Some meatball in Illinois opined:

If Godzilla were a sportsman, the .50-caliber sniper rifle would be his instrument.

This is a weapon that can shoot down airplanes or helicopters from more than a mile away.

Its bullets can penetrate armored vehicles and exterior walls.

One such rifle was found in the ashes of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.

Criminals and terrorists worldwide love this weapon.

You could love it too. It’s perfectly legal for anyone 18 or older in Illinois to own one.

So of what possible legitimate use could the .50-caliber weapon be, even to sportsmen lurking in the forests and glens of Illinois?

Coyote. Shooting coyote.

That’s what a gun lobbyist claimed during a recent state Senate committee hearing about a measure aimed at outlawing .50-caliber sniper rifles.

Did he possibly mean . . . obliterating the state’s entire coyote species with a single shot? Some sport.

There’s no reason this weapon should be in the hands of anyone other than law enforcement, military or forensic specialists.

State Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) has proposed legislation that would prohibit the sale, manufacture, purchase, possession or carrying of .50-caliber rifles in Illinois. Exceptions would be made for anyone who already owns such a rifle, or the aforementioned authorized users. Other exemptions provide for those who use .50-caliber rifles in shooting competitions, including the Olympics (should it ever become an event).

“The fact that supporters say it’s used in hunting is a cynical attempt by the gun industry to legitimize this very dangerous weapon,” Kotowski said.

This isn’t the first time this legislation has been proposed in Illinois. But enough, already. Let this be the last.

The only mystery is why any legislator thinks such a monster of a weapon should be allowed, particularly in an age of terrorism.

Yet those who still need convincing on the issue include legislators who should know better: Sens. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale), Dan Cronin (R-Elmhurst), Christine Radogno (R-Lemont), Michael Bond (D-Grayslake), Linda Holmes (D-Aurora), Pamela Althoff (R-McHenry), Debbie Halvorsen (D-Crete) and Matt Murphy (R-Palatine).

Please, senators. Explain how a 5-foot-long weapon that can be used to attack chemical or industrial plants is worth defending for civilian use? Explain that to your largely suburban constituents, who generally support reasonable gun control measures such as these.

There may be a handful of “sportsmen” who get their kicks by firing expensive, military-like weapons at small animals or targets. But to put their kicks before the public safety of millions makes no sense at all.

Let’s refute this nonsense piece by piece. It’s easy if you stop and think, which neo-liberals seem to have a very hard time doing these days.

If Godzilla were a sportsman, the .50-caliber sniper rifle would be his instrument.
Godzilla is a guy in a rubber suit that smashes models of Tokyo, a .50 caliber weapon would not even be a toothpick for it. This is simply sensationalist hyperbole for the sake of trying to sound clever.

This is a weapon that can shoot down airplanes or helicopters from more than a mile away.
That statement is actually a contraction of two correct statements, but combined together it is a lie. First, the .50 caliber rifle is accurate enough, in the hands of a highly trained marksman, to kill a man at distances greater than 2,000 yards. Second it is powerful enough to down a SMALL aircraft, at close range, with more than one shot. The author seems to believe that if two statements are true separately then combined together they become MORE true. Not so. This is an outright lie.

Its bullets can penetrate armored vehicles and exterior walls.
Which kind of armored vehicles? Do you mean tanks? No it can’t. Do you mean armored humvee’s? It could if it were actually being used by terrorists against our forces in the theater of war. And exterior walls? Aluminum siding? My .45 caliber pistol can shoot through that. Brick walls? My .30-06 can do that. Doesn’t take a whole lot to shoot through a brick or wood wall.

One such rifle was found in the ashes of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.
I always love the “guilt by association” argument. Always so shallow and betrays such small mindedness. Is the author inferring that he is glad the Branch Davidians were burned alive along with their women and children? Seems so to me.

Criminals and terrorists worldwide love this weapon.
Criminals do NOT want to carry around a 28 pound bolt action gun that costs over $5,000 and is a yard and a half long. Neither do terrorists. The AK 47 is imminently more affordable (I can build one in my basement for under $200 or purchase one at a sporting goods store for around the same price), is MUCH more portable, has a much higher firing rate, MUCH cheaper ammunition, is concealable, and gets the job done. It seems to me that polemicists who continually demonize firearms love the .50 caliber rifle, but criminals and terrorists have MUCH better choices out there.

You could love it too. It’s perfectly legal for anyone 18 or older in Illinois to own one.
Nothing wrong with that statement. I would love to own one myself, I just don’t have the scratch to afford one.

So of what possible legitimate use could the .50-caliber weapon be, even to sportsmen lurking in the forests and glens of Illinois?
That is a question that has no answer because it is a nonsense question. The Second Amendment guarantees that American Citizens do NOT have to justify their reasons for purchasing or owning a particular weapon. It also betrays the bias that the author believes the Second Amendment applies to “sportsmen” only and only applies to “sporting weapons”.

Coyote. Shooting coyote.
No reason why it can’t be used to shoot coyote.

That’s what a gun lobbyist claimed during a recent state Senate committee hearing about a measure aimed at outlawing .50-caliber sniper rifles.
The real atrocity of justice here is that a Senate committee is allowed to even hold hearings about restricting guns of any type. Also notice the use of the word “sniper”. Every rifle can be a “sniper” rifle because the word “sniper” modifies the noun “shooter” (which is oftentimes only implied in statements) and not the rifle itself. The misuse of the term “sniper” is merely an obfuscation and attempt to lower any debate into a histrionic panic by the gun fearing neo-liberals.

Did he possibly mean . . . obliterating the state’s entire coyote species with a single shot? Some sport.
There is that cleverness again trying, but not succeeding, to come through.

There’s no reason this weapon should be in the hands of anyone other than law enforcement, military or forensic specialists.
There is no reason that any American citizen should have to justify their ownership, or their desire to own, any firearm. The Constitution precludes this denial of freedom very explicitly. If you want to argue this Constitutional point go and dig up the bones of James Madison and yell at them, but stop trying to disarm Americans.

State Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) has proposed legislation that would prohibit the sale, manufacture, purchase, possession or carrying of .50-caliber rifles in Illinois. Exceptions would be made for anyone who already owns such a rifle, or the aforementioned authorized users. Other exemptions provide for those who use .50-caliber rifles in shooting competitions, including the Olympics (should it ever become an event).
Senator blah blah blah… the D.C. gun ban was struck down. The tide is turning against such criminal intrusions and denials of American liberty as this proposed “legislation”. This .50 caliber controversy is a manufactured tempest in a teapot. None of the scenarios imagined by the freedom fearing gun haters has ever come to fruition. What these neo-liberals fear is an armed populace that can effectively rise up and resist the ever encroaching Marxist and Socialist ideology.

“The fact that supporters say it’s used in hunting is a cynical attempt by the gun industry to legitimize this very dangerous weapon,” Kotowski said.
The CONSTITUTION makes the ownership of this weapon legitimate, not what folks in the gun lobby say, or what your twisting of their words make them say.

This isn’t the first time this legislation has been proposed in Illinois. But enough, already. Let this be the last.
AMEN. Once it is defeated again PLEASE STOP BRINGING IT UP. You look silly, unAmerican, and it’s beginning to get a bit old.

The only mystery is why any legislator thinks such a monster of a weapon should be allowed, particularly in an age of terrorism.
Maybe because those legislators recognize that their first duty is to the Constitution and to uphold and defend it from traitors like yourself and Senator blah blah blah.

Yet those who still need convincing on the issue include legislators who should know better: Sens. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale), Dan Cronin (R-Elmhurst), Christine Radogno (R-Lemont), Michael Bond (D-Grayslake), Linda Holmes (D-Aurora), Pamela Althoff (R-McHenry), Debbie Halvorsen (D-Crete) and Matt Murphy (R-Palatine).
Call and write and fax these Senators and let them know you support their defense of the Constitution (both State and Federal) and encourage them that you are on their side. If we know anything about politics it is that backbone is cheap, it can be had for a very small price. Help shore up their support and help them defend our RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Please, senators. Explain how a 5-foot-long weapon that can be used to attack chemical or industrial plants is worth defending for civilian use? Explain that to your largely suburban constituents, who generally support reasonable gun control measures such as these.
Very easy to explain. For civilians to protect themselves from politicians that want to eventually turn America’s freedom into a private socialist fiefdom for themselves. The citizens RIGHT to weapons are guaranteed to help guarantee America from DOMESTIC foes, of which Senator blah blah blah and yourself appear to be.

There may be a handful of “sportsmen” who get their kicks by firing expensive, military-like weapons at small animals or targets. But to put their kicks before the public safety of millions makes no sense at all.
You are not interested in public safety at all. You are interested in a neo-liberal agenda that guarantees public harm and makes sure we can’t preserve our freedom in the way the Founding Fathers established. It’s all about the Marxist utopia, the Socialist dream. Utopia isn’t real and it can never be made real. Only true vigilance, tempered by sound reasoning, backed up by the judicious use force, can keep a man, and a Nation free.

I don’t want to link to any of the nonsense stories out there about this moronic, fascist idea. But I do want to remind all the little Eichmann’s on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that not only are plastic bags made from petroleum but the little bottles their designer water comes in, those bottles are also made from oil as well. Ohhhhh…..

I bet you won’t see any laws passed against their favorite yuppie beverage. No. It is okay to pass a law against plastic bags since THEY, the supervisors, never touch them. Their servants and maids do all their shopping. It is okay to inconvenience the little people by limiting the choices available. But NEVER touch their precious bottled water.

Saps.

Have you ever heard such ridiculous and nonsensical reasoning in your life? A Swiss study claims to have found that about 1.6 millions military firearms are in individual homes in Switzerland and that 300 deaths per year are attributed to military firearms. So 1 in 5,333 weapons is involved in a death? How many of those are accidental deaths from within the military itself? How many of that 300 are accidental deaths resulting from poor handling or accidents at a shooting range? The real question is how many were intentional homicides involving a military weapon stored at home. I bet not nearly 300.

But the liberal gun grabbers don’t want to provide facts, only spin, hysteria, and misinformation (read lies). Here is the article to read for yourself from NZZ Online.

Pacifists and centre:left parties want voters to have the final say on breaking with a long:standing Swiss tradition of storing personal army rifles and pistols at home.

They said they would launch a people’s initiative to ban such weapons in households. The announcement came a day after parliament refused to take action over the issue.

Supporters of the ban are expected to launch a bid to collect the necessary signatures for the vote within the next few months.

The House of Representatives on Thursday threw out a proposal by the Social Democrats and the Greens to tighten the gun law, including having a central arms register.

“Firearms are the biggest security risk in the country,” said Green parliamentarian Jo Lang, while the Social Democrat, Boris Banga, argued that current regulations on standard issue firearms were outdated.

Other speakers pointed out the latest case of murder committed with such weapons ? a man shot his girlfriend in southeastern Switzerland earlier this week.

Under Swiss law all:able bodied men are issued with a rifle and 50 rounds of ammunition which they can keep after completing their military service.

An estimated 1.6 million firearms are in circulation in Switzerland and a study found that 300 people are killed every year by standard issue weapons.

There are also more than 150,000 active members of rifle clubs, many of whom own more than one gun.
Mistrust

However, Justice Minister Christoph Blocher, a member of the rightwing Swiss People’s Party, downplayed the importance of guns in crimes, adding the issue of keeping weapons at home should be part of a wider discussion on the army.

Ulrich Schlüer, also from the Swiss People’s Party, dismissed allegations that members of Switzerland’s militia army and civilian shooting clubs acted irresponsibly.

“It’s a sign of honour for the citizen to take the weapon home. They feel treated with disrespect if they are denied this right,” he said.

Parliament will continue the debate on the gun law and on proposals to ban the storage of gun and rifle ammunition in households at a later date.

Recent polls show support for keeping army firearms at home is waning among the public. Last year a women’s magazine handed in a petition to parliament in a bid to rid Swiss households of weapons.

Criminologist Martin Killias of Lausanne University has said that guns play a central role in suicides and in the country’s grim history of family killings.

Many newspaper commentators echoed the changing attitude among the public.

Zurich’s Tages:Anzeiger newspaper says the ballot box challenge mounted by pacifists and the centre:left is a way out of an obvious impasse in a parliament.
Arms fetishists

“Arms fetishists dominate parliament. Their decision had to be expected in a country which celebrates its readiness to fight off an outside threat by letting citizens keep their automatic rifles and pistols at home,” the paper said.

Der Bund from Bern says understanding for Switzerland’s gun tradition is dwindling in society, particularly among women.

“Whether a ban would make Switzerland necessarily any safer is another question, but better protection from gunmen running amok is reason enough to collect individual army firearms.”

In a similar vein, the Basler Zeitung says parliament missed an opportunity to reduce the number of weapons in circulation.

Le Temps from Geneva sees no point in sticking to the gun tradition for the sake of those who put tradition above everything else.

“It seems absurd and outdated to refer to the need for security in the face of terrorist threats.”

It says rational arguments, such as the prevention of murder cases, should be more important than emotional aspects and the natural instinct to oppose any state interference in citizens’ rights and freedoms.

Look at that last line, “[R]ational arguments, such as the prevention of murder cases, should be more important than emotional aspects and the natural instinct to oppose any state interference in citizens’ rights and freedoms.” Are you kidding me? The most rational a free man can be is in defending the very tools that ensure his freedom. Giving up his weapons because criminals are using weapons is insane.

I will be delivering the message at my local church this Sunday, a message entitled “Tears at the Judgment.” It might sound familiar to some of you but that is ok. I will also be bringing the Sunday Evening Message “A Letter From Our Pastor”. I will have a podcast of the first service as soon as I am able to edit out all the non-words like “ahhhh”, “duuuhhh”, “brblbrblbrblbrblbrbl”, and the like.

When I was a small child in the late 1960s and early 1970s I have a few memories of meeting several uncles who fought in World War I. Being just a kid I could only sit and listen in wonder at the tales of gore and horror they wove for the other relatives. WW I is a point in history that I am only able to touch through the memories of those who fought in Europe.

That war has, sadly, now lost its last rememberer. Retired Army Cpl. Howard V. Ramsey rejoined the buddies he lost in the trenches of France and Germany 90 years ago. He died in his sleep on February 22 outside Portland, Oregon. He was one month shy of his 109th birthday.

There are seven veterans of WW I listed with the Veterans Affairs Department still alive, but none of the remaining seven were shipped overseas. Retired Army Cpl. Howard Ramsey was the last remaining veteran who saw combat in WW I listed at the VA.

What we have lost is immeasurable. And as time inexorably marches on, in my lifetime I shall probably see the passing of the last combat veteran of World War II and perhaps even Korea. My children may live long enough to see the passing of the last Vietnam combat veterans. My parents both served in Vietnam, one in country and one stateside. One has already gone on to his eternal reward in heaven.

God bless America and God bless America’s veterans.