‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2017, 12:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Also I am no expert on firearms, and especially not rifles, but it seems we like to outlaw things that look nasty, but are less dangerous than many other rifles.  I am thinking that was what you were alluding to with the Barrett and the Lapau, but I really don't know what those weapons are.

While those are arms, that is more in reference to the rounds they use which are also used in other arms. There is a round called the .50 BMG, which is a half-inch in diameter and is used in anti-material sniper rifles. It is the high profile round used for those, however it is being replaced with the .416 Barrett because the round has a similar charge to it, but a smaller projectile, meaning it will have a higher velocity and often travel further and straighter. The .338 Lapua is a similar situation, though more of an anti-personnel round for long distance shooting. This isn't to say the .50 BMG and .416 Barret arms are not used for anti-personnel action, just that they weren't technically designated for that because according to modern conventions we are not supposed to use rounds larger than .30 caliber on personnel in warfare.