Ban on Armor-Piercing Guns

The .50-caliber rifle created by Ronnie Barrett and sold by his company, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc., is the most powerful firearm civilians can buy. It weighs about 30 pounds and can hit targets up to 2,000 yards away with armor-piercing bullets.

That kind of power has drawn a customer base of gun enthusiasts, Hollywood actors and Barrett's most loyal buyer, the U.S. military, which has been buying Barrett's rifles since the 1980s and using them in combat from the 1991 Gulf War to the present.

But the powerful gun has drawn plenty of critics, who say the rifle could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners or penetrate rail cars and storage plants holding hazardous materials.

For years some state and federal lawmakers have sought to limit or ban the gun's sale, as California did this year. Read more.

FNC wants to know what YOU think!

Should the armor-piercing rifle be banned in the U.S.?

E-mail us at and jump into the debate.

Here's what some FOX Fans are saying:

"I support civilian ownership of firearms, but I can't think of a single reason why a civilian should own a .50 caliber weapon. You certainly wouldn't hunt with it unless you wanted the target to disappear before your eyes. I feel the majority of non-military owners would be up to no good." — Bill (Georgetown, KY)

"As usual the anti-gun bunch’s mouths are running with their brains disengaged. There is NO such thing as an 'armor-piercing gun.' The round fired from a weapon is or is not armor-piercing by design. Any weapon capable of firing a high-powered round can fire an armor-piercing slug." — William

"The arguments against the .50 caliber rifle are bogus. The .50 caliber is just as hard for a terrorist or criminal to buy as any other center-fire rifle and three times as difficult to conceal. The government should spend less time hand-wringing over a rifle that has accounted for zero crimes and more time securing our borders. Furthermore, let us remember the command: '…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'" — Craig

"I think they should be banned except for military use. Who else would need them? The police in this country do not need the added worry of 15-year-old gang members shooting at them with these weapons. I am not against all guns, but there needs to be a limit." — Katie (Nashville, TN)

"This weapon should be allowed only to the military and our special law enforcement units. 'John Doe' has no need for a weapon like this." — Charlene (Rohnert Park, CA)

"Oxymoron? Any rifle or pistol ammo will penetrate an aircraft or any armor, unless it's built to resist it. You'd have to ban them all, step by step, starting with the easy ones. Isn't that the real goal?" — Jo (San Diego, CA)

"Yes! ALL armor-piercing guns should be banned from public sale by gun dealers or anyone else. However, sadly, criminals and terrorists will be able to get all of these type of weapons they want! ONLY the honest, law-abiding citizens will suffer." — Larry (Alpine, TX)

"I am not aware of any crime involving the use of this weapon, ever, in the United States. Doesn't it make just as much sense to ban airliners? They actually have been used in terrorist attacks, unlike the Barrett." — Mike (Paxton, IL)

"If the purpose of gun control is to lessen crime, please relate how many crimes have been committed in the United States with a .50 caliber rifle weighing 30 pounds. Box cutters weigh only a few ounces and were the weapon of choice for the 9/11 terrorists. Are they also to be banned?" — Tim (Crown Point, IN)