GUN CONTROL URGED: Who needs a rifle this powerful?, lawmakers ask

Isn't everything over 50 caliber classified as a "destructive device" requiring special licenses and fees?

I don't think so, cause they are a lot of the oddball rounds still out there that are/were used for big game hunting. But I don't know for sure, the feds change the laws so quick it's tough to keep up with them. The 20mm is classified as a DD though for sure. It'd be a hassle to get one, but if Mark makes one, I'll have to start saving my pennies.

Speaking of big game rifles here's a link to some good videos, some humorous and some game shots, with some of the big calibers. If you've ever seen the "Abdullah video" where the guy gets knocked on his tail by a rifle, they've got a bunch of other guys shooting the same gun with the same results!! They call it a .577 T-Rex. Never seen one, but I'd sure like to.

I have heard about somebody wildcatting 20mm, but I can't find the link. I'll hunt around some more and see if I can dig it up.

Are there any historical texts that address the intended meaning? I found a few court cases:

"The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear (in the defense of himself or the State, subject to legislative regulation), must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State."
-State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458-59 (1875)

"The term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. ... The term 'arms' would not have included cannons nor other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
-State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980)

"'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."
-Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846)

"The 'arms' referred to in the second amendment to the United States constitution are the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and they do not comprise dirks, bowie knives, etc., regulated by the legislature in the act..."
-English v. State, 35 Texas 473 (1872)

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people, and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. It should be construed to include all such 'arms' as were in common use, and borne by the people when this provision was adopted. It does not guarantee on the one hand that the people have the futile right to use submarines and cannon of 100 miles range, nor aeroplanes dropping deadly bombs, nor the use of poisonous gasses, nor on the other hand does it embrace dirks, daggers, slung-shots, and brass knuckles, which may be weapons, but are not, strictly speaking, 'arms' borne by the people at large, and which are generally carried concealed. The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the 'arms,' an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation of illegal power-such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords, and pistols. These are now but little used in war, still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be considered as 'arms', which they have a right to 'bear.'"
-State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574 (1921)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I have to agree with most of what you say regarding the minimal usefulness of large weapons to a citizenry defending their rights against a tyranical government.

The experiences of the Afgan people may serve a useful lesson. Against the Soviets, the people were mostly with the resistance to the puppet government installed and defended by the Soviets, and the people won. Of course they did have stinger missles! But, serioulsly, they did not have them when the resistance began. Against the Alliance now, the Taleban don't have the support of the majority of the people, and they are losing (have lost?).

I kind of use as a model for resistance to tyranny a movie I saw about the Irish situation. A few freedom fighters used an inoperable pistol to take a police station, used those weapons to take an army storehouse, and so on. So, yes, fully automatic rifles and pistols. But a bullet proof vest and a night vision scope would be nice!

But my last word is "In PRINCIPLE, one should be able to legally buy a Stinger."

archy said: "I agree with your viewpoint but not your example. "

My example depends on recognizing that one does not position himself at 50 yards opposite the enemy with their muskets ready to fire. In that case the muskets win.

The advantage of the M14 begins at about 500 yards and all of the damage had better be done before a significant number of soldiers with muskets get within 150 yards. That is less than one minute of time. During that time, about 50 aimed shots can be made with the M14. The damage would constitute a casualty rate which no army can withstand.

If the US government limited itself to muskets and the Militia have M14s then my concern is lessened. As it is the US government has F16s and I am expected to give up my bayonet and use a Mini-14 with reduced capacity magazines. This is unacceptable.

I agree 100% about the stupidity of banning bayonet lugs and hi cap mags. Bayonets pose about 0 additional risk to the general public. When was the last time you saw a home break-in or a gang drive-by with fixed bayonets? LOL! The flash supressor ban is right up there also. I did a little calculation that swapping 10 rd mags versus using 30 rd mags reduces the effective rate of aimed fire by only about 20%, which can't be argued to improve public safety in any significant way. And if a perp has the drop on me with a 10 rd mag in his gun versus a 30 rd, how does that help? Not to mention, if he is going to commit a crime anyway, why is he going to limit himself to 10 rd if he can get an illegal 30 rd mag? None of this makes logical sense.

But, unfortunately, perception is reality. These measures were enacted so that (stupid) people wouldn't be so scared of the big, bad assault rifles. And of course it was done so politicans would be seen as "doing something" about crime without having to actually do anything to criminals. It's easier to deal with law-abiding citizens than criminals who might shoot back.

Gordian Blade said: "But, unfortunately, perception is reality. "

Well, maybe. Being nice guys isn't gaining us much. I vote on one issue only. I vote at the polls, with my money, and soon I hope with my feet. There are estimates that over one hundred thousand Kalifornians own unregisterd "assault weapons". Anyone who doesn't see the dire unintended consequences of continuing to violate the Second Amendment in this way doesn't know history.

Prohibition of alcohol was perfectly legal because of the Constitutional Amendment which implemented it. It was a tremendous disaster for the people to have indulged themselves that way.

The violations of the Second Amendment are completely illegal and are probably hated by an even greater number of people than hated Prohibition.

Every action by the BATF is watched with dread by those of us who are thankful when the accused is captured alive and his family survives. How else will a sufficient number of cases find their way to the Supreme Court. Though there are some unsavory people who are targetted by the BATF, the mechanism of targetting could include almost anyone.

To paraphrase the bumper sticker - "The Constitution, including the Second Amendment, may not be perfect but it is far better than whatever it is that the government is using."

On another thread there is a discussion of a conspiracy to defraud the people of the US by submitting fake evidence regarding the presence of lynx in the forests of Washington State. The resulting environmental rulings would have deprived us of use of significant areas of public land.

It should come as no surprise that something like this happens after courts like the Ninth Circuit lie about the Second Amendment. This is the reason that I challenge people who see limitations just because it might be a good idea if they were there. I see no evidence that there were limitations intended to the Second Amendment.

Gordian Blade said: "These measures were enacted so that (stupid) people wouldn't be so scared of the big, bad assault rifles. "

Not exactly. First, the anti-gun people had to ask their media friends to play up every incident which might suggest that these rifles were somehow more dangerous than others, when they are not. Then the stupid people decided to fear them. And then the anti-gun politicians got to show how much they care by violating the Constitution. This scheme is being played out right now with respect to .50 caliber rifles. In the past it has been "assault weapons", "pocket rockets", and "Saturday Night Specials".

Without the complicit media, there is no anti-gun movement. That is why I cancelled my subscription to the local liberal rag. It is vital that they not receive my money to tell me lies and help deprive me of my rights.

The Dish I bought permits me to shut down the broadcast networks (except Monday Night Football) and watch Fox News.

These small steps multiplied by many millions of us is making a difference. I encourage all of you to do the same and to do it now.

Being nice guys isn't gaining us much.

How true these words! Unfortunately, most of us on the correct side of the 2nd Amendment issue have not yet figured out that trying to appease liberals by "throwing them a bone" doesn't work. If you give them a little, soon they want more.

It's a bit like the playground bully, my friends. Remember him? If you took a little bit of his hitting, kicking, spitting, he'd always be back to see what more humiliations he could inflict upon his hapless victim. The one time you got really mad and beat the snot out of him, he stopped coming back for more. And so it is with the gun grabbing crowd. If we continue to search for "middle ground" with these people, they will continue to steal what rights we have, albeit a little at a time.

While I appreciate Gordian Blade's thoughtful commentary, I think he is misguided, for he believes that our opponents on this issue are as intellectually and morally honest as we are. These people are not honest. These people want only power to control others, and they can't do it as long as we are armed. Total disarmament of civilians is their goal, and they are willing to be patient and do it a little at a time.

Are we willing to work to stop them? If not, why not just hand over our arms now?

"if the criminal terrorists want a .50 caliber weapon they're going to get one--they have the money. Does anyone really believe these guys are buying weapons through legal channels? These idiots in CT are nothing but blowhards trying to scare the sheep"

Truth is, they are not afraid of terrorists having them or criminals having them.

What they fear is that ordinary citizens will have them and other weapons that will allow them to stand up to the "Jack Booted Thugs" when they finally come to eradicate all the patriots.

Re your post #160: Wait 'til the Connecticut legislature gets a load of THIS board (ha!).

If rude behavior and [coarse] language will get you arrested, some of the stuff said on this board about their weapons and hate crime enforcement would get us ALL thrown UNDER a Connecticut courthouse.

People reading this should be wary of just laughing this possibility off. Consider the attempts of the European Union to ban "hate" on the Internet, including referring web sites outside Europe who spread "hate", to the UN International Criminal Court.

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.