Alphecca

Jeff:

Well, as one of the "Reston Champps Friday Night Group," which refers to an incident that apparently went global while I wasn't looking, I hope my bonafides are OK. But if the logic of anticipatory retaliation makes sense then wouldn't it be prudent to ban a weapon that could be used to bring down aircraft from a distance? I guess there are two real issues here:

1. Would such a weapon be used for such a purpose or are there reasons that prevent it, even if it's technically feasible?

2. Aassuming there is some danger, are there other ways to address the problem that might actually be more effective than banning?

It just seems to me that the weapon of choice would be an RPG or something of that nature, rather than a .50 cal rifle. In an urban setting one certainly wouldn't need a .50 cal weapon to do a lot of harm, and I wouldn't think there'd be any particular caliber advantage.

But having said that, at a certain point (whether at .50 or higher I'm not saying, because I haven't thought it though) a long gun becomes a cannon, and I think the founders specifically excluded cannon from their "right to bear" justifications. It's sort of a gray area, I know, but there is a principle that we ought to keep in mind.

Good points about the phraseology. The Champps incident, though totally innocuous from my perspective, had the advantage not only of educating the constabulary about the law of open carry and the princples behind it, but educating a lot of journalists about the "pro-gun" side of things. I still can't believe our little dinner party became an international incident.

Jackman WaPo article that got the ball rolling.

An extremely prejudicial NYT article

Apparently it was even picked up in foreign news sources, but I haven't any links. By the way, we open carry at a restaurant every Friday night after range practice. You know, if anyone wants to join us.

Demosophist,

There is absolutely no indication that rifles of this type are "terrorist weapons". Certainly, terrorists have demonstrated themselves capable of obtaining far more dangerous weapons (explosives, machine guns) than these.

I feel very confident in stating that there has never been a single person killed with one of these rifles. I can say that because the anti-gunners cannot cite one.

And as for the founders excluding cannons - not likely. Many (perhaps most) of the artillery pieces used during the American Revolution were privately owned, as were some warships (often privately owned merchant ships outfitted with cannon and commissioned by the Congress, or even privateers).

I actually have heard of one crime ever committed with a .50 BMG weapon - a bank robbery back in the early 70s committed with a .50 Browning heavy machine gun. That particular weapon was purchased illegally in Canada.