[mamelukesabre]

My personal opinion of the 50 cal is that it is of limited use by civilian militia and so a ban on them would not be very damaging to the purpose of the second ammendment. BUt I don’t see why we should give up something like 50 cal rifles without getting something back in exchange. In the event of an armed uprising against the government, most of the fighting will occur in densely populated cities. Fully automatic assault rifles and machine pistols and grenade launchers are more useful. One could make the argument that in the rural areas the 50 would be invaluable. Well, maybe so, but the government has tanks and helicopters. A man with a barret 50 is no match against a tank or helicopter. And in a rural setting, there’s no hiding from a tank or a helicopter.

[from occupied ga]

In the event of an armed uprising against the government, most of the fighting will occur in densely populated cities. Fully automatic assault rifles and machine pistols and grenade launchers are more useful. One could make the argument that in the rural areas the 50 would be invaluable. Well, maybe so, but the government has tanks and helicopters. A man with a barret 50 is no match against a tank or helicopter

Againt a MBT you're right a .50 is useless, but against low performace aircraft hmg rounds are effective. The ZPU series caused a lot of helicopter havoc in Viet Nam. Further, police forces don't usually have MBTs they have things like M113s that are vulnerable to .50 rounds - particularly to SLAP rounds

[Eric in the Ozarks]

My .50 is a single shot airgun. The .50 is actually .495 round ball. It uses a scuba style air tank to fill the system, providing four shots. It has about 850 fps and a goodly volume of footpound energy (penetrates a 1/4 inch pine board.) I’m not interested in trading it.