is that I've met very few people who own the kind of firearms I've listed above who I would trust with them. Mainly because people who own such weapons are breaking the law in Chicago and putting themselves at risk. I can acknowledge that it might be a little bit different in areas with looser gun laws.
By that, I mean are they a practical gun for home defense or hunting? A 50 caliber rifle is between just under four feet long. Probably not good for either. I'd think a shotgun would be better because of its spray pattern. A normal-sized rifle might also be a better choice because of it's accuracy.
So what are people using them for? It's got an extremely long range, so this guy used it to fire it in the dark at cliffs a mile away. Isn't one of the NRA rules to be sure of your backstop?
So I can't see any practical reason to have one. We're living in a dangerous time and terrorists could use one to shoot down a plane. And yes, there is some dispute on how accurate one would need to be to hit a moving plane on takeoff. But the odds of doing this are far greater than someone taking over a plane with a Phillips screwdriver, and the TSA won't let me take one of those on a plane.
So the argument quickly turns to the ever-popular red-herring right-wing Limbaugh fit and the discussion of the second amendment. Again, we have two different readings. I read the part about a well-regulated militia and see a constitutional blessing of the National Guard. Gun-rights advocates see it as proof that Thomas Jefferson wanted them to own a bazooka.
The truth probably falls somewhere in between, but it's closer to my side. The truth is that all of the amendments have some limits. My right to free speech is protected (for now), but I can't libel or slander people. I can't yell fire in a crowded theater. And you can't have a gun that can shoot down a plane.
I'm genuinely looking for information here. If you're a gun control person with something that I've missed, post it here. And by all means, if you're a 50 cal enthusiast, sell me the car. I want to know why your right to shoot a half-inch round that's live for two miles and could conceivably shoot down a plane outweighs my need for safety as a frequent flyer.
The 50 Caliber terror site has obviously struck a nerve with those on the right, and I need some info.
Personally, I feel that handguns should be banned. I also feel the same for silencers and large caliber weaponry. Ditto for exploding, incendiary and armor piercing rounds. I can accept the hunting argument and the home defense, although I would never personally own a gun for either reason.
My first reason for opposition is that none of these weapons are good for home defense unless the thugs in your neighborhood have graduated to armored personnel carriers.
The second reason is that it is really useless to hunt with any of these weapons. Here in Illinois, the deer don't wear body armor. And I can't imagine anything useful being left after Bambi gets plugged with a half-inch round. I've met a number of hunters who have tried to make hunting more challenging by going to a bow and arrow or black powder.
The third reason, and I hate to bring it up, is that I've met very few people who own the kind of firearms I've listed above who I would trust with them. Mainly because people who own such weapons are breaking the law in Chicago and putting themselves at risk. I can acknowledge that it might be a little bit different in areas with looser gun laws.
By that, I mean are they a practical gun for home defense or hunting? A 50 caliber rifle is between just under four feet long. Probably not good for either. I'd think a shotgun would be better because of its spray pattern. A normal-sized rifle might also be a better choice because of it's accuracy.
So what are people using them for? It's got an extremely long range, so this guy used it to fire it in the dark at cliffs a mile away. Isn't one of the NRA rules to be sure of your backstop?
So I can't see any practical reason to have one. We're living in a dangerous time and terrorists could use one to shoot down a plane. And yes, there is some dispute on how accurate one would need to be to hit a moving plane on takeoff. But the odds of doing this are far greater than someone taking over a plane with a Phillips screwdriver, and the TSA won't let me take one of those on a plane.
So the argument quickly turns to the ever-popular red-herring right-wing Limbaugh fit and the discussion of the second amendment. Again, we have two different readings. I read the part about a well-regulated militia and see a constitutional blessing of the National Guard. Gun-rights advocates see it as proof that Thomas Jefferson wanted them to own a bazooka.
The truth probably falls somewhere in between, but it's closer to my side. The truth is that all of the amendments have some limits. My right to free speech is protected (for now), but I can't libel or slander people. I can't yell fire in a crowded theater. And you can't have a gun that can shoot down a plane.
I'm genuinely looking for information here. If you're a gun control person with something that I've missed, post it here. And by all means, if you're a 50 cal enthusiast, sell me the car. I want to know why your right to shoot a half-inch round that's live for two miles and could conceivably shoot down a plane outweighs my need for safety as a frequent flyer.
2 Comments:
The average Barret holds up t0 7 rounds. My brother just happens to be an airline CAPT. for a major airline in the U.S. He also is a proud owner of a .50cal (12.7mm for you eurotypes). He has flow the entire inventory of his company's aircraft. He states that in order to bring down a 747-400 model, their would have to be multiple weapons fire by that caliber using ALOT of amunition, and they would have to be aimed and hit all four turbofans to make the ship drop. One or two will simply not do it. This is why it has yet to be attempted by a terrorist organaztion. The real threat he and others of his profession worry about are A.) A shoulder fired AGM, and B.) A small general avation aircraft used as a ramming craft.
This is has been looked at but never published.
Remember, Guns don't kill, people kill----with what ever is availible. Your goal is to kill them first.
About the Second Amendment Comment:
To the uneducated layman who looks no further than the Second Amendment to understand our founding fathers's stand on gun control, it would seem as though the Second Amendment secured the right to own weapons strictly for the National Gaurd.
However, it says the word, "militia" in the Second Amendment.
If you would take a look at US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13,§ 311, then you would find a very clear cut definition of militia:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
No, the .50 Caliber rifle may not be ideal for home defense. But as a member of the US milita, I want one for COUNTRY defense.
Post a Comment
<< Home