Alphecca

Am trying to keep up with .50 cal/CBS stuff on my blog, http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/.

To Jeff Soyers: I have seen the 60 Minutes piece on the Barrett "sniper" rifle and, despite the obvious leftist slant, I had to agree with the overall message. The so-called "Light Fifty" isn't "Just Another Rifle", as you claim. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm a die-hard supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but gun-control advocates have a point when even (and especially) the military designates its Barrett M82 as an "anti-materiel" and "Explosive Ordnance Disposal" rifle. The military labels it SASR, or "Special Applications Scoped Rifle" for a good reason. Don't let knee-jerk reactions to liberal activism cloud your common sense: is it unreasonable to ban a weapon who's primary military purpose is to destroy OBJECTS (including unarmored or light-armored vehicles, if need be) from extreme ranges? This bad boy can use High Explosive rounds for Christ's sake!
You scoff at the notion that terrorists might try to shoot at moving airplanes. Fair enough, but what about parked or taxiing airliners? You also suggest that terrorists might have trouble acquiring such a weapon due to cost. Are you aware of how well-funded and sophisticated the enemy is? As for mobility and concealability, we're talking about a rifle with a scandalous effective range...you don't need to get up close like Lee Harvey Oswald did. Keep in mind that the M82 is semi-automatic, allowing for relatively quick follow up shots (despite the recoil). I have seen Marine Corps video of the M82 in action (see http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/) and the gun -- or should I say, mini-cannon -- spews awesome destructive power. Of course the Marines are professional grade, but all it takes is a lucky shot from some joker and his high-powered toy to ruin the day...
You aren't going to tell me with a straight face that the Barrett is a "hunting" or "target" rifle. There'd be nothing left of Bambi after he's had a .50 cal bullet. What kind of targets are we talking about here, Bradley Fighting Vehicles? Your dishonest comparison of a .45 ACP (PISTOL!!!) round to a .50 Cal BMG monstrosity is just as misleading as anything I've heard the media put out. That's like comparing Danny DeVito to Shaquille O'Neal -- both being fairly large around the waste, but one being a heckuvalot taller than the other. The brutal Barrett is simply incomparable when it comes to its combination of outrageous range and absurd firepower.

What JJ fails to recognize is that banning the .50cal rifle will not keep it out of the hands of terrorists, just law abiding citizens. Criminals can always rely on the black market to provide what they need.

As for the statement, “Now don't get me wrong here, I'm a die-hard supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but gun-control advocates have a point…”. This was a red flag phrase from the start. And after reading JJ’s comments a few times, I don’t believe it for a second. “Die-hard supporter”? Phrases like, “The brutal Barrett is simply incomparable when it comes to its combination of outrageous range and absurd firepower.” Nice use of adjectives JJ. “brutal”? “outrageous range and absurd firepower”? Come on, outrageous and absurd based on whose perceptions? That sounds like a tag-line directly from the Brady center. I don’t think you are a supporter of the 2nd amendment at all. Why is it so difficult to believe someone would shoot the .50cal at 300 yard paper targets? I have seen it at my local shooting range and it certainly didn’t scare me into thinking the rifle should be banned.

Last I checked, the 2nd amendment read the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Since when is it okay for the government to decide what rifles are acceptable for the citizenry to own based on the military’s designation? In Vietnam the US Army took the civilian Remington 700 HUNTING rifle and turned it into the M24SWS. You know what SWS stands for? SNIPER WEAPONS SYSTEM. Does this mean that this rifle is no longer suitable for civilian use? Barrett’s .50cal was originally designed for COMMERICAL use, (see his website…News/Articles-“Practical to Tactical”) so what the military uses it for is irrelevant.
And to throw in that the .50cal rifle is capable of firing High Explosive rounds is misleading and deliberately dishonest considering that high explosive rounds are already illegal for the public to own.

Jeff points out that there is not one case of the .50cal being used criminally or terroristically (good word Jeff) in the United States. But what if it had been used for nefarious purposes? Does this mean the law abiding citizenry should be accountable for what the unlawful have done? Do we let criminals dictate laws? I personally think if a criminal uses a weapon against citizens or state, it makes it MORE important that we exercise our rights to keep arms.

Remember JJ, banning it doesn’t mean it is unavailable to criminals, just the rest of us.

Obviously banning the .50 cal won't keep criminals/terrorists from acquiring one anyway...but it might just make it that much harder. Automatic weapons have been banned (except by special permit) for the greater part of the last 100 years. You're not going to argue that that's a bad thing, are you? A few isolated incidents involving Kalashnikovs or Uzis don't qualify any argument that "only the bad guys will be able to get them". There have to be some limits...otherwise let's go ahead and legalize sound suppressors, and while we're at it, RPGs too, and cop-killing armor-piercing bullets. I happen to live in LA County, and around here we definitely don't want common thugs getting their hands on submachine guns or .50 cal rifles to fight their gang wars with, let alone terrorists with far grander visions of urban destruction.
The right to bear arms implies self-defense, not "recreational" shooting with a weapon as destructive as the .50 cal.
I'm sure you've heard of Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock, who scored a 2,500 yard kill with a scoped M2 .50 cal machine gun. Tell me why a civilian would need that kind of range.
All that stuff that's been pointed out about the Barrett's limitations as an individual weapon (it's big, its heavy, etc.) rule out the self-defense factor, unless your home is being invaded by a panzer division. Then there's the recreational part of it. You made my point when you defined the M24SWS as a "Sniper Weapons System" -- the M40 and M24 are exactly that, anti-personnel rifles, made for killing people, as opposed to the M82 SASR (Special Applications Scoped Rifle) which is anti-MATERIEL. Its primary use is not as a sniper rifle because it's so overpowered. When I describe the Barrett as brutal and possessing an outlandish range, I am referring to exactly that. Its capability for destruction is exponentially greater than any other civilian arms I can readily think of, which is why it should be restricted. Are you gonna walk 2,500 hundred yards to pick up what's left of bambi after you're done with him?

By the way, did you actually watch the 60 Minutes show? From their accounts the HE rounds ARE available online, whether legally or not. It's unfair of you to attack my support of the 2nd Amendment or my "exaggeration" of the M82's awesome power. In any case, watch the USMC video at the link I provided (http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/). Note especially the rapid fire sequence. That's all the proof of why this baby shouldn't be in civilian hands.

JJ,
Well at least we now can clearly see you stand for limiting the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens because it “might just make it that much harder [for criminals or terrorists to acquire a .50 caliber rifle]”. Judging from your original posting, it is legitimate to ban the rifle merely based on the military’s designation of it. You point to the military’s designation of the rifle as “anti-material”. Why do I care how the military designates the rifle? Before the military ever employed it, it was a civilian target rifle. The military’s M24SWS (as mentioned above) is merely a civilian Remington 700. A rifle not designed for killing people as you incorrectly stated, but designed to place a bullet where the shooter aims it, all from distances easily out to 1000 yards. Hunters used it successfully for many years (not for killing people) and the military capitalized on this rifles success. But because the military calls it the “Sniper Weapon System” we should ban it for civilian use? Should we ban the .22 caliber Ruger Mk II pistol because the Navy Seals use it for killing? One other question for you JJ, if this “mini-cannon that spews awesome destructive power”, this rifle with “its combination of outrageous range and absurd firepower” (your words), if it is just a weapon of war, why does a civilian police force need them? (You did see the 60 Minutes episode right?)
You present your definition of what the right to bear arms “implies”. I must have a different copy of the Bill of Rights, as mine reads, “Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” My copy does not state, or “imply” that I cannot recreationally shoot large caliber rifles nor does it state that the amendment is solely for self-defense. If you really want to get to the heart of what the founding fathers meant when they wrote it, you should consult with the founding fathers. Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the use of arms, “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Now John Adams does mention their use in self-defense, “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense”. The reason the founding fathers left the second amendment so vague was so the government could not deny us arms based on classification. You have been scared into believing the Barrett.50 caliber is some dangerous monster, when in reality it is simply a rifle that has been used recreationally by the law abiding civilian population for nearly two decades.
For some reason you keep returning to the hunting aspect of shooting so I will address it. I have never hunted and I don’t know if I ever will, but it is not for me, (or you for that matter), to decide the .50 cal is inappropriate for hunting use. I have see photos of what a .50 cal hit does to the human head and based on this, believe the .50 to be no more or less appropriate for hunting than any other rifle currently used. Whether someone wants to “walk 2,500 yards to pick up what’s left of bambi after they are done with him” is their business. Why are you so obsessed with this “bambi” thing anyway? You have used that ridiculous phrase three times in two postings, maybe you should let it go.
Finally, I did see the 60 minutes segment, and I did hear the account that the High Explosive rounds were found available online. This proves beyond doubt, even though illegal, if a criminal wants it, they can find it. Once again showing us that banning the rifle will not keep it from the hands of those willing to do law abiding citizens harm. It will only stop said law abiding citizens from continuing a nearly twenty year run of safe, recreational, long-range target shooting, something you don’t seem to understand.

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp of Texas

All points well made...but for one glaring omission. You fail to address my question about the banning of automatic weapons. Should we lift restrictions on all weapons now, because the 2nd Amendment "says so"? The assualt weapons ban was silly; I can't say the same for the ban on automatic weapons. Look, I understand completely the fact that any determined criminal can obtain such a weapon...but the idea here is that you don't want to make it any easier, as I stated above. You point out that the Barrett was originally made for the civilian market. Numerous guns were on the civilian and police market before later being banned by the government (e.g., the Thompson Submachinegun or the Browning Automatic Rifle). Are you suggesting that they legalize these weapons? By the way, I believe I am correct when I stated that the M24/M40 was designed to kill people (maybe the military hunts camels with it, I don't know)...the Remington 700 from which it was adapted is, of course, a hunting rifle (with which you can shoot deer named BAMBI -- there, I said it again). So what? It can't come close to doing what the Barrett can, and that's the point.
I keep harping on the military classification of the M82 to emphasize its unique power; I'm not trying to say that the gun can't be used in other ways. The idea is that the M82 can be used in ways that other guns (like the .22 pistol you cited) can not -- ways that in my mind should keep it out of civilian hands (once again, huge difference in bullet size...where do you people go comparing pistol rounds to heavy MG rounds?). The M82's safety record is meaningless. So the Stinger missile hasn't brought down any airliners in the US so far...must be a pretty safe weapon to let loose on the market!
And by the way, bad choice of Founding Fathers quotes, since they both clearly state self-defense or defense of a nation as the number one reason for bearing arms...not very vague to me. When Jefferson and Adams were around, they had no concept of machine guns or armor-piercing weaponry. I don't claim to know what they'd say today because I can't possibly know. I'm just questioning the logic of catering to the "recreational" habits of a few people vs. the potential destruction caused by widespread availability of weapons like the Barrett. Don't you think the Amendment bears some flexibility for interpretation (kinda like the Bible...unless you're one of those people who believes the world was created in 6 days)? I mean, isn't the "well-regulated militia" part just a bit antiquated? As for the last quote...well, I guess the government has no right to tell dangerous ex-cons that they can't buy guns. But maybe I'm just paranoid from living in L.A.

JJ,
Let’s discuss what you call “the banning of automatic weapons” for a second. In 1934 the Federal Government established the National Firearms act. This Act regulates the ownership of all class 3 weapons, which includes machineguns, short barreled shotguns and silencers, among other things. The act did not outlaw any guns, it merely put a $200 tax on class 3 weapons and required the buyer to be approved for the tax stamp by the BATF. In 1968 the government enacted the Gun Control Act which “was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background or incompetence.” -Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. This act banned importation of anything meeting the National Firearms Act requirements except for those in law enforcement or military.
So clearly there is no specific ban on automatics, but the Assault Weapons Ban, which you state was “silly”, (and I agree totally) was in effect in 1997 when two criminals robbed a bank in North Hollywood. The perpetrators fought police for over an hour, with fully-automatic AK-47’s, which were not only illegal for them to own, but also not in any way affected by a ban on semi-automatic versions of the same gun. Another case of criminals getting what they want, despite laws that supposedly prevent them from doing so. Your whole argument is that you “don’t want to make it easier for criminals to get this type of weapon”, but how do law abiding citizens owing full-auto’s make it easier for criminals? And how are full autos any more dangerous than their semi-auto versions of which you have no problem? An M16 is no more deadly than an AR15, and neither are any more deadly than a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle. If you were as familiar with guns as you claim to be, you would know this to be true. And you never answered my question so I will pose it again: If the Barrett .50 (and I will now add full-auto’s to the question) and fully automatic weapons should only be in the hands of the military, if they are only “weapons of war”, then why do civilian police forces need them?
You totally missed my point when referring to the military’s M24 sniper rifle. I am not comparing what the rifle can do against the Barrett. I am merely pointing out that the military took a civilian rifle, added a composite stock, scope and a heavy barrel, and called it the SWS. So based on your previous argument, we should ban the Remington 700 from civilian use. And I am also not comparing the .22 Ruger Mk II to the .50 cal round. But you say “the M82 can be used in ways that other guns (like the .22 pistol) cannot”. Well I say the .22 pistol can be used in ways the M82 cannot. If the Navy Seals use it to kill people quietly at close range, then doesn’t that make it “dangerous in the hands of civilians”? Shouldn’t we ban it too because the military designates it as an assault pistol, and we won’t want it to fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists? Based on your arguments we should. I’m not comparing the pistol round, or the .308 rifle round to the Barrett, I’m comparing the military’s designation of these civilian guns, which you used as a MAIN point. You say because the military designates it as an “anti-material” rifle it should be banned from civilian use. So what if the military decides to designate the Remington 700 as an anti-material rifle? (Army snipers have used the rifle to disable vehicles in the past). Should we then ban it from civilian use? How far do we let this go before we no longer can own or shoot our rifles?
And I really don’t understand you saying the M82’s safety record is “meaningless”. If the M82 is such a hazard to public safety, then shouldn’t you be working to get automobiles banned from civilian use. There are in excess of 40,000 people killed each year as a result of automobile accidents, which is about 40,000 times more than the Barrett .50cal, and about 20 times more than the death toll from 9/11. What about Ryder trucks and fertilizer? Shouldn’t we ban fertilizer JJ? Timothy McVeigh used a Ryder truck full of ammonium nitrate to blow up an entire building in Oklahoma in 1995, killing 168 and injuring over 500. That’s a pretty big kill ratio for something that could so easily fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists. Maybe we could get Schwarzenegger to sign a bill banning Ryder trucks. I know it would make me feel much safer at the end of the day. To compare the M82, a civilian rifle used for 20 years legally and safely, to a Stinger missile that has never been legally in the hands of the public is not even worth addressing.
I’m not sure why you have a problem with my founding fathers quotes. You admit they clearly state “defense of a nation” as a number one reason for bearing arms. But then why wouldn’t you want the militia to have the best possible ways to defend a nation? It doesn’t matter that Jefferson or Adams didn’t have a concept of what weapons would be around in the future of the country. The second amendment is the final stopgap for the people to protect themselves from aggression, whether it be foreign or domestic. Don’t you think they intended the civilian population to have the best means to defend itself if the government turned the military against its own people? Perhaps if Germany would have had such a well written constitution, the people wouldn’t have allowed Hitler to exterminate millions of German citizens in WWII. Maybe if the Jews in the Warsaw ghettos had a few M82’s, they could have saved themselves from ovens, poison gas, and concentration camps. The well regulated militia is in no way “antiquated” as you say. (Funny how you started your original post with “I am a die-hard supporter of the second amendment” and now you are saying the second amendment is “antiquated”). Without the second amendment the government has the power to turn its people into servants, instead of performing its true function, serving the people. “Tyranny thrives best when a government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.” (quote unknown).

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth."
- Gen. George Washington, Continental Army (Ret.)

So one can't say that he believes firmly in God, but doesn't take the Bible literally? Or that the Constitution should be able to be amended at times (slavery, voting rights, etc.)? The Founding Fathers intentionally left room for interpretation, anticipating changing times -- and they knew they were not perfect men. The 2nd Amendment needs no changing; I simply feel that your reading of it isn't honest to the times or circumstances considered here.
We already have the national guard and reserve forces. How many "well-regulated militias" do you know of that can even closely resemble the role the Minutemen played during the Revolutionary War? As far as most Americans are concerned, militias are a thing of the past, being the last refuge of losers and loners like Mr. McVeigh. Democracy has evolved since the time of George Washington. In this country, we talk with our ballots (dueling is a dead and banned practice these days). On the other hand, universal gun ownership doesn't guarantee freedom from oppression. All the Kalashnikovs in Iraq didn't lead to an internal overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "Tyranny thrives best..." oh, wait a minute, how long was Saddam in power? I guess the "armed people" in this case were United States military.
You're right, automatic weapons aren't banned per se, but they are severely restricted, which is tantamount to a general ban (i.e., they aren't avaiable directly to your average Joe). And that Hollywood bank robber incident actually proves my point; it is the only one that clearly stands out among the thousands of bank robberies and liquor-store holdups in the past decade. Look, you're missing the point entirely...yes fertilizer is dangerous, but it's also got other far more significant primary uses (like AGRICULTURE) that justify it being on the open market. The Barrett, on the other hand, doesn't fall under this "necessities" category. Widespread ownership of the M82 would not prevent or discourage one nutjob from using it for nefarious purposes. A 7-11 clerk with a revolver might scare away potential shoplifters. The Barrett, though, is not like a handgun; the principle of deterrence doesn't apply normally here, for obvious reasons given the nature of the weapon. The Barrett wouldn't be used in a holdup...more likely it'd be used for long-range assassination, eliminating the deterrence theory. There is a concept of proportionality here; compare the benefits of legal, unrestricted ownership vs. potential for destruction.
What difference does it make whether or not the police use the Barrett? They also use MP-5 submachine guns and M4 Carbines, as I pointed out earlier, as well as smoke grenades, flashbangs, tear gas...should those be legalized? Maybe the police want to be better equipped than the criminals (Should all police officers be forced to carry automatic weapons once we allow them on the open market? Don't forget the days when gangsters and their Tommy guns more often than not outgunned the police and gov't forces). The Navy Seals use suppressed weapons (including the Ruger .22 Mark II that you discussed)...and those are restricted. (I don't know many people with silenced MP5s). The Barrett's capabilities extend far beyond "Just Another Rifle". You saw what happened at Waco...the Bradley fighting vehicle couldn't cope with the Barrett, and we all know what happened when they called in the heavy armor.
Setting limits is never easy, but limits must exist and there's a reason why so few Americans are killed by AKs or Uzis or hand grenades, despite the imperfections in enforcing gun laws. Sure automobile accidents kill many many more people in a year than a Barrett probably ever would...Deer (like Bambi, in keeping with my theme) kill far more Americans each year than bears do, but I'd still be more scared of a bear. Accident vs. Crime, Fender-Bender vs. Mauling...statistics and absolute numbers aren't the whole story, as you well know. Each year during the Vietnam War we lost many more Americans in car accidents than in combat, but would you argue that losing 58,000 men in Southeast Asia was insignificant? There are things that can be controlled, there are things that can be caused or trigerred deliberately. Car accidents can't be compared to murders.
And what's this nonsense about full-auto weapons being no more dangerous than their semi-auto counterparts? In trained hands, aimed fire is far more deadly, but when it comes to street thugs or untrained users the ability to spray and pray makes a fully automatic weapon far more lethal all else being equal (especially in an urban setting, where innocents are too often among the victims). Case in point: the aforementioned Hollywood bank robbery, which would not have lasted nearly as long had the bank robbers only been armed with semi-autos. Sure, those nutcases didn't manage to kill anyone, but the potential for much greater death was there. Can you imagine if the Columbine killers had submachine guns or true assault rifles?
The very reason assault rifles are called "ASSUALT" rifles (as opposed to "defense") is that they are more effective on the move and in close combat. Now Assualt rifles are weapons that were most definitely designed to kill people. The Germans first developed this concept; later the US Army made the switch from M14 to M16 because they figured it'd be easier to train soldiers to use personal machine guns than take time to instruct them in proper marksmanship. Take a squad of child-soldiers with semi-autos against a squad of child-soldiers with full-autos; who would you put your money on?
About military classification of weapons: since when have I used this as my main point? I merely pointed out the M82s designation as SASR to emphasize its unique destructive ability...it is quite simply in a class of its own (and by the way, I never said it was exclusively a "weapon of war"). I am arguing that it is far too powerful to be allowed widespread civilian ownership.
Finally, do you disagree with the designation of certain weapons as "Class III" (and the process one must go through to sell/own them)? Why classify weapons at all, then; why not just unrestrict everything? I guess my question to you is, should there be limits at all?

There is so much wrong with your premise I don’t know where to begin. I don’t understand why you would compare the Bill of Rights to the bible, the former being a document penned specifically to govern a country and the latter being the documentation of a specific religion. Two totally different things that are not analogous in any way. And no, the Constitution does not need to be “amended at times”, (Remember the disaster called prohibition? Oops, it was a constitutional amendment and largely responsible for the dramatic rise in organized crime in this country.) Nowhere did the Constitution allow for slavery, or deny voting rights. In fact, the first line of the second paragraph of the Constitution says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” We didn’t need Amendment XIII to tell us that slavery was wrong and should be abolished, it was already in the body of the main document. Same goes for Amendment XV.

And to call the National Guard and Reserve Forces “well regulated militias” shows the ignorance with which you speak. These are branches of the countries Armed Forces. Soldiers. Both the National Guard and Army Reserve are branches of the Army. Neither of which are militias. The militia is comprised of the people. Don’t believe me, let’s again consult the founding fathers.

We’ll start with letters from the Federal Farmer in 1788 by Richard Henry Lee: “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms…The mind that aims to a select militia, must be influence by a truly anti-republican principle.”
How about one from Tench Coxe in 1787: “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will for a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.”
Another from Tench Coxe in 1788: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress [shall] have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American….The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
How about one from Tench Coxe in 1789: “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.
Or we can quote from the US Code of Law: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.

“Last refuge of losers and loners like Mr. McVeigh”? Don’t throw McVeigh in with the patriots of this country by calling him a militiaman JJ. Timothy McVeigh was no more than a domestic terrorist. May he burn forever along with anyone else who would kill innocent civilians to advance their political goals.

“Democracy has evolved since the time of George Washington”? How so? Give me an example. The Websters dictionary defines “democracy” as “government by the people”. How has this changed since Washington? Also, are you aware that the United States is NOT a democracy? How does that affect your original statement?

We may talk with our ballots, and I hope we continue to, but how would you react if a dictator took over and used the military against the people to hold power? What if you no longer could vote this dictator out of office? You know what keeps this from happening in the US? The 2nd amendment, and the people, The Militia. It’s called checks and balances. You are right, universal gun ownership doesn’t guarantee freedom from oppression, but it certainly helps the people have a fighting chance. Taking the guns away certainly won’t help. (No response regarding my Warsaw ghetto comments?)

I get the impression you are mocking me quoting the “Tyranny thrives best” line JJ. But your example in Iraq is fatally flawed. The people were not allowed to own personal firearms under Saddam’s regime. Only now with the US military offering the Iraqi people a chance at freedom are they allowed to own personal firearms. Are you letting a little hatred for the military slip out here perhaps…

And wait, you say because fertilizer has “far more significant primary uses” that you “justify it being on the open market”. The potential for fertilizer to be far more dangerous that a rifle is not only there, but it has been demonstrated by criminals. Good to know you “justify” its use.
You say the Barrett “doesn’t fall into the necessities category.” Well how nice of you to decide for the rest of us what our “necessities” are. You also state that “widespread ownership of the M82 would not prevent or discourage one nutjob from using it for nefarious purposes.” What kind of insane logic is that? Now law abiding owners are responsible for “discouraging” the nutjobs from committing crimes? Again you are letting criminals dictate laws. And what about the widespread use of the fertilizer you mentioned? The “far more significant” uses will not (and did not) prevent or discourage one nutjob from blowing up an entire building. Banning the gun will ALSO NOT discourage the nutjobs JJ. McVeigh proved that. The 9/11 hijackers proved it when they stole jet airplanes with the ultra-dangerous “box cutter”. Guess we should ban those too.

Don’t know why you would compare 7-11 clerks with revolvers to the Barrett. Total non-sequitur. You go on to say what criminals would most likely use the Barrett for. How do you determine that based on twenty years of legitimate use? What statistics are you using? Are you willing to admit that you are guessing? How does this have anything to do with the multi-thousands who currently own and use them TOTALLY LEGALLY with a perfect safety record? You are saying we should ban the guns because of what someone MIGHT do with them. Based on this statement, you infer that we should ban all guns. Isn’t it true that criminals, terrorists, “nutjobs” MIGHT get their hands on any gun (whether legally or illegally) and MIGHT cause widespread chaos? Isn’t this what you believe? And shouldn’t we then ban cars and fertilizer because of what criminals MIGHT do with them. You did say, and I paraphrase, “LEGAL USE WILL NOT DISCOURAGE ONE NUTJOB FROM USING IT FOR NEFARIOUS PURPOSES.”

“Benefits of legal ownership versus potential destruction”. Seems to me the potential for destruction is far greater than anything else with the fertilizer. How much destruction can a .50 cal bullet do compared to a Ryder truck packed full of ammonium nitrate? Your original post used the example of a terrorist shooting at taxiing airliners. Far less dangerous than a terrorist who wants to drive that Ryder truck through the chain link fence and detonate among those same planes.

And what’s next JJ? After we have banned the Barrett, and the fertilizer, and cars, and all those other guns, how else can we make the world perfectly childproof? Should we eliminate rope so those wishing to commit suicide cannot hang themselves. How about alcohol? Shouldn’t we ban that because it is such a huge health hazard to people? Do you know how many people die each year from alcohol related deaths? Are the benefits worth the current death toll? Maybe we should have congress make an amendment to the Constitution…oops, already did that and look where it lead us.

Drugs are illegal and criminals still obtain and sell them. Drugs and weapons in prison are illegal but convicts still sneak them in into prison. How do you expect any ban on guns to keep them out of the hands of criminals when we can’t even keep drugs and weapons out of the hands of prisoners under lock, key, cameras, gates, barbed wire, twenty-foot tall fences, and numerous prison guards?

You may be comparing car accidents to murders but I am not. I merely said car accidents are a far greater threat to public safety. That’s what this is all about isn’t it? You never have said you want the Barrett banned because of all the murders it has been involved in…and you know why, because that number is ZERO. If you want to address murders we can. The US Department of Justice website states that “Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.” Want to see it for yourself:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm
You don’t seem terribly knowledgeable when it comes to the differences between a full auto and a semi-auto. To say “spray and pray makes a fully automatic weapon far more lethal” is terribly incorrect. “Spray and pray” makes the chances for stray bullets greater, but has absolutely nothing to do with the lethality of the round being expelled from any particular gun. And in case you weren’t aware, the “spray and pray” technique is used by those shooting semi-autos as often as anything else. Even by law enforcement. So considering your previous arguments, since criminals can potentially use this “spray and pray” technique, we should ban all semi-auto’s along with the Barrett. There is a CHANCE that someone MIGHT be hurt or killed by a criminal, so we should eliminate all possibility of it happening. Too bad that banning semi-autos won’t do that either. Australia and England have banned all semi-autos, it’s not working out so well for them because the criminals somehow still manage to get them. You know why? Because they don’t care about breaking some dumb law against guns. They are CRIMINALS.
I would really like to know how you came to the conclusion that the North Hollywood bank robbery “would not have lasted nearly as long had the bank robbers been armed with semi-autos.” You just throw stuff out there and expect me to buy it don’t you? Where in the world did you find data that would help determine this? You know what would have stopped those robbers in their tracks? An armed citizen with a Barrett .50 cal. That sure would have stopped things fast. It really would have limited the “potential for greater death” wouldn’t it? Or how about an armed citizen with an AR-15? Too bad those are also illegal for civilians to own in California…

About militias: obviously the Nat'l Guard and Reserve are part of the military; I cited them to demonstrate how "well-regulated" civilian militias are a non-factor for the vast majority of Americans today. Name one militia that is well-known to the public. Militias do not play a role in our daily lives, like you want to believe. About the Warsaw Ghetto: it would've been nice if the Jews had had mortars and rocket launchers and hand grenades, panzers and Messerschmitts too. I'd feel much safer if all my neighbors had M-60 machine-guns, just in case the US government turns Nazi tomorrow.
Once again you haven't responded to the fundamental issue at hand: why do we set limits at all?
About Iraq: how do you explain the proliferation of firearms, or the logic behind the proposed AK-47s-for-cash program? Please read this: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040621-041713-3890r.htm I quote: "Almost every household in Iraq has an AK-47 in it." There are lots of AKs in Afghanistan too, but the main well-regulated militia there became the Taliban.

How has democracy in America evolved since G.W.? Well, for starters, slavery has been abolished, and women, minorities, and 18-year-olds can vote (but we don't need amendments, because we don't need to clear up what's been implied by the Constitution, right? "that all MEN are created equal"). Don't forget that Washington and Jefferson, among others, were slave-owners themselves and felt conflicted about slavery. The founding fathers intentionally pushed the issue to the future, anticipating the dangerous friction it might (and did) cause. "But the illegality of slavery was implied!" you say. Well that's not how the South saw it in 1861. They cited state's rights, private property, etc. When the bank loans you money, it's implied that that money will be payed back...but they still want your signature, don't they? Sometimes things must be put in writing. Why, for instance, do we quote the 2nd Amendment at all? Is gun ownership just so understood within the Constitution that we don't need to make it clear? The rule of law has to be written down to minimize confusion.

We don't ban fertilizer because it is used almost exclusively for agriculture, and is a necessary component at that. The Barrett is at best a recreational tool...and I'm saying its potential for destruction far outweighs any benefits of this application. That is the reason states restrict poisonous reptiles, for instance, or ferrets. Take, for example, anthrax, which caused a scare a couple years ago. Anthrax might be sold to universities or medical schools possessing special licenses/credentials (for potentially life-saving research), but is not available on the open market. That didn't stop at least one clown from getting his hands on it. Should we allow biological or chemical agents to be sold on the open market? Fertilizer can be used in the same way, and we don't ban that...so let's just go right ahead. What about nuclear material? Also used for research, power plants...and with great destructive ability as well. Why do we restrict it? Because of PROPORTIONALITY. Fertilizer is NOT the same as uranium, even though it can produce (if you assume terrorists will hit with a dirty bomb) basically the same devastating results. Uranium does not see the widespread, everyday usage that justifies it being on the open market.
A determined criminal can lay his hands on just about any "banned" weapon or material. That doesn't mean that restrictions are useless. How many murders are there each year? Do police stop fighting crime because they can't prevent every single murder? Of course not, they keep fighting what by your logic is a losing cause. Is it fair to assume that since we outlaw murder, we are letting criminals dictate laws? Why not do away with laws altogether, and let people (and militias) govern themselves completely, without institutions at all. Now you're going to tell me that I'm being unfair, extreme, so once again I'll ask, Should there be limits and how far should they go?
And finally, please do not accuse me of hostility to the military. I find that assumption to be completely unwarranted and uncalled-for on your part.

I missed your earlier post so I will respond to that too. You accuse me of imagining what the Barrett might be used for. Is it wrong to assume that terrorists might use uranium to make a dirty bomb, even though it hasn't yet been done? We restrict the sale of radioactive material even as we acknowledge that it may ultimately be impossible to stop a bin Laden from eventually acquiring it. What about 9-11? That was the first major incident I can think of involving kamikaze airliners. If we had prepared for such a scenario on 9-10 would it have been unjustified?
And about the absurdity of the 7-11 clerk: that's the point -- you can't envision one armed with Barrett, nor would you think that his assailants would use one either. That leads us to exactly how the Barrett might (yes, MIGHT) be used, based on its well-documented abilities (and I'm not going to go into police vs. military roles, you already know the drill by now). The Barrett was used with tragic consequences at Waco. I'm sure by now you can at least comprehend what terrorists could do with it. Yes, every gun has unique capabities, but the Barrett's make it exceptional.

Please provide a link so I can read about how the "Barrett was used with tragic consequences at Waco."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/06/60minutes/main665257.shtml
(this was from that 60 Minutes segment)
"This is exactly what the FBI learned in 1993 at Waco when Branch Davidians fired a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle at them. In response, the FBI deployed Bradley fighting vehicles for protection. But even that wasn’t sufficient, and heavier armor was brought in."
Whatever those wackos had, it was certainly too much for law enforcement to handle effectively. Kinda makes you want to reconsider your Warsaw Ghetto analogy...can you imagine if the Branch Davidians had had a full arsenal of Barretts, machine guns, etc.? Oh I'm sure if automatic weapons etc. were not restricted some crazy civilian vigilantes would've assaulted that compound with their AR-15s, and I'm sure you would've applauded their efforts. Can you imagine, for instance, a hostage rescue effort taken up by untrained civilians? That's why we don't rely on militias for our security anymore. The founding fathers could not have envisioned the world (or the improvements in weaponry) in which we live today ...they left room for change, as I said earlier. For instance, Thomas Jefferson believed in an agrarian society--which could not exist today given that less than 2% of today's US population are actually farmers. I'm sure, though, that he would not object to vastly improved agricultural techniques and output (including, yes, fertilizer).
Once again, regardless of the M82's safety record, its potential uses should be enough cause for its restriction (see my dirty bomb analogy, above). And if you want to get technical, the Barrett is arguably as dangerous as the Ryder truck with fertilizer because the bullet it fires doesn't have to ram through barricades and armed guards (Think of all the security for the upcoming presidential inauguration, for instance. I don't think your Ryder truck will get through that). The shooter is much more likely to get away unhurt too (and would have a large distance between him and law enforcement).
About spraying and praying...you must not live in the city. The proximity of buildings and dense popluation makes full-auto weapons much more dangerous; we're talking volume of fire here, not the the power or effectiveness of each individual round. Think about crossfire, etc. in a residential area. Why do guns have full auto anyway, if not to make them more effective (particularly in CQB)?
Now consider the penetration the Barrett is capable of achieving. In an urban setting it could get pretty ugly. "Could", you ask? "Could", but "hasn't yet". Ok, but what about the recent tsunami? A couple weeks ago the thinking was "well, it COULD happen, but it hasn't yet in this century". Are you going to tell me that an early warning system (like we have in the Pacific) wouldn't have helped? Same with 9-11, which I alluded to earlier. "It's only something that happens in Tom Clancy books", most people would've said on 9-10. And the same with radioactive material. Just because it "hasn't" happened doesn't mean that it "can't" or "won't" happen...and if/when it does happen, the results will be dramatic. A dirty bomb will likely be used against Americans in the future, it's almost inevitable, but we aren't any closer to legalizing enriched uranium for the masses. No, we can't be paranoid and increased government involvement/legislation generally does make things worse ... but government is there for a reason.
Which brings us once again back to the fundamental issue: if you agree that we should have limits, and I think you do, then where do you suggest we draw the line? I have argued that the Barrett crosses that line. You disagree with that and this is the basis of our dispute. I understand your concern that banning one gun will eventually lead to the banning of all guns. But just because laws don't always work doesn't mean we shouldn't have them (see one of my previous posts). In any case, I don't think that I'm getting through to you, and you probably feel the same way about me, so I think this will be my last post. To conclude, I will bring up Bambi again, and how each year he and his kin are responsible for many more American deaths than bears are, yet most of us (the sane ones, at least) are more fearful of the bear. Is this so irrational, or might it have to do with the nature of the animals (i.e., the way they kill and their general behavior)? Numbers don't tell all...
I appreciate being able to debate this subject with you in a gentlemanly fashion, and I hope that eventually you or I will see the light.

The 60 minutes segment is the best thing you could come up with? I honestly think if you are going to use any media documentation as evidence, you should stay away from the heavily biased CBS. Is this information real, or is it “Fake but accurate”?
I googled Waco and found a timeline from Frontline that discusses the incidents in a day-by-day format and does not mention anything about .50 cal rifles. I’m not saying that Koresh didn’t have them, but I cannot find any evidence that stated he either had them or used them, and find it interesting that this is now a point of contention over 10 years later. If you wish to see the timeline it is here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html
I’m not going to get involved in a long debate over what happened at Waco, but to call it a “hostage rescue” is disingenuous to say the least.

And I stand behind my Warsaw ghetto analogy. Maybe you think it was okay for the Nazi’s to confiscate all registered weapons from the citizens of Germany, and then systematically gather people in an attempt to exterminate an ethnic minority of a country, but I certainly do not. An estimated 100,000 Jews died of starvation and disease between 1940 and 1942 due to the deplorable conditions put upon them by their government. In 1943 the SS entered the ghetto with intent to quash any resistance and further Himmler’s goal to make Warsaw “Jew free” by Hitler’s birthday later that year. Armed with weapons that were smuggled into the ghetto, the resistance fought off the German army for over a month.
Now how incredible is it that civilians were able to resist Germany’s glorified SS troops in a fight for their lives? I say it is fantastic. If they would have had better weapons, they might have been able to save more lives.

You should really make an effort to learn more about the concept of the citizen militia. You say to “name one militia that is well known to the public” which shows you do not understand the concept at all. The individual is the militia. In WWII when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor they did not continue with a land invasion. Do you know why? It was because Admiral Yamamoto was afraid of the citizen militia. He was afraid of the armed citizenry and stated, “[we cannot mount a land invasion] because behind every blade of grass we will find an American with a rifle.” There are said to be over 10 million gun owners in this country owning over 70 million guns. That is probably larger than all the armies in the world combined.

If you are interested in doing any other reading related to this, visit Kim du Tuit at http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php
and read his essays under “The Gun Thing”.

Spraying and praying…wrong again. I live in a big city. I have fired numerous types of semi-auto rifles, and I have fired several types of full-autos. Maybe you should go to a range and try it sometime. You will soon realize that most of the fear comes from bad media hype. And in talking about volume of fire opposed to power or effectiveness of each round, you should really consider the person using the firearm as “dangerous”. After all, firearms are inanimate objects that don’t become a danger until the wrong person handles it. Full-auto does not in any way make a gun “more effective” unless the desired effect is to expend large amounts of ammunition.
Take for example the kill rate in Vietnam. During the Vietnam war, the average number of rounds spent by a soldier with an automatic rifle was 2,200 rounds per kill. The average number of rounds used by a sniper was 1.3. A single, well place shot has always been more effective than firing hundreds of rounds at a target. You said, “Assault rifles are more effective on the move and in close combat”. Not true. Rifles are intended as tools of precision and any rifle shooter will attest to the fact that shooting on the move provides less than effective results.
When I handle a gun, I consider the “desired effect” to place the bullet where I am aiming. Full-auto does not make a rifle more effective, which is why many military weapons now utilize the 3-shot burst feature.

I have no problem with anyone placing an early warning system in the ocean to warn of possible tsunamis. Especially since doing this does not violate anyone’s Constitutional rights. Bad example.
People turning planes into flying bombs was not new, the Japanese did it extensively in WWII. You even used “Kamikaze” in that sentence. Bad example.

We restrict radioactive materials even thought terrorists may acquire and use them against us. True. We have always restricted materials like this that could be used against and threaten multi-thousands if not mulit-millions. Weapons of mass destruction have always been illegal and you are right, we are not “any closer to legalizing enriched uranium for the masses.” I never suggested we should. That is where the line has been drawn, and where it should continue to be drawn. You argue the Barrett crosses the line into a weapon of mass destruction…again, I suggest you go to your local range and watch the target shooters. Maybe someone will even let you fire theirs…

One last thing I would hope for you when forming opinions, try to rely on more than what is reported in the main-stream media. They get the facts wrong too often for it to simply be an accident.

Argh...I thought I'd made my last post. You are definitely missing the forest for the trees. When I used the example of the kamikaze, it was to show how utterly unexpected the 9-11 attacks were (of course the Japs had done it before...but I don't recall them hijacking airliners and flying them into skyscrapers on American home soil, targeting civilians no less). If you're going to tell me that Americans or the government as a whole were prepared for the attack (or even felt it had a reasonable chance of occuring), you must be joking.
About the Warsaw ghetto...see my earlier post. It would've been nice if all the Jews had been armed not just with guns and ammo, but also with tanks and airplanes. How far do you want this "militia" thing to go? I ask to flip the scales a bit and imagine if the Waco wackos had been as well armed as you would've wanted the Jews to be in Warsaw. "If they would have had better weapons, they might have been able to" TAKE "more lives." I'm sure you would've wanted Koresh to cause massive deaths among police and federal agents as a statement against government interference. (By the way, I did NOT suggest that Waco was a hostage rescue. I was criticizing the vigilante mentality that you seem to have).
Concerning spraying and praying: let me ask you what the purpose of full auto is, then, if it is as ineffective as you're trying to make it sound. I am fully aware of the Vietnam statistics regarding bullet expenditure. But, could there be a reason why submachineguns and shotguns are preferred in CQB or room-to-room fighting? I ask you to picture gang wars in L.A. being fought not primarily with pistols, but with machine guns. All those stray bullets you've mentioned are exactly that: stray...they don't hit the intended target, but they'll probably end up hitting something else, like innocent civilians. In trained hands, the ability to hose down a target area with a full auto gives it a decisive advantage over a semi, particularly at short ranges. Sure, many militaries have adopted rifles with burst modes, like our own M16A2, but most still retain full-auto (in fact, this is why we switched to 5.56 mm from 7.62, so that full-auto would be more controllable, though the Germans were the first to realize the potential of the intermediate round). The MP5N that the SEALs use doesn't even have a 3rb mode like popular versions of the MP5 do. The skill of the operator makes a difference, as you've said...and that's why I'm sure that they'd take an full-auto-capable MP5 over a Beretta 92 to a hot firefight 9 times out of 10. Volume of fire means quite a bit in combat, I would think...why do helicopters and tanks have mounted machine guns? Are you telling me that the M1 Abrams should have a mounted Barrett M82 instead of a Browning M2? Or that the miniguns on a Black Hawk helicopter are "ineffective" because they waste so many bullets? How 'bout an A10 with its 30 mm cannon? You don't even have to go that far, just look at it from the infantry squad-level perspective. Just why does our Army carry M249s and M240s? Why was the German MG42 such a fearsome weapon? Because of sheer VOLUME of fire. The thinking behind the MG42 was that a gunner would have a fraction of a second to fire a burst at a quickly-moving target. So the Nazis created a gun that could fire at a rate of 1200 rpm, 20 bullets per second. So a short burst puts out a lethal cone of lead (surely you've seen Saving Private Ryan...are you going to tell me that the Krauts would've been better off with just their bolt-action K98s?) You can walk your fire over your target, as opposed to firing, recovering, reaiming, firing...
Also, you say that shooting on the move produces inferior results. This is obvious, but do you think that combat troops, for instance, have the luxury of shooting while standing still, or better yet, prone, from the same spot at a stationary target downrange? Snipers aren't exactly the best troops for assaulting. You don't see guys with M24s taking point and breaking down doors. Why do we have the M4 Carbine if the M16 would be so much better in CQB? Let's put it this way, I don't think the extra barrel length of the M16 makes it "better" in house-to-house, except for bayoneting.

A well armed citizenry can be a good thing, like in Switzerland (where they have a very small, homogenous, peaceful culture and people; very low crime rates as well). But in other countries the results are not so clear. Take Iraq, for instance. "The individual is the militia", you say. That wasn't the case under Saddam. But, on the bright side, militias are forming over there -- except they're mobilizing against US. (Ever wonder why there have been so many American casualties since the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq?) Now I'm not comparing Iraq to America, but I will say that America's crime rate, while it has stabilized and even gone down for the most part over the past decade, is far from ideal and I think precludes the notion of an armed-to-the-teeth civilian militia. You're going to tell me that responsible machine gun ownership will deter criminals. I ask you to think once again about the prospect of full-autos for all in the big city. Utah's gun laws wouldn't work too well in L.A. And while violent crimes will continue to occur, most Americans put their trust in the police for their protection so that we do not have to walk the streets with hands on our holsters. That's not to say that the police are 100% effective or that ownership of guns for self-defense is a bad idea. We just do not want criminals to be better armed than the police, and in turn we do not want our police patrolling the neighborhoods with assault rifles. Maybe that's not the way you see it, but I think the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you.

You have argued that banning the Barrett would interfere with Constitutional rights. That's not my way of thinking. I pointed out earlier the example of the Civil War, where both sides felt that they were backed by the Constitution. The North said "all men were created equal" and the South cited state and private property rights -- both legitimate arguments, since Southerners viewed their slaves as property, not men. It's about interpretation, and I think you have misinterpreted the "right to bear arms" as the "right to bear overwhelming firepower". If you want to take the 2nd Amendment literally, then I'll ask you this: what is the dictionary definition of "arms"? Does it simply refer to small arms, or could it possibly include mortars, anti-tank rifles, hand grenades, RPGs, or heavy machine guns? I understand that Mexico could launch a suprise attack on us tomorrow, but how far do you want to go?
Our fundamental dispute here is, as I've said earlier, about whether the Barrett pushes the limits of what is acceptable for civilian ownership. I have argued that it does, you disagree. It's definitely a judgement call, but I feel that the Barrett's capabilities extend far beyond the norm for what one can consider reasonable for civilians to possess -- especially without real restrictions or an inventory to keep track of the number of .50cals that are out there (and who owns them). I think I will leave it at that...

Again, I am not going to get into the details of the Waco tragedy. Go read about it at Frontline from PBS and you will learn there is far more to that incident than meets the eye. I never suggested in any way the citizens should have had anything to do with disarming Koresh, and I do not believe I have a “vigilante mentality”. I merely pointed out that a civilian’s rifle could have put a quick stop to the North Hollywood bank robbery when police were heavily outgunned by two criminals with full-autos. In fact, it WAS civilians who helped the police end a dangerous situation, “at one point they [the police] burst into a gun store, and walked out with more powerful guns and ammunition.” (quoted from CNN.com).

And yes you did suggest Waco was a hostage rescue, “a hostage rescue effort taken up by untrained civilians?” If not, why did bring it up at all?

No, I did not suggest the “government as a whole was prepared for [the 9/11] attack”. I merely pointed out that we had experienced planes used as weapons before when you said it had not happened.

Again I wonder why you bring up information that is in no way pertinent to any part of our previous conversations. Regarding full auto you say, “…could there be a reason why submachineguns and shotguns are preferred in CQB or room-to-room fighting?” What to shotguns have to do with our conversation at all? And submachine guns compared to what? You are using US soldiers in Iraq as an example here, so what other alternatives to they have? If no submachine guns then what? And what does this have to do in any way with the comparison to gangs using full autos in LA? How is there any analogy here? And are “gang wars being fought in LA” as big a problem as you are making it out to be? If this is as bad as you make it sound, shouldn’t this be addressed by more police enforcement and stricter sentencing/more capital punishment? If it’s that bad, then no new law is going to make a difference.

If criminals thought submachine guns were better for their “gang wars being fought in LA” then they would use them. It just so happens that criminals prefer handguns for concealability. If you don’t think that gangs have access to full auto you are kidding yourself. One of your previous examples said that the aforementioned North Hollywood bank robbery “would not have lasted nearly as long had the bank robbers only been armed with semi-autos”. Besides having no foundation for this theory, you totally failed to mention the main thing that prevented the police from stopping them. Body armor. So should citizens be banned from using body armor to protect themselves after criminals used it to perpetrate this crime? You also said, “Can you imagine if the Columbine killers had submachine guns or true assault rifles?” But Harris and Klebold were armed with semi-autos and still managed to kill more people than the North Hollywood bank robbers who were armed with full auto AK-47’s. How to you reconcile these things in reference to your premise that full-autos are far more dangerous?

To bring the Browning M2, “miniguns of a Black Hawk helicopter”, M249 and MG42 into the discussion is again taking your argument into areas that simply do not apply to the discussion. You are talking about gangs having access to submachine guns, and comparing it to heavy machineguns often emplaced (as in Private Ryan) and often used by the military as suppressing fire. Two totally different things.

I pointed out shooting on the move produces inferior results because you said “The very reason assault rifles are called "ASSUALT" rifles (as opposed to "defense") is that they are MORE EFFECTIVE ON THE MOVE and in close combat”. I don’t know why you are bringing up “ do you think combat troops having the luxury of shooting while standing still, or better yet prone, from the same spot at a stationary target downrange?”… If you want an answer to that it is YES, I do think combat troops shoot while standing, and while prone, at targets downrange. And I also believe this is the PREFERRED method. That’s what they are trained to do, take aim as the situation allows and fire upon the target. Though I have NO IDEA how this applies in any way to our discussion.

You are correct, there was no civilian militia under Saddam. You know why that is? Because the people were not free. They did not live under a constitution that protected them. I never said “the individual is the militia” in reference to Iraq. I never brought Iraq into the discussion. I was referring to the US and I think you know that.

I never said “responsible machine gun ownership will deter criminals”. (I will say that gun ownership IN GENERAL will deter criminals) I merely pointed out that you erroneously stated that civilian ownership will make it easier for criminals to get them, but provided no evidence as such and failed to recognize that there is already legal civilian ownership of said weapon type. You said are “fully aware of the Vietnam statistics regarding bullet expenditure”, but if this is the case, how could you say that full auto “makes a gun more effective” or “far more lethal”? If trained soldiers shot 2,200 rounds for each kill, how can you possibly support these statements? Webster’s defines Lethal as: Deadly or Fatal. I don’t know how you can come to this conclusion based on the facts presented.

You also said you don’t want criminals to be better armed than the police without any regard for the fact that they have been, and they will be if they choose. Criminals can easily fabricate explosives from regular household items, which in turn could be used against law enforcement. Does this mean that the police should carry explosives and grenades so the criminals “won’t be better armed”? You also say you “don’t want the police patrolling the neighborhoods with assault rifles”. Hate to break it to you JJ, but they already are. A mere few months ago a Los Angeles law enforcement officer used an M16 to kill a mountain lion. Have a look inside a patrol car the next time you see one. Usually you will find an M16 next to the 12 gauge pump. Do I have a problem with it, heck no. But I do have a problem with people who think law abiding citizens should not have the same rights. California has banned the “assault weapon”, (which I assume you are still against) so the law abiding citizenry is not even allowed to own a semi-auto AR15. If the police need them to stop criminal aggression, then why would the people to whom the aggression is being directed not need them? I think you would agree that most crime is perpetrated against law abiding civilians wouldn’t you? It is a fact that in most cases the police do not prevent crime, they respond to it. So why should the criminals be better armed than the civilians?

Just one question for you jj.

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

I can't seem to post...what qualifies as "questionable content"?

I will try to post a few chunks at a time:

You're telling me that Harris and Klebold wouldn't have gladly exchanged weapons with the Hollywood bank robbers, and that the effects of full-auto fire in a cramped, densely populated schoolbuilding wouldn't have been devastating (stray bullets can still kill; they tend to go through walls)? Are you going to deny the effectiveness of autos at close range against massed targets? The bank robbers were suicidal amateurs with fancy toys who thought they could Rambo-style it.

I first brought up full auto weapons as an example of weapons that should not be in the hands of civilians. You proceeded to question the effectiveness of automatic weapons, and that is why I have concentrated on this in my last few posts. The preferred method of shooting is standing still or prone firing downrange at stationary targets. That's very true, but if everyone just stood there the war wouldn't be fought. That's like saying a quarterback prefers to set his feet and throw (with no pressure) at a stationary receiver...the ideal situation, but often not the case. The enemy, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't stand still -- and he also fires back. Someone's got to start moving, and that's why most militaries employ full-auto- capable assault rifles vs. more accurate bolt-actions. How do you clear a room of bad guys? Just knock on the door and hope they line up for you? By your logic, WWI should have been fought with just rifles because those awfully inefficient machine guns wasted so much ammunition. They didn't really revolutionize warfare, or kill as many people as the textbooks tell us...they were used exclusively for suppression. Well, a lot of heads sure went down...and stayed there for good. Machine guns are also popular as anti-aircraft systems because increased hit probability on a moving target comes with high volume of fire. Why was full-auto developed anyway, if it's so useless? During WWII, many old-timers, like Hitler, insisted that semi-autos were inferior to bolt-actions because they were less accurate and encourage wastage of ammo. That explains why Patton called the M1 Garand "the greatest battle implement ever devised". Higher rate of fire was almost certainly an improvment (are you going to tell me that the MG42 was less feared than the .30 cal, simply because it wasted more ammo?); Germans fighting on the Eastern Front prized their captured Russian SVT semi-auto rifles. But semi-autos were not the end of the line in firearms technology...that's why we have assault rifles today. Old Adolf almost canceled the MP44, but gave in to the will of his troops, who clamored for increased production. This could go on forever, but at your request, I will try to end all discussion of automatic weapons with this post as I am definitely getting off track here.

Regarding kamikaze: the Japanese did not I repeat DID NOT hijack civilian airliners and fly them into civilian buildings on US soil. Using planes as flying bombs is nothing new (and I didn't say it was). But on 9-10 the vast majority of Americans did not even remotely consider the possibility that armed terrorists would legally board our civilian airlines, hijack them, and fly them into civilian targets. It's a just a little different than a uniformed warrior from a very recognized and declared enemy flying into our warships during battle.

Let me make this clear: I was not referring to Waco as a hostage rescue. I brought up hostage rescue as a SEPARATE point to further the idea that civilian vigilantes don't always help; they might often make things worse. That's why we have PROFESSIONALS like police officers to take care of criminals...why do we keep law enforcement around anyway, if they're as useless as you say they are?
When a big fire breaks out, they tell you not to try to fight it yourself, but to get the heck out of Dodge and call the 911 (same with trying to rescue someone in a flood). To paraphrase you: in most cases firefighters don't prevent fires, they respond to them.
You keep focusing on the exceptions, like how a police officer killed a mountain lion with an M16. But then you contradict yourself by recalling that the police were all underarmed (carring only 9mms, basically) during the Hollywood bank robbery. This makes my point; police do not go around with assault rifles in hand IN GENERAL, and in the VAST MAJORITY of situations. That's why we restrict these guns, because we don't want the criminals to be better armed than the police. If need be, though, they can bring in the SWAT Team, who carry an arsenal of weapons unavailable to the public. Most police officers that I've seen are wearing pistols ... maybe that's not what it's like where you live. Civilians, you say, should have the same rights as police officers. OK, so since terrorist might hijack planes, why don't we allow passengers to be armed with guns?

But why stop there? Citizens are the militia, as you said, so they should also have the same rights as the military, right? That means that if a soldier can carry an M249, then so should my neighbor. Let's allow him to own hand grenades and rocket launchers to flush out the bad guys. I mean, what if we had a sudden change of government and the military started behaving like the Redcoats in 1776? We'd want everyone to be able to fight 'em off, right?

Oh come on, you're probably saying, the M240 or M249 are generally used as stationary weapons. What about the Barrett? That ain't exactly mobile. And when I said that widespread availability of machine guns etc. would make it easier for criminals to get them, I thought that was self-evident. Not requiring a Class III license means bad guys not having to break the law to acquire such weapons...they could buy them openly, and in large quantities. What don't you understand about restrictions?
Also, if you've forgotten, I made clear earlier that the Assault Weapons Ban was silly, and you agreed with me. So don't tell me I'm against semi-auto AR-15s, or handheld guns in general. I AM against full-auto versions. Darn, I just can't seem to get away from that topic, can I?

You said the Iraqis weren't free under Saddam, and so couldn't put up a real resistance. Were we free under the British in '76? Were the Warsaw Jews free in Nazi-occupied Poland? Anyway, the Iraqis are certainly pretty "free" now, and they're using their newfound freedom to turn their Kalashnikovs on our boys. How's that for a well-armed citizenry?

See, you're missing the point here. The reason why I'm making these analogies is to hammer my point about LIMITS. I repeat: You are missing the forest for the trees. You keep analyzing my points individually without taking them into the context of my greater argument. I'll ask you again, since you seem to keep shirking the question, SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS?

Finally: I apologize for making you scroll up and read through several (very long) posts...it appears the word "o-u-t-l-a-n-d-i-s-h" was tripping up the content-screener.

JJ,
From an Australian viewpoint this debate is very interesting. We lost all our semiautos (including .22s) at the whim of a lynch mob in 1996. We lost all our compact pistols and 1911s (used for target shooting only, as self defense is illegal for gun ownership here) at the whim of the Prime Minister John Howard in 2002.

In Australia and the UK the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy means that no parliament may bind a future parliament; our rights, any of them, may be extinguished by any future Act of Parliament.

Your Second Amendment is something we envy.

However it is clear that the RKBA has always been subject to 'reasonable restriction', as in no-one is protesting the removal of RKBA from persons under arrest or in prison, or a number of other circumstances. And an M79 with proper ammo is a weapon of war, restricted as a destructive device. Reasonable restriction means the standards of the community for safety and management of the arms held by the People can be set in law.

If you can still own an AR15, a Lapua .338 Barrett, a 1911 and a Browning A5, then it is reasonable to conclude the the RKBA has not been extinguished. If the .50 BMG is a problem, you could make it harder to get but still legal, like CCW licenses. This one is a matter of community standards, to be decided between Americans, the same as the new laws that stop me leaving the keys in my lightplane so terrorists don't load it with C4 and apply it to the opening of the Mayor's garden party.

Personally, I like the idea of having a Barrett, solely so the oppressors are a little hesitant. The People now have nowhere near the capability to oppose the modern US military. Fallujah anyone?

JJ,
The constitution was designed to be changed to adapt to varying needs (perceived or real) but there is a method for this. It's by amendment, not interprting something into or out of the existing text. So if you feel that under certain circumstances the Right to Arms can & should e infringed it would be necessary & proper to alter the text via amendment rather than musing on what the framers could or could not imagine.

If you look through the text of the constitution you'll find that letters of marque may be issued by congress. Know what they are? It's basically a grant for private warships to engage the shipping of another country. In other words the framers were not put off by civilians commanding naval vessels capable of engaging in naval warfare. With that in mind I think you misunderstand what the framers were comfortale with the people possessing at the time. In fact I recall seeing a very old newspaper ad (early 1800's) for hand grenades being sold in Philly.

The military int he late 18th century & into the early to mid 20th century occupied the roles of our military & police today. That is in part why they relied so heavily ont he idea of a militia, not a standing army, in the constitution. So before you decry the militia concept as antiquated I must point out that most states have laws concerning citizen's arrest powers. The point is that a civilian's duty is not merely to protect against unlawful invasions by government (foreign or domestic) but also to act in a police function as far as stopping crime is concerned.

I know; these ideas seem alien. & I have no doubt that most californians would feel odd if you suggested any of this to them. I've long written that californian may be beyond hope & that's in no small part due to its people misunderstanding their role in a free society.

But getting back to the topic at hand - no we should not place any restrictions on fully automatic or suppressed weapons. Nor should we restrict short barreled weapons. Any hand held weapon, capable of being operated by an individual cannot justly be banned if we claim to have any respect for the constitution.

The cops being outgunned in the 20's - simply wasn't true. There were isolated cases of a rural police force or two being "pinned down" by gangsters with Tommy guns, but on the whole the cops were just as well armed as the criminals. & the "firepower" issue is somewhat of a misnomer - you're only outgunned if you miss. Better tactics could have closed & surpassed any gap in technology then & now.

As for Waco - you have the feds using excessive force to investigate an alleged $200 tax descrepency. There were other less violent options available to them, but the ATF was in charge & their judgement was clouded by their ego's. In short they wanted a raid that was front page news so the budget hearings would be more favorable to their department. The Davidians did not use any .50's against the feds despite what 60 minutes claims. But if they did that would have been a justifiable use of a .50 - protecting home & hearth from an unlawful government intrusion.

Should the .50 be banned? Hell no. Despite the anti-gunners tunred arm chair warriors complaints the benefits of the .50 to society far outwiegh its detriments. Yes a terrorist could shoot at parked aircraft. No the odds would be against seriously disabling any particular aircraft - planes simply don't blow up when hit by small arms fire. But the same could be said of .30 caliber rifles. within 1,000 yards I could be just as effective an advesary with a Garand in .30-06 Springfield as you or anyone else could be with a .50 BMG chambered rifle. The only thing the .50 could do is provide greater range - but not so great that better tactics could equal or surpass its capailities.

The .50's benefits? For starters their eing used almost exclusively in long range target competitions (which differs considerably from any potential field use) & I wouldn't feel unsportsmanlike for hunting brown bear or cape buffalo with one. But the most important benefit .50's give to society is one that you seem to overlook - their potential martial use.

The idea of the 2nd amendment wasn't to make sure everyone had muzzleloaders - it was to make sure the citizenry was close to if not as well armed as the professional military - which nowadays would include the police as well. If the .50 is banned form civilian possession but retained by cops & soldiers then a disparity between them & civilians would widen. & this would undermine the main purpose of the 2nd amendment - to be a deterrent to government bent on tyrannical means.

Since the 1920's the feds have dabbled in gun control. Dspite its being accepted by the courts this is an unconstitutional abbregation of power by the feds. But in a more practical sense it's dangerous & people such as yourself prove it. You claim the AWB was just silly but it only sought to braoden the effect that previous gun control laws have had - the mass acceptence of the government being able to restrict weapons possession. The only thing is you drew the line at "assault weapons" whereas most of your fellow citizens (of california) haven't. That line for them may very well be hunting rifles, but then again it may not. The real danger in laws liks these (the AWB & the proposed .50 ban) is not so much practical as it is principled - that certain arms may be deemed "government only". We can talk about nukes & SAMS at another time, but for now I'd just like you to realize that the danger in banning a weapon because of its potential far outwieghs any good society may realize from it.

One last point - you'e mentioned he attacks of september the 11th, 2001 a time or two - ever wonder why it was so easy? Two things; the first is that the 2nd amendment was interpreted out of existence at the airports. The feds made flying a safe haven for any criminal that could smuggle a weapon on board. It's shaming that a country with a constitutional guarantee of the Right to Arms lost an arms race to thugs with razors. The other thing is similar to the reason that despite having a somewhat armed populace the Iraqi's didn't shake off hussein - there was no will or knowledge to resist oppression. The passengers were told to comply with any demands & with one exception did so to disasterous ends. I won't say it's solely a problem of the more liberal/leftist states, ut odds are a plane from Alabama wouldn't have put up with such nonsense. In any event gun control & a victim mentality were the reasons why the attacks in question were so succesful. The solution is not more gun control, but less coupled with a re-education effort that would make people uderstand that they are responsible for their own safety - even agaunst government. Don't worry though - it won't happen. Government likes power too much to tell the people not to depend on it. & if cali doesn't collapse under its own weight before then, then the rest of the country is likely to follow its example.

ChrisPer,
It is not clear that the 2nd has always been subject to restrictions - reasonable or otherwise. The government has said so but their arguments are less than convincing. Force is the only thing they have in favor of their view of resonable restrictions being permissable. Logic & the constitution makes liars out of them.

& people are questioning the validity of arms restrictions on those convicted of crimes but released. It's not only violent criminals that are subject to disqualification, ut anyone who is convicted of a crime that they could be sentenced to more than a year in jail for. Not "sentenced to", but "could be sentenced to".

& don't bring up CCW - that's one of the most heinous infringements on the Right to Arms their is - requiring a permit to exercise an individual Right. But that's another issue.

I realize that we seem free with respect to arms compared to other countries, but there's a serious danger that we're not far behind other countries such as england. "Reasonable restrictions", once accepted often lead to complete restrictions. That's the danger of the slippery slope, & its one that I'm afraid we're further down than most realize.

You've failed to respond to my very clear and direct question: Should we have limits? Or maybe you did, when you said that there shouldn't be any restrictions on suppressors or automatic weapons.
Don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel safe in L.A. traffic knowing the driver next to me might have a machine gun (road rage gone Rambo). And just why would you want the average civilian to be able to own a sound suppressor? So he can kill someone without anyone knowing?
If you choose not to trust in our government (at least, to a limited degree), you choose not to participate in our democratic process. I'm not saying more government is better, but I am saying that government is there for a reason (and please don't call me a liberal or a commie -- not all Californians are Democrats). Laws are not made or changed solely through amending the Constitution, either. In any case, moderation is the best path -- I would never argue for total gun control; neither would I support unrestricted access to any and all firearms. We have laws that prevent minors from purchasing handguns; are you against that? You'd probably say yes, based on the logic that that under-18's still get their hands on guns anyway. I'd sure like the 10-year-old next door to be able to walk into the local gun shop and purchase a firearm.

Regarding excessive force being used at Waco: I hardly consider responding to the firing upon of federal agents as "excessive force". If suddenly people get the idea that they can fire on police without repurcussions, how would we maintain any respect for the law?

"Reasonable restrictions...often lead to complete restrictions". Often, but not generally. Why not eliminate speed limits and Stop signs on our streets? Let's eliminate rules in our schools, because we shouldn't impinge on our students' right to disrupt classrooms. Let's do without regulations in football, because rules just get in the way of the game. Corporations shouldn't have to follow guidelines either, because if they're all equally corrupt, they'll all be equally advantaged.

You go on to suggest that the 2nd Amendment had a lot to do with 9-11. I ask you again, should we allow passengers to carry firearms on board airplanes? Ever consider that an untrained gun owner might react to "suspicious" behavior by a fellow passnger by drawing his gun, possibly provoking a gunfight? It's really inconvenient, to say the least, when a plane flying at 35,000 feet loses cabin pressure because of a couple jerk-offs with itchy trigger fingers. Israel as far as I know doesn't allow passengers to carry guns on board their planes, and El Al hasn't been hijacked in how long now? They trust their government; specifically, airport security and the plainclothes air marshalls on board each flight.

What about the recent presidential inauguration? Was it unreasonable to prevent the crowd from carrying guns with them, just because it somehow goes against the 2nd Amendment? Picture this: POTUS steps out of his limo to wave, some joker gets off a few rounds, then gets shot himself by a quick-thinking armed spectator. Well, the shooter got nailed -- but so did the President. Oh, you say, assassinations happen regardless, making regulations pointless.
The 2nd Amendment also doesn't say anything about preventing criminals from owning guns; would you want to reverse current restrictions preventing convicted felons from purchasing firearms?

And just what are the benefits to civilians of the .50 BMG that outweigh it's extraordinary capabilities (think long range assassination, armor piercing ability, etc.)? The point is that the Barrett is as powerful as a Garand...from ALOT further away. I'm sure some "good" can be realized from it, as you suggested -- like turning American homes into armed camps. When assessing the Barrett's potential for destruction, the argument is often that the M82 has a stellar safety record. Well, as far as I know, there have been no terrorist incidents at our nuclear plants over the past few decades, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't improve the (non-)security there.

Do you really advocate civilians being as well armed as the military? The Army's got them M1 Abrams tanks; we gotta get some rocket launchers and anti-tank rifles to stop 'em in case they come after us! Oh damn, now they're comin' from the air -- quick, bust out the Stinger missiles!

Truly you have no faith in Americans or our republic. There are people who advocate less government; there are also those who want nothing to do with government at all. There's a place for people like you who want to own every gun under the sun, with a really weak government, too: it's called "Colombia".

Anyway, I'm not doing a good job convincing anyone, so I'm going to call it quits -- no more posts on this subject for me.

JJ,
For now let's say no limits on anything capable of being operated by an individual that can target a single person. But it'd probably frighten you to know that field artillery as well as functional tanks are currently owned by civilians. Heavily regulated sure, but still.

Sound suppressors - look don't rely on T.V. for your knowledge of firearms use; in some european countries suppressors are required at the ranges. This is not to facilitate silent murder (like a tax on suppressors prevents that) it's so the hearing of shooters is more easily protected. It's a friggin health issue.

Now whether you would feel safe with your neighbor toting a suppressed mac-11 - look you're in LA. Odds are he does already. But the bottom line is as long as he does not unjustifiably threaten you with it it's none of your business. Feeling safe is not a legitimate reason for enacting a law that restricts freedom.

& not trusting governmen should be a requirement. The federalists didn't trust government. The anti-federalists damn sure didn't. Yet I doubt you'd accuse them of none participation in the democratic process.

& yes; I'd have no laws against minors buyign weapons. I'd also have no laws against store owners refusing to seel to a minor. I'm thinking acombination of parental control & responsible commerce would make this a non issue. Then again if I was having all my druthers there'd be an increased emphasis on parenal responsibility that would alleviate most of your concerns about minors w/ guns.

& waco - the feds fired first. The Davidians shot back. If cops (fed or local) get the idea they can open fire on civilians whenever they wish, how would we maintain any respect for the people?

Look, you go on about some ludicrous situations if we suspended laws due to non-effectiveness. Here's the things - every law you spoke of does not infringe on an individual, inherent Right, except gun control. See the difference? Speeding laws may be ineffective at their goal, but driving at 60 ina residential isn't a Right. Owning the means of defense is.

As for passengers on lanes - I see nothing that says the 2nd amendment does not apply once you enter an airport. How many of your straw men scenarios would it take to equal the number of losses on september the 11th of 2001? & fyi planes going down due to sudden depressurization is another hollywood fiction. It does not happen like that in the real world. The odds of a person with a handgun disabling an aircraft deliberately are so remote as to be a non issue.

& as a matter of principle guns should be required in DC. The Swiss had a system for a long time that mandated every one who wished to vote to show up bearing arms. If I had my druthers I'd seriously contemplate resurrecting that practice. Voting & politics is just as much a use of force as weilding a gun, perhaps even more so. Sure, the pres might get shot. That could happen now despite the security. But with a properly educated populace any assasin would get his gun about halfway up before he heard several metallic clicks behind his ear.

As for the .50's benefits - it helps equalize the populace with the military. Yes it has a longer useful range than a Garand in properly trained hands. That's the key - properly trained hands. For the person who has ill intent odds are it'd be no more effective than a .30-30 at 400 yards. It still takes skill to hit targets even if your firearm is capable of it. But civilian possession helps level an already unlevel playing field between military & civilians.

See it's not even necessary to have anti-tank weapons; what most people do ot understand is that despite the technical capabilities of any military victory is still determined by who occupies real estate. Bomb the hell out of denver, send in tanks, etc... it will not be over until troops are safe on the ground. But even still there are ways of dealing with tanks that doesn't require any high tech gear - just solid tactics.

& no, I have very little faith in government. I believe what they do not what I wish they would. Colombia? Too warm. Besides, I'ma North Carolinian. I won't give her up or the rest of the country for that matter. Not without a fight.

But maybe cali is the right place for you - you don't mind restrictions on individual Rights, & you trust your leaders to give you all the correct orders from a strong central position. You seem willing to trade in some essential freedoms for perceived security. Yep, stay in Cali & don't fret none about America - we'll work things out just fine.

JJ,
I am not trying to say what Harris and Klebold would have preferred. I simply pointed out that you stated full-auto was “more lethal” than semi-auto, and used examples that prove otherwise. I am just waiting for some factual information to back up the blanket statements. I point out the Hollywood bank robbers for the same reason. You say full-auto would be more deadly in the hands of gang members, but then go on to say the bank robbers “were suicidal amateurs with fancy toys who thought they could Rambo-style it”. How are they any different than gang members using full-autos? How would they be any less “amateur” than the bank robbers? And again, how do you reconcile the full-auto statistics from Vietnam to your statements?

Regarding the kamikaze comments:
I quote you, “If you’re going to tell me that Americans or the government as a whole were prepared for the attack (OR EVEN FELT IT HAD A REASONABLE CHANCE OF OCCURRING), you must be joking.” Again, you should do more research before you make blanket statements…

The government knew about the possibility of an airliner being used as a weapon against targets in the U.S. They may not have known of the exact 9/11 attack, but they did know of the threat and possibility of the TYPE of attack.

NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), headquartered at Colorado Springs, Colorado, sponsored an air security exercise which focused on possible threats in US and Canadian skies. The purpose of this exercise was to improve preparedness and interagency coordination for a variety of airborne threats and contingencies. A specific exercise, planned BEFORE the Sept 11th attacks, was a commercial airliner hijacking scenario.

Full article from Department of Defense website here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2002/n06042002_200206043.html

Go read it.

So again JJ, how do you reconcile your previous statements to this? Maybe it is you who is not seeing the forest through the trees…

You tell me I am focusing on the exceptions, and then tell me I contradicted myself by recalling the police being underarmed in the No. Hollywood robbery. Again, where do you come up with this? The robbery happened nearly ten years ago. The times have changed. Especially after 9/11 law enforcement has changed. They DO, IN GENERAL, carry M16’s. It is a standard issue in patrol cars. How is this not clear to you? You may quibble with the details by saying “they don’t go around with assault rifles IN HAND”, but how is it so different if it’s in the center console or trunk of their patrol car? When was the last time you saw a cop walking the beat? So you may say you “don’t want police patrolling the neighborhoods with assault rifles”, but as I said before, they already are.

There is no reason NOT to allow law abiding passengers to carry their arms on planes. Had their been armed passengers on 9/10, there would have been no 9/11. Period.

And you tell me I am shirking the question, “should there be any limits”. Not so. I responded to this two posts ago.

JJ,
I am not trying to say what Harris and Klebold would have preferred. I simply pointed out that you stated full-auto was “more lethal” than semi-auto, and used examples that prove otherwise. I am just waiting for some factual information to back up the blanket statements. I point out the Hollywood bank robbers for the same reason. You say full-auto would be more deadly in the hands of gang members, but then go on to say the bank robbers “were suicidal amateurs with fancy toys who thought they could Rambo-style it”. How are they any different than gang members using full-autos? How would they be any less “amateur” than the bank robbers? And again, how do you reconcile the full-auto statistics from Vietnam to your statements?

Regarding the kamikaze comments:
I quote you, “If you’re going to tell me that Americans or the government as a whole were prepared for the attack (OR EVEN FELT IT HAD A REASONABLE CHANCE OF OCCURRING), you must be joking.” Again, you should do more research before you make blanket statements…

The government knew about the possibility of an airliner being used as a weapon against targets in the U.S. They may not have known of the exact 9/11 attack, but they did know of the threat and possibility of the TYPE of attack.

NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), headquartered at Colorado Springs, Colorado, sponsored an air security exercise which focused on possible threats in US and Canadian skies. The purpose of this exercise was to improve preparedness and interagency coordination for a variety of airborne threats and contingencies. A specific exercise, planned BEFORE the Sept 11th attacks, was a commercial airliner hijacking scenario.

Full article from Department of Defense website here: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2002/n06042002_200206043.html

Go read it.

So again JJ, how do you reconcile your previous statements to this? Maybe it is you who is not seeing the forest through the trees…

You tell me I am focusing on the exceptions, and then tell me I contradicted myself by recalling the police being underarmed in the No. Hollywood robbery. Again, where do you come up with this? The robbery happened nearly ten years ago. The times have changed. Especially after 9/11 law enforcement has changed. They DO, IN GENERAL, carry M16’s. It is a standard issue in patrol cars. How is this not clear to you? You may quibble with the details by saying “they don’t go around with assault rifles IN HAND”, but how is it so different if it’s in the center console or trunk of their patrol car? When was the last time you saw a cop walking the beat? So you may say you “don’t want police patrolling the neighborhoods with assault rifles”, but as I said before, they already are.

There is no reason not to allow passengers to carry their arms on planes. Had their been armed passengers on 9/10, there would have been no 9/11. Period.

And you tell me I am shirking the question, “should there be any limits”. Not so. I responded to this two posts ago.

JJ:

You're just really, really confused.
You're obfuscating this with lots of things, and changing the subject a lot, but it boils down to: you *Feel* something, and thus, you're trying to justify it.

The .50 Barrett was a commerical success - it had never been considered for the military. It was purchased for the military by some outside-the-box thinking sorts in SF, and turned out to be an incredibly good weapon.

So, by your logic, I can't own a 1911 .45 (sold to civilians before military adoption). Because it's now "meant to kill".

Waco: Doesn't matter anyway, but the government's lied about that (and been forced to admit to it under oath) repeatedly. It's an part of the issue you *don't* want to bring up as evidence for your side, if you research it, you'll find it proves exactly the opposite.

"Don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel safe in L.A. traffic knowing the driver next to me might have a machine gun"

Well, don't feel safe then. Because there's no way for you to know that. But the whold concept is ridicolous - the guy next to you, driving a vehicle that could ram you, run you over if you're outside a vehicle - you're worried he might have a gun?

"(and please don't call me a liberal or a commie -- not all Californians are Democrats)."

JJ, if the shoe fits.... even if you don't like the color....

"I would never argue for total gun control"

But that's EXACTLY what you're doing.

'I don't like it, let's get rid of it'.

Problem is, somebody ALWAYS has a problem with some gun or another. It holds 'too many' rounds. It's 'too big', it's 'too small', it's 'too expensive', it's 'too cheap'.

That's the root of your argument. You are for banning weaponry, but you just don't realize it. That's not, of course, our problem, but your delusion.

I keep trying to get out of this posting business, but I find that I must respond to some of your claims.
Publicola: A depressurized cabin means that the plane must descend (I never said crash) because I don't think most passengers would like to fly in thin air. This is an inconvenience, to say the least. And you did not address El Al's safety record. Are you suggesting that Israel let armed Palestinians on its airliners? Also, you seem to think that an armed crowd would prevent an assassination. How do you explain the close range shooting of President Reagan (who was surrounded by Secret Service), for instance? Do you really think it'd be that hard for a determined, possibly suicidal maniac to quickly draw his weapon and get a couple shots off? Everyone else is reacting to his motion...so all else being equal he'd get the first shot. As for the rest of your comments, you basically suggest that the civilian populace should be as well armed as the military, and that there should be no restrictions whatsoever. Maybe you think it's alright for kids to legally buy firearms. I'm not going to respond to such insanity (any thoughts on this, Shane?). And yes, I am willing to give up some "freedoms" if it means more security: can you name one truly free country that's not in a state of anarchy? Do we not pay taxes, obey the law, etc.? Laws limit freedom. No laws equals total freedom -- I guess that's what you want.

Shane: So the government was aware that terrorists might fly airliners into buildings. That doesn't mean they were prepared for it...and they weren't, as 9-11 proved (it wasn't just one, but 4 airliners that got hijacked, and 3 out of 4 hit their targets). That's my point, see: the gov't knew "of the threat and possibility of the TYPE of attack", as you said, but obviously didn't think enough of it to take any real measures.
You want factual information to back up my statements about full-auto? Are you aware of how the machine gun was used to murderous effect in WWI? Every war following that? I ask you again, why do we have machineguns etc. if they're so ineffective? Look into the development of submachineguns (like the Thompson) or assault rifles (like the MP44 or AK47) and you will find all the evidence you need. You can say all you want about "effeciency", but your style of warfare seems to be one in which the targets stand still at 500 yards and don't shoot back. And again, automatic weapons are much more dangerous in an urban setting because of all the stray bullets. Remember that the bank robbers were being shot at; Harris and Klebold were shooting at unarmed students.

"There is no reason not to allow passengers to carry their arms on planes". Please tell that to Israel. I know you'd really like to see a full firefight at 35,000 feet.

Addison: I've already gone into why we restrict certain weapons and not others. Even Shane agrees with me that at least some restrictions are called for (and by the way, Shane, I was addressing Publicola when I said he hadn't answered my question about limits -- sorry for the confusion). Don't go comparing a .50 cal rifle to a .45 pistol, even if you think it shouldn't be banned. And obviously you've never heard of road rage before.
Finally: am I "Left-wing" simply because I disagree with you on ONE issue? I wouldn't call you "redneck" or "hick" or "hillbilly" just because of your pro-everygun stance. If you think all civilians should have easy access to any and all weapons the military uses, then arguing with you is pointless. I've already made myself clear that I do not support total gun control. Does one have to stick to party line on every single issue? I guess that's your idea of "freedom".

I never said machineguns were ineffective, I said they are not more deadly than their semi-automatic counterparts. And we’re not talking about heavy MG’s here, were discussing sub-guns in the hands of gang members, your original premise. You say to look at the guns “murderous effect in WWI” and “every war following that”. Well I did look at its effects in Vietnam and pointed out a very interesting statistic that shows how ineffective full-auto fire has historically been. “Spray and pray” has never been an acceptable form of combat, it just doesn’t get the job done. I don’t know how you can conclude that full-auto fire is more effective against moving targets just because they shoot back. Soldiers still have to aim, whether the enemy is shooting back or not.

I never said machineguns were ineffective, I said they are not more deadly than their semi-automatic counterparts. And we’re not talking about heavy MG’s here, were discussing sub-guns in the hands of gang members, your original premise. You say to look at the guns “murderous effect in WWI” and “every war following that”. Well I did look at its effects in Vietnam and pointed out a very interesting statistic that shows how ineffective full-auto fire has historically been. “Spray and pray” has never been an acceptable form of combat, it just doesn’t get the job done. I don’t know how you can conclude that full-auto fire is more effective against moving targets just because they shoot back. Soldiers still have to aim, whether the enemy is shooting back or not.

Shane,
You judge lethality to mean basically ratio of bullets to kills. This is certainly one way of judging effectiveness, but equally important are the number of kills (in a certain period of time), as well as ability to hip-fire or fire a quick burst at a fleeting target or targets. You can sweep your gun over a target area, as opposed to having to line up the sights precisely -- you may also be able to take out multiple enemies with one burst (in a shorter amount of time than it takes to fire several well-aimed shots). Remember, too, that snipers more often than not fire their first shot while undetected, so naturally their stats will appear better. What you don't see snipers doing often, though, is ass