Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Quick Question: What is a .50 cal BMG rifle?

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


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 661-662 next last
To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "The federal militia? The second amendment says nothing about a federal militia. You're mixing apples and oranges. "

It says "well-regulated Militia". It does not say "state Militia". There was no requirement in US vs Miller that Miller be a member of a state militia. Miller was one of the people protected by the Second Amendment. The arms of the people are the arms which will always be available to the Militia, regardless of tyrannical governments.

381 posted on 08/01/2004 8:03:33 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"How did our Founders get so confused about the difference between people and states?"

My question to you in return is, "Why doesn't the second amendment simply say: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'?" I mean, that's your interpretation of it, right?

Take what you want, discard the rest. I'm sure the Founding Fathers didn't mean to put in that militia/free-state stuff anyways -- they were just giving an example of why it was so important. Even though they didn't provide examples for the other amendments. Uh huh.

"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."

The 9th Circuit is aware of the "standard model" (aka "traditional individual rights model):

"There are three principal schools of thought that form the basis for the debate. The first, which we will refer to as the "traditional individual rights" model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 153 L. Ed. 2d 184, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002)."

"The second view, a variant of the first, we will refer to as the "limited individual rights" model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service."

"The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like."

"Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates. After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment.
-- Silveira v Lockyer

382 posted on 08/01/2004 8:05:43 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "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)."

Is it your claim then that the Federal government cannot disarm the individual state militias, but that the federal government can replace them with something which can be disarmed by the federal government? Wouldn't this constitute an illegal attempt to amend the Constitution?

383 posted on 08/01/2004 8:11:31 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I wrote: "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".

That is exactly what's described in Article I. Does not Illinois appoint officers and train according to Congress' directives?

I wrote: "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.

State Militia have always been under Federal control, including the power to arm them.

Are you saying there was a time since 1789 when that has not been the case?

384 posted on 08/01/2004 8:13:47 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: My question to you in return is, "Why doesn't the second amendment simply say: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'?" I mean, that's your interpretation of it, right?

I already answered this question for you on another thread.

In the Gitlow case, which "incorporated" the First Amendment, the court incorrectly applied "Congress shall make no law", by finding that it was allowable for a state to outlaw speech which might incite people to overthrow the government.

Without the militia clause, the Supreme Court could make the same assertion; that our Founders never intended to allow people to have arms which might enable them to overthrow the government. But that, in fact, is exactly what our Founders intended. It was exactly what was needed on April 18, 1775 and it is equally necessary today.

385 posted on 08/01/2004 8:18:04 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Oh tpaine you are a keeper.

You are the one trying to stir things up. You provided them with the FR thread links. You're the one ranting about "clown infestation".

You're like Chester in the cartoons that hangs around with the big dog, Spike. He keeps saying, "C'mon Spike. Go get 'em. Show 'em, Spike".

You should take their advice, tpaine: "That's no reason to go playing the great conservative gate-keeper protecting the sheeple from the evil libs."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

386 posted on 08/01/2004 8:26:20 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen quotes the Ninth: This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, ..."

US vs Miller only questioned the suitability of a particular weapon. It did not require that Miller be a member of a state militia or any militia. If that had been required, the Supreme Court could have reversed due to lack of standing. They did not.

One might reasonably ask, did the National Firearms Act of 1934 require that state militias pay a tax on short-barreled shotguns? It certainly required Miller, who was not a militia member, to pay a tax. The remand from the Supreme Court only referred to the issue of the suitability of the weapon.

It would have seemed absolutely ridiculous for Miller to have the charges once again dismissed for lack of evidence that a short-barreled shotgun was NOT suitable, only to have the Supreme Court remand once again with instructions to have the prosecution prove that Miller was not a member of a militia.

387 posted on 08/01/2004 8:29:14 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"There was no requirement in US vs Miller that Miller be a member of a state militia."

Just as there was no statement that he need not be a member. The case never proceeded that far.

388 posted on 08/01/2004 8:32:11 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
When the federal government was created, it stated that the RKBA was not to be infringed by that institution.

In other words, the right to keep and bear arms existed before there ever was a federal government.

389 posted on 08/01/2004 8:35:20 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Sorry kid, I don't watch cartoons.
-- But thanks for the manic laughter.

Makes me point about your being a willing goat.


390 posted on 08/01/2004 8:35:54 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"... but that the federal government can replace them with something ..."

By "replaced", I meant "filled the gap", "substituted", along those lines.

The state militias went away. The states are free to bring them back.

391 posted on 08/01/2004 8:37:32 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "Just as there was no statement that he need not be a member. The case never proceeded that far."

This is not about how far the case proceeded. There was never a trial because the trial court judge dismissed the case as a violation of the Second Amendment.

Now you are claiming that the Supreme Court erred by remanding only on the basis of the weapon's usefulness and in not specifying that proof of non-membership in a militia was also a requirement for prosecution.

Or do you recognize, as I do, that the Supreme Court was determined to rule against Miller, regardless of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Miller was a person and the people's right to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. What is your explanation for the Supreme Court remanding on one issue but not on the other?

Was it so difficult for them to conceive of the possibility that the trial court judge would have to dismiss due to lack of evidence regarding the weapon?

Please describe, in light of the remand, how Miller's trial would have proceeded, who might have appealed, and what further rulings the Supreme Court might have made.

392 posted on 08/01/2004 8:41:46 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Do you think that Nordyke is a good second amendment case? Denying a gun show on county fairgrounds is a second amendment violation?

The county of Santa Clara already tried to screw Russ and Sally by simply banning gun shows on county fairgrounds. The county failed in that attempt, under a First Amendment commercial free speech argument, as I recall, and had to pay Russ & Sally's legal fees.

Whacked there, the anti-gun-show mole popped up again in two other counties - in Alameda their ordinance banned possession of firearms on county property, with the specific goal in mind of shutting down gun shows. Nevermind that county prison guards are not exempt, and violate the ordinance every time they check out a shotgun for prisoner transport - the county's goal was to shut down the gun show and drive Russ & Sally into bankruptcy, and that's what they've managed to do so far.

It's the fact that the county has banned possession of firearms which wound up bringing in the Second Amendment issue. In fact, it was a judge on the case who first put it into play - the case was originally intended to follow the winning First Amendment strategy from Santa Clara County.

I suspect that if the SCOTUS is inclined to take a Second Amendment case, this would be a good one - no criminals involved, and the only thing they'd have to overturn is a poorly-written county ordinance spoon-fed to the commissioners by the LCAV, rather than an enormous regulatory structure duly enacted by the California legislature as in the Silveira case.

We shall see.

393 posted on 08/01/2004 8:43:27 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"State Militia have always been under Federal control, including the power to arm them."

Now think about that, Ken H. If the state militias were under federal control, then they're not much use in overthrowing a tyrannical government are they?

So, now what do you say?

394 posted on 08/01/2004 8:48:24 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: By "replaced", I meant "filled the gap", "substituted", along those lines."

Great. Then the substitute must be necessary to the security of a free State. For that reason, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Please tell me how you became convinced that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment is a state militia? Why can't it be a territorial militia? Or a federal militia?

395 posted on 08/01/2004 8:49:34 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
My question to you in return is, "Why doesn't the second amendment simply say: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'?" I mean, that's your interpretation of it, right?

By the same logic, why doesn't the Declaration of Independence simply say "We establish this Constitution for the United States of America"?

396 posted on 08/01/2004 8:51:50 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "Now think about that, Ken H. If the state militias were under federal control, then they're not much use in overthrowing a tyrannical government are they?
So, now what do you say?"

I say that there is no problem as long as the "unorganized militia" consisting of an armed citizenry is prepared to protect their own security.

The fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and neighbors of the federalized, organized militia will be prepared to respond with their own weapons to any threat to their freedoms. The federalized, organized militia will find themselves asked to act against the best interests of their families and many will not do so. Such a standing army cannot rule an armed citizenry.

397 posted on 08/01/2004 8:59:47 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"But that, in fact, is exactly what our Founders intended."

No, if that was exactly what they intended they would have said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to overthrow a tyrannical federal government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Security of a free state" could mean anything -- secession, invasion by another state, invasion by a foreign country, insurrections, riots, or a tyrannical federal government

"Without the militia clause, the Supreme Court could make the same assertion; that our Founders never intended to allow people to have arms which might enable them to overthrow the government."

Oh baloney. You makin' this stuff up?

State constitutions galore omit the militia phrase and you don't see the State Legislature and the State Supreme Courts in a tizzy about the possibility of being overthrown, do you?

398 posted on 08/01/2004 9:02:11 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
BMG = Big Mutha Gun

How about Bid Mutha Gamms? That sure fits HRC.

399 posted on 08/01/2004 9:04:19 PM PDT by jws3sticks (Hillary can take a very long walk on a very short pier, anytime, and the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Now think about that, Ken H. If the state militias were under federal control, then they're not much use in overthrowing a tyrannical government are they?

Are you disputing that Congress and the President control State Militia or State National Guard?

That aside, as long as the individual RKBA is maintained and exercised, it should suffice for such a purpose if it becomes necessary.

So, now what do you say?

I would like you to answer my question on whether or not there was a time since 1789 when State Militia/National Guard were not under Federal control.

400 posted on 08/01/2004 9:04:49 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 661-662 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson