Here's the full text:
.50-caliber insanity
California takes lead in banning sniper rifle
Last update: January 07, 2005
A .50-caliber sniper rifle can hit a target at 4,500 feet, shatter bulletproof limousines, penetrate sandbags, earth berms, armored vehicles, commercial planes, and drill through the walls (and living rooms) of 10 suburban houses lined up one after another. The Geneva Conventions don't prohibit .50-caliber weapons' use against military personnel, and army manuals describe its usefulness in battle. But the weapon's use on civilians and in civilian areas is prohibited.
Oddly enough -- or maybe not so oddly in the twilight zone of Second Amendment zealotry -- you can buy a .50-caliber weapon from your friendly mail-order gun dealer. The Barrett line of .50-caliber sniper rifles, patented in 1987, is the "One Shot One Kill" enthusiasts' gun of choice. After its introduction and wide use in the first Gulf War, it made some famous cameos in the arsenals of infamous separatists in the 1990s (Timothy McVeigh owned one, the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, had some). The .50-caliber weapon is also used by civilian police forces, although not by the area's largest forces -- the Daytona Beach Police Department and Volusia's and Flagler's sheriff's offices.
On Jan. 1, it became illegal to make, sell or distribute Barrett's .50-caliber Browning machine gun rifle in California. The state legislature passed the law last year, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it. California, so far, is the only state to have the good sense to ban the weapon. (Civilian possession of the weapon pre-dating the ban, however, is legal.) New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and Virginia tried banning it but failed. Florida hasn't tried and isn't likely to any time soon, judging from the reactionary record of the Legislature. But the debate surrounding the weapon's use (and now its lone-state ban) shows the distances gun extremists will go to to defend the indefensible -- and the sorry state of gun control efforts: Just last fall Congress and the president let expire a ban on assault weapons.
True, run-of-the-mill criminals aren't about to spend the necessary $2,000 to $8,000 to buy a .50-caliber sniper rifle, and gun control advocates would be hard pressed, if that's the route they chose, to blame shooting sprees on the weapon. Nevertheless, the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, in 1999 reported "a nexus" between the weapon and "terrorist groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs, international drug cartels, domestic drug dealers, religious cults, militia groups, potential assassins and violent criminals."
But a weapon's use (or non-use) by criminals isn't the only reason to argue for its ban. Tomahawk missiles haven't been used for criminal purposes domestically, either. That doesn't mean that a very rich weapons enthusiast should be allowed to have a few in his backyard. Controlling weaponry in civilian zones begins with common sense: What would possibly be the use of a weapon specifically designed to take out life at a very long distance, and originally designed as an antipersonnel and anti-aircraft gun, for sporting uses, let alone self-defense?
As a Schwarzenegger spokesman described the .50-caliber rifle, "It's a military-type weapon [that] presents a clear and present danger to the general public."
and my reply:
A .50-caliber sniper rifle can hit a target at 4,500 feet, shatter bulletproof limousines, penetrate sandbags, earth berms, armored vehicles, commercial planes, and drill through the walls (and living rooms) of 10 suburban houses lined up one after another.
-So can a spoon if properly used.
