this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
121 points (93.5% liked)

politics

19222 readers
2745 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MSids 16 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] TechNerdWizard42 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TwentySeven 3 points 7 months ago

Operation fast and furious

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You want the US army not to have 50 caliber rifles? That might not be a good idea

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Depends what side you are on

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Geek_King 13 points 7 months ago (9 children)

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.

[–] disguy_ovahea 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Why can’t non-hunting firearms just be relegated to shooting range ownership? Legitimate question for gun owners, no sarcasm intended.

[–] Tayb 12 points 7 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

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)

[–] kn33 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't care if it's needed or not. The state should not have a monopoly on violence. Under No Pretext.

[–] shalafi 26 points 7 months ago

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!?)

[–] Rapidcreek 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Great! Nukes for everybody!

[–] slurpinderpin 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)
[–] SupraMario 4 points 7 months ago

You can %100 own one, they're just not cheap lol

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dkarma 10 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Desert eagle in .50 ae will take down a bear or moose...so alaska

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MegaUltraChicken 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Honestly we should outlaw any aggression against Bigfoot. They are a peaceful race.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 1 points 7 months ago

Harry and the Hendersons should be shown in schools

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 4 points 7 months ago

cladsdale

Clydesdale

[–] ours 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

People also don't know how gigantic and heavy these kind of rifles are. They are mainly to kill vehicules and equipment.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ours 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] force 2 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] SupraMario 3 points 7 months ago

Muzzleloader season....they hunt deer with 50cal. Its not anything like what you think it is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I just want to point out that you set up a perfect your mom joke.

[–] RizzRustbolt 2 points 7 months ago

The bill also bans the 1989 SETO corporation arcade game "Calibur .50".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Muzzle loaders aren't firearms, tho. Or at least fly under vastly different regs.

[–] EvacuateSoul 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Black powder weapons aren't legally considered firearms. You can order them in the mail with no background check.

[–] elbarto777 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What are they considered if not firearms, then? Genuine question..

[–] LrdThndr 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

"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.

[–] elbarto777 2 points 7 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Oh good, maximum stupidity. Banning .50 caliber weapons without discussing any other calibers, as if .51 and .49 are both substantially safer.

Do politicians all eat lead during their induction process?

[–] Bernie_Sandals 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Banning .50 caliber weapons without discussing any other calibers, as if .51 and .49 are both substantially safer.

Don't think they have a problem with the caliber... I think they have a problem with a popular American anti-vehicle rifle easily being acquired by the Cartels.

There's no super popular and known of .49 or .51 caliber, but if Barrett made one I'm sure they'd try to ban it too.

[–] Burninator05 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Serious question: Are anti-material rifles commonly used by cartels? They seem like overkill when AR-15 style rifles are cheaper, more plentiful, easier to use, easier to conceal, and are probably more effective against people.

[–] Bernie_Sandals 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Serious question: Are anti-material rifles commonly used by cartels?

Yes but for different uses than a normal gun would be used for. The Mexican police and army have been trotting out more of their armored vehicles to try and combat the cartels. .50 Cals and other anti-material rifles function as the counter to those armored vehicles while being a lot cheaper than a smuggled rocket launcher.

You can find lots of videos of them using them, especially on reddit, can't exactly remember what sub though, Cartel stuff is banned from r/combatfootage

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Apparently some French guy is ahead of the curve on this one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.510_DTC_EUROP

[–] Bgugi 2 points 7 months ago

That's all this does... Changing the range of "ok" calibers from (0,0.5] to (0,0.5)

load more comments
view more: next ›