I'm sorry the big bad gun scared you so much. I hope this helps.
Now go find your woobie and suck your thumb somewhere.
OOOOH mommie mommie the big bad looking weapon is scary let me hide under your skirt until the pee stains on my pants dry up and then lets ban the weapon so I will FEEL better cause i cant ever see a scary looking weapon again.This usleless puke needs to drop out of school and get the rest of his education at a san fransisco bathhouse.Hes going to end up there someday soon anyway.Oh yeah if you want to write to him and show him the error of his ways his email is
aslingwe@emich.edu
I suppose this is supposed to show just how scary this gun is. I just LOVE how leftists cower in fear when they read the specs. It makes me wanna buy the gun even more.
There's also no reason to own a TV set, or a microwave , or a DVD player, etc. Also, I'd like this bozo to show me the word hunting in the 2nd Amendment.
It is fitting that this screed comes from a student at a school that has no committment to its own history. If they didn't have the scruples to stick with "Hurons", then I'm not surprised he doesn't have the scruples to stick with the constitution.
Handguns are more carefully controlled because they are affordable, easy to acquire and favored by small time criminals. Nobody is going tospend $7,000 on a .50 cal rifle to knock off the local "stop and rob" mini-mart.
Notice this weenie appoints himself as one who can dictate what other persons need. As soon as you cede the control of what you need to a politician or bureaucrat, you are forever screwed.
And the second amendment was not created just for "gamesman".
I cant believe those againts our Right to Bear Arms think they can deflect us with this "we wont take guns away from hunters" bit.
I have a Firearm (and some think its an intimidating piece). If I ever have to seriously use it - it wont be to hunt deer and antelope..
> Despite my firm agreement with the Second Amendment,.....
Anyone here believe this? If so, contact me about buying some swamp land in New Orleans.
I can't read this article. I'm working and my blood pressure can't take it, but I have a question. Did the author ever mention how many Barrett's have been used in acts of crime? I bet not. So how would banning this firearm reduce crime rates? The author needs to visit the Knob Creek Machine gun Shoot and meet a few of the owners. Nice people. Thugs buy cheap guns.
Why do weaselly anklebiters always have to include these hypocritical disclaimers? Pardon me, everyone, and cover your ears for a second:
HEY IDIOT! IT SAYS "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!" GOT THAT??
Ahh, that's better. Who says only liberals get to "feel good about themselves"?
There is absolutely no reason why a civilian would need to own this weapon,
Why is it that bedwetting crybaby liberals like this a$$ alsways state that they believe in the second amendment, and then every additional word out of they lying mouths is in total disagreement with the 2nd amend? They must think that we gun and freedom loving primitives in flyover country are too stupid to see the contradiction.
The edu address on the end of the bedwetters email address tells me that he really thinks the world of himself, but isn't quite ready to actually face reality.
He may be right about typical range a hunter might shoot for large game like deer. Years ago I went long-range deer hunting and the minimum engagement range was 600 yards. We were basically firing from the face of one mountain over to the face of the next. One of the weapons that we were using, a bolt-action .50 cal, was theoretically accurate out to 1200 yards.
I'd like to point out that the shooter isn't aren't necessarily "sighted-in" for the engagement range. You really need at least 1 spotter to help you correct your fire. This is analagous to "walking fire" onto the target, except that the correction can generally be made after the first shot.
Also, these weapons are heavy. The weight is partially to help absorb recoil -- it's basic physics. You really can't fire them from the shoulder, nor would you want to hump one through the woods. Basically, I wouldn't be too worried about a sniper using a weapon like the Barrett when there are so many easier/less expensive weapons to select from in smaller calibers.
I think I read that the Barrett has been purchased on a limited basis by the US Army. It hasn't been formally adopted yet.
This Adam Slingwein could use a little education which his NRA uncle appears to have neglected to provide. He would not get 50BMG rounds for $1 apiece, unless old military surplus. Precision rounds for Barrett would cost significantly more (he could get them, say, by disassembly, then size and weight standardization, then precision reassembly of the military ammo, or by de novo reloading). Then there is a minor problem with training: 2000 yards shooting ranges exist, but are far between, and so to properly master the Barrett he would have to spend significantly more than the cost of the rifle - add at least few more grand for ammo and transportation to and from the range.
Law enforcement? THAT is what he should be outraged over, not a citizen having fun at the range. Just what is a law enforcement person going to do with a .50 cal rifle? Think about it.
I'm sorry the big bad gun scared you so much. I hope this helps.
Now go find your woobie and suck your thumb somewhere.
Why is this little girl named Adam?
My e-mail to Adam:
Adam,
After reading your article, 'Military guns too accessible to public?', I found some of your points a bit odd. First, how do you determine what is 'too accessible'? It would seem to me that $7000 for a rifle is very inaccessible to the public. For under $1000 I imagine that a single individual could purchase enough fertilizer, diesel fuel, and rent a U-haul truck and do more damage with it than, a single individual armed with this rifle. Wouldn't that be a more worthy subject to write about?
Second, you seem to be all over the map with your article, much like John Kerry was with his campaign. You start by informing the readers that you are ignorant of firearms, then claim to have fired your share of guns. What exactly was your source of firearms knowledge? Your uncle, 'War movies'? By war movies do you mean Bowling for Columbine? (From reading your article, I would agree with you that you do not know what you are talking about.) Much of what you say seems to be based solely on the gun's appearance. You should know that a Ruger 'Mini-14', a .22 caliber 'plinking' rifle can also have modifications made that leave it looking just as intimidating as the BMG.
As far as your views on the second amendment are concerned, may I ask you what the phrase 'Shall not be infringed' means to you. Furthermore, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
Also, when someone says what people 'should, and should not have' based on need, if you hold that true for firearms, hold it true for everything. I personally do not need a pair of skis, not to mention the five pairs that I own. Nor do any of us really need much of what we own. That, my friend, is the great thing about America. We can choose for ourselves what is best for us.
I would also wager that this firearm, intimidating as it may be, has been used in fewer than 5 crimes in the US. Feel free to challenge me on that.
Yours,
Proud_yank
I'd bet $7,000 that this doofus has never fired a weapon. BTW, what's a "clip"? LOL
So when, exactly, did "Adam" have his balls totally removed?
These same stupid arguments were made when S&W introduced their .500 cartridge and pistol. Someone did a GREAT comic discussion regarding criminal use of the gun, much of which applies to the 50BMG rifles. He pointed out that few gang-bangers would buy an $800 pistol, nor could they hold it accurately in their sideways "gangsta grip." Also, due to its 72-ounce weight, it would slide down their baggy pants when they try to hide it in their waistband!
I WISH I could afford a 50BMG! On my budget, I'm lucky to have the 2 rifles I own (which I took with me when I lost my home to Katrina.) They're a Russian Mosin-Nagant 91/30, and a Yugoslavian SKS. That one is a great one to show off to an anti, what with its "evil" bayonet and grenade launcher. And it's an "assault" rifle too - sure to make these folks shiver in their little pink bunny slippers!
It costs $7000, weighs over 30 lbs., and is over 4 ft. long. It costs $5-$10 bucks a shot to shoot. Oh, and the $700 doesn't cover the optics... so throw in another $500-$2000 dollars (you'd like to see your target at 2000 yards right?) for a good scope.
This thing might be a menace to your back and your wallet, but not to society. Maybe its a menace to limousine liberals who are afraid of a weapon that can shoot through their armored limos?
Sure sounds fun to shoot, though. But what I really want is a 20mm AT rifle!
Fire off ten rounds as fast as you can squeeze the trigger. HAHAHAHA from a 50 caliber rifle? Does he even know how ridiculous that sounds? hell even the Incredible Hulk probably couldn't rapid fire a .50 BMG.
After reading the specs from the article, I definitely want one. There is a gun store near me that has one. I picked it up. There is no way to just shoulder the gun and fire free standing. It is too heavy. It must rest on something to get any kind of accuracy.