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
Great. And who was in a position of authority over them such that the Minutemen could be disarmed? The answer, of course, is NO ONE. By virtue of the very distinction you pointed out, the Minutemen allowed no authority to disarm them. That is the right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed. It was protected by force of arms prior to the Revolution and was to be protected by the Second Amendment after the Revolution.
Any attempt by you or Diane Feinstein to disarm the militia deserves the same response given on April 18, 1775.
I have stated that the second amendment does not confer a RKBA. It protects the RKBA from federal infringement only.
You have also stated that others here are "lightweight liars" that should "STFU".
Your credibility is shot on this forum, robbie. You should cut & run.
-- But we know you won't..
You enjoy being a goat.
If THAT is the way they are asking the question (loading the question itself so blatantly biased AGAINST the 50 caliber), then the survey is extremely suspect and will used AGAINST the 2nd Amendment.
Time will tell as other similar cases come before the 5th. Then we'll see if they actually apply Emerson.
It shoots through schools.
Ya know, it's always that last 5/10,000 of an inch that confuses me:
Do they measure the front of the bullet, or the back of the bullet, when it stops after 3000 yards?
It only makes no sense because you claim that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from disarming state militias. It the Second Amendment acts as a bar to federal infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms, then the Second Amendment would prohibit the federal government from disarming the federal militia.
Federal statute has defined the members of the unorganized militia without reference to state citizenship or membership in a state militia. Membership in the unorganized militia just may be one of those mysterious "privleges and immunities" of citizens of the United States mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The second amendment protects a well regulated state militia. The federal government cannot infringe their RKBA.
"And who was in a position of authority over them such that the Minutemen could be disarmed?"
General Gage wanted very much to do just that.
Once we had a constitution, why would a state want to disarm the state militia, the entity necessary to the state's security? I mean it could, but why would it want to?
And homes.
And hospitals.
And satellites.
And 747s.
And Mary's play house.
Since all .50s are self controlled, it decides each day which target to take out next.
I, for one, am tired of seeing these things prowling the streets!
Not only was it the plan, it was written in Article I of the Constitution.
Has that portion been altered or voided by an amendment?
As the War of 1812 demonstrated, it was a bad plan. Subsequent to that war, the state militias gradually disappeared as the federal government created a standing army.
There is no Illinois National guard?
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are -
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Some of us are curious why the words of the Second Amendment reflect otherwise. Why doesn't it say, "A well-regulated State Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of each state to keep and arm their militia shall not be infringed"? Why does it say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
Why does it explicitly say what I believe, instead of what you believe? How did our Founders get so confused about the difference between people and states?
Or is it just the courts like the Ninth Circuit, and Diane Feinstein, and others who are so confused?
Are you aware of what is referred to as the "standard model" of the Second Amendment? Outside the Ninth Circuit it is becoming quite the fashion.
I have stated that the majority of the lower federal courts have ruled that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from disarming individuals who comprise the state militias.
"It the Second Amendment acts as a bar to federal infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms, then the Second Amendment would prohibit the federal government from disarming the federal militia."
The federal militia? The second amendment says nothing about a federal militia. You're mixing apples and oranges.
Your problem is that we no longer have "well regulated state militias", and you're trying to force-fit and twist the meaning of the second amendment to what we do have today. It doesn't work that way.
Hathcock PING
There was an officer standing behind him who said it could not be done.... he was incorrect.
The snipers modified the Browning 50 cal MG to fit their scopes from their rifles... they took it off their 30 cal bolt action and put it on the .50 for the range and the cyclic rate is slow enough to fire one rnd at a time.
The second amendment did not guarantee the militia, the national guard or the states or the federal government's rights.
It clearly says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Shanda had it right. That phrase is not dependent on the prior one.
For the same reason that General Gage wanted to disarm the militia. So that the people could be subjected to the arbitrary police powers of the government.
Kalifornians, for example, seemed convinced that the various police forces or the National Guard are sufficient protection for the people's security.
This was demonstrated to be nonsense during the L.A. riots when armed Korean shopkeepers stood on the rooftops of their buidings protecting their property from looting by rioting mobs.
Not long ago a man running a sausage factory in the San Francisco East Bay area shot and killed several government sausage inspectors. Until this kind of response is impossible, Kalifornia and the federal government will have to limit its intrusions into the lives of its citizens. When the right to keep and bear arms is gone, there will be nothing left to limit government tyranny.
Don't misunderstand the Second Amendment. The militia is necessary to the security of a FREE state. Kalifornians are more interested today in entitlements and not freedom. With the help of the Ninth Circuit, Diane Feinstein, and others, Kalifornians are now on track to attempt total disarmament of the people and the unlimited government tyranny which our Founders knew would result.
The best was halftracks in WWII and Korea then Viet Nam... mounted with 4 .50's firing at the same time... in WWII they would tear up a town or infantry..
The Germans did not like the .50
One note: In a book by a 101 Airborne trooper he had a Walther P38 he took of a German, in Germany he would point it at Germans and tell them to do something and they would laugh at him.
He started using his .45 and the typical response was "Das ist Gross" (That is Big) they would look down the barrel and do what he said.
Now there is a pistol company with a .50 cal auto looks like a .45 they made a new round and it is in June American Handgunner.
Like I said, the plan. The intention, if you will.
"Has that portion been altered or voided by an amendment?"
Nope. It's just not used anymore as we do not have state militias. The states don't appoint officers either, and that's in Article I also.
"There is no Illinois National guard?"
There is now. And the Guard is bought and paid for by the U.S. Government, not the State of Illinois, and are under the President's orders, if he so chooses. Unless they all go AWOL, I wouldn't consider them to be "securing a free Illinois".
"The militia of the United States ..."
Yes, the militia of the United States is so described. This is not the well regulated state militia. Two different animals.
10 USC 311 describes the organization that replaced the well regulated state militia described in The Militia Act of 1792 (an attempt to standardize the independent and individual state militias).
You and your friends are being discussed, paulsen.
V A N I T Y - Subversive activities on FR?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1183115/posts?page=114
You are correct.
However, given that the "unorganized militia" has been defined in terms of a subset of the people, apart from any state militia, then even the militia-constrained, though incorrect, reading of the Second Amendment, would bar federal infringements of the right to keep and bear arms of that subset of the people. If even one non-government person is entitled to bear arms, that is a victory relative to the arguments of some on this forum.
The example I like is the following:
A well-read electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed.
Just as "electorate" means the people acting in their role as electors of our representatives, the "militia" in the Second Amendment is simply the people acting in their role as protectors of the public security. Federal definitions of the "unorganized militia" prove this.
In both cases, the majority of people are entitled and expected to carry out the role in question, but the right being protected is a right of all of the people.
We should all be thankful that US vs Miller was only in error with regard to whether the type of arms can be constrained by some false notion of "suitability". Miller himself was not required to be a member of a militia to be protected.
The days of the Supreme Court failing to grant cert are fast coming to an end. The situation in Kalifornia is such that all arms could be outlawed and confiscated under the Ninth Circuit's rulings. Crunch time is coming.
Shanda had it right. That phrase is not dependent on the prior one.
Absolutely correct.
Regrettably, the Brady bunch, the Million Moms, and the girly-men who hide under their skirts disagree:
"The Brady Center, through its Legal Action Project, filed a "friend of the court" brief in the Emerson case arguing against the "individual rights" view."
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.