Big Rifle A Terrorist Tool? [See BS's 60 minutes on the Barrett 50 caliber]

CBS ^ | May 29, 2005 | CBS Worldwide Inc

[Bear_Slayer]

201

:-)

[ExtremeUnction]

GLINOs?

Exactly!!

[Paul_Denton]

I gotta save up for one of those. Before the People's Republic of Washinton tries to ban them too.

[LexBaird]

Please read my thesis on this topic.

Thanks for the link, Laz. That was one of the first threads I ever read on FR. I decided to stay awhile.

[DocH]

I'll have to go back and look, but I believe both were mentioned in the book.

[MarkL]

Wasn't this the third time 60 Minutes had shown this one segment in just the last few months?

Does anybody else thing that CBS is trying to push something?

Mark

[MarkL]

YIKES!

It'll be a while, then. Thanks.

You think the gun's expensive, wait till you price the ammo... IIRC, suplus .50BMG runs a few dollars a round. And while you can reload, 750 grain bullets don't come cheap! And you'll need a special reloading press, since none of the standard ones are big or powerful enough to resize a .50BMG cartridge case!

Mark

[MarkL]

I was particularly interested in the reference to APCs being brought out against Davidian 50-caliber rifles at Waco. I didn't know this, or if it were true.

They used that as an excuse in order to get the Bradleys and M-60 engineering vehicles (i.e. tanks) from the military.

The Davidians were a bunch of crazies, but that's not a good reason to burn a whole bunch of people to death. The government FUBARed the entire operation from the very get-go, and things got worse from there, to the point where I believe that the government HAD to kill everyone there, to keep the truth from coming out.

Mark

[MarkL]

Number of terrorists dispatched to Shaitan by .50 BMG semiauto rifles - uncountable.

Well, you'd be able to count them if you could find all the pieces!

Mark

[MarkL]

That said, there IS no heavier armored personnel carrier in the US Army inventory than the Bradley. The only thing heavier is main battle tanks, and I don't recall seeing any M60s or M1s at the Waco standoff, do you?

They had the M-60 engineering vehicles there... Those were what they used to "inject" the CS, and then demolish the "compound."

Mark

[LexBaird]

What the hell do you think "well regulated" means?

In the terminology of the 18th Century, as used in the 2nd A., "well regulated" means "properly or correctly functioning". A clock that kept good time was a "well regulated" clock. I.E. something that performs its functions in a regular fashion.

It does not mean "subject to rules".

[MarkL]

Yeah, backing off and simply waiting (which most sensible people would do) wouldn't send the message of "if you resist, even if we're breaking the law and violating your rights, too bad, we're the Feds and you should obey us, peon."

The feds realized that they made a mistake in the Randy Weaver case by allowing survivors, which cost the government a little embarrassment, and several million dollars in a settlement. They decided they didn't want to make the same mistake at Waco.

Mark

[LexBaird]

The 2nd Amendment in modern verbiage: "Because a free State needs an emergency military force that will function properly, the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and carry weapons."

[Lazamataz]

Wow, the thought police come a-crawlin' pretty fast when one boob starts spreading lies about someone, don't it?

You won't last here.

[Lazamataz]

Thanks for the link, Laz. That was one of the first threads I ever read on FR. I decided to stay awhile.

I'm honored you thought enough of that thread to stay.

[papertyger]

That they do, is fascinating to me because the Constitution contains a State "supremecy clause" The Bill of rights, specifically the 10th amendment. Also the people supreme over the Federal Government.

Well it does make sense if you think about it. The Supremacy Clause (Article 6) is the opposite of the Tenth Amendment...leaving aside any bastardization that has occured since ratification.

The Tenth says any power this Constitution doen't specificly give to the federal government is reserved to the states. And the Supremacy Clause says those powers the Constitution *does* give to the federal government always take precedence over the states right to exercise that power.

That's why Roe v. Wade is such a bastard. The Supreme Court claimed abortion was a Constitutional right, so no state could make a law against it no matter how many people opposed it. The legislators liked that just fine because they could *say* anything they wanted, but wouldn't have to take the responsibility of a vote.

It also explains why the democrats are so terrified of Originalist Justices on the Supreme Court. They KNOW the Constitution is really silent on abortion, and they KNOW without the Court claiming jurisdiction over abortion they don't have any authority to force the entire country to accept it, and they don't have the votes to get it state by state.

[papertyger]

Source?

[papertyger]

Because a free State needs an emergency military force that will function properly, the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and carry weapons.

And precisely how do you see that freeing the Militia from military discipline? Another distinction without difference.

[chudogg]

This is from the report by Rand Corp

Looks like the VPC wants to start at the end of the list and work its way up.

[LexBaird]

And precisely how do you see that freeing the Militia from military discipline? Another distinction without difference.

Who said it did? Just a comment on how the words were understood in the 1780's. Of course the Militia was intended to be subject to the authority of the State that called them up. But, because they were not a standing army, it was necessary that they supply and be familiar with their own arms, which is what the dependent clause in the 2nd A. refers to.