Oh yea, how about these, it uses the same ammunition:
Or this, it uses a "slightly larger" (30 mm vs. 12.7 mm) round:
What a wuss.
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
Thanks; but I'll stick with a Kalishnikov any day. It's the best gun to bring to a party.
I would bet this guy wants the Gov to mop up his piss for him too...better hold a commission on that one...
And this is bad because. . . ?
I want one, for less than the cost of a squirrel bridge in a Czech town you too can own one!
And according to the brainy and amazingly intelligent liberal, the scary rifle is, you know, far roo accessible because - not in spite of - the fact it costs a fortune.
The Democrat Politburo shall continue to nullify our rights through executive orders, treaties, and prima facia unConstitutional statutes with Ratified Constitutional nullifications through continuing judicial tyrannies.
The socialist/fascist elites shall press their Concord Bridges until Antietam II, from which they shall hide.
Under attack by Godless supreme federal socialists' "compelling State interests" "under color of law" since 1933, American liberty shall never again be assured by our Ratified Constitutional Republic unless We the People stand up to those who have become our rulers.
Oh yea, how about these, it uses the same ammunition:
Or this, it uses a "slightly larger" (30 mm vs. 12.7 mm) round:
What a wuss.
Bull S**t!
Even an M1, 40 years out of print, is too expensive. They're none too accessible yet in my book but bring the price of a cherry Garand down to the $300 some good loking Mauser 98's go for and I think we may have this problem solved.
That commie puke maggot needs his head removed from an unauthorized orifice. Regardless of what the gun-grabbers want, the Constitution does not regulate the caliber of the firearms we own. We do have restrictions on our ownership of firearms thanks to a couple of stupid laws passed in 1934 and 1968 by DEMOCRATS. We should be working to get those two laws either repealed by the Congress or overturned by the courts. Let the gun-grabbers play defense for a change.
BTW, if the commie puke maggot hoplophobe got a look inside my gun safe he'd have to change his drawers. I don't own a Barrett (yet), but I do have something with a bore just as big, and it ain't a shotgun.
I'd prefer a 1903 Springfield 1903A3 with a good nightscope.
But then I'm an atavist.
It seems that the writer doesn't like to have a rifle that is easy to use and accurate. The fact that it is 50 caliber is inmaterial. I dont believe the type of gun matters if you are on the recieving end. Dead is dead no matter what type of gun.
Planes can take a 50 caliber bullet easily. Heard there was a Boeing that lost its roof and landed. Planes have lost engines and landed . A little hole is not that dangerous unless he got a lucky shot at a pilot.
This is definiately a sniper rifle. The only people that can afford it would probably be collectors. Not many will use it to shoot game or man at 2000 yards. This is defininately not a rifle that I am concerned being in private civilian hands. May need it if war ever happens in the states.
I f someone wants to spend their money that is their right.
I just can't understand people getting scared by a big caliber weapon. I am not likely to be shot by a sniper and a 45 caliber bullet would damage me enough that a 50 caliber doesn't scare, either can kill me.