Stop Arming Cartels Act makes it unlawful to make, sell, possess a rifle ‘capable of firing .50-caliber ammunition’
Stop Arming Cartels Act makes it unlawful to make, sell, possess a rifle ‘capable of firing .50-caliber ammunition’
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.
16Okay, 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?
14Don'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.
11Operation fast and furious
3
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.
13Why can’t non-hunting firearms just be relegated to shooting range ownership? Legitimate question for gun owners, no sarcasm intended.
4There 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.
12I 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
3Because they live on enough land to shoot there? Not everyone has a 10,000 sf yard.
0This would make shooting ranges a prime target for break-ins by highly professional organized crime syndicates and terrorist groups looking to arm themselves, which they don't have the means to protect against.
-1
"To be fair, there isn’t a whole ton of legitimate reasons why civilians need .50 cal rifles..."
Right, graboids.
1there isn't a whole ton of legitimate reasons why civilians need .50 cal rifles.
We should be asking the opposite question. What are the legitimate reasons civilians should not have them? I can't think of any. .50 cal weapons are not used in crime or mass shootings.
By default, everyone should be able to do everything. We impose restrictions when the costs to personal liberty outweigh the benefits to society.
1Oh and it’s for big gov to decide what’s a legitimate reason? It’s still bullshit that we can’t own surface to air missiles for property defense, A LEGITIMATE REASON!!!
/s
-4
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)
3I don't care if it's needed or not. The state should not have a monopoly on violence. Under No Pretext.
27Liberals, 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!?)
26
Honestly we should outlaw any aggression against Bigfoot. They are a peaceful race.
8Harry and the Hendersons should be shown in schools
1
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.
6I just want to point out that you set up a perfect your mom joke.
2
The bill also bans the 1989 SETO corporation arcade game "Calibur .50".
2Even black powder?
2I 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
7Muzzle loaders aren't firearms, tho. Or at least fly under vastly different regs.
2
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?
1Banning .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.
6Apparently some French guy is ahead of the curve on this one.
2
That's all this does... Changing the range of "ok" calibers from (0,0.5] to (0,0.5)
2
Stop arming cartels isn't a good idea..
Sincerely: The NRA
-3The NRA isn't a good idea.
6
This is AGAINST the Constitution! Guns shall NOT be INFRINGED and the 10 Commandments SHOULD be in Schools while Religion is used to WRITE LAWS! THAT'S what the Constitution SAYS LIBTARDS!
-11Wasn't there a commandment about killing being bad?
5But it's OK. God told them to do it. God is OK with genocide against enemies of the faith. Says so in the Bible. 1 Samuel 15, Ezekiel 9, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20 /s
0
Real Zippy the Pinhead vibes with this one
1A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What regulated American militia do you belong to? We have been so quick to jump to defend the later part of the amendment that we have completely dismissed the first part.
I am a gun owner. I love my ar-15. I was in the Army. I did 2 tours to Afghanistan. I am also very liberal. If a law was passed that expanded on the actual enforcement of the well regulated militia text, I would support it. Instead, we have no regulated militias in America at all, and a bunch of gun nuts that keep screaming "shall not be infringed!!" While ignoring all the rest of the text.
-1