Serious shooters all know about the .50 BMG rifle. It's a big, bad boomer makes the liberal gungrabbers wet themselves on a regular basis. Of course, as far as I can find, there hasn't been a documented crime where a .50 was used, but that's beside the point. Oh yeah, and dragging around a 35 pound rifle that costs at least $2000 and where the ammo is at least $1.25/rd has become a big status symbol amongst the gangs--NOT!
So of course, we need a law to protect us from the e-e-e-vil and scwary guns. Into the breach steps Diane Feinstein (Loon-CA) with a proposal to make the .50 subject to the NFA (National Firearms Act).
I suspect this bill (if it's even a real bill and not yet more political posturing) stands little to no chance of passing. Both parties have learned that anti-gun legislation can lose elections. Ask Bush 41. I agree with those who say that his anti-firearms actions cost him the election. (I know other things helped as well, but if the pro-gun people had showed up and voted for him, I think he would have been reelected. Remember, it was a close election, with Perot siphoning off a lot of Bush support. 2-3 million votes in the right places would have made a tremendous difference.)
However, I also thought the same thing in 1994 before the AWB, and ignored the people who told me that I had "better buy one now". So while it isn't at the top of my acquisition list, I'm going to start researching and shopping. I may also start buying ammo. It's still relatively cheap, and if I don't buy the gun, I can sell the ammo for a tidy sum more than I paid for it in a few years, I'd bet.