From everything I have been reading about it it's a sniper rifle. I can't imagine shooting a deer from 1000 yards.
I only know about a limited number of handguns and shot guns.
I have shot skeet with a shotgun, and targets with a handgun.
I support the second ammendment, but before I can answer if the .50 cal BMG is a fine private citizen gun, I think that it's important to know it's practical usage.
An ugly combination of words.
before I can answer if the .50 cal BMG is a fine private citizen gun, I think that it's important to know it's practical usage.
It's practical usage is to kill stuff. That makes it a fine private citizen gun.
The US is presently developing a 100 caliber rifle that uses computer controlled projectiles and can fire 400 rounds per minute. The computer can put a single exploding round inside of a window at over 2000 yards. Also, can be fired as a non-computer controlled weapon.
Yes, 100 caliber means about a 1 inch projectile.
Since when has "practicality" been a measuring stick for firearms ownership. The Second does not read, "A Right to keep and bear arms as long as they are practical."
Good grief, you're beginning to sound like John Kerry.
Well, ever since the Elian fiasco I say "more firepower to the people."
Anyone who thinks we aren't having trouble with jack booted thugs in this country is deluding themselves. And, the only way to counter such people is with serious firepower.
All that aside, who cares about practical useage? If practical useage is a criteria for purchase of anything, then why are people allowed to purchase state of the art TV, surround sound, in home theater, ice maker in the door refrigerators and SUV's?
It's just that most government officials don't realize this.
Well, I would suggest most guns aren't practical. Your free speech rights don't depend on you using it only for practical things.
It is the biggest of the 'normal' bullets out there, so it is under attack. As soon as they make it illegal and establish that some bullets are 'too big' as a precedent they will gradually declare all rounds 'too big'.
It is being used by the left to drive a wedge between people who think the second amendment was about hunting and those who recognize that an armed populace is the ultimate check on tyranny.
I could accept an honest debate about whether or not guns are necessary to protect our other rights. That debate would be about a Constitutional amendment overturning the second. I cannot accept limiting our rights outside of the process the Constitution defined.
IMO the two statements
1. I support the second amendment
and
2. Before I can answer if the 50 cal BMG ( a firearm chambered for the 50 BMG cartridge is what you mean) is fine for a private citizen, I think it's important to know it's practical usage...
are incompatible
Self Defense, Target Shooting, or just the fun of collecting something paid for with your own or money given to you legally earned is all that matters for ownership of any weapon under the 2nd amendment...any firearm chambered for the BMG cartridge is covered under the 2nd amendment
IMO
The Second Amendment is about hunting like the 1st Amendment is about greeting cards.
First, define "practical" - not for me or anyone here, but for yourself.
Second, read up some more on the 2nd Amendment, what it means, and why it's important. The Federalist Papers are a good start.
Then, define "practical".
You can definitely kill people with it so it is eminently suitable for private citizens to fulfill their 2nd Amendment obligations and practicable for self defense in some situations per our unalienable right endowed by our Creator.
Actually, the more important question is what is the practical usage of the Second Amendment? If you think the Second Amendment is about duck hunting, preventing break-ins and plinking at targets, then the .50 BMG is probably more gun than anyone would ever need. If, on the other hand, you think the Second Amendment is about an armed citizenry being the ultimate check on tyrannical government, then a .50 BMG in private hands probably would strike you as a heck of a good idea.
A .50 BMG has a very practical military usage as a sniper or counter sniper rifle. Aside from that, it is a heck of a lot of fun to shoot, in the same way a 1200 cc Kawasaki sport-bike is a heck of a lot of fun to ride. The .50 is not a really useful hunting gun, but then the Kaw is not really a useful form of transportation, either.
Where I come from 50 cal is a varmint round.
For your information, the intention of the founding fathers when framing the Second Amendment was that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" referred specifically to military firearms. They had just gone through an armed revolution, remember?
Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to own a sawed-off shotgun could be infringed precisely because, according to the government, a sawed-off shotgun had no military use.
And just what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? It's an arm, so by defintion the right of the peopleto keep and bear it is protected by the second amendment. The people being private citizens, yes, I'd say it was fine private citizen gun. I only wish I could afford one.
I support the second ammendment, but before I can answer if the .50 cal BMG is a fine private citizen gun, I think that it's important to know it's practical usage.
I've never heard of anyone using it for hunting. There are, however, people who go out to the desert with them to target shoot from long distances.
Then you do not support the RKBA. Sorry, no give on this issue.
The Second Amendment is about allowing YOU to decide what is practical for YOU. What is practical for ME is for ME to decide. I can assure you that the .50 BMG is a fine private citizen gun for ME.