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
This is going to be a very fun thread!!! I can't wait to read the entire thing...
Of course, it's been answered a zillion times by now, .50 BMG is the "Fifty Caliber, Browning Machine Gun" cartridge.
It's the cartridge fired from the Browning M-2 machine gun. The M-2 is the standard light anti-aircraft machine gun ("light" being a relative term, as most AA guns are actually cannons, rather than machine guns). In fact, most US WW-II aircraft used the M-2's or some variants for air to air combat. The fighters would usually have 2 or 3 in each wing, and bombers would have as many as 13 bristling from different positions.
It's a very large cartridge, with the projectile typically weighing in at 750 grains, or about 3 oz. That's HUGH, compared to the typical .30 projectile, which weighs between 147 and 180 grains. That weight, combined with an extremely high velocity coming out of the barrel, gives the projectile a very long range, and high resistance to being pushed off course due to wind.
The rifles that fire .50 BMG are for extremely long range shooting. The military uses them for sniping, and one other spec-ops role it was designed for was piercing the pressure hulls of submarines, to keep them from submerging.
The press and other assorted anti-gunners have latched on to the fact that the .50 BMG is used in anti-aircraft weapons, and have spread the lie that these will be used to shoot down airplanes. The odds of a well placed single shot hitting a flying airplane are astronomical, let alone shooting it out of the sky. To use a .50 cartridge as an AA gun, you really NEED a machinegun, not a semi-automatic rifle. Another half truth that they spread is that the Taliban, and hense, Al-Queda, is using these weapons. The fact of the matter is that the US government gave them to the Mujahadeen in Afgahnistan when they were fighting the Soviet Union. Finally, the lie that these weapons will be used by drug dealers and terrorists. These weapons are NOT small, being about 5 feet long, and weighing in at around 20 pounds. And if you happen to fire one in an urban setting, you will be alerting everyone in the neighborhood to your presence!
But again, there is a civilian use, in long range shooting. These are extremely accurate weapons, and frankly, alot of fun to shoot!
Mark
The above is the reasoning used in a number of lower federal court rulings.
The right of individual citizens of a state to possess the same arms used by our standing army, organized into a well regulated militia, is necessary to the security of a free state. Which is why the federal government may not infringe on that right.
That says nothing about your personal use of some type of weapon for any other purpose. That would be covered and protected by your state constitution.
Well Hello Sync- Long time no talk. Yep, my shotgun is in storage at the moment just waiting for the next bout of grunion harvesting.
Take care and hope things are going well for you!
seek
Me too. I prefer 'Mexican' carry.
The real breakthrough will come with "incorporation". One of our "immunities" as citizens of the US is the immunity from infringement of our right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court needs to stop Kalifornia from tyrannizing its people through disarmament. The Fourteenth Amendment is already in place.
Here is my offer:
If any of you live within 100 miles of Detroit, or in the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, and would like to take me shooting, pop me an email.
I would like to learn more about rifles.
Thank you
This idea that the Supreme Court can dictate that people have to prove that their arms are suitable is an invention of the Supreme Court.
During the civil war, I believe, Grant's forces launched dead horses into Vicksburg in order to promote disease.
Does this mean that catapults are protected? What if the army later found a substitute for the catapult. Does that suddently mean that catapults are not protected? The Supreme Court's attitude is that any novel use of materials and techniques must first be developed by the standing army or the militia before being allowed to the militia. How will they develop such novelties. By breaking the law?
This is nonsense. As is your claim that my right to self-defense is limited to means allowed by Kalifornia law. If I have to set fire to a building to protect my family from harm, I will do so and the state has no legitimate power to outlaw the match.
Machine guns were owned and are owned by civilians today, now, in the thousands. The prohibition against new manufacture for civilian purchase is a recent invention of an anti-gun Congress.
You speak, as many anti-gunners do, as if the ability to prolong the automatic firing of a rifle is some magic wand that transforms it suddently into a killing machine so deadly that only a standing army may possess it.
Two bank robbers used fully automatic AK-47s to rob a bank in L.A. Fifteen officers, I believe, were wounded. None died. Both robbers were shot dead.
The woundings would have been much reduced if the police had been armed with rifles, regardless of whether they were automatic or not. The robbers were wearing body armor and a well-aimed head shot was needed to stop them.
The response of L.A. was to equip every sergeant's patrol car with a fully automatic M-16. Someday, this episode will be repeated and the city will discover, as the military already knows, that one well-aimed shot from a more powerful rifle is the proper tool, and not automatic fire.
The laws which you seem to think deny machine-guns to the unorganized militia are ineffective at removing them from the grasp of criminals. The law-abiding find themselves forced to pay thousands for a rifle which costs only hundreds to manufacture.
Its futile to explain the rationality of bearing arms uninfringed by 'regulations', -- to a prohibitionist.
Paulsen is convinced that some objects are too dangerous to be possessed by ordinary people.
To him, such objects can only be possessed by extraordinary people..
-- Those whom we choose to rule over us.
Prohibitionism is a strange form of dementia, imo.
Let's say the Miller case came back to the USSC with the finding that this weapon (the SHOTGUN) was indeed used by militia. Do you think the USSC would have interpreted the second amendment to allow this militia weapon to be owned and used by Mr. Miller outside the confines of a well regulated militia? (ie., for personal use?)
And what makes you think that?
The fact that personal use of a weapon makes a person all the more competent to use it in a militia situation?
But recent lower federal court decisions have made it clear that one must be associated with a militia to have the possession of that weapon protected by the second amendment. Without that association, there is no second amendment protection. (The 5th Circuit broke tradition).
Without that association, your possession is protected only by your state constitution.
Because the Court was obviously trying to establish that such weapons are NOT needed for the security of a free republic. Get real paulsen, - you know this.
If the second amendment guarantees an individual RKBA (as you say), then why is the type of arms important to the USSC? And why must those arms be related to a militia?
Our RKBA's is an individual right, and in 'Miller' the Court was trying to defend the 1934 NFA that unconstitutionally infringed on our RKBA's.
Don't pretend you're too dense to see that point paulsen. Its dishonest.
Let's be honest here. If that were the criteria, then the right to keep and bear machine guns must be allowed -- they are certainly used by a well regulated militia in modern times.
Exactly. -- You've just made our point, and admitted that you understand why the USSC was being dishonest in Miller.
The whole idea of the '34 Act was to prohibit 'gangster type' weapons.
Very true.
But recent lower federal court decisions have made it clear that one must be associated with a militia to have the possession of that weapon protected by the second amendment.
Round you go again paulsen, trying to prove you point that our RKBA's is NOT being violated, -- by citing court decisions that violate it; -- can you get much more illogical in your thinking?
Without that association, there is no second amendment protection. (The 5th Circuit broke tradition). Without that association, your possession is protected only by your state constitution.
My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA, -- and I, and thousands of my fellow citizens, have no recourse. We are outvoted by a tyranny of the majority, and the demented paulsens of this republic applaud.
Very good, tpaine, there's hope for you yet.
Miller was remanded to the lower court since it was unclear whether a "shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length" had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
Now, let's say that the lower court found, after presented with evidence, that this was indeed a militia-type weapon. The case then went back to the USSC.
My question is this: Would the USSC have agreed with the lower court that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional (at least for this type of weapon)? Or, would the USSC have ruled (as the courts are ruling today) that yes, it was a militia-type weapon, but Mr. Miller wasn't associated with a militia, therefore he may not possess it?
We just can't ignore the fact that the USSC was trying to resolve a weapons relationship to a militia. This was important to the USSC for some reason. And if the second amendment was to protect the individual's ownership of gun, I cannot see why the USSC would be so hung up on "militia", actually remanding it to the lower court for clarification.
You are grossly misstating my point.
I'm not talking about a "violation of rights". I'm talking about whether or not those rights are protected by the second amendment.
A RKBA not protected by the second amendment does not mean the right is being "violated" -- the right may be protected by one's state constitution.
"My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA,"
There you go again with that word, "violated". Your RKBA is not protected by the state of California, true. But Nevada protects your right. If it's that important, move.
Because the Court was obviously trying to establish that such weapons are NOT needed for the security of a free republic. Get real paulsen, - you know this.
If the second amendment guarantees an individual RKBA (as you say), then why is the type of arms important to the USSC? And why must those arms be related to a militia?
Our RKBA's is an individual right, and in 'Miller' the Court was trying to defend the 1934 NFA that unconstitutionally infringed on our RKBA's.
Don't pretend you're too dense to see that point paulsen. Its dishonest.
Let's be honest here. If that were the criteria, then the right to keep and bear machine guns must be allowed -- they are certainly used by a well regulated militia in modern times.
Exactly. -- You've just made our point, and admitted that you understand why the USSC was being dishonest in Miller.
The whole idea of the '34 Act was to prohibit 'gangster type' weapons.
Miller was remanded to the lower court since it was unclear whether a "shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length" had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Now, let's say that the lower court found, after presented with evidence, that this was indeed a militia-type weapon. The case then went back to the USSC. My question is this:
Would the USSC have agreed with the lower court that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional (at least for this type of weapon)? Or, would the USSC have ruled (as the courts are ruling today) that yes, it was a militia-type weapon, but Mr. Miller wasn't associated with a militia, therefore he may not possess it?
Specious question paulsen. The fact remains, - the ~people~ have an individual RKBA's as the 2nd clearly says.
We just can't ignore the fact that the USSC was trying to resolve a weapons relationship to a militia. This was important to the USSC for some reason.
I just gave the reason above. The Court was defending the '34 'Act'.
And if the second amendment was to protect the individual's ownership of gun, I cannot see why the USSC would be so hung up on "militia", actually remanding it to the lower court for clarification.
You are being dishonest. You can 'see', you just won't admit the Courts agenda. -- Or your own. -- You want gun control.
My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA, -- and I, and thousands of my fellow citizens, have no recourse. We are outvoted by a tyranny of the majority, and the demented paulsens of this republic applaud.
You are grossly misstating my point. I'm not talking about a "violation of rights". I'm talking about whether or not those rights are protected by the second amendment.
You are backing the 'right' of CA to prohibit assault weapons paulsen. That is ~gross~ on your part. Your whining efforts to deny being a gun grabber are ludicrous.
A RKBA not protected by the second amendment does not mean the right is being "violated" -- the right may be protected by one's state constitution.
Of course it "may", - but it isn't. -- You support the State of CA's effort to ban 'evil' weapons, - a demented stance paulsen. My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA.
There you go again with that word, "violated".
Your RKBA is not protected by the state of California, true. But Nevada protects your right. If it's that important, move.
Whatta clown you are paulsen. The State has no power to make me move, just as it has no power to prohibit my right to an 'assault' weapon.
-- Which it did, as a matter of fact, well AFTER I moved here with such a weapon, inherited from my father. Bet me that it has to be 'turned in', as you advocate.
Why do you recomend "move" rather than "kill the tyrants"? The tyranny will soon flow to Nevada.
Let's look at Miller, again.
If we ask ourselves, what single mandate did the Founders include in the Constitution to ensure the effectiveness of the well-regulated militia that was necessary to the security of a free state? They chose "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
What is it that lower courts have allowed, citing Miller as justification? Infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. They have granted themselves a power which the mandate in the Second Amendment denies them.
You seem to realize that a machine-gun can hardly be deemed unessential to a well-regulated Militia. The Miller ruling, suggesting that the courts shall be the judge of what is suitable is in error. The Founders mandated that such infringements shall be prohibited.
The consequences of Miller are predictable and unConstitutional. You see the results, infringements of the right to keep and bear some arms, yet you fail to admit that Miller was in error in granting the courts the power to make distinctions not allowed under the Second Amendment.
You have stated that if the Second Amendment merely stated, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", then such infringements would be unConstitutional. You read the dependent clause as changing the mandate.
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed".
Now, given the above, which types of books can be prohibited and who has the power to decide?
A "Miller" interpretation of the above mandate would result in the courts deciding whether any given book contributes to education and whether, despite that, the book might educate people to something which the court deems harmful to the electorate. No such power is granted to the courts by the mandate.
My state constitution isn't going to be of much protection against federal overreaching.
What you haven't explained so far (that I've been able to see) is why an explanatory clause would limit the ordinary meaning of the operative clause. On what rational basis would one conclude that? If the operative clause states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", then surely it's being infringed when someone decides the conditions under which the people may exercise that right.
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.