MORE ON THE .50

On 12th I mentioned the upcoming ban on .50 caliber rifles in California and said "I can't say I would be greatly bothered if this one were banned" -- on the grounds that getting handguns UN-banned nationwide is a far more important cause for energies to be expended on. In response, Jack Flannagan wrote to me as follows:

On Wednesday you said that you are in agreement with Arnold's decision to ban the .50 rifle in California. The second amendment says:

"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."

To my mind the important thought in this amendment is `the right shall not be infringed'. If keeping and bearing arms is a right not to be infringed, how can you accept banning a particular caliber of weapon? If a .50 is too big, how about a .45? The Brit snipers use a .338 - is that too big? The .44 Magnum handgun with a 9 or 12 inch barrel is effective out to several hundred yards, in fact I understand that in the American west they are used as hunting arms. Is that too much gun for personal defence, and should it be banned as well? How about a Bren 10 with 10 or fifteen cartridges in the handle? The constitution seems to me to give the citizen the right to decide what arms he may keep and bear. Anything else would be an infringement.

If keeping and bearing arms is a right, which shall not be infringed, who decides which weapons shall not be available to the citizenry? If you look at the second amendment in the light of the times in which it was written, I believe that its meaning is very clear. The framers of the constitution wanted to promote the availability of a citizen army available to defeat the country's enemies by being called up at short notice and reporting for duty with their own weapons and ammunition. The concept of a well regulated militia has changed from local companies commanded by a local landowner or other prominent person, to the National Guard, but the principle of an armed citizenry is still enshrined in the constitution. I think that it is all part of the original American concept of the people being served by the government, not the current Liberal concept of the government being served by the people. I have a suspicion that the second amendment was written with a mind to keeping the government honest. When every man has at least one gun, crooked politicians get nervous.

Since I am a Canadian, I don't have a personal interest in the gun debate in the U.S., but I do believe that the U.S. Constitution has got it right in most areas, and has stood the test of time very well. In my country a succession of so-called Liberal governments has turned what was once a proud country with a strong military history into a bunch of snivelers who will accept any stupid idea as long as it does not look American. You may have heard of our gun registry, which was to have cost $2 million and save lives all over the country. It is now heading for $2 Billion, and the people in Toronto still kill each other with illegal guns at an increasing rate. The government knows that the registry does not work, will never work, will always be too expensive, and doesn't save lives, but they will not correct this stupid situation, for to do so would cause a loss of face, and require an admission that yet another Liberal touchy-feely attempt to solve a real problem has failed.

And John Lott has of course had his say on the matter too. Excerpt follows:


"Now it is the 50-caliber rifles' turn, especially with California outlawing the sale of these guns since the beginning of the year. For years gun-control groups have tried to ban 50-caliber rifles because of fears that criminals could use them. Such bans have not been passed because these guns were simply not suited for crime. Fifty-caliber rifles are big, heavy guns, weighing at least 30 pounds and using a 29-inch barrel. They are also relatively expensive. Models that hold one bullet at a time run nearly $3,000. Semi-automatic versions cost around $7,000. Wealthy target shooters and big-game hunters, not criminals, purchase them. The bottom line is that only one person in the U.S. has been killed with such a gun, and even that one alleged case is debated.

The link to terrorism supposedly provides a new possible reason to ban 50-caliber rifles. But the decision to demonize these particular guns and not say .475-caliber hunting rifles is completely arbitrary. The difference in width of these bullets is a trivial .025 inches. What's next? Banning .45-caliber pistols? Indeed the whole strategy is to gradually reduce the type of guns that people can own.

Sniper Central, a site for both military snipers and law-enforcement sharpshooters, claims that "For military extreme long-range anti-personnel purposes, the .338 Lapua is king. Even the .50BMG falls short. (Due to accuracy problems with current ammo)." The .338 Lapua round simply has what is called a better bullet coefficient, it produces less drag as it travels through the air.

With a 50-caliber rifle it is possible for an extremely skilled and lucky marksman to hit a target at 1,800 meters (versus 1,500 meters plus for the .338 Lapua), though most marksmen say that the effective range for any of these guns is around 1,000 meters.

The worst abuse that 60 Minutes focused on was the Branch Davidians in Waco in 1993 having a 50-caliber gun. Yet, no one was harmed with the gun, and the Davidians surely had many other weapons. 60 Minutes also tried to scare people with incendiary and explosive ammunition, but the ammunition discussed is already illegal.

Fighting terrorism is a noble cause, but the laws we pass must have some real link to solving the problem. Absent that, many will think that 60 Minutes and gun-control groups are simply using terrorism as an excuse to promote rules that he previously pushed. Making it difficult for law-abiding Americans to own guns should not be the only accomplishment of new laws".