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

[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

[robertpaulsen]

"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.

[robertpaulsen]

"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.

[inquest]

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.

[robertpaulsen]

"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?

[inquest]

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?

[robertpaulsen]

I believe the justices deliver an opinion.

[Mikey_1962]

BMG = Browning Machine Gun

50 caliber = 0.5" diameter round

[Mikey_1962]

BMG = Browning Machine Gun

50 caliber = 0.5" diameter round

[Mikey_1962]

BMG = Browning Machine Gun

50 caliber = 0.5" diameter round

[Redleg Duke]

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.

[inquest]

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?

[BraveMan]

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

[robertpaulsen]

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

[inquest]

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.

[robertpaulsen]

... 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.

[inquest]

"Subject to interpretation", meaning, matters of opinion?

[robertpaulsen]

"Subject to interpretation", meaning, matters of opinion?

Meaning that they are not objective fact.

[ghitma]

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

[inquest]

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.

[robertpaulsen]

"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.