What is it with college students and gun control?

So there's this fellow named Jake Harrera. From his byline on the article, he is a junior majoring in "Middle East studies". I don't know what kind of a useless major that is supposed to be; I'd expect a major in history or political science to be useful, but a major in "Middle East studies" sounds like a hotbed of left-wing cultural relativist propaganda. But it gives him enough credibility for the media to print his editorial with a straight face, even though it has nothing to do with the Middle East -- it's just a call for more gun control, with a thin veneer of terrorism on top.

What's even more interesting is to look at the timing. You might think that a college student with the time and energy to write opinion pieces for his newspaper about gun control is at least doing some useful learning. He's supposedly researching the issues and writing an informative advocacy piece based on his research. Nothing wrong with that.

But can it be fairly called a coincidence that his opinion piece was published on March 8th, just a single day after the website ".50 caliber terror" sent out an email broadcast on exactly this issue?

With that as prompting, all an aspiring "journalist" needs to do is write in a few thinly-veiled insults about the National Rifle Association.

One would imagine that after Sept. 11, every conceivable effort would be made by state and federal authorities to limit the extent to which terrorists could operate in America. As far as ideas go, this one is far from revolutionary-it's common sense. Everyone, it seems, agrees that we ought to be gunning for more stringent national security measures. Everyone, that is, except for the National Rifle Association.

National security measures that make sense are one thing. But gun control doesn't spell national security, and no amount of security is worth giving up our fundamental freedoms in order to obtain.

The NRA, not surprisingly, is acting aggressively to derail a proposed gun-control initiative in the Illinois state legislature. What is surprising, however, is the gun they are protecting is designed to destroy airliners. The weapon in question is the .50-caliber sniper rifle.

The .50 caliber rifle was not designed to destroy airliners. It was designed for extreme long range shooting, by and for civilians. You might be able to shoot at an aircraft on the ground with a .50 and hit it, but the odds are that you wouldn't hit anything vital, especially on a modern passenger aircraft; such aircraft are tremendously redundant. You can poke a lot of holes in a passenger aircraft and accomplish nothing more than annoying the maintenance crew.

The .50-caliber round, about the size of a man's hand, is enormously powerful.

Sure, it's big and powerful, but the size of a man's hand it's not. Here's an article on several .50 rifles that includes a photograph of a man holding a .50 round in his hand. Judge for yourself:

And that's really not all that much larger than other rifle ammunition.

The sniper rifle variant was originally designed for use in the U.S. Special Forces. The rifle allows the lightly armed and armored Special Forces to contend with the armored forces of conventional units, like tanks. In the Gulf War, U.S. Marines used the weapon to destroy Soviet-made armored personnel carriers, complete with two inches of steel plating, from a distance of 1,700 yards: That's 17 football fields.

Designed for civilian use in long-range target shooting, and only later adopted by the military because it was such a damn good rifle. The only people saying otherwise are gun bigots -- and that's clearly where this fellow did his "research".

While this rifle does allow an infantry force to engage some vehicles at close range if they are very lightly armored, it's insufficient to engage a modern tank at any range. And of course, any discussion of armor is irrelevant when talking about aircraft. Commercial aircraft have no armor. Most military aircraft don't have armor, either.

Bear in mind that "destroy" in this context means "poke a small hole in".

If I climbed up to the top of Section O in Camp Randall, I could put a round through Sellery Hall.

In today's zero-tolerance environment, shouldn't this statement earn the student a long discussion with the police?

In all honesty, I would hold the weapon in a geek-like state of reverence, if it weren't for the fact that any 18-year-old with sound immigration status and no felony convictions could walk into a gun store and walk out with a weapon perfect for a Grand Theft Auto-worthy rampage.

Sure, if that 18 year old could afford a $7,000 firearm, and wanted to carry a 30-pound rifle for his rampage. How many people have done that? Hello? Anyone out there?

One of the more hackneyed responses in the NRA's arsenal is the claim that unrestrained access to firearms would result in a safer society-because if society is armed, an individual is less likely to act against society. In 2004, a journalist located the .50-caliber on the Internet (you can too, at www.gunsamerica.com), flew to Houston to purchase it from the seller, and returned home with the weapon without ever having to file any paperwork, except the cash he paid the dealer.

And if that was actually what the CNN reporter did, he would be guilty of several felonies. It's probably not what the reporter did, but we'll let the BATFE investigation answer that question. You can't legally buy a rifle outside of your home state, unless you do so from a licensed dealer, who will conduct a background check.

According to CNN, "A used .50 caliber rifle can often be purchased with no background check at all." Well, looks like the NRA's vigilante vision of society is already here. Are you feeling safer yet?

What does buying a rifle without a background check have to do with vigilantism? For that matter, when has the NRA -- or any other pro-gun group -- advocated vigilantism? Pro-gun types tend to advocate self-defense, which is something else entirely.

Since there is a resounding silence on the issue of actual crimes being committed with .50 rifles, I'm certainly feeling safer. After all, if Mark Wilson had had a .50 rifle, he could have used it to save several lives. Instead, faced with a criminal wearing a bulletproof vest, he gave up his life to buy a few extra seconds for strangers.

But I have to wonder how Barrett would describe their less benign clientele-like al-Qaida. It was proven al-Qaida purchased 25 Barrett rifles for $150,000, (whether the company knew at the time is unknown) between 1988 and 1989 during the investigation of the bombings of the American embassy in Kenya.

Astute observers will recall that the sale was made to the United States government, which then allegedly transferred the rifles to an Al-Qaeda associate... during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, when the mujaheddin were shooting at Russians and thus considered allies.

But why wonder what Barret would say? His company has released a public statement.

Guns in general have an incredible shelf life, and these rifles are no exception. The 25 .50 caliber rifles represent a clear and present danger to the lives of American troops and civilians. It is clear the rifle has been recognized by al-Qaida as a weapon of choice, and this, if for no other reason, justifies banning the sale of the weapon in the United States.

25 rifles represent a clear and present danger to American lives? Well, not really much more than any other rifle in enemy hands. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, had an entire army. That includes a lot more than 25 rifles; it includes tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, artillery, explosives... if the .50 is such a weapon of choice for terrorists, and their continued availability to civilians such a threat, why has there never been a terrorist incident on US soil using one?

No matter how much fearmongering the gun bigots can do, there are no terrorist incidents on US soil with this weapon.

Speaking of which... when do we expect to ban boxcutters?

The question of the .50-caliber rifle is not one of gun control but national security. Our Founding Fathers did not intend the Second Amendment to allow private citizens to wield cannons designed for destroying British Men o' War.

Funny, private citizens owning cannon designed for destroying British Men o' War were exactly what the Framers were depending on when they gave Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal, a somewhat obscure provision of the Constitution that allows Congress to authorize a privateer (that's a private ship captain) to capture or destroy enemy vessels.

Note that the letters do not authorize a ship's captain to own cannon. They authorize the ship's caption to use his ship's cannon to commit acts of war on behalf of the United States.

Posted on 2005-03-08 10:37:45.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org

Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/6291

No trackbacks have been posted so far.

No comments have been posted so far.