I visited my local sporting goods store today to look at camping equipment. In the hunting section was a .50 caliber sniper rifle. I was very surprised to see a gun like this on display and asked if it was for show or sale. I was assured it was for sale. This rifle sells for $7500 plus tax without the scope and weighs 33 pounds. It felt like I was picking up a fence post driver.

I visited the web page of the manufacturer where they spoke of efforts by some in Congress to ban extremely high powered rifles. Some would see this as one more rule to follow in America. One more restriction in our freedoms. I would hope that before our leaders lay on yet another restriction they would have a good reason. Should they be banned. What do you think. Here is some information to help you decide.

Con 1. There is no hunting use for these rifles. Not even for bear or moose. Maybe for elephant or cape buffalo but at 33 pounds there are better choices. No serious hunter would use one.

2. Its use is limited even in police and military circles. It is found mostly in special operations units but is being used more and more by police SWAT teams.

3. It can penetrate just about anything.

4. It is useless for home defence.

5. Depending on the state it is available to anyone over 18 without a conviction.

Pro -

1. There is no record of one ever being used in a crime. Again there are better choices if that is your goal.

2. If you go for that kind of thing they are a lot of fun. Look at it as an expensive toy similar to any number of fast cars, speed boats, or aerobatic planes.

3. Having made that comparison who is more likely to break the law. The owner of one of these rifles or the operator of one of these vehicles. Who is more likely to cause an accident.

I think that if we are going to take freedoms away we should begin with the other expensive and dangerous toys. Not that most of us will ever have to worry about it ha ha.

In Christ, Nathan Paujo

2.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2001

Answers

Nathan:

Arguably the most controversial Constitutional Amendment is the 2nd Amendment. The "right" to bear arms was drafted within a specific historical context to deter against forced government confiscation of property without just cause or due process. At the same time the language of the 2nd Amendment speakes specifically about "regulating" a militia. Hence, the dilemma- on one hand there is a "right" but on the other the adversary of rights, aka "regulation". The Biblical story of Jesus' arrest in the 20th[?] chapter of Luke is germane for this topic. Peter excercised his "right" to bear arms when he severed the ear of a Roman soldier with his sword. Jesus however reiterated his "regulation" of such instruments by reprimanding the Roman militia and showing compassion by healing the young soldier's ear. Regulating rights is always fraught with ambiguities. Regretablly, such ambiguities often allow the fire arms industry to refuel its lobbying strategies. QED

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001