Quote:
Originally posted by Scipio
"a .50 cal isn't inherently more capable of taking a plane down than a .308"
You make decent points, but that one just isn't true. It IS inherently more capable of disabling a plane, but that's not the main problem.
I would retort that there's no imaginable reasonable civilian use for a .50 cal sniper rifle (aside from shooting expenisive bullets at targets for the hell of it). It's not like there's no line. There IS a line. Machine guns aren't outlawed due to rate of fire. They're outlawed because they're a battlefield weapon that offers greater firepower than a civilian should need or have. I put the Barret on the military side of that line.
|
Well, a couple of more points then
First, I find it dangerous to argue "need". I know many people that claim I don't "need" a gun at all, let alone an AR15, but is that the point?
Does anyone "need" a sword or a machette or a pinball machine or a....?
See my point?
So arguing "need" in a legalistic way is a dangerous thing, IMO. It isn't up to the govt. to decide what we "need"; it's up to the govt. to protect us by enacting "reasonable" restrictions, i.e. those not based on emotion.
I will concede that a .50 will do more damage than a .308, but being a .50 doesn't make it a magic airplane killer either.
The other thing I wanted to say is that machine guns are NOT illegal; they are merely heavily regulated under the 1934 Firearms Act and also, very expensive.