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 ... 601-620621-640641-660661-662 next last
To: inquest
"If they didn't appoint themselves to that role, then who did?"

It's not a matter of appointment. This third branch of government simply said that they, too, have a place in determining what is constitutional law.

The legislature, when writing a bill, is cognizant of constitutional considerations, as is the President when he signs it. Both branches have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and both branches may contest the constitutionality of a proposed piece of legislation.

The USSC only sees the legislation after it becomes law and is contested. One can say that they are the "final" arbiter, but that is only because they are the last signatory. Marbury v Madison established the USSC as one of the three branches making a constitutional determination.

641 posted on 08/11/2004 7:13:03 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"In fact, I asked that question of you in regards to a specific case back at #564, which you never responded to."

I thought, "So at what point are we justified in concluding that a court opinion is wrong?" was a rhetorical question so I didn't bother to answer it.

I have no idea when we're justified. I know when I am.

642 posted on 08/11/2004 7:19:34 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
This third branch of government simply said that they, too, have a place in determining what is constitutional law.

Maybe that's your take on it, but what they said in Marbury is simply that they must follow the Constitution. That's virtually a direct quote. The holding was phrased not in terms of what the courts had the power to do, but in terms of what they lacked the power to do - namely, enforce unconstitutional laws.

The didn't claim that the meaning of the Constitution is to be determined by their rulings. They said that they must determine their rulings by the meaning of the Constitution.

I thought, "So at what point are we justified in concluding that a court opinion is wrong?" was a rhetorical question so I didn't bother to answer it. I have no idea when we're justified. I know when I am.

Actually it wasn't a rhetorical question, but that was a rather rhetorical objection to the question. So substitute "you" for "we" in the question, while considering the points I raised at #564.

Now that I think of it, before you do that, perhaps you can answer if there's ever any justification at all for concluding that a SCOTUS opinion is incorrect, even if the legislatve and executive branches haven't objected to it.

643 posted on 08/11/2004 9:30:38 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"Now that I think of it, before you do that, perhaps you can answer if there's ever any justification at all for concluding that a SCOTUS opinion is incorrect, even if the legislatve and executive branches haven't objected to it."

Why do you ask?

I mean, millions of people think SCOTUS opinions are incorrect -- take abortion, for example. And they firmly believe they're justified in feeling that way. So?

644 posted on 08/11/2004 10:04:55 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Let me phrase the question in a different way: Is the correctness or incorrectness of a SCOTUS holding ever a question of fact, or is it only a question of opinion?
645 posted on 08/11/2004 10:29:47 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: inquest

I believe the justices deliver an opinion.


646 posted on 08/11/2004 11:07:09 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

BMG = Browning Machine Gun

50 caliber = 0.5" diameter round


647 posted on 08/11/2004 11:08:44 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

BMG = Browning Machine Gun

50 caliber = 0.5" diameter round


648 posted on 08/11/2004 11:08:56 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

BMG = Browning Machine Gun

50 caliber = 0.5" diameter round


649 posted on 08/11/2004 11:08:58 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

BMG = Browning Machine Gun. It was the primary heavy machine gun for US forces in the 20th Century. It fired the .50 cal BMG round and that round is being used in bolt action rifles today. They are popular with long range target shooters in the civilian world and used with great effectiveness by military snipers in the USA and USMC.


650 posted on 08/11/2004 11:18:43 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So just to be sure I'm reading you right, you're saying that the meaning of the Constitution is always a matter of opinion, never a matter of objective fact?
651 posted on 08/11/2004 5:11:00 PM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

I wish I could get a response like this whenever I ask about fishing gear . . .


652 posted on 08/11/2004 6:29:19 PM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

You going somewhere with this? Please get to the point.


653 posted on 08/12/2004 6:07:53 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I've made my point quite a few times: the meaning of the Constitution is a matter of objective fact. I was seeing if you agree.
654 posted on 08/12/2004 7:05:11 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: inquest
... the meaning of the Constitution is a matter of objective fact."

OK. I see.

No, I disagree. Granted, there are parts of the Constitution that are not subject to interpretation or opinion. But many areas are.

For example: The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, The Due Process Clause, The General Welfare Clause, The Commerce Clause, The Necessary and Proper Clause, etc. These are all subject to interpretation and are not objective fact.

655 posted on 08/12/2004 7:39:33 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Subject to interpretation", meaning, matters of opinion?
656 posted on 08/12/2004 8:02:10 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"Subject to interpretation", meaning, matters of opinion?

Meaning that they are not objective fact.

657 posted on 08/12/2004 8:31:55 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: gunnygail

Hi. Can you explain what the definition of caliber is. Is it the width or length of the bullet.


658 posted on 08/12/2004 8:39:07 AM PDT by ghitma (Balrog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So now there's a third category? Earlier you were castigating others for failing to distinguish between fact and opinion, but now it sounds like you're blurring the two yourself.

Fact is, matters of objective fact can still be "subject to interpretation". It just means that there can be a (single) correct interpretation, and (many) incorrect interpretations, of the evidence under examination.

659 posted on 08/12/2004 9:31:18 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"matters of objective fact can still be "subject to interpretation"."

Well, there's a statement for the books. 2 + 2 = subject to interpretation.

I'm done playing word games.

660 posted on 08/12/2004 10:04:12 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660661-662 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