They are NYC liberal reporters, therefore are expert at everything. 
Posted on 12/12/2015 3:05:06 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
FUNYT.
What lowlife scum the NY Times leftists are. “Profiteering”. Pathetic.
18 YO can fight in war, but it’s downright “scawey” that they can buy a gun themselves.
What rubbish! The Barrett .50 caliber is not designed for this at all. It is designed to mow down minorities and LGBTs in automatic mode and in single shot mode it is designed to pass by EBT cards emitting a blast of RF energy that zeroes out the card, leaving the EBT card holder destitute and starving for the rest of the month. They need to get their facts straight!
armor-piercing handgun
powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles "
These mofo's really don't know much about guns, do they.
Why? Because nobody is manufacturing Death Stars anymore. Besides, the Constitution doesn't say anything about "The right of the people to keep and bear the arms the New York Times approves of shall not be infringed."
Or, to put it another way, why this weapon, designed to obliterate whole planets and shoot down stars, should be banned is a question that should be put to the hoplophobes who get oogey everytime they see a BB gun and the politicians who shamelessly do their bidding.
They don’t need to. They just as their masters tell them to do and spittle forth with any manner of bilge in their obeisance.
LOL!
The stupidity of these people never ceases to amaze me.
Moreover, an "assault weapon" (by definition) is capable of automatic fire - something that is banned (unconstitutionally by the way) except for a very regulated, very expensive, and very hard to obtain Class 3 FFL (and only in certain states).
Why would any citizen need a .50 cal. weapon, the article asks? Why to protect themselves from anyone who might also have a .50 cal. weapon I would answer. I suppose they would retort that only the Government should have a .50 cal. weapon! And I would say, you just answered your original question!
” Why any civilian would need this weapon, designed to pierce concrete bunkers and armored personnel carriers,”
Because the 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting. It isn’t even about protecting yourself from criminals. It’s about keeping the government in line.
When will the NYT finally go broke and disappear? Last I heard they were bailed out by some Mexican billionaire.
FN 57? CZ 52?
Ignorant lie.
They are NYC liberal reporters, therefore are expert at everything.
If the 18 yr old has $8,000 bucks to drop on the rifle and $6 bucks a round for the ammo.
gnarfled a two-ton Garthok with my Westinghouse 40 watt phased plasma pulse rifle.
#1
“Assault weapons were banned for 10 years
Ignorant lie. “
When the first sentence of the article is a lie, not much use in reading any further.
"War profiteering"? Really? Well, no, but it amounts to the same thing, doesn't it? No, it doesn't.
These are weapons designed for the rapid spray-shooting of multiple enemy soldiers in wartime, not homeland civilians living in peace.
"Rapid spray-shooting"? I think it's a fair bet that no one capable of typing this was ever closer to the military than a protest march. Spray-shooting. How, exactly, does one "spray-shoot" with a semiautomatic firearm? Or any firearm, for that matter?
An ad for an armor-piercing handgun shows an embattled infantryman...
A what? An "armor-piercing handgun"? Sure - walk up to the counter of any gun store and ask for an "armor-piercing handgun" and see what sort of looks you get.
they cause more harm to innocent victims than to fantasized malefactors.
"Fantasized malefactors"? Would that be the Islamic terrorist shooters that just killed 14 in California? The author strains not to use the "I" word here, but suddenly a few paragraphs later they aren't so "fantasized":
Something like it is likely to be in the hands of the next mass shooter, whatever the killer's obsession.
That the victims of that "obsession", Islamic terror - there, I've said it, it didn't hurt a bit - that those victims might have a desire to have "something like it" in their own hands when the murderers come a-knocking appears to have escaped the lurid imagination of the copywriter. This is not fantasy-mongering, and the people purchasing these firearms are not playing games.
I suppose we shouldn't expect much better when the Times turns its collective hand to crude propaganda, a thing that has happened far too much of late. But it doesn't really matter. Anyone with enough knowledge in the field even to shop for such an item will read this sort of thing and laugh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.