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.