Which question? My interpretation of the 2nd, or that there is a constitutional right to own .50 caliber rifles? In either case, it is irrelevant. You think there is no individual constitutional right to own ANY firearm (if I'm wrong, please elucidate), and I think there is an individual right. Do I think there are any constitutional restrictions on this right? Maybe. The 2nd states "keep and bear", so that could rule out crew-served weapons. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so we don't need to cover that ground again. There is a fairly new concept in medical practice, called "evidence-based medicine". That is, everything that is done in medicine should be based on good scientific evidence that it is safe and effective. I think we should consider "evidence-based legislation". That is, no law can be passed unless there is good a priori evidence that it will be effective, and that after a period of evaluation, all laws sunset unless they have demonstrated that they have been effective based on specific a priori hypotheses. That way we can clear the clutter off the law books and get about our lives thinking about the important issues. How does that sound to you? So, why would you want to ban .50 caliber rifles? On a more important topic: having taken Shiner off the table, what would you recommend? David BTW, you can't BEAR an M1A1. At about 50 tons you'd be squashed. It shoots a 120 mm smooth bore, so technically it is not a rifle.