Gunmakers’ War Profiteering on the Home Front

nytimes.com ^ | december 11, 2015

[lowbridge]

Assault weapons were banned for 10 years until Congress, in bipartisan obeisance to the gun lobby, let the law lapse in 2004. As a result, gun manufacturers have been allowed to sell all manner of war weaponry to civilians, including the super destructive .50-caliber sniper rifle, which an 18-year-old can easily buy in many places even where he or she must be 21 to buy a simpler handgun. Why any civilian would need this weapon, designed to pierce concrete bunkers and armored personnel carriers, is a question that should be put to the gun makers who profit from them and the politicians who shamelessly do their bidding.

The industry's sales pitches in magazines and on the Internet play off popular fears generated by the very shooting sprees made possible by their assault weapons, and use the imagery of war in general and the "war on terror" in particular.

[Travis McGee]

[uncbob]

Assault weapons were banned for 10 years until Congress, in bipartisan obeisance to the gun lobby, let the law lapse in 2004.

Major BS
1. They were/are not ASSAULT Weapons

And most importanly
2. They ban was no ban --the law spelled out a description of BANNED weapons and the manufacturers merely changed the gun's looks and or feature--Bayonet lugs were removed as were Flash Suppressors etc and the guns were PERFECTLY LEGAL

I know I bought an AR during the so called BAN

[vpintheak]

Yeah! I picked up a little something for my son and me for Christmas too.

[DMZFrank]

You never know. The citizen militia might have to eject tyrants from defensive fortifications or disable armored personnel carriers as they assault us with them.

[piasa]

Is that just a scope or does Laz’s wonder have a laser spotter too?

[piasa]

Well, he could add a mini crossbow.

[Myrddin]

My indoor range has a M2 belt-fed 50 BMG machine gun and bolt action 50 BMG for rent. The M2 rents for $100. 10 rounds of linked 50 BMG comes with the rental. They have full auto AK-47 and P90 for rent too. People rent them for the fun of shooting the big beasts at the range, but there are few buyers. At $4,000+ for a bolt action, it isn't a practical purchase for most people. For that kind of money, a top of the line AR-10/LR-308 with good glass would be more useful.

I was plinking on the tactical side of the range today with .22LR pistols and 9mm rifles. The static side was ablaze with full-auto AK-47.

[RetiredTexasVet]

Yep, all those weapons that “law enforcement” possesses .... like the Social Security SWAT Teams, the Dept. of Education SWAT Teams, the EPA SWAT Teams, etc.

[hardspunned]

You buy automatic weapons at those “all manner of military weapon” stores somewhere in New York of course.

[elcid1970]

“FUNYT”

Heh, heh, I thought that meant “the New York Times is so funny sometimes!”

Anyway, the newsies have gone nucking futs on Obama’s orders: “Yes, yes! Call for abolition of private gun ownership! All my staff from ValJar on down say I have the authority to use my pen to say Mr. & Mrs. American turn them all in!!”

Real possibility: an outbreak in SWATing raids called in by disgruntled liberal neighbors. Mostly in FOID states. It’s going to get ugly leading up to the election & the libs think they can win with a platform calling for confiscation.

[Jim Noble]

So they want to declare war on us?

Be careful what you wish for.

[Nervous Tick]

Interesting (and somewhat Orwellian) that the NYT “editorial board” are too cowardly to sign their individual names to this tripe.

[Graybeard58]

Why any civilian would need this weapon (.50 cal.), designed to pierce concrete bunkers and armored personnel carriers, is a question that should be put to the gun makers who profit from them and the politicians who shamelessly do their bidding.

I don't need one but I wish I had a .50 cal. (Are you reading this Santa?) I don't recall seeing the word need in the 2A or that it's up to the NYT to decide what I need

[MarkL]

The NY Times currently profits from the ignorance of its readers.

But back in the day, the NY Times profited from Stalin’s genocide in the Ukraine, and to this day, refuses to disavow the work that “won” the paper a Pulitzer Prize.

Scumbags then and now.

Mark

[uncbob]

And they also brought Castro to power with their sympathetic BS

[SampleMan]

Why do I need guns? The NYT, that is why.

[Red in Blue PA]

For some odd reason, they neglect to mention that AR’s are banned in many states to hunt deer because the caliber is deemed insufficient for an ethical kill of the animal.

Yet we are to believe the Slimes when it claims these are uber powerful weapons.

[IronJack]

The writers for the Slimes have probably never even seen an AR except in horror movies. They have almost certainly never fired one. Nor do they have the vaguest concept of ballistics, stopping power, projectile expansion, or anything else about guns.

It would be like a man who's never seen the ocean writing about yacht racing. Such ignorance is a discredit to not only the writer but the entire industry.

[TigersEye]

It better have a laser spotter or I’ll punch Santa in the nose!

[uncitizen]

nothing wrong with being profitable in the business you are in. Besides gun manufacturers didn’t start the war.