Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« An interesting graph... | Main | John Lott's latest on "gun free zones" »

.50 cal ban

Posted by David Hardy · 26 February 2008 11:22 AM

A Hawaiian newspaper editorializes in favor of a .50 caliber ban. More nonsequiturs than I can easily count. The last one is simply, OK, it's not been used in crime, but we should ban it anyway rather than "wait for the carnage to occur."

· State legislation

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Doug in Colorado | February 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply

A big fifty is not something anyone in their right mind would carry on a crime spree...They're heavy, awkward, impossible to conceal, and (correct me if I"m worng) virtually impossible to fire from a standing position...you practically have to sit at a large bench or lay down in order to aim it effectively. I've seen folks shooting them at the range...interesting but not practical for the vast majority of criminal enterprises.

rich | February 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply

re: However, GAO investigators found that some of them "ended up in the hands of suspected terrorist groups, a mentally ill cop killer and drug trafficking cartels." Osama bin Laden reportedly sent one of his operatives to the United States in the 1980s to buy two dozen of the rifles.

I have not seen this report, I thought that I had read that the GAO had never found any evidence of them ending up anywhere but legitimate people.

Does anyone know where this comes from?

Alcibiades McZombie | February 26, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply

The IRA apparently got one and shot a British guardsman at some point. The one article I saw said it was at a range "far less" than 1,000 meters.

Some Bosnians or Serbians might have also obtained some during the Balkans War. (Of course, there was an arms embargo that prevented defenders from buying weapons to use against Serbians.)

Of course, I'm not sure what their point is as half a dozen countries manufacture .50 BMG (or above) rifles. I don't know why the VPC picks on Barrett Firearms in particular.

Greg in Allston | February 26, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply

I think you might find that Osama's .50 BMG's were actually provided by the US Gov. as part of the arms provided through many different channels to the mujahadin in Afganistan when they were fighting our proxy war against the Soviets. I'm pretty sure that it's doubtful that Osama was directly in the loop for that particular procurment. If you remember we also hooked the mujahadin up with Stingers and Oerlikon heavy machine guns.

Ach | March 1, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply

"The last one is simply, OK, it's not been used in crime, but we should ban it anyway rather than 'wait for the carnage to occur.'"

That's brilliant! We could also apply it this way: We should start putting people in jail before they commit crimes too. And to be consistent with the reasoning above, we'll start with the people least likely to commit crimes!

What kind of 1d10t comes up with such a position? And is actually serious?

Leave a comment