Kitty will show you...
Posted on 07/30/2004 8:17:31 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
I am filling out a survey about gun ownership and have been asked about a .50 cal BMG rifle.
Could you please explain to me what this is and what it's used for?
Thank you
Do you really want the answer?
It can take down satellites too and destroy tanks. If you're located on a CO mountaintop, you can shoot at anything in N America with it. LOL!
If it could be used to take down planes the US mil would outfit their troops with 50s and not bother with man portable SAMs and such. If it could the jihadis in Iraq would have some. The claim is made, because just like anything else, it might be used for destructive purpose.
It's effective range is about 1700 yards. Given the trajectory, tremendous skill would be required to shoot anything out of the sky with it. My bolt action with a third less muzzle energy is ~1400 yards. CRS here, but those numbers are close. It's used for target shooting and some ELK hunting. As with any gun, most folks don't buy them for evil purposes.
AMEN!
Do you understand the reason I used 'practical' was because I was told that it was something nefarious?
http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=5934297
.50 bmg for sell
He's talking about the weapon not the .50 BMG round.
The "collective right" argument is a touchy subject among gun owners, because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently used it to come to the conclusion that there is NO individual right to arms.
One thing that you need to understand in order to see the contradiction is the principle under the US Constitution that individual citizens have "rights" and government has "powers."
In addition, when the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or any subsequent amendments mean to refer to states, they use that word, and when they mean to refer to individual citizens, they use the word "people." The term "State" or "States" does not appear in the Second Amendment.
Also, what empowered states to form and maintain militias was not the Second Amendment, but rather Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, to wit:
The Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It also helps to understand that in contemporary usage, the term "well regulated" commonly meant "properly functioning," in the same sense that "regulating" a rifle is adjusting its sights so that the bullet hits the point of aim, or in the sense that a "well-regulated" clock keeps accurate time.
And there's the simple logical inconsistency of the concept of a so-called "collective" right - how can a group of people have rights that an individual member of that group does not have, when the framers of the Declaration of Independence stated that rights are derived from God and cannot be taken away, and that just governments are established to protect those rights?
And finally, 10 USC 311 indicates that I am, and you probably are, a member of the unorganized branch of the Militia of the United States by virtue of our gender and age, whether we like it or not. But if I had obtained an M-16 machine gun that is standard issue to American infantry, I would have been subject to felony charges in California.
This demonstrates just how little the SC knows about guns and war. The 12gauge was a highly effective weapon when on "search and destroy" in Vietnam.
Agreed, on all points.
With the new keyword system, this will still appear to all the banglist readers even if shifted to chat, and the poster will continue to get plenty of responses.
The shooting of the mother with the baby in her arms was an intentional act. The government sniper drew what he saw before he fired his shot at her, it was a woman holding a baby.
The rules were changed by the feds before going after Weaver. What happened was really just a government hit team intentionally killing a mom.
That came out at trial, about the drawing made by the government sniper showing the mom behind a screen type door.
It was no accident whatsoever, a deliberate shot made at an unarmed woman looking out towards whatever unknown evil men were killing her dog, her son and shooting at them.
The local prosocutor should have tried the entire lot, and the government sniper should have gotten the death penalty.
The max legal speed limit in America is about 75 miles per hour yet my car will do 140 miles per hour. Goobermint doesn't regulate the maximum speed that a vehicle is capable of and they trust I will drive safely and monitor my speed and punish me when I break the speed laws.
Why should my use of firearms be any different ? I do the wrong thing , punish "me" not America......
Stay safe Eeeek !
Yes. I am pointing out that you were not out of line at all.
you got that right baby!
I agree with you, but where do you draw the line? In Iraq and Afghanistan there are children who own and know how to operate 20 year old Russian RPGs. I invite anyone to go to Afghanistan, where every male over age 10 has a Kalashnikov. And over there, an armed society ain't exactly a polite society.
Hathcock was one hell of a sniper. Good 'ol boy too!
Kitty will show you...
http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=5934297
.45-70 at Two Miles: The Sandy Hook Tests of 1879
RIFLE MAGAZINE, NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1977
THE SHOOTER at the heavy bench rest squinted as he aligned his .45-70 Allin-Springfield Model 1873 Army rifle on the distant target. The rifle fore-stock and barrel was cradled in a rest; the butt was supported by his shoulder. The rear sight was flipped up to its full height, so with no stock support for his head, the rifle tester from Springfield Armory worked carefully to align high rear and low muzzle sight on the speck that was the target - a surveyed 2,500 yards distant.
Holding his breath, he squeezed the 7-pound trigger. The rifle fired, and some 15 seconds later, signals from the target indicated that his shot had struck well inside the 6-foot diameter bullseye on a target well over a mile away!
They didn't rule that it had no military use, they just ruled that they couldn't take judicial notice that it did, and remanded the case back to a lower court.
No evidence can be introduced in a Supreme Court Appeal, they must work solely on the record of the case. There was no record in the case of any testimony or evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun had military use.
And just what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? It's an arm, so by defintion the right of the peopleto keep and bear it is protected by the second amendment. The people being private citizens, yes, I'd say it was fine private citizen gun. I only wish I could afford one.
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.