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.
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.
It’s a very easy distinction. A semi-automatic rifle is not a hunting rifle. A hunting rifle is a bolt-action. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for any private individual to own a semi-automatic rifle.
Bolt action has nothing to do with hunting rifle. As the person you replied to stated, people use a wide variety of rifles and other weapons to hunt with based upon what they are hunting, where, and their own physical capabilties. Semiauto rifles have been sold as hunting rifles for the last 80 years.
A semiautomatic rifle is 100% a hunting rifle, because it’s designed for hunting other humans. There is a legitimate reason for private individuals to own one: disabled, elderly, and women can use easier due to its ergonomics.
Could you imagine a world where we socially gated hobbies based on your physical abilities?
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
This 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.
there 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.
You were making a point about freedom (weren’t you?). Why should we be allowed to do something rather than why not? I was insinuating you were radically left for that suggestion here on the ‘land of the free’. There was some gun talk in there but my comment wasn’t intended to provoke that discussion. Hope that helps? Party on, Comrade. Be excellent to each other!
Oh 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!!!
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.
Why can’t non-hunting firearms just be relegated to shooting range ownership? Legitimate question for gun owners, no sarcasm intended.
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.
It’s a very easy distinction. A semi-automatic rifle is not a hunting rifle. A hunting rifle is a bolt-action. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for any private individual to own a semi-automatic rifle.
Bolt action has nothing to do with hunting rifle. As the person you replied to stated, people use a wide variety of rifles and other weapons to hunt with based upon what they are hunting, where, and their own physical capabilties. Semiauto rifles have been sold as hunting rifles for the last 80 years.
They literally just gave you one in “disabled people”
Wow this is lever-action erasure and I won’t stand for it.
Hey maybe don’t talk about guns if you don’t know about guns.
A semiautomatic rifle is 100% a hunting rifle, because it’s designed for hunting other humans. There is a legitimate reason for private individuals to own one: disabled, elderly, and women can use easier due to its ergonomics.
Could you imagine a world where we socially gated hobbies based on your physical abilities?
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
Because they live on enough land to shoot there? Not everyone has a 10,000 sf yard.
This 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.
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.
That’s crazy talk! Are you a fucking leftist? I am
Left or right is an economic axis. Has nothing to do with guns.
I was just ribbing you but wholly disagree on your view of the political continuum. And I was speaking of freedom, not guns. As I thought you were…
Sorry I did not understand. To be honest, I still don’t lol
You were making a point about freedom (weren’t you?). Why should we be allowed to do something rather than why not? I was insinuating you were radically left for that suggestion here on the ‘land of the free’. There was some gun talk in there but my comment wasn’t intended to provoke that discussion. Hope that helps? Party on, Comrade. Be excellent to each other!
Right, graboids.
Oh 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