Let me explain what is going on here.That is a Barrett M82A1. Given it's Taylor-Greene, it's probably in .50 BMG.
That's $9.5k or so; it looks like she (or whoever's gun she's borrowing) went with a cheapo Leupold (a VX-6? So, comparatively cheap) in a backwards scope mount, which is a bad idea.
You see, more commonly, with people who can afford $10,000 guns, that they'll at least spend $3,000 on a scope (Schmidt & Bender PM II, Nightforce ATACR 7-35 or even Leupold Mark Vs are common choices) and another $500 on a heavy-duty scope mount (Spuhr, Aadland, Badger Ordnance).
What she's got on there is probably going to break at some point - right at the cantilever point, most likely - and ruin that scope and injure someone. .50 BMG guns are legendary for breaking scopes.
In terms of ammo, at a minimum, that's $2.50 per round; if you shoot commercial ammo, closer to $4.00, even more for specialized rounds like armor-piercing .50 BMG - which, of course you can buy as a civilian, it's America, duh.
So, one, .50 BMG is stupidly expensive to own and to shoot. This is a bougie gun, if such a thing could be said to exist, but it looks like it was put together by some kind of nimrod who didn't know how to set up a rifle.
Two, there's nowhere to shoot it. It's extremely impractical to own.
There are four commonly accepted rules of firearms; if there's any one rule that everyone forgets, it's #4. Those rules go:
1. Every firearm is always loaded
2. Never point the firearm at anything you do not wish to shoot
3. Finger straight and off the trigger until the sights are on target and you are ready to shoot
4. Always be aware of what is behind your target
The thing about Rule #4 and .50 BMG projectiles is that each one is around 700 grains, or 1.6 ounces, and they move very, very fast, 2,800 to 3,000 fps.
By comparison, for a commonly used civilian cartridge like the venerable .308 Winchester, you're loading 150-175 grain projectiles (if you're making ammunition to load from a magazine with a limited box length), maybe specialized 175-220 grain very-low-drag projectiles (if you're a competitive shooter in, say, F-class, who loads individually into a single-shot rifle and you're not worried about magazine length). And those bullets are poking along at 2,300 to 2,700 fps.
Even with .308 Winchester, you get problems with shooting through things. With .50 BMG, that's a given.
As a result, there is literally nowhere safe to shoot this thing.
If you let this off in your backyard, you are going to put a 700 grain projectile through the target, through your fence, and into your neighbor's house at about 2,900 fps.
Some shooting ranges won't even let you shoot it. The concussion and blast that comes out of the ports on the muzzle brake - that thing on the very tip of the muzzle, where you can see open ports - is extremely severe, and it's angled to the sides and back somewhat, right at the people next to you on a firing line.
I've been next to a police sniper team (at a public range for some reason) a few years back with a .416 Barrett. Every time they shot that thing, they'd say "FIRING FIRING FIRING", and you'd wonder why ("wow dude that's really hardcore is that necessary?") and when it went off, everyone's spotting scopes and some rifles would get knocked over from the concussion from the muzzle brake on just that... up to two lanes over. And then you'd realize why they made such a big deal about it.
A weapon like that, much more so than guns period, is actually where, if you're holding it, 99% of the universe at any given moment is something you don't want to point that at.
Shoot it upwards and there is a good risk that you will shoot the next county over, or, entertainingly, potentially yourself, like some kind of idiot artillery piece or lawn dart. Shoot it downwards and you will not only make a giant crater and feel like an idiot, you will run a very real risk of severe bodily injury from massive, high-speed fragments of shrapnel.
There is only a limited area of targets that you even want to point this thing at, limited to things you either *really don't like* or don't care about (or are not legally liable for), keeping Rules #2 and #4 in mind, and that makes it absurd to own.
It's a statement piece, at best, that no one cares about. It's not even a status symbol so much as it is a red flag for dating. Really, if you look at the history of the development on the M82 "light fifty" and the kind of businessman that Ronnie Barrett was - "iconoclastic" is putting it charitably - and it's a statement more than a proper weapon all the way back to its inception; it's just fortuitous that it ended up actually being moderately useful for trained personnel shooting vehicles.
Three, it's not even an accurate rifle; the M82 was designed to serve as a human-portable (somewhat, it's a 30 lb. weapon) anti-materiel weapon that a human being could fire. The spring-loaded recoil-absorbing mechanism in it actually makes it less accurate because the "lock-up" when the weapon goes into battery is minutely different each time; it is arguably intrinsically inaccurate.
Early versions of the M82 platform - some of them still in service today - are 2 minute-of-angle (MOA) guns, optimistically.
That means, if you shoot them, let's say, 100 times, in a controlled condition, with the shot breaking the same way every time, pointed at exactly the same place, you're going to get 100 little bullet holes making a spray area roughly 2 MOA, or about 2 inches (2.070", for what it's worth) at 100 yards, in diameter. In practice, you're looking at 3-4 MOA with imperfect people operating it and varying weather conditions.
Again, as a comparison, if someone is making or shooting common .308 Winchester rounds - they're used a lot in hunting - and they're getting 3-4 MOA, something is wrong. With my friend's Sig 716 Patrol - just an unimpressive weapon, really, I was not wowed by it in any way - and a 5-20 scope, I can routinely keep it under 1 MOA, 3/4th MOA with quality handloads or match rounds, and that's not even a precision weapon. If you're shooting a bolt-action rifle, 1 MOA is a starting point; you're aiming for half a minute of angle, less.
As Townsend Whelen said, "only accurate rifles are interesting".
This... impractical machine that Taylor-Greene is operating, useful for literally nothing else but shooting, like, old appliances in the desert at $5 a round, is not even an interesting rifle.
This is a pattern.
Trashy weapon, threatening posture, and always, a thin veneer of Instagram "gun-bunny" posturing overlaying stark ignorance and rank mediocrity: that is Taylor-Greene's other gun pic, that's Boebert's "guns to books ratio" pic from earlier this year, that's Cawthorn, that's Gaetz, that's pretty much the entire Q caucus if you look back at them.
Read "threat" and "scary" into this behavior and you are, to some degree, falling into the trap they want you to; and it's not even an accurate reading, because the truth of this behavior is even less flattering than being a threat.
It's just crass, unoriginal posturing; it's all show and no go.
That's why you don't see Taylor-Greene shooting a Precision Rifle Series stage, or a United States Practical Shooting Association match, or even an International Defensive Pistol Association match.
That's why Boebert wears a Comp-tac competition holster inside her own restaurant with no retention or any provision for having her gun snatched from her, or even falling out of the holster... yet you never see her shooting any competitive matches.
That's why you never see any of them training, or running drills, or practicing with dry-fire, or, like, doing twenty pushups then trying to operate a carbine. That's why Madison Cawthorn punches trees (lol) and takes pictures of himself with a revolver in a chest holster, but never talks about practicing or actually training how to use the damn thing.
They aren't shooters. They are poseurs.
It's easier to see than it is to explain.