No.
Can you tell me what follows from that?
People who don't own firearms but claim to be patriots are suspect as shirkers in the ongoing effort to secure our freedom against tyranny.
People who rationalize and minimize the rollback of the means to secure freedom are especially suspect.
Cal: No. Can you tell me what follows from that?
The struggle for 2nd Amendment rights is axiomatic to the struggle for freedom. The 2nd Amendment is a guarantee that we have a right to arm ourselves to protect ourselves against government that ceases to be "for the people."
Politicians who are opposed to their accountability to the people recognize that in order for them to establish an oligarchy it is necessary to remove our ability to defend ourselves.
They also recognize that to simultaneously outlaw all guns would alarm us. So they do it one step at a time, one gun at a time.
Outlawing the 50BMG is another step in the direction of total confiscation.
That's what this struggle is about.
Just because you own no firearms doesn't mean you don't benefit from those who do.
John Q. Criminal is afraid of those of us who own guns. But he doesn't know who owns and who doesn't, so he tends to tread gently upon all.
But if govt succeeds in banning all firearms, which they certainly want to do, then John Q. Criminal is coming after you.
We're all that separates you from your worst nightmare.
Cf., the sociological impact in Britain of their recent gun bans.