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
Target practice. VERY long range target practice. Like 10,000 feet. It is based on an anti-aircraft round. Extremely expensive rifles. You need a friend with a rangefinder next to you and at least 3 rounds for practice. Very loud. But, if you happen to hit a moose, lets BBQ! I'm hungry!!
If you don't dislocate your shoulder first!
You call 'em, I'll haul 'em!
I'll bet when this AWB cr@p ends, we'll be able to add some new toys to the box.
I don't think this is going to have an affect on mag prices though.
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.
As it was in WW-I, which was before the SC made that ruling. However the court did not exactly rule that a short barreled shotgun has no military use, rather that the Federal District Court should not have ruled that possession of one is protected by the second amendment absent any evidence to that effect. That is that the lower court should not have taken judicial notice of such a fact. That's why they sent the case back down to that lower court for "further proceedings". Those proceeding would have constituted reinstatement of the charges, since the Judge had thrown them out on the basis that the National Firearms Act of '34 was in clear violation of the Second Amendment. What the court really was that keeping and bearing arms of not of military use-fullness is not protected by the second amendment. From Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable re- lationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantee's the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Of course, as admitted by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Cases virtually all weapons can find military use, especially when one considers the grill war/resistance scenario. The Cases decision came during WW-II, but only 3 1/2 years after the Miller shotgun decision. From the Cases decision:
Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. However, we do not feet that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities, -almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.
As you can see however, the Cases Court was revolted by the Idea that the Second Amendment means what it so clearly says, or that the Supreme Court meant what it said such a short time before, but because Snr. Cases was a bad hombre, and because there was war on, no one seemed to really care.
Read more about the Miller case here
Y'all have the best TOYS!
As to the question.. "what is a .50 cal rifle?"
Why it's a girlie gun, dontcha know!?! ;-)
Under the second amendment, you draw the line at individual misuse, not at mere possession. Arms is arms, and that includes RPGs and MANPAD SAMS. Both bearable by a single person, although that is not a requirement, since the 2nd protects keeping as well as bearing. When written it protected possession of privately owned cannon, both field pieces and shipboard.
Which is not surprising since there hadn't even been a trial yet. The lower court threw the case out on a motion from the defense, based on the unconstitutionality of the law. Then there is the fact that no arguments for the respondent (Miller, it was the government that appealed) were presented, either written or oral. No NRA "Friend of the Court" brief. Nothing. Nada. Zip (The Court no longer allows that to happen, since it's a clear violation of due process and the right to an attorney) The argument could have been made there that the requirement for the weapon to have military usefulness was faulty based on a simple reading of the second amendment, which contains no such restriction, and upon the history of its enactment. Part of the reason for Miller not being represented at the SC, was that he could not be located! By the time case came back to the lower court, Miller was dead, and Layton, the other defendants in the original case, had copped a plea to a lessor offense. Thus no trial was held, and no evidence presented about shotguns or anything else. The Miller case is the last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the scope of the second amendment, and it's a mighty thin reed upon which all "modern" gun control rests.
Yup them modern "Cat-Ridge" guns are just too all fired powerful for "the people". NOT!
Still, politicians with a wild hair should be very afraid based on the results of these tests, very afraid indeed.
That lawyer did not make an appearance at the Supreme Court. He didn't need to produce such evidence or results of research, the trial judge knew all that, and threw the case out before trial. The government appealed directly (not via the Court of Apeals, which is highly unusual) to the Supreme Court, and presented the only arguments heard or briefed, there.
If you'll take a link to the "Here" link in post 244, you'll see that the government tried to make the "states rights" case, but the court wasn't having that, and did not even mention most of the governments arguments in it's very narrow decision.
BMG = Browning Machine Gun
I remembered that right after hitting "post". However I think other helios use the 25mm, and if not they use a 20mm.
Using depleted Uranium rounds, I've seen a .50 bolt action rip the door off of a car. No joke.
They had cannon. And ships mouthing several of them. All privately owned. They intended the second amendment to protect arms, not just rifle, pistols and handgun, but also swords and in the words of one of them "every other terrible implement of the soldier". I think that would cover RPGs.
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword, is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-Tench Coxe
BTW, he said that *before* the second amendment was added to the Constitution to make sure it would continue to be true.
You were joking, right?
I know, but you aren't going hit it anyway, so it hardly matters. They aren't much larger than that 6 foot bull the guy hit with the 45-70, but they are about 20,000 times farther away.
Make it 20 feet, instead of 6. At 22,000 miles that's about 0.00059 minutes of arc. Now if you can manage to make a round that can home in on the target, you're back in business, and you've got your own ASAT weapon.
Actually, that is under 2 miles. A very long shot still, but let's keep our figures straight.
Well, sticking up for your sister. That makes it series. That makes it personal. You will want some really hugh ammo at that point...
The Bill of Rights says nothing about practical usage.
BINGO. We have a winner.
It's nice of everyone to help the lady out, but can't someone post some really cool gun porn for this Friday nite?
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.