This thing weighs 30 pounds.
Are you really going to carry it hunting?
I dunno, let’s see my car get’s about 16 MPG, and it’s about 2200 miles to CA (BTW, you don’t mind me sleeping on your couch until I can find a job out there? You won’t mind if I bring my cat along do you?), figure gas is about $2.20/ gal, car leaks about a quart of oil every 200 miles, I’ll need five days worth of food for the trip, let’s say we call it $450. Of course, then you’ve got to figure in the cost for the gun itself, and my fees for machining it. I like nice round figures, so let’s just make it an even $5K. Cash. In advance. 
Huh.
And all this time I thought it was to keep the King o’ England outta your face.
Am I the only doper who owns a .50 BMG? On this page is a picture of my buddy Marvin shooting it in our backyard.
I love the gun. And I will never register or relinquish it to anyone, especially the government.
Did you even bother to read the thread?
This has been addressed and dispensed with.
I see it addressed. I don’t see it dispensed with.
BTW…I think the law is stupid.
Almost as stupid as hunting with it.
I never wanted to own or fire a 50 cal rifle. Aside from the weight and cost, the recoil must be ferocious. However! I object to the idea of some bureaucrat (who probably learned about guns from the movies) deciding in advance what I am allowed to even consider owning. I resent the idea of some politician with armed guards and a permit to carry concealed weapons deciding that I am too evil (?) to be trusted.
The “terrorist” argument is flat out crap. A terrorist will not be lugging a 30 pound rifle and tripod down Main Street to the refinery or anywhere else. A terrorist will use more readily available guns, more easily carried, concealed and “fed”. A terrorist will be even more likely build a bomb, since it is easier and he can be far far away before it goes off. More bang for the buck, literally. If he is really hardcore, he will wear the bomb on his person and go up with it.
By the way, check out the article at sfgate.com … San Francisco is at it again, trying to disarm citizens, while doing nothing to do anything about the criminals.
I can probably get one at a gun show in Nevada next year when I have the money. Er… I mean I’ve had this for years, sir! I was just out shooting with some friends in Nevada, and now I’m bringing it back home into California. Registered? Why no, sir, not yet. The registration grace period is still ongoing sir, but of course I will be doing so at my earliest convenience. You know, officer, you seem like a nice guy. Here, why don’t you go treat yourself to a nice steak dinner…
THat would be the handgun ban legislation, right? I think some moron city councilperson is trying to author a handgun and shotgun ban inside SF City limits.
Now, my qualifications aren’t very impressive. Aside from doing two years time at a law firm specializing in gun legislation and gun crime and civil rights(which ends Friday, yay!), I’m not an attorney. But I can tell you that a certain local lawyer is just DYING for them to pass the law so he can slap them with a suit. We talked about this situation a month ago or so.
It would probably never stand the test of scrutiny, but it would be fun to watch those idiots squirm.
Sam
That’s right Sam, it’s handguns and shotguns. I hope your lawyer friend “punishes” them but good.
Do you even know what the term “effective range” means? It’s a military term, describing the maximum range a competently trained marksman can reasonable expect to hit his target. Teminal velocity is a factor, yes, as are the sights, the barrel, and general weapon stability. It’s a completely arbitrary number, and it can change from military to military even with the same weapon: for instance, I was tought that the effective range of an M-16A1 with iron sights was 250 meters; I understand the USMC cites a longer range. This does not mean that a lucky soldier can’t hit a man at 400 meters, nor does it mean that it won’t kill at 600 meters. All it is is doctrine stating that if the enemy is over 250 meters away, save your ammo, because chances are you won’t hit him.
Incidentally, I trained with the RPG-7 (the IDF is perhaps the only military in the world to use both the RPG and the LAW, although I think both have been phased out by now). Never fired a live round, but I let off a few sub-calibers. If the target was further than 300 meters, I advanced. So Cut the patronizing bullshit, OK? It doesn’t make you look good.
Look, any time people on these boards mention deaths from soccer matches, they’re not talking about little Johnny running into a goalpost. If it were, would it not be more effective to bring up all the people who died in a more contact sport such as American Football? Soccer in the US is associated (to a large majority of people, IME) with riots and death. Given the fact that the majority of deaths at football stadiums pretty much worldwide over the last 20 years are more due to overcrowding, insufficient safety standards and /or Police/Security incompetence, I don’t think the reputation is fair.
There is a huge difference between accidental death on a football pitch or death by accident/misadventure and shooting. Nobody kicks a football or puts up a goalpost with the intent to kill someone.
You brought in Soccer riots, I asked about people killed by soccer riots in the US. Your cite was people who dies in accidents on a soccer pitch. These deaths were not the fault of the game of soccer, so comparing a ban on the game to a ban on guns is incorrect.
I’m not the ignorant jackass comparing rifles to rocket launchers.
I classify a weapon by its usage, not its mechanics. The Barret is a light AT weapon (or at least, that’s one possible use for it), just like the RPG. A less powerful , more accurate AT weapon, but an AT weapon nonetheless. You idiot.
With a good muzzle brake the recoil is not bad. About the same as a 12-gauge shotgun. Over the summer a 120 lb. woman shot my .50 with no problem.
This may be true, but we have to be careful about what we’re implying when we bring up crime statistics. When we say, “A .50 BMG has never been used in a crime,” are we not implying that, if .50 BMGs were commonly used in crimes, it would be O.K. to ban them?
Crime statistics have nothing to do with your right to keep and bear arms. It wouldn’t matter if 10,000 crimes each year involved .50 BMG rifles… you would still have a right to own one.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. The deaths of people playing soccer were not the fault of the game of soccer? Without the game they wouldn’t have been killed! How can that be “not the game’s fault”?
Although it is often interpreted that way by the ‘other side’, I don’t think that’s the case at all. There are many items that are commonly used in crime, from kives to cars to computers, that we don’t consider banning.
What we need is criminal control, not gun control.
Well, I don’t know how things work in your world, but in the small pieces of it that I have some control over, I tend to base my opinions, actions, or what have you, on facts. So I ask questions.
As I’m sure you will point out, you don’t have to answer them, but understand something: The gripe is related to whether .50 weapons are a real potential danger. As a non-partisan on the issue, I want to know what the reasons for having one are. In my own way, I’m doing a risk / reward analysis. If there are good reasons for having the weapon, maybe my opinion swings your way; if the response is a snarky “mind your own business” then maybe I think there isn’t a good reason to have one, and it’s worth banning for any small measure of safety that might provide.
And opinions are relevant. You can hate it all you like, but the government considers the ability to own firearms within it’s domain to control. Whichever way the constituency leans, there will be politicians there airing a pretence of agreement.
I didn’t explain myself too well in that sentence, but if we’re talking about someone slipping over and hitting their head off the goal post and dying, how is that the fault of the game?