[HTML1]

I had a nightmare last night. The Republicans had lived up to their somewhat-less-well-known name as The Stupid Party and actually nominated Trump in 2012. The Donald, being the mercurial walking haircut that he is, became bored with the whole campaign thing as the election got closer. As a result, The One was reelected. I know . . . it scared me, too. The worst part, though, is that with a new and final term before him, Barack was freed of the need to vote present and avoid sticky hot-button issues. With the socialization of healthcare behind him, he could do whatever he wanted and pursue issues that really got his juices flowing. Like gun control.

OK, it was just a scary dream. But an Obama reelection, no matter how improbable it may seem, is not beyond the realm of possibility. And even if BHO bites the electoral dust, the Brady campaign, Chuck Schumer and their busy little buddies never sleep. Any decent chess player will tell you it’s good to anticipate your adversary’s next move.  Forewarned is forearmed. So to speak.

With the possible exception of mike302000, most people will tell you that new gun control measures aren’t exactly popular right now. Even after a tragedy like Tucson, none of the proposed restrictions (limiting magazine capacity, mental health record reporting, minimum proximity to Congresscritters) thrown against the proverbial wall has stuck.

Given the fact that a significant portion of the public seems to have tuned out the Cassandra-like predictions of blood running in the streets by the Bradys, et al., it seems safe to assume they’re fighting a losing battle.

So how would an intrepid gun banner go about advancing his agenda?  If you’re, um, outgunned and a full frontal assault has failed, sound tactical theory would indicate a guerilla action. Look for targets of opportunity at the fringes.

Let’s say someone goes Loughner again. Unfortunately, it’s bound to happen at some point. Tucson, Langley, Virginia Tech. Some maladjusted wacko decides to even a lifelong record of perceived slights with a gun. Only this time, he doesn’t do it with a handgun, let alone a Glock, one of the most popular firearms in the world. No, this time, the murderous psychopath has procured a .50 caliber rifle.

A budding Lee Boyd Malvo chooses something that shoots .50 BMG. With predictably devastating effect. The result? A chorus from the usual suspects shouting from the mountain tops that NO ONE NEEDS A .50 CALIBER GUN!

The problem is, that’s an easier argument to make in the court of public opinion than, for instance, banning “assault clips.” The average citizen, even a non-gun owner, can see the potential utility of a magazine the holds more than 10 rounds. But when John and Jane Doe see a photo of a .50BMG round next to a 9mm cartridge on the cover of the New York Times, it will look like a nuclear warhead in comparison.

When they read the article or hear a sound bite quoting someone on the right like Dick Cheney saying he can’t think of a good reason for people to have .50 cal rifles, banning them will seem like – here it is – common sense gun control. From there . . .

Forget “assault rifles.” The call will go out to ban “sniper rifles.” Never mind that a good hunting rifle is a good sniper rifle is a good hunting rifle. Just as assault rifles were pretty much any rifle that looked pseudo-military, “sniper rifles” will be anything that looks . . . pseudo-military.

Alternatively or additionally, the bullets themselves face either be a ban or registration. Say Sayonara to Lapua.

And that’s how it will happen. That’s how, during an historic period of second amendment rights advancement, the gun grabbers could succeed in picking off a whole class of weapons that are currently legal. It’s enough to give you nightmares.

26 Responses to Obama To Ban 50-Cal and Other Sniper Rifles. At Some Point. Maybe. Probably.

    • I have to agree with this. From a statistical standpoint alone a sitting president has a huge chance of being re-elected.

      Consider this: Since WWII, only two elected presidents (Carter and Bush 41) who sought re-election, were not re-elected. (note the term “elected presidents:” Ford doesn’t count because he wasn’t elected president.)

      In both of those cases, you had a charismatic 3rd party candidate (Anderson in ’80 and Perot in ’92) who drew off a substantial amount of the incumbent’s support.

      Another factor is that in both cases the challenger (and eventual winners) were highly articulate and charismatic political smooth-talkers (Reagan and Clinton) running against inarticulate, fumble-mouthed incumbents.

      Carter had the additional triple whammy of out-of-control fuel prices, a stagnant economy and international humiliation in Iran to contend with. Even his erstwhile “friends” were starting to abandon him.

      Couple this with the fact that there are large interest groups in the US to whom Obama is happy to placate, and his re-election is highly likely.

      • Carter was exposed as a half-a-hillbilly dumbass. Bush was an aloof patrician who nobody really liked. Plus he spoke like Mr. Rogers without the sweater. Obama is personable, the kind of guy you’d have a beer with and challenge to a game of HORSE. And he’d probably win. The Republicans have nobody to run against him. He’ll be reelected.

        • In the name of hillbillys everywhere I take exception. Carter was a GA flatlander dumbass. It embarasses me that he is Southern.

        • So let me get this right. A Naval Academy graduate and former Navy nuke, self made businessman, and the former governor of the state of Georgia is a dumb ass. I personally feel Pres. Carter was the most Christian Pres. we’ve had the last 50 years. George Bush Junior claimed to be a compassionate Christian. Yet I believe in actions over words. And FYI , I grew up in Georgia so I have every right to make these statements.

      • Most Christian? yes.
        Biggest dumb ass? yes.
        Sell out and Israel in a heartbeat? yes.
        Stand up to Iran? Well, er, uh, not so much.

        Carter was the Pee Wee Herman of American presidents.

        If you want proof Carter was dumb, go read his Playboy interview. Idiocy on display. He had the good fortune (and we had the misfortune) of “lets clean house” timing which was the fault of Nixon.

        I can only wish that Jimmy had the brains of his brother Billy.

        The fact that he was elected governor of Georgia is an indication of whose fault it was that he made it up onto the national stage in the first place.

        And I am….. E. Zach Lee-Wright

  1. They’ve already tried this at least once. I was at a town hall meeting where Carolyn Maloney described why it is, yes, “common sense” that we ban these things because of their extreme accuracy and the ability to fire one bullet at a target hundreds of yards away.

    But wait… I thought the “common sense” reason to ban assault rifles was that they “spray bullets all over the place”, i.e. they’re inaccurate.

    So tell me, oh gun-control enthusiasts: what is the Goldilocks Gun? What combination of accuracy, action, rate of fire, magazine capacity, fabrication materials and cosmetic features can we make so that you won’t want to ban it? Be honest.

      • What?! Surely they will target the seventy-something caliber death-machine known as the Brown Bess. The carnage of its massive balls will make our streets run red with blood! And its black powder smoke will block out the sun.

  2. Actually, a de jure ban (i.e. explicitly outlawing the possession of .50bmg weapons) would be much more complicated than simply listing it as a “destructive device” and putting it in the Class III category of weapons. This has already been done with other classes of weapons that used to be widely available on the open market* and is, in essence, a de facto “ban” since most people aren’t willing to jump through the legal hoops neccessary to get a Class III permit.

    * More than once in the 1980’s I came across 13.5mm to 25mm anti-tank rifles (Lapua, Husqvarna, etc) being sold at gun shops. As they were either bolt action or semi auto they were, at that time, treated like any other rifle. It wasn’t until the 1990’s (IIRC) that they were re-listed as “destructive devices” and placed under NFA registry rules.

  3. But when John and Jane Doe see a photo of a .50BMG round next to a 9mm cartridge on the cover of the New York Times, it will look like a nuclear warhead in comparison.

    That looks like an afternoon of big effing fun at the 200 yard range to ol’ Johnnie F.

    • Couldn’t agree more. I’ve never had the pleasure of shooting one. Hope to some day. That’s one sore shoulder I’ll be more than happy to acquire.

      • Having had a little trigger time on one, I can tell you that the combination of massive muzzle brakes and heft will do wonders to save your shoulder. The brake on the one I fired sent enough blast back at me that I could feel the pressure increase in my sinuses. They’re a riot to shoot.

  4. I tried clicking on the pic of the rifle rounds to make it larger. That took me to the same pic at the same size. Clicking on THAT pic takes you to an entirely different picture. At least the third one had a legible legend. Unfortunately it was entirely in them funny furrin’ measurements.

  5. I only have 5o cal handguns, but it’s time to buy a nice rifle. The 500’s are alot of fun at the range, and people get a kick out of shooting these mini cannons.

  6. I’m sure that the wingnuts will tell us that’s an assault bullet, plain and simple, and needs to be banned along with assault rifles, assault clips and assault umbrellas. Assaults on our intelligence, however, will never be banned.

  7. I will simply point out one thing. None of this would be possible without media complicity.

    They know the facts, they’ve graduated college and they know, that their presentation of facts and information regarding these issues are lies and yet, their presentation remain the same. That my friends is cognitive deliberation and premeditated intent.

    This isn’t the only issue, wherein they have displayed their intentions and “conspiracy,” is a most accurate word indeed.

  8. FedGov’s mission as directed by their handlers with the support and collusion of patsies, pawns, statists, communists, socialists, fascists, digressive libtardists, other non-American-ists in FedGov and their familiars is to continue on their current course of devolving the Founder’s beloved Constitutional Republic into that of tyranny and absolute despotism—as both expected and predicted.
    Integral to the overall AGENDA is the relentless hammering of GUNS of any and all types ( along with anything that can be attached to, inserted into or thingys that go wherever ) on the anvil of legislation, regulation, taxation and any and any all other -ations those in .Gov can conjure up…
    aided and abetted by Mainstream Media Moron propagandists continuing the demonization of GUNS and the non-progressive knuckle-dragging australopithecines who do, but shouldn’t own them.

  9. FWIW
    ObamaCare offers even more potential for new and improved Federal GUN control laws. Here’s why.
    Once a significant portion of the population is forced into the Socialized Medicalcare system, GUN control now also becomes a major Public Health/care issue, ( in addition to the now standardized hoof-waving and bleating associated with GUNS as a Public Safety and feel-good Security issue. )
    The GUN control mantra will shift to how unfair it is that “participants” in the system are forced to pay for treating GUNshot wounds ( and any and all other related costs that can even remotely be associated with GUNS ).
    The only reasonable solution will be a requirement that all GUNS and their owners be registered under the new Federal Firearm Owners Registry Act, ( or more likely, something along the lines of the Healthcare Cost Reduction Act ).
    When this doesn’t solve the healthcare cost crisis, well,
    “Mr. And Mrs. America, you’ll simply have to turn them all in.”

    BTW, the Barrett 82’s a truly outstanding work of precision engineering and an absolute pleasure to shoot. The Rolls Royce of semi-auto 50’s IMHO.

  10. If you look throughout history taking weapons from the people is the first step to tyranny. Its happing around the world now and although I don’t advocate violence to solve problems, I believe a well informed and educated public (which there are fewer and fewer of) and well armed public are necessary to maintaining our freedom and our rights.

  11. I’M A GUN OWNER but don’t you people feel stupid claiming Obama was coming for your guns now? WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN..This is the same fear mongering that the left uses , just on the right…BTW i’m a liberal as well…This is America,no one is going to come for you guns..It won’t happen both republicans and democrats love guns ..Just like rightwingers and liberals love their guns…One more point, The Brady Bill..The Brady bill was passed under the republicans not the democrats..So again thinking Obama was going to come for your guns is nothing but fear mongering…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *