There Goes My .50 Cal

NJ is looking at being the second state, behind California, to ban a .50 caliber rifle.  Large AP Photo/Mel Evans

They want to do it before mayhem breaks out. Seems to me a gun like that is pretty much worthless until mayhem breaks out ... or, maybe state government doesn't pass tax reform, or something.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- New Jersey is looking to become the second state to outlaw a powerful gun that critics say can be used by terrorists to shoot down an airliner.

Democratic lawmakers and Ceasefire NJ, an antigun group, unveiled a plan Monday to make it illegal to sell .50-caliber weapons in New Jersey.

California is the only state with a similar law. Maryland strictly regulates the rifle by requiring enhanced background checks and other requirements for its purchase, according to Legal Community Against Violence, a public interest law center that favors gun control.

Supporters argue the guns are inappropriate for civilian use because they can fire armor-piercing rounds that can penetrate and ignite chemical plants, refineries and rail tank cars. The guns, which resemble large hunting rifles, are accurate up to 1 1/2 miles.

"We can wait for the first time mayhem occurs in our country before we ban civilian sale of these weapons," said Bryan Miller, Ceasefire NJ executive director, "but then dozens of people will likely have died."

Comments

[seekeronos]

Looks like I better save up some dough$ and see if I can buy one here in NY... those look like they could be handy against roving bands of mujhadeen raiders expected to overrun the area in a few years or so from now. :P

Given our current infestation of liberals in NY offices as of 11/2006, it won't be very long before Mr. Spitzer gets a wild hair to ban big guns here as well.

[Hard Right]

Quick FYI, to hit soemthing at a mile and a half you have to be an elite shooter. As in special forces trained.
What is also left out of the story that the same could be done with a .308 or 30.06 with a lot less hassle and expense. And by expense I mean a complete rifle starts at a minimum of $3000. Add in optics and and the mounts... $$$$$$.

[Hard Right]

By same I mean the attacks against chemical plants, refineries, etc.

[Zifnab]

So you're saying we should ban more guns? I'm confused.

Also, you're suggesting that because you need to be a skilled rifleman to accurately hit something a mile and a half off that these guns are safe because they're... inaccurate? I'm doubly confused.

[Raging_Dave]

Hey now, everyone knows that it's the secret plan for criminals and terrorists to come into the country, then buy a multi-thousand dollar rifle at a gun shop, wait for the background check to clear, and THEN get groovy with the criminal activity!

Whatta buncha maroons. EEEK! IT'S A GUN! LET'S BAN IT! Because banning guns works SO well, as evidenced by the skyrocketing rate of gun crime in Britain and everywhere else that's banned guns, right?

[Hard Right]

Zif, I was trying to dispel some of the hysteria about the .50 not comment on it's accuracy. Also, I wanted to show how a smaller rifle could be more easily and cheaply used to a similar effect with the right ammo. Ever seen a .50? They are very large and heavy. Not to mention not a large number of manufacturers. That means easily traceable. If I was going to do set a chemical refinery on fire etc., I wouldn't use a .50.

And no, I'm not for banning firearms.

[scarshapedstar]

"Hey now, everyone knows that it's the secret plan for criminals and terrorists to come into the country, then buy a multi-thousand dollar rifle at a gun shop, wait for the background check to clear, and THEN get groovy with the criminal activity!"

On the other hand, the theory of terrorists financing their operations with the cheapest and most widely produced drug in America, i.e. pot, makes so much sense and has so much evidence behind it that the government spent millions of dollars on an ad campaign trying to convince us of its validity.

I wonder if any small-government conservatives complained.

[seekeronos]

HR is correct. You do need some pretty serious range time with a weapon like that to get proficient at it, not to mention the cost of .50 cal rounds, the weapon itself, etc. etc.

With some luck and shopping at the right places, you can build a decent near "sniper quality" hunting rifle with an M1 Springfield, scope and a bipod for around $1500~2000.

My dad rebuilt his vintage M1 as an M-21 with hardware he picked up over the years; that thing is a peach to shoot with. The Mini-14 he also rebuilt I could probably live without, but I know plenty of folks who will swear by them.

[Zifnab]

"My dad rebuilt his vintage M1 as an M-21 with hardware he picked up over the years; that thing is a peach to shoot with. The Mini-14 he also rebuilt I could probably live without, but I know plenty of folks who will swear by them."

Again, I'm unclear how this isn't an arguement for more gun regulation, not less. If we agree that the weapon is dangerous in the hands of a skilled marksman, and we agree a suitable fauximallie can be reconstructed from less sophisticated parts, how is it that we can disagree on restricting the sale of the weapon?

[TheSpartan]

Hey now, everyone knows that it's the secret plan for criminals and terrorists to come into the country, then buy a multi-thousand dollar rifle at a gun shop, wait for the background check to clear, and THEN get groovy with the criminal activity!

Laugh all you want but wasn't there an issue with these guns being bought legally and then sent overseas to support foreign militaries that couldn't buy them from the US military?

[scarshapedstar]

"Hey now, everyone knows that it's the secret plan for criminals and terrorists to come into the country, then buy a multi-thousand dollar rifle at a gun shop, wait for the background check to clear, and THEN get groovy with the criminal activity!"

Whoa. Whoa. You're in favor of background checks? You're a fascist. Read the Second Amendment, pal. Don't say nothin' bout no background checks.

[Jeff]

"Whoa. Whoa. You're in favor of background checks? You're a fascist. Read the Second Amendment, pal. Don't say nothin' bout no background checks."

Sigh* What on God's green Earth are you talking about?

[Hard Right]

Actually Zif, the .308 and 30.06 are nowhere near the size of the .50. They are often used for hunting deear, Elk, and bears (oh my). Now trying to build a .50 from scratch is a good way to get yourself killed. You MUST know what you are doing when building a .50. Joe schmoe can't build one from stuff bought at home Depot. What Seek meant was a smaller caliber rifle (.308) known as the M-1. It's basically the civilian version of the .308 M-14 used by the military.

Now if we want to start regulating and banning things on the basis a potential terrorist MIGHT use it, we may as well tear up the Constitution.

Spartan, I thought I heard something about that. However, the Russian equivalent is far more available and cheap.

[seekeronos]

"Again, I'm unclear how this isn't an arguement for more gun regulation, not less. If we agree that the weapon is dangerous in the hands of a skilled marksman, and we agree a suitable fauximallie can be reconstructed from less sophisticated parts, how is it that we can disagree on restricting the sale of the weapon?"

Well, it is like this:

I have several thousand dollars worth of firearms... I am well qualified in their use. I keep them secured in a gun cabinet with receiver bolts and/or firing pins removed and separately stored from the weapons I use infrequently. For the weapons I use or train with more frequently, I keep gun locks on them. And lastly, for the home defense weapon, I keep it and its ammo in ready access should I need it.

I intend to teach my son basic firearms safety from a young age, and will probably give him the .22 rifle I was started with when I was a young shooter, to be maintained with equal diligence.

I believe that firearms - and access to the proper training and handling of those weapons is a cherished right protected by the 2nd Ammendment. As for the miscreants who acquire firearms and use them in the commission of crimes, a well-armed and well-informed public will be a powerful deterrent to those criminals.

On the other hand, a disarmed public will be quite a prey for a criminal who will obtain a firearm regardless of what the law says anyway.

Therefore, excessive gun bans serve more to harm the innocent, law-abiding citizen than suppress the criminal.

Security checks and the like may be a necessary evil, but a worse evil still is the arbitrary refusal to permit an armed and informed populace from serving as the vanguard against the sort of tyranny that the left has imposed on the world in times past.

[Zifnab]

"Security checks and the like may be a necessary evil, but a worse evil still is the arbitrary refusal to permit an armed and informed populace from serving as the vanguard against the sort of tyranny that the left has imposed on the world in times past."

Wow. Now I understand, Mr. Koresh. My apologizes.

[Hard Right]

Zif, you were doing so well. Rational and even civil questions. It was nice. Then you just had to revert to being obnoxious. I would trust someone like Seek before I trusted someone like you to have even a pointy stick. He's exactly as responsible as you lefties say he should be with firearms. Yet you brand him as a loon anyway. If only you understood how bad it makes you look.

[Buzzy]

Tyrants have always feared an armed citizenry and have always sought to disarm their people before carrying out their worst outrages. Has anyone in the US ever been murdered by a .50 BMG rifle? NO. But they just might so we had better ban them. Our socialists are acting so fascist these days, both Hitler and Stalin would be proud.

[Zifnab]

"Tyrants have always feared an armed citizenry and have always sought to disarm their people before carrying out their worst outrages."

If by "tyrants" you mean, "people who don't enjoy being mugged". And if by "armed citizenry" you mean "crazy people with guns". Then yes.

The 2nd Amendment provides for "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"... Well. Regulated. I don't see any of you guys forming a militia. This would be completely different if you were police-officers or county sheriffs or even just the local neighborhood watch arguing to keep your berettas. But you're not well-regulated. And you're not providing for the security of a free state.

The only guys who have any rational basis to be using this type of firepower would be National Guard troops, or at best a handful of survivalist militias. But, bottom line, the weapons are to be used for a "well" "regulated" "militia". NRA gun-salesmen go skittering by those three words without blinking. There's nothing well-regulated, or militia-ish, about a lone gunman in the woods. It's completely outside the spirit of the law, as well as the letter.

[Hard Right]

Zif, do you know the definition of "well regulated militia"? Obviously not since you apply a MODERN definition to them.

Well Regulated-- at that time meant well trained and supplied.
Militia--§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

BTW Zif, the founding fathers were very clear. When they meant "The People" they meant the average joe. If we interprted the Constitution by your definition, it would be radically different.

[Hard Right]

One last thing, it's not a matter of need or there wouldn't be corvettes or other such things around. In this case, firearm ownership is a right.

[Zifnab]

"(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. "

So which unorganized militia are you a member of?

[yyy]

If by "tyrants" you mean, "people who don't enjoy being mugged". And if by "armed citizenry" you mean "crazy people with guns". Then yes.

------------------------------------

I have to disagree with you here. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns..guns that were stolen or purchased illegally.

Unless it is a crime of passion or a premeditated attempt to falsely accuse someone in your own household you would have to be pretty stupid to commit a crime such as a mugging or carjacking with your own gun, registered to you.

Gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals are already operating outside the law and no amount of gun control or mandatory sentencing laws [unenforced] for gun crimes is going to change that.

[Hard Right]

Hey zif, do you understand what unorganized means? Here's a clue
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unorganized
Here's your answer, BTW.

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.

The above means even YOU Zif, are a militia member.

[Zifnab]

So if I'm older than 45, you're saying I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun?

[Hard Right]

No I'm not saying that. You simply aren't obligated to be a militia member. You still can be if you want.

[seekeronos]

Read correctly... this effectively requires ALL able-bodied males who are US citizens to (a) own or possess a firearm and (b) be trained in the use of it.

Ya know, we should have the NRA lobby for mandatory firearms training in our public schools.

Imagine the howls and mouth-frothing that would come from the loony left on that....!

[seekeronos]

Correction to above: all able bodied men 18-45...

...imagine going down to your local post office at age 18, and having display your firearms markmanship card in order to sign up for Selective Service!