I would allow the AWB to Sunset.
I believe that the 2nd Ammendment conveys a collective right to states, giving them the right to keep and bear arms for a well regulated militia.
I would oppose any effort to continue or expand the AWB
I believe the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
I so not support the victims of gun violence to file suit against gun manufacturers.
I believe that every person has the right to keep and bear arms in the defence of himself and the state.
I asked someone in the Bush/Cheney office what this BMG gun was and they told me that it was an anti-air gun to take down planes so I came to FR to ask exactly what it was and you call me John Kerry.
Thanks
I believe the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
These two statements seem incongruous.
I believe the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Huh? How do you square those two? And I have found zero contemporaneous historical evidence that the 2nd can be interpreted as the first point. I'd like to see some text, either from the Federalist Papers or from letters/speeches by the Framers that they intended the 2nd to be a collectivist state right and that the word "people" in the 2nd has an entirely different meaning from the word "people" in the other amendments in the BOR.
"I asked someone in the Bush/Cheney office what this BMG gun was and they told me that it was an anti-air gun to take down planes so I came to FR to ask exactly what it was"
The .50 BMG (gun) is the Browning MachineGun.
The .50 BMG is the also the name of the cartridge for that gun, so it can be confusing.
You as a private citizen cannot order a new .50 BMG for purchase. You can buy legally a single shot or semi-automatic rifle chambered for that cartridge.
A lucky hit that took out the engine of a large aircraft would not bring it down. A fully automatic machinegun is needed to really work in an anti-aircraft role. But, you cannot buy one of those new as an individual anyway. Most of them in the military inventory are used on armored vehicles for antipersonnel and attack against opposing forces vehicles.
As far as taking down a plane, a .30 caliber hunting arm of semi-automatic type bought at Wal-Mart would be just about as effective as anything you can obtain in the .50 BMG cartridge. and loads more cost effective.
The intent is to demonize a large caliber gun, then the next smallest until the lowly BB gun is confiscated from Cub Scouts.
Of course that gives us a good idea why the libs hate this thing so much.
Who's the idiot who told you that?
Names please.
Sheesh! never ask any political anybody or group about firearms to start with.
A BMG 50 is a .50 caliber Browning Machine(full auto) Gun, this means that it will continue to fire rounds until it has expended the supply of rounds in the gun.
To legally own a Machine gun one must have a Class III FFL.
There are other versions of this firearm that are not full auto but semi-auto and single shot. Most are used for competition and just general "fun" shooting when you can afford the ammo.
IMO this is the perfect homeland Militia heavy weapon.
That survey needs to be researched to find it's origin, You'll probably find it is linked to the anti-gun movement.
glock You have anything to add to this?
It can take down satellites too and destroy tanks. If you're located on a CO mountaintop, you can shoot at anything in N America with it. LOL!
If it could be used to take down planes the US mil would outfit their troops with 50s and not bother with man portable SAMs and such. If it could the jihadis in Iraq would have some. The claim is made, because just like anything else, it might be used for destructive purpose.
It's effective range is about 1700 yards. Given the trajectory, tremendous skill would be required to shoot anything out of the sky with it. My bolt action with a third less muzzle energy is ~1400 yards. CRS here, but those numbers are close. It's used for target shooting and some ELK hunting. As with any gun, most folks don't buy them for evil purposes.
This is an invention of liberal courts. The Second Amendment very clearly protects a "right of the people", not a "right of the states".
The case US vs. Miller, typically quoted to establish a "collective right", concerned itself solely with the suitability of a short-barreled shotgun and not at all with Miller's status relative to a state Militia. The error in US vs. Miller is that the Constitution forbids the government from being the judge of what arms are suitable to a Militia.
The poll you are responding to is suggesting that it is legitimate to commit the same error; that is, to judge which arms are suitable for use by a Militia.
In Iraq, our efforts to secure a free state for Iraqis has required that we drop 2,000 pound bombs from miles in the air. If, instead of the US, the Russians had occupied Iraq to enslave them, then who could doubt the reasonableness of the Iraqi Militia using the same 2,000 pound bombs to rid themselves of tyrannical Russians.