Ah... perhaps a bit overdramatic.

Really, it reads more as OMFGLOOKATTHATBIGGUN!

A 50 BMG is a deadly weapon but it cannot be easily concealed, is very awkward in close-quarters and has a limited magazine capacity.

In the sort of mass murders we have had to deal with in real life a Barrett 50 would have been far less deadly than the slim, light weapons that can be used with high-capacity magazines

Next, I suppose, you gun-grabbers will be trying to take away our 20mm rifles...

Dear Bradblog, I am a person who believes in all 10 of the Bill of Rights. I also would agree with the previous poster that .50 cal is not generally thought of as a sniper rifle. You should really get together with the guy over at "The Armed Liberal" website for tech info before inserting foot in mouth. Besides, you will want one of these guns when and if they start flying drones against the citizenry. Armed Law Enforcement and Military robots are being rolled out now.

Long range assassin weapons and sniper rifles as used by soldiers are a bit different. Smaller calibers such as .308 or 7.62×54R are just plain easier to use. The .50 and other "big" guns got their start against the light tanks of WWI. They pierce light armor and could be used to resist a totalitarian government using drones and robots against its own people-- not so far-fetched at all.

... Fred Milton Olsen said...

"They pierce light armor and could be used to resist a totalitarian government using drones and robots against its own people"

Unfortunately, the elites, our true albeit absentee rulers, use far deadlier weapons than drones and robots... their weapons are the obscene wealth that they've extracted from the rest of us and and an utterly corrupt government that allows them to keep leeching off of
us "lesser people."

I agree that wealth is a weapon. And there are appropriate defenses. Even if you have nothing but your voice, you can still strike back. 9Go see Deek Jackson at the FKN NEWZ at YouTube or FKN NEWZ dot com. He will buck you up. Especially see his "WE ARE OFFENSIVE".

Fred Milton Olsen @2 & 3 wrote:

1. "They pierce light armor and could be used to resist a totalitarian government using drones and robots against its own people-- not so far-fetched at all."

Well, not "far fetched" for a paranoid nut job like Tim McVeigh.

For the rest of us, especially those who've served in combat, like myself, a paranoid rant by someone who actually believes that they can individually take on the armed might of a government like our own sounds nothing short of insane!

2. "Smaller calibers such as .308 or 7.62×54R are just plain easier to use."

Did you assume, Fred (and Zap @1), that since this article focused on the .50 BMG, that it was an endorsement for placing smaller sniper rifles (or assault rifles) in the hands of civilians?

3. "I am a person who believes in all 10 of the Bill of Rights."

Try reading the High Cost of Willfully Misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment, and, more especially, Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting opinion in Heller [emphasis added]:

Try reading the 5th Amendment, which says that no one may be deprived of “life” without due process of law. Every dead victim of gun violence in the U.S. has been deprived of life without due process of law.

It is no consolation for victims, like the 20 Sandy Hook Elementary School children, whose little bodies were riddled by bullets, or for their families, when the loss of life comes at the hands of an individual, as opposed to their government.

It is truly unfortunate that individuals, like Fred, have swallowed the profit making NRA fantasies hook, line and sinker. The notion of brave individuals holding off the armed might of the U.S. government by being armed to the teeth is nothing short of a suicidal, paranoid delusion.

Guns neither insure freedom nor safety. To the contrary, a recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health revealed that there is a direct correlation between the number of guns and the number of homicides.

The murder rate in Chicago, where gun control is virtually nonexistent, is 19.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. That figure is more than 13.8 times greater than the murder rate in London (1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants) where there is strict control.

Last I checked, the U.K. was not listed as a tyrannical, totalitarian state.

The best insurance against tyranny is the accountability that comes with true democratic governance that puts the lives and well-being of people before the profits of the death merchants. Liberty is insured only with the application of equal justice under law.

"a paranoid rant by someone who actually believes that they can individually take on the armed might of a government like our own sounds nothing short of insane!"

Was that phrasing necessary to make your point? First of all, the word "individually" as used here is a loaded presupposition implying that those in favor of individual gun rights ALSO believe in individual rebellion, rather than group resistance, against the government.

Moving on, the fallacy contained in this loaded presupposition is exposed in light of the historical record, showing well-armed insurgent GROUPS that have successfully opposed large governments.

Using the "I" word is a borderline ad hominum that adds nothing to the debate. More to the point, if well-armed insurgent groups can successfully oppose large governments (a known fact), then one cannot credibly label as "insane" others who recognize and choose to act upon that fact.

I would like to say that I am a little distrusting of having my liberties protected from "tyranny", as defined by predominantly right-wing gun fetishists, who are armed with .50 cal rifles, which can take a man's head clean off from more than a mile away. These people openly celebrate their fantasies of armed rebellion to such a degree that the above minimization of the lethal import and use of a Barret rifle reads as self-serving, disingenuous and fundamentally puerile.

It's become increasingly clear that rational, dispassionate discourse is nearly beyond your capacity and this is evidenced by the delusional thinking expressed by gun supporters. I really don't want to live in the "polite society" that you envision for us, where all are armed and enabled to react with lethal force to any of life's frictions.

I didn't write this, and I don't know who did... but it is worth reading and considering.

REASON or FORCE?

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:
reason and force. If you want me to do something for you,
you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or
force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every
human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that’s it...

[Ed Note: As per The BRAD BLOG's few rules for commenting, please do not post entire articles from elsewhere here in comments. Rest of article removed. You can find the rest here and in the many other places it has been posted on the Internets. - BF]

Fascinating that LMK @6 believes one can escape the charge of "insanity" for those who actually believe they can take on the armed might of the U.S. government by doubling down on the insanity --- expanding from individual to group insurrection.

I don't know whether LMK is old enough to recall another group who thought like that. They called themselves the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA).

Their revolutionary fantasy ended on May 16, 1974 when a heavily armed group of individuals were surrounded by 400 LAPD SWAT officers. They unleashed a blaze of gunfire before every last one of the SLA members inside the house were consumed by a fire that erupted when the SWAT officers fired a flurry of tear gas canisters into the house.

The most significant armed insurrection in the U.S. was the Civil War. It cost the lives of 625,000 Americans in just four years.

The politics of those who started that 19th century conflagration were not dissimilar to those of the 21st Century wing-nuts who think their "liberty" is threatened by any and all efforts to reduce the wholesale slaughter wrought by unregulated gun sales. They lost. And the nation was better for their loss.

So no, LMK, one day before we celebrate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I can't accept your choice of bullets over ballots as even remotely representing a rational choice.

Doubling down from armed individual to group insurrection reflects an insane course --- one that has no place within the rational discourse of a civilized society.

P.S. MLK referred to it as "madness." I referred to it as "insanity." If it makes you more comfortable, I'd be happy to replace the word "insanity" with "madness" to describe your advocacy of either individual or group armed insurrection.

Re Fred Milton Olsen @8:

A couple of points.

While The BRAD BLOG welcomes a wide range of public discourse in its comments, there are a few basic rules.

One is that, if you wish to refer to another article, you can provide a link to that article so readers who wish to read it in its entirety can do so. It is certainly acceptable to provide selective quotes from that article, as I did @5 by quoting from Justice Stephen's opinion. But it is inappropriate to set forth the entirety of another article in your comment.

Two: The entirety of the article you regurgitated can be summed up as the vision of the gun as a deterrent --- the same irrational theory that fueled the nuclear arms race during the Cold War and brought the human race damned close to extinction during the Cuban missile crisis.

In Los Angeles, street gangs have not been deterred by the fact that competing gangs are armed. To the contrary, their weapons have provided the means for an never-ending cycle of violence and revenge killings.

Oh, yes, people can be clubbed or stabbed to death. But the gun --- especially sniper rifles and assault rifles with high capacity magazines --- makes wholesale slaughter so much easier and impersonal.

BTW if you want to buy into the insanity of deterrence theory, why stop with guns. Why not strap a nuclear bomb on everyone and compel them to wear a T-shirt reading, "Shoot me and we all die!"

Bullets over ballots? Nice try at framing! As for MLK day, I'm disgusted to live in Madison, Wisconsin, where over the years we have probably spent well in excess of a million dollars on MLK day parties at the Capitol for a few well-off black men sitting with a bunch of well-off white men giving each other awards for our country being worse off than ever. Well dressed black children will sing movement songs for the rich people..... while more people than ever remain in poverty and the victims of vicious discrimination. The worst part will be the military contingent there "to honor Dr. King." We are engaged in a worldwide war based on lies that is bankrupting our country. Dr. King was against war, specifically another war based on lies, Vietnam. MLK day "celebrations" are a bizarre party for the rich and powerful enemies of Dr. King to wrap themselves in his garments, like wolves in sheepdogs' clothing. Would Martin EVER have sat with someone like Scott Walker?

Sorry for digression but you brought it up.

Oh, yes, I'm actually somewhat familiar with what happened to the Symbionese Liberation Army, having written a short piece on it recently. It seems that your argument is "Might makes right. Give up!" That's not the way it works. Please take 3 minutes and 54 seconds to watch and hear Mr Deek Jackson's humorously scathing assessment of the world's most powerful armed forces vs. small numbers of lightly armed resitance fighters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU6uu1BE9Io

I hope that everyone in general will enjoy Mr. Jackson's other presentations to be found under the name of the FKN NEWZ.

Great job Ernest! I totally agree with your perspective and use of "insane".

Where were the gun advocates when the Patriot Act was signed?
Where were the gun advocates when the TSA was created?
Where were the gun advocates when SOPA was signed?
Where were the gun advocates when FISA was signed?

Gun advocates are just a bunch of scared little boys in serious need of therapy. Professional help is out there, go get it.

As well written as this propaganda piece is, it doesn't discuss the fact that all weapons of that caliber are large and, with respect to other weapons, excessively heavy. They are impassible to conceal on ones person and they're massive recoil and limited capacity makes them unlikely to be used in a mass murder. Furthermore, the cost of such weapons reduces the amount purchased since not only are they obscenely expensive, so is the ammunition.

Furthermore, accusations that they are not suited for sporting is a pure fallacy. They're ideal weapons for long range target shooting or the daring hunter who wants to take out his target animal at extreme range. There are few substitute weapons for this purpose.

Finally, any deranged lunatic seeking to pull off a mass murder would steer clear of these high caliber weapons since they would be counter productive to his/her plans. They would be more likely to purchase a handgun or small caliber rifle because of the same reason that VERY few soldiers are equipped with such a weapon. It is simply unnecessary and far too heavy to carry it and its massive ammunition.

Paul wrote:**Where were the gun advocates when the Patriot Act was signed?

Probably sitting in the dark along with the congress and the rest of the country. Now me, I was raising hell about it and giving hell to National Public Radio about their lapdog/ stenographer role post 9-11. What were you doing, friend?

****Where were the gun advocates when the TSA was created?

Raising more hell than you, I'm sure, as they were some of the most directly affected people.

******Where were the gun advocates when SOPA was signed?

Probably the same places you were, Charlie Brown. You seem to think we should have been wearing big signs (or maybe have tattooed numbers on our arms) identifying us as 2nd Amendment defenders. Wherever you were, were you constantly identifying yourself as a gun control advocate when SOPA was signed?

*****Where were the gun advocates when FISA was signed?

Well, I was in Milwaukee, which for some reason had the highest or 2nd highest amount of FISA approved surveillance.

*******Gun advocates are just a bunch of scared little boys in serious need of therapy. Professional help is out there, go get it.

"Gun advocates", as you call us, are a wide range of people with a wide range of politics and philosophies. To try to unfairly reduce a group of people to a slogan is to try to demonize them. That's your right in this country. But it doesn't mean that you're right. You may use all the names and insults you like but it won't change the numbers. Good luck with that.

Re Nicholas @15:

Aside from the points I made already @5, here's why I do not find your "it's too heavy a weapon" all that reassuring.

On Aug. 1, 1963, Charles Joseph Whitman, an engineering student and former Marine, purchased an M1 carbine, and a 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun and a green rifle case. He returned to his garage, sawed off the barrel of the shot gun. He packed these weapons, a Remington 700 6mm bolt-action rifle, a .35 cal pump carbine, a 9mm lugar pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25 cal pistol, a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 magnum revolver, food, coffee, vitamins, earplugs, jugs of water, matches, lighter fluid, rope, binoculars, a machete, three knives, a transistor radio, toilet paper, a razor and a bottle of deodorant into his footlocker.

He arrived at the Univ. of Tx. at 11:45 a.m., showed a security guard a fake ID, obtained a parking permit. He told the guard he was delivering equipment. He brought all of this up to the top of the UT tower using a rented dolly, which he was using to lug it all up a flight of stairs to the observation deck when he encountered 51-year-old Edna Townsley. When she asked him for his university ID, he split her skull open with the butt of a rifle.

He barricaded himself atop the tower and took up a sniper’s position, where he began his killing spree. He killed 16 people that day and wounded 32 more before police broke through the barricade and shot him dead.

If Whitman could lug all those weapons atop the tower, what’s to stop a future “deranged lunatic” (your apt descriptor) from carrying out a similar assault with the .50 BMG Barrett M82A1M?

If the Barrett Light Fifty were available to Whitman that day, do you think he would have had any qualms about using it? How much worse would that tragedy have been if Whitman had access to that level of firepower?

Fred Milton Olsen @13 wrote:

Please take 3 minutes and 54 seconds to watch and hear Mr Deek Jackson's humorously scathing assessment of the world's most powerful armed forces vs. small numbers of lightly armed resitance [sic.] fighters.

Is that what you are, Fred, "a lightly armed resistance fighter"?

Perhaps I didn't get the memo. When did this war of armed resistance against the duly constituted government of the United States begin?

Or is it, that the right-wing, having just had their hats handed to them by the electorate, now envisions that it is their right to overthrow a democratically elected government by means of armed resistance?

P.S. As a Vietnam Vet, I am insulted that anyone would suggest that I would be unaware of the effectiveness of a lightly armed, insurgent force. While the Viet Cong and NVA ultimately prevailed over our effort at imperial conquest, that insurgency was accompanied by the death of some 2 million Vietnamese civilians. Is that what you and your friends would like to see in these United States? You think that's a reasonable alternative to democratic elections?

errrr... digressing even further here, but nobody was anywhere when SOPA was signed because SOPA never beceme law.

SOPA was soundly defeated by activists, a fact for which we all should be grateful.

... of course it or something worse will always be waiting in the wings from now on.

Absolutely correct, ZAP. SOPA was defeated by activists who signed on-line petitions, protested, etc. It was not defeated by bullets.

The better question is the one Brad has repeatedly asked. Where were the NRA concerns about "liberty" when Occupy Wall Street activists were being beaten, shot and pepper sprayed?

@@@@@@ You think that's a reasonable alternative to democratic elections?

We're not looking for civil war. But if you come to take the guns, that is what you will be causing.

And come on, now.... where do you think you are? You're at BradBlog, one of the internet's primary places that challenges the honesty of elections. If I was doing stand-up, I'd want you as a foil.

********If Whitman could lug all those weapons atop the tower, what’s to stop a future “deranged lunatic” (your apt descriptor) from carrying out a similar assault with the .50 BMG Barrett M82A1M?

What would stop him? The fact that Whitman did not have the money for such a gun. He bought old-fashioned bolt-action rifles which will remain legal for hunting in spite of any mass numbers of internet posts by you. What would stop someone now? You don't buy such a gun without $7k and some serious attention from the authorities. These are not sold out of the trunk of someone's car. Can you point to even one case of such a gun being used in a crime, much less a murder, mush less a mass murder? You cannot. You fail.

"Where were NRA activists when occupy protestors were being beaten?"

There are no "NRA" activists here. I took part in Madison's Occupy protests. You sat at home and watched it on TV, didn't you?

Correction, Whitman also had a Remington semi-auto hunting rifle, an M-1 Carbine and a pump shotgun. Except for the shotgun being sawed off, none were any different from normal weapons typically used for hunting in Texas in 1966. A ban on certain kinds of guns and magazines would not have stopped Whitman or any other deranged person. Could you possibly suggest something that might work?

Gee, Fred, I see that logic is not your strong suit.

The BRAD BLOG is a repository for articles dealing with election integrity.

The concept of election integrity entails a combination of insuring that all citizens who are entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so and that elections are conducted in a transparent matter so as to insure that every lawfully cast vote is accurately counted.

Those issues have nothing to do with questions of public safety and the lawful regulation of firearms, any more than they have to do with what laws are passed on behalf of public safety as to how and where you can operate a motor vehicle. Those issues are appropriately addressed through the political and legal process.

It appears, Fred, that, if it is the lawful will of a majority to enact reasonable gun regulations to protect the lives and safety of our citizens, that you are unwilling to abide by the will of the people and the laws so enacted.

Given that 74% of Americans favor a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, there can be no doubt that eventually there will be laws enacted to eliminate the availability of the same.

So when you say, "if you come to take the guns," are you including assault weapons, sniper rifles, and high capacity magazines as part of "the guns?"

Are you and your ilk prepared to wage a "civil war" over an assault weapons ban? Or is that simply tough-guy talk because you know that there is no valid basis whatsoever for your opposition to a ban, which is so overwhelmingly supported by an American public that is repulsed by the level of the carnage?

********It appears, Fred, that, if it is the lawful will of a majority to enact reasonable gun regulations to protect the lives and safety of our citizens, that you are unwilling to abide by the will of the people and the laws so enacted.

If you can remove the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights, I might consider it. Otherwise, no.

********So when you say, "if you come to take the guns," are you including assault weapons, sniper rifles, and high capacity magazines as part of "the guns?"

Yes. Were you somehow unclear on that?

**********Are you and your ilk prepared to wage a "civil war" over an assault weapons ban?

I'd be happy to sit at home and grow tomatoes and work on windmills, but I guess if you show up with guns and want to start a war, I have little choice. I have no idea why you are accusing me of wanting to start a war. It is you who will be starting it and showing up with guns.

Emotions are heated, piles of dead schoolchildren tend to have that effect on all sides, but Ernest, you've overreached a bit in your descriptions. And I don't state that conditionally.

For example.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
... Ernest A. Canning said on 1/20/2013 @ 11:23 am PT...

"Or is it, that the right-wing, having just had their hats handed to them by the electorate"

Uh-oh... why are you assigning "right-wing" motives to Fred?

... now envisions that it is their right to overthrow a democratically elected government by means of armed resistance?

... that this government of the elites, by the tools of the elites and for the sole benefit of the elites shall not perish from this Earth!

Rather than a civil war I think we would have something less intense and more comparable to prohibition, where citizens worked together to hide their activities from a repressive government. Alcohol kills far more people than guns do.... how successful was that prohibition experiments?

It won't work to try to goad me into violent statements or to embrace war. I am against it. I would probably try to go somewhere else in the event of war.... but if you come after me with guns when I have done you no harm, how shall I regard you? I will defend myself.

Heated rhetoric, Zap?

The elimination of assault weapons, sniper rifles, and high capacity magazines is a remarkably modest proposal when measured against the carnage wrought not only by these ongoing mass murders but on a daily basis in the U.S.

Between the time of the Sandy Hook massacre and the President's announcement --- a span of but one month --- 900 Americans became the lastest victims of gun-related homicide. That is a rate that exceeds the loss of life rate amongst our armed forces in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

How many more lives will it take before we begin to weigh the benefits of gun ownership against the costs?

The article I wrote did not include one word about denying responsible hunters the ability to own single shot rifles, or as NY generously provided, rifles with seven round magazines. It did not even go so far as to mention what we should do about the overabundance of handguns.

Yet, the mere mention of the fact that there is no legitimate civilian purpose for allowing anyone outside the military to purchase the Barrett Light Fifty or any other sniper weapon, triggered an "if you take away our guns, it will mean civil war" from Fred and a raise the ante, group armed resistance to the U.S. government from LMK.

These two offered crazy talk and then the, and you, feigned outrage when I didn't accept their insanity as having any place within an objective balancing of the benefits of gun ownership vs. the enormous costs.

Neither Fred, LMK nor you remotely suggested a valid reason why any civilized society should tolerate the presence of such awesome firepower in the hands of civilians.

To the contrary, Fred and LMK offered nothing more than delusional, paranoid rantings about gearing up to do battle with an all encompassing federal government.

Of course, when pressed, Fred backed off his overblown "civil war" rhetoric by claiming that it was I who "goaded" him into "violent statements" when it fact it was he, and LMK, who raised the specter of a violent overthrow of the government.

I suspect that a good many gun nuts who are espousing the "civil war" rhetoric have never personally experienced the sheer terror of combat. Theirs is the bravado that comes with never having had the experience of facing what may be their own imminent death at any moment amidst the noise, chaos and a fear that is so thick you can smell it.

At the end of the article, I quoted Martin Luther King: "Somehow this madness must cease."

That is something I'd ask you, Fred, and any other gun proponent to ponder before dropping another inanity into this comment thread.

You keep labeling me as warlike and violent when you are the one who has threatened to come after law-abiding people with armed force to impose your will upon millions of law-abiding people who have done you no harm.

This alone is plenty of reason to have the best means of self-defense available to the citizen. You are threatening us with armed force to impose your will.

You make threats you expect others to carry out. How many will you send, sir? If only a few percent of law-abiding legal gun owners decide to stand, you will not have enough soldiers or law enforcement ot accomplish the task, assuming that they would take the duty. Some law enforcement jurisdictions from cities to counties to entire states are already announcing their resistance and refusal to follow illegal orders.

How many will you send, sir, and why won't you do your own dirty work?

The paranoia and bad logic being demonstrated here, and elsewhere, by gun advocates makes it clear to me that mental health screening must be made a requirement before someone can own a gun. It is unfortunate that they cannot recognize it in themselves.

To Paul---Insult away, sir. You have no evidence that gun owners have any more mental problems than non-gun-owners-- I just surveyed the studies. Bring some to support your insult, won't you? You cannot.

I have no quarrel with you and would never harm you unless you try to me harm first.

=============================
Mr Canning wrote:

*******I suspect that a good many gun nuts who are espousing the "civil war" rhetoric have never personally experienced the sheer terror of combat. Theirs is the bravado that comes with never having had the experience of facing what may be their own imminent death at any moment amidst the noise, chaos and a fear that is so thick you can smell it.

======================

I dare say rather more of my side of the argument have experiences with armed conflict than with your side. I only received hazardous duty pay during my military time, not combat pay, but I have had my share of life and death experiences and am thoroughly acquainted with military ordnance and civilian energetic materials. Up close. Personal. Exploding. My adventures in the former Soviet Union are too many to tell. Do you know the terror of having a friend murdered? If you knew who William Marky was and what he did and how he died.... he was my friend.

You picked the wrong man to call out on that, dude. I haven't even started to go into how wrong you are.

Fred Milton Olsen @30 wrote:

you are the one who has threatened to come after law-abiding people with armed force to impose your will upon millions of law-abiding people who have done you no harm.

We have very few rules for comments here at The BRAD BLOG, Fred. One of the cornerstones is that those leaving comments are not permitted to knowingly publish disinformation.

You know very well that I never threatened to come after you or anyone else. I did not say that I would impose "armed force" on any citizen, law abiding or otherwise. I have made no effort to "impose my will" on you or anyone else.

I simply pointed out the fallacy of those who have fallen for the NRA/weapons industry propaganda --- of fantasies of vigilantes arming themselves to the teeth out of some paranoid delusion that doing so is necessary to protect themselves against some ill conceived perceptions of tyrannical government. I've also pointed to your erroneous beliefs about the scope of the second amendment, and touched upon the more fundamental right that is supposed to be protected by the 5th & 14th amendments --- the right not to be deprived of "life" without due process of law. And I've pointed to a preference for non-violence, ballots, not bullets.

Please consider this a warning not to knowingly publish disinformation in our comment section. If it happens again, I'll ask Brad to take appropriate steps to first moderate your comments, and, if the violations continue, to ban your future comments altogether.

Oh, and here's an alternative to an outright ban on these weapons.

Let's pass legislation that establishes that any time a weapon manufactured by a company, like Barrett's, cause death, injury or property damage, the company which manufactured the weapon should be held responsible for all public costs, including the cost of emergency services (police, fire, ambulances), the cost of all medical services, and a payment into a wrongful death fund to compensate the families of those whose lives are lost.

If manufacturers stood to lose that kind of money, they'd either stop manufacturing the weapons or take steps to insure than none of their weapons fell into the wrong hands. Oh, and the NRA would fold up like a wet taco.

Go for it, Mr. Canning. Let's bring Brad into this. No problem. He'll see that you return time after time to making challenges of war, using ad hominems, insult, etc.

You don't want to seem to discuss the more likely scenario of a prohibition-like situation, or the cities, counties and states which are refusing to go along with illegal orders. You don't want to discuss cooperative peaceful resistance, only to try and goad the conversation towards that of war. Let Brad come and read what you've written, please.

*******Let's pass legislation that establishes that any time a weapon manufactured by a company, like Barrett's, cause death, injury or property damage, the company which manufactured the weapon should be held responsible for all public costs, including the cost of emergency services (police, fire, ambulances), the cost of all medical services, and a payment into a wrongful death fund to compensate the families of those whose lives are lost.

Good luck with that. You wouldn't be able to do that with cars. motorcycles or airplanes, and your legal arguments would never fly even in a friendly court.

But let's say for the purposes of discussion that you manage to pass such legislation as you outlined above. I already asked you if you could could point to one crime, much less one murder, much less one mass murder committed with (as you said) "a weapon manufactured by a company, like Barrett's,". Show me the crimes committed with a .50 cal rifle, which is ostensibly what this article's discussion thread is about. If no one is committing crimes with this gun, why are you upset?

I'm listening politely.

Fred Milton Olsen @36:

You wouldn't be able to do that with cars. motorcycles or airplanes, and your legal arguments would never fly even in a friendly court.

1. The manufactures of cars, motorcycles and airplanes can now be liable if defects in their products cause injury or death. It's called strict liability.

2. The difference between guns and the other three items you mention is that the latter are not designed to kill. Weapons are.

3. Legislation is not something you have passed in courts, friendly or otherwise. The Congress and state legislatures are assigned that task.

Show me the crimes. Show me the problem.

You don't have any crimes to point to, so how will you hold any .50 cal owner or manufacturer responsible with your "strict liabilty"?

On strict liability: Strict liability for harm resulting from abnormally dangerous conditions and activities developed in the late nineteenth century. It will be imposed if the harm results from the miscarriage of an activity that, though lawful, is unusual, extraordinary, exceptional, or inappropriate in light of the place and manner in which the activity is conducted. Common hazardous activities that could result in strict liability include storing explosives or flammable liquids, blasting, accumulating sewage, and emitting toxic fumes. Although these activities may be hazardous, they may be appropriate or normal in one location but not another. For example, storing explosives in quantity will create an unusual and unacceptable risk in the midst of a large city but not in a remote rural area. If an explosion occurs in the remote area, strict liability will be imposed only if the explosives were stored in an unusual or abnormal way.

http://legal-dictionary....ary.com/Strict+Liability

The courts always have final say over any legislation, withe the Supreme Court batting last, especially on constitutional issues.

Enough, Fred. I have no intention of getting into a discussion about how our legal system works with a lay individual who doesn't have a clue.

We're done discussing this!

Why are mental health issues considered an insult? Everyone has them. No one is "normal". This includes myself. The healthy thing is to recognize your issues and do something about them. This includes myself. Self awareness is a very good thing.

Take your ball and go home, eh? That works. And don't talk to me about being a layman. I highly doubt you've ever worked in a law firm.

Mr Canny's posts and strategies for NOT discussing the issue fit a template: That of the paid internet shill. He may not be one, but his posts fit the template.

http://consciouslifenews...-opinion-debate/1147073/

I can't pretend to be in an actual discussion here when Ernie writes "I can't accept your choice of bullets over ballots as even remotely representing a rational choice." The fact is I never said anything remotely like that, nor are there only two choices, as Ernie falsely portrays here.

Fred also noted Ernie misstating Fred's words and the icing on the cake is when Ernie claims others are doing the same with his words. This item is a case study on how emotionalism and faulty arguments can derail a discussion seeing as how this item is already off the rails.

Some hard facts: More guns = more death.

The Harvard School of Public Health, whose Harvard Injury Control Research Center reported:

Their study discloses a direct correlation between the availability of guns and deaths, adding: "We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide."

Oh, lmk, can you actually point to a single example of my alleged "misstating Fred's words"?

Fred Milton Olsen said @ 35:

Let's bring Brad into this.

No, thanks. This comment thread blew up out of control while I was otherwise engaged, so beyond a cursory review and a quick thought or two, I'll stay out of this particular muck. But here's my quick thought or two.

Your very first thought in your very first comment here --- "Dear Bradblog, I am a person who believes in all 10 of the Bill of Rights" --- earned you no points. We also support "all 10 of the Bill of Rights"...along with the rest of the Constitution and even its preamble here. Your suggestion that Ernie does not is unsupported by anything that he has ever argued or written here.

That you believe your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the only interpretation is both laughable and historically inaccurate. Firearms have been "well regulated" since the beginning of our Republic, and are still today. (If you don't believe me, by way of just one example, of many, try to legally purchase a machine gun, which is a weapon that has been banned from civilian use since 1934.)

you are the one who has threatened to come after law-abiding people with armed force to impose your will upon millions of law-abiding people who have done you no harm. ... You are threatening us with armed force to impose your will.

Ernie has done no such thing. Please do your best to stick to countering arguments that have actually been made here. You needn't agree with anything Ernie, myself or anybody has to say here, but you may not make up false positions for them. And thanks!

Mr Canning again tries to turn the topic away from the article. Do you have a Harvard Medical article that shows any crimes, deaths, property damage etc. from the guns in the article we are discussing, Mr. Canning? No, you can't, so you change the subject. You can't even bring us any numbers from the study you are trying to change the subject to. Where I live in Wisconsin, concealed carry permits have been issued for a year now without any jump in violent crime or murder. The official stats are not out yet to be linked to, but any jump would have been seized on by local folks like you. I've spoken with the local anti-gunners and when I ask if there's blood in the streets yet from legal concealed carry, they look away and say nothing.

You haven't defined the problem you want fixed with any numbers, only emotions and words like massacre, and mass shootings.

You've brought nothing to the table on .50 cal rifles, the topic of this thread. No crimes, no murders, no mass shootings.

Brad wrote: "try to legally purchase a machine gun, which is a weapon that has been banned from civilian use since 1934."

Sorry, Brad. There are thousands of legal machine guns in the hands of civilians. Paperwork and a tax stamp. Until 1984 you could even make new ones to sell to civilians, but after 1984, no new machine guns may be bought by civilians. This has made the price go up but for say $7K and up you can have a machine gun, no problem. Like the .50 cal rifles, you'll not be able to point to any crime problem with the thousands of legally owned machine guns. If you actually read this entire thread, did Mr Canning's repeated ad hominems bother you, or are those OK if you support such people's position?

Please correct "1984" to "1986" above.

With the proper Class III paperwork, you can make and possess new machine guns, but not sell them to anyone except the military and law enforcement. These are called "post-ban samples".

Treat me nice. I'm teaching you something.

Fred Milton Olsen said @ 48:

Sorry, Brad. There are thousands of legal machine guns in the hands of civilians.

As you know, because you quoted me saying it, I was referring to the "purchase" of machine guns which was effectively made impossible by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Yes, there may be some out there, but good luck trying to legally buy one.

The point, of course, and you help make it for me further with the rest of your comments above, is that it is perfectly Constitutional to regulate the manufacture, purchase and/or use of fire arms, despite your inaccurate and obnoxious assertion that those who agree with that point, such as Ernie or myself or the majority of the Supreme Court for pretty much the entire history of the nation, do not "believe in all 10 of the Bill of Rights".

As to Ernie's "ad hominems", perhaps I missed them. Either way, as per our very few rules for commenting at The BRAD BLOG, personal attacks on other commenters are not allowed here, though such attacks on public figures (in which I generously include those of us with the bully pulpit as posters of articles here) are fine. In turn, of course, we get to "fire" back. Hope you can handle it.

Fred and his fallacies are exhausting, Brad.

Take his claim that if I can't point to a crime having already been committed by someone with the Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifle, there is no reason why we should not permit civilians to possess them --- this, despite his inability to point to a single, legitimate function such a weapon would serve.

But, why stop there? I'm not aware of any American ever having blown up a city with a nuclear bomb. Does that mean that we should allow citizens to acquire them until someone does the unthinkable and sets one off?

Or, if we want to be less dramatic, how about surface-to-air missiles capable of taking down civilian air liners. Don't recall any U.S. citizen having used a surface-to-air missile on an airliner --- yet!

What a myopic view of the world and the function of government. Fred seems to think that governments have no power to enact laws to protect citizens from activities or goods that could cause harm or death until someone actually causes harm or death. Under that view, the government could not prevent carcinogens from being dumped into our drinking water until someone suffers cancer from that specific chemical.

Fred is partially correct on machine guns. The Federal Owners Protection Act of 1986 banned sales of machine guns manufactured on or after May 19, 1986. It does contain a grandfather clause that permits those in circulation prior to that date to be resold.

I read the Sam Harris post "The Riddle of the Gun" at his blog. Interesting. It changed my thinking on the gun debate, I must admit. Link here:

Mr Canning uses ad hominems in Comments #6.10,11,18, 29, and 34. I might have missed a couple.

In Brad's Comment #46 he says I have certain position and that it it laughable. He does not quote me, and then he goes on to give wrong information about machine guns. You go ahead and laugh, Brad. Laughter is healthy. The Dao says that you and your ridicule are a part of it.

Mr Canning clearly threatens to come after law-abiding gun owners with force by advocating bans and confiscation. In comment #26 he asks me to clarify my position "if they come to get the guns." Would Mr. Canny come with the intention of consfiscating any "banned" guns or magazines without force? I think not.

I tried twice to get Mr Canning to discuss a more likely scenario, something similar to prohibition, but he returns to his "civil war" comments again and again.... telling me how government might makes right, or at least for increased casualties (SLA, US Civil War and Vietnam) and therefore "resistance is futile". Mr. Canning was clearly wrong in Vietnam. It was Mr. Canning and the American forces that inflicted the vast majority of causalties trying to impose their will on people who wanted to be left alone to rule themselves. He actively worked with bullets not ballots. He asked will you fight if we come after you? He dressed up his threat with high-sounding words about elections he cannot deliver. He tries to make me out to be a criminal of laws not passed and not likely to. He tries to say that Obama's executive actions will somehow translate into " the lawful will of a majority to enact reasonable gun regulations to protect the lives and safety of our citizens" and then faults me because I am unwilling to follow these imaginary and undefined laws.

In comment #33, Canning accuses me of somehow taking away or acting against "the right not to be deprived of "life" without due process of law." In short he accuses me in a left handed way of murder to justify his desire to take my legally owned firearms that have harmed no one.

You cannot have your bans and confiscations without the use of force on citizens who have in no way harmed you, so please don't say you haven't threatened me.

Now where's your crime stats on .50 cal guns, and since you brought it up, legally owned machine guns? That's the thread, and if the owner of the Blog won't stick to the topic but comes around one sidedly enforcing rules, it's kind of hard to have a conversation isn't it?

Why should I NOT be concerned about Mr. Canning's threats? He informs us of his history of going halfway around the world with a gun to impose force upon innocent people who never harmed or threatened him, and that 2 million people died. For all my many sins, I have never done that. I have never threatened or harmed anyone with my firearms or other weapons. Can Mr Canning say the same? He has not said he was forced into these actions or that they were in any way wrong, or even mistaken.

FMO said @ 53:

Mr Canning uses ad hominems in Comments #6.10,11,18, 29, and 34. I might have missed a couple.

Whatever credibility I grant to folks like yourself as a starting point is quickly disappearing. I find nothing ad hominem in the comments from Ernie you site, with the possible exception of the one @ 29 which says you "offered crazy talk" and "insanity" in your arguments, which he describes as "delusional, paranoid rantings about gearing up to do battle with an all encompassing federal government."

That's pretty tame and focuses on your argument, as opposed to you. So I'm pretty sure you can handle it. Not to mention, the restriction on "personal attacks" on other commenters does not apply to those who post articles here (as opposed to comments only). You'd probably be better to make your argument, rather than crying about being ad hominem attacks in this case, but that's just my opinion.

Mr Canning clearly threatens to come after law-abiding gun owners with force by advocating bans and confiscation.

That is an idiotic, and inaccurate argument. (Does that mean I just used an ad hominem against you?!) He made no threat of the kind, and if you continue to post that sort of information, you won't be writing here much longer. Ernie also offered you a gentle warning. Now I have done same. Knock it off. There was a federal Assault Weapons Ban in force from 1994 to 2004 and guns were not confiscated, unless they were illegally purchased after the ban went into effect. Ernie did not call for your guns to be "confiscated" in this thread. If you believe he did, then he was correct to describe your rantings as "delusional" and "paranoid".

He asked will you fight if we come after you?

No. He didn't. Please stop making shit up. Thanks.

You may continue your twisted attacks for his service to this nation, if you want to continue making yourself look sillier than you have already, but you're not winning any converts over here by doing it. In the meantime, this conversation and, in particular, your comments, are becoming even more tiresome than they were previously. Little wonder Ernie gave up even trying to bother. Smaller wonder still that you have convinced yourself you need a gun to live safely in this world.

In any case, knock off the shit that violates our very few rules for commenting here. Okay? I really don't have time to baby sit. Thanks again.

The only thing I'd add to Brad @55 is this:

A reductio ad absurdum does not equal ad hominem.

Crazy talk comes from a crazy person. Arguments cannot be insane, only people. You use ad hominems pure and simple. and you use them for the same reason anyone uses ad hominems. You don't wish to argue the points.

Neither Brad nor Mr Canning wants to stick to the thread topic because you cannot show any crimes from .50 cal rifles. You have had plenty of time to do so and you have not.

Brad is still clinging to "As you know, because you quoted me saying it, I was referring to the "purchase" of machine guns which was effectively made impossible by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Yes, there may be some out there, but good luck trying to legally buy one."

Sure Brad. We ARE talking about purchase and possession here. You, Brad Friedman, can go and buy a machine gun if you have the money and are willing to do the paperwork and pay the tax stamp fee. You keep denying this. Shall I walk you through the process and provide you with a legal seller and the forms numbers? That would be all I could do short of personally escorting you through the process, wherever it is you live.

Regulation is not a ban and not confiscation. Your strategies cannot work without wholesale bans and confiscations. Anything less will not appreciably reduce the number of guns in criminal hands, and even then it will not produce the desired effect as you will still be leaving millions of guns in the hands of government where they may be easily obtained by government or civilian criminal elements. You need only to look south of the border in Mexico to see that this is true. Extreme gun control, extreme violence.

Say straight out, "No bans, no confiscations." Otherwise, that is what you are saying, no matter how you dress it up.

As Brad doesn't wish to stay on topic, let me adress his statement: "That you believe your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the only interpretation is both laughable and historically inaccurate."

Where is you interpretation, Sir? The Constitution sets forth the powers and duties of government. The Framers, in their wisdom, recognized that the people needed protection from their government, so they went back and wrote 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. These 10 Amendments are about limiting government power and guaranteeing citizen power.

Do you believe that any of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights is there to give power to government and limit the rights of citizens?

Kings Bush, Cheney, and Obama and their minions have argued that "things are different now. The founders didn't know about muslim extremists, telephones, e-mail and machine guns and bombs, so we can trash your guarantees of privacy from the bill of rights. We can put gag orders on you. We can tell you your religion is illegal. We can search you whenever we want for whatever reason, and not tell you this reason. We can limit or forbid your travel. We can delay or deny you trial. We can hold you incommunicado. We can use secret evidence. We can deny you bail, or set it excessively."

That is how our rights have been taken away, Brad. The Second Amendment is about people power, not government power. Because the government fails to keep their end of the bargain by organizing the militia, "every man" as the Framers put it, you may not take away my rights. The militia clause is subordinate to the clearly stated "keep and bear arms" clause. The "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.... to guarantee rights to people, not government. The founders were very clear in may other writings about what "keep and bear arms" meant. I issue a friendly challenge for you to produce one quote from the Framers that says otherwise.

If you want to say that "keep and bear arms" means something different nowadays, I'm sure you can get some help with that from John Yoo and other Bush, Cheney and Obama legal scholars who will gladly argue for you that all the other parts of the Bill of Rights can be set aside "for your safety and protection."

Have you ever quoted Ben Franklin on your website, Brad?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The soldiers who disarmed the Native Americans at Wounded Knee in 1890 told them that they were doing it "for their safety". Then they turned around an massacred them.

I am far more concerned about governments killing us wholesale than with what a relative few crazies can do. The numbers of unarmed people killed by governments is not comparable to civilian murder victims. Many murder deaths are regrettable.... how much more so when they are the deaths of people who could not defend themselves after being by disarmed by their governments.

If Mr. Canning actually saw combat as he says, it is likely that one of his missions was to go to villages and hamlets, tear them apart, and look for weapons held by the people. Then, if any are found, people are turned over to the governmrnt for internment, torture, or summary execution.

I have treated Mr. Canning remarkably politely, considering his history of direct support for such actions. He still has not said he was forced into these actions or that they were wrong or mistaken.

Upon re-reading, lest you misconstrue:

From my post, #57

"Your strategies cannot work without wholesale bans and confiscations. Anything less will not appreciably reduce the number of guns in criminal hands,"

Please clarify that by reading this:

"Your strategies cannot work without wholesale bans and confiscations. (text added)You really believe that anything less will not appreciably reduce the number of guns in criminal hands,"

end
==============================================
new

The NFA or National Firearms Act of 1934 regulated the civilian ownership of machine guns. It didn't take a single machine gun out of the hands of criminals. Even if you could get a law that banned all machine gun manufacture, and then rounded up every last machine gun.... you are too late, my friend, too late. Machine guns are unfortunately easy and cheap to make, right in your own home or garage. I refer you to the design of the British Sten Gun, or several others which have very few parts and do not require a great deal of tooling or tolerances. I refer to the Sten Gun in particular because at the height of its UK production, it was made for about $12 USD.

A high capacity magazine is even easier to make and can be made by anyone who remembers what they learned in 8th or 9th grade metal shop class.

Your only answer to the problem can be more and more draconian penalties on people who have not harmed anyone. If people do not go along with new limitations/bans/confiscations, what will you do? If people continue to produce banned firearms and magazines, what will you do? What will be the penalties, and how quickly will you increase them, and how draconian will they eventually become to try to achieve your ends? You can't have new laws without punishments can you? Don't back away from this.

People will weigh the risk of being caught with the punishment. This may influence their reaction and the eventual situation-- will it be like prohibition, or will something worse be forced on the citizenry?

Why don't you want to talk about a prohibition-like scenario? I've said that it's more likely. You say you don't want bans and consfiscation, so why can't we discuss the prohibition scenario?

You folks are always talking about how we should be like "all those other civilized countries"-- well, all those other "civilized countries" (and the "uncivilized" ones too) had outright bans and confiscations. You can't say you you want us to "be like them" without wholesale bans and confiscations, so quit pretending that isn't your aim, now or a little down the road.

And before you start in on your "civilized countries" rap and labeling me as "right wing", I believe in proportional representation and changing the constitution to allow it if necessary. I believe in single payer health care. I believe in free and fair elections, which is why I go to BradBlog and Bev Harris blackboxvoting.org. I'm probably more left-wing than you are, but I don't agree with those old terms any more-- they are so abused.

Here's one for you:

Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Afraid of guns? Don't buy one.

I hope I can come back and discuss things with you today, but if it's 'til tomorrow, I'm working on a complaint against a state agency for violating discrimination laws in the area of race, religion, disability. Though not a protected class I will also include economic discrimination against my state's citizens by this agency. This agency has a history of secrecy and violations of the Open Records Act and Open Meetings Law.

Good luck with your good works today, even if we disagree some on how to get there.

Re Harvard Medical "in the Home"

Not that you produced any numbers or analysis for even cursory review---

Why don't you help us all make sure that gun-owning households know the risks of having a gun in the house, so that they can weigh those risks and decide if they want one? Or to help them decide that certain behaviors can reduce risk without anyone giving up anything?

This sounds like a good idea to me, but then, I've got some time invested in teaching safety instead of taking things away from people. They still have risk, but they decide.

What kind of safety decisions do you make for your family? Do you burn candles? Big fire danger. Are their seat belts buckled? Do you let them have skateboards or violent video games? Do you want the government involved in these decisions for your household or do you want to weigh the risks and make your own decisions?

I remind you that we are talking the Harvard "In the Home" material referred to earlier.

Guns and suicide? Since when did you become a born-again "You don't have a right to end of life decisions" person?" People decide to kill themselves and it's their decision. Get over it.

NOTE: I will NEVER kill myself. I might have to die defending myself, but that's a different decision.

Comments 57-59 are both redundant and fallacious.

Redundancies:

E.g.,

"Neither Brad nor Mr Canning wants to stick to the thread topic because you cannot show any crimes from .50 cal rifles."

See comment #51.

"Where is you [sic.] interpretation, Sir?"

See comment #6.

Fallacious:

"Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Afraid of guns? Don't buy one."

The former entails an individual's right to choose --- a woman's very personal decision pertaining to her own body. The latter entails the risk of being murdered by someone else!

Here are three questions derived from my comment @51 which can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" without your resort to verbosity.

1. Must federal and state governments await the occurrence of either death or serious injury before they can enact laws designed to protect the health and safety of their citizens?

2. Do you believe that individuals have a constitutional right to possess surface-to-air missiles?

3. Do you believe that individuals have the constitutional right to possess nuclear bombs?

Charles Joseph Whitman, by the by, was first stopped by a civilian who happened to have his rifle in his trunk. He provided covering fire for the fastest-responding police who did not have longarms available, and allowed them to get into the tower without being shot.

"Who needs a silencer?"
Back in the day, many city dwellers would have firearms traps in their back yards to practice their marksmanship. The silencer was initially marketed to these people as a way for them to be quiet and considerate to their neighbors who might not want to hear guns going off at all hours.

So the answer to that question is, "Anyone who wants to be considerate of their neighbors." Noise pollution is pretty serious and while many cities won't allow such private ranges, there's loads of the country where it's just fine to practice your shooting on your property, and just polite not to make a racket doing it.

The murder rate in Chicago, where gun control is virtually nonexistent, is 19.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. That figure is more than 13.8 times greater than the murder rate in London (1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants) where there is strict control.

Wow...You really are misinformed. Chicago has one of the most strick gun control systems in the country. With a flat out ban on most handguns and many rifles within the city. Most Minicipalities have taken it a step further with a flatout ban on all handguns. Yet they still have the highest rate of gun violance per capita. Here is a link to the history of gun control in Chicago for you reading pleasure.

http://www.encyclopedia....story.org/pages/557.html