Let's see how many alarmist gun-ban cliches that a person can squeeze into a single article.

A .50-caliber sniper rifle can hit a target at 4,500 feet, shatter bulletproof limousines, penetrate sandbags, earth berms, armored vehicles, commercial planes, and drill through the walls (and living rooms) of 10 suburban houses lined up one after another.

Just what makes a sniper rifle? And will it shoot through bedrooms and kitchens too, or just living rooms? This is a shameless ripoff of Joe Piscopo's classic line from Johnny Dangerously about his .88 Magnum - "It shoots through schools".

The Geneva Conventions don't prohibit .50-caliber weapons' use against military personnel, and army manuals describe its usefulness in battle. But the weapon's use on civilians and in civilian areas is prohibited.

Does the Geneva Convention ever permit the Army to shoot civilians?

Oddly enough -- or maybe not so oddly in the twilight zone of Second Amendment zealotry -- you can buy a .50-caliber weapon from your friendly mail-order gun dealer.

Only a black powder gun, else you need to go through a licensed FFL dealer when shipping across state lines.

The Barrett line of .50-caliber sniper rifles, patented in 1987, is the "One Shot One Kill" enthusiasts' gun of choice.

Snipers have a club? I wonder what their secret handshake is.

After its introduction and wide use in the first Gulf War, it made some famous cameos in the arsenals of infamous separatists in the 1990s (Timothy McVeigh owned one, the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, had some).

That particular rifle may have been invented in 1987, but the .50 BMG round actually dates back to before WWII.

Even then, McVeigh's Ryder truck killed more people than his .50-cal did. And judging by the way Janet Reno surrounded them with tanks and firebombed their church, those .50-cals didn't do the Branch Davidians much good. Had they been able to fend off the attack with them you might have a point about the gun's usefulness.

The .50-caliber weapon is also used by civilian police forces, although not by the area's largest forces -- the Daytona Beach Police Department and Volusia's and Flagler's sheriff's offices.

So it's alright for the police to own them, but not a civilian? Just what do the police need with a gun that can kill a man from 4,500 feet away?

On Jan. 1, it became illegal to make, sell or distribute Barrett's .50-caliber Browning machine gun rifle in California.

Machine gun rifle? What happened to 'one shot one kill'? In this case, machine-gun is a gratuitous 'scare' tactic. He admits that the Barrett was invented and patented in 1987 and debuted during the Gulf War (which was fought in 1991). Unfortunately though, the manufacture of machine guns for civilian use was banned in 1986, years before the Barrett was produced. What he's referring to is the round, which was originally developed for military machine guns. But the original Barrett gun is a single shot bolt action rifle, and admitting that would make it sound much less scary.

. . .the debate surrounding the weapon's use (and now its lone-state ban) shows the distances gun extremists will go to to defend the indefensible -- and the sorry state of gun control efforts: Just last fall Congress and the president let expire a ban on assault weapons.

Actually Bush said he would have signed a renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban, but it never got to his desk. (But if he had though, he wouldn't have been re-elected)

But the so-called 'Assault Weapons Ban' is a red herring. It covered guns that were supposedly 'sportsterized'. That is they were made with folding stocks, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs. They were supposedly easy to carry, conceal, or 'spray fire' when 'shooting from the hip'. None of that could be said about the Barrett.

True, run-of-the-mill criminals aren't about to spend the necessary $2,000 to $8,000 to buy a .50-caliber sniper rifle, and gun control advocates would be hard pressed, if that's the route they chose, to blame shooting sprees on the weapon.

Kinda moots his whole point on banning them, eh?

Nevertheless, the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, in 1999 reported "a nexus" between the weapon and "terrorist groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs, international drug cartels, domestic drug dealers, religious cults, militia groups, potential assassins and violent criminals."

How nuanced. Guns don't cause outlaw motorcycle gangs and gun bans don't affect any of these people. Period. Both domestic and international religious militia dealers won't have any trouble getting their hands on the guns they want, legal or otherwise.

But a weapon's use (or non-use) by criminals isn't the only reason to argue for its ban.

Then what is the reason. I'm still waiting to hear a good one.

Tomahawk missiles haven't been used for criminal purposes domestically, either. That doesn't mean that a very rich weapons enthusiast should be allowed to have a few in his backyard.

That's not a reason, that's a total non sequitur. There's no "nexus" between these two things. Instead it is a revamped version of the 'nuclear weapon' cliche that gun banners always trot out. You wouldn't want your neighbor to be carrying around a 100 gigawatt positron collider, would you?

And what does he mean by saying they haven't been used for criminal purposes "domestically". Is he trying to intimate that they have been used for criminal purposes internationally? Maybe he's referring to a certain President and a certain aspirin factory.

What would possibly be the use of a weapon specifically designed to take out life at a very long distance, and originally designed as an antipersonnel and anti-aircraft gun, for sporting uses, let alone self-defense?

Guns don't hit people. They hit what you aim them at. That is the point, no matter whether it shoots B-Bs or Volkswagons.

There is almost no risk from a .50 caliber BMG rifle. Yeah, they probably can shoot through a house and might be able to shatter a limousine. But then I could also drive my car through your living room if I wanted to, and cars are a lot more common and a lot easier to hit someone with.

The rifle is simply a long range target rifle. Whether you're shooting Iraqi terrorists or buffalo the rifle doesn't care, and neither should you.

Like I've said before, the gun is never going to be popular among criminals. For starters it's expensive. Like several thousand dollars expensive. Drug dealers aren't going to buy one when they can get a pussy 9mm on just about any corner of "gun-free" Washington D.C for $100. Second, they are big and heavy. You don't exactly stick this in your pocket. Most of them are either fixed or have a big tripod. You'd probably need a 1/4 ton pickup truck to carry it around. Also the ammo is extremely expensive. At $2 to $3 a round you aren't going to be firing this thing very often.

Of all the things that people die from, guns are pretty low on the list. And on the gun list, .50 caliber rifles aren't even listed.

UPDATE: Reader Steve S. notes that pushing for a .50 caliber ban is the flavor of the week for the anti-gun lobby. It's more than coincidental, that CBS and the VPC are both banging the .50 caliber gun ban drum this week. Watch for Democrat Rep. Jim "Blame those dirty J-E-W-S" Moran to introduce legislation soon.