From CBS's 60 Minutes, with thanks to Sparta:
(CBS) Fifteen years ago, Osama bin Laden sent one of his operatives to the United States to buy and bring back two-dozen .50-caliber rifles, a gun that can kill someone from over a mile away and even bring down an airplane.In spite of all the recent efforts to curb terrorism, bin Laden could do the same thing today, because buying and shipping the world's most powerful sniper rifle is not as difficult as you might think.
Two months ago, Correspondent Ed Bradley reported on just how powerful the gun is. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly had a sharpshooter fire the department's own .30-caliber sniper rifle and the bullets bounced off a half-inch-thick plate of steel. Then, the marksman fired the .50-caliber sniper rifle, and the bullets blew right through the steel plate.
Now, you'll hear from a gunrunner who, just a few years ago, was able to outfit a guerrilla army in Kosovo with those powerful weapons. He was willing to talk to 60 Minutes, because now he thinks what he did was much too easy.
The gunrunner's name is Florin Krasniqi, and he is seen providing a new shipment of weapons to Albanian rebels, who are about to smuggle them over the mountains into Kosovo. After a few days' journey on horseback, the guns will end up in the hands of a guerrilla force known as the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has been fighting for independence from Serbia for nearly a decade.
Krasniqi took these guns to his family's home in Kosovo. Most of them were easy to get in Albania, but not the .50-caliber rifles. "This is, we get from the home of the brave and the land of the free, as we would like to say," says Krasniqi, who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y....
Krasniqi came to America in 1989. He was smuggled across the Mexican border in the trunk of a car with just $50 in his pocket. Today, he's an American citizen, and the owner of a highly successful roofing business.
"This is what I do for a living," says Krasniqi. "This is how we earn the money in New York. There's a large Albanian-American community in the New York City area."
I guess gun-running is just a hobby for him.
What was Krasniqi's largest shipment of .50-caliber rifles to Kosovo? "One was on an airplane that he filled up with weapons," says Sullivan. "And I think there were about a hundred guns in there,. 100 .50-caliber rifles."According to Sullivan, the gunrunners transported the guns on a truck to New York's Kennedy airport and hid them inside shipments of food and clothing destined for refugees.
"They put the palettes into a plane. Nothing gets X-rayed," says Sullivan. "It's wrapped up as humanitarian aid.
Reality check:
Yes, these weapons have a great range... and yes, they fire a .50 BMG round. But, frankly, using one of these rifles for long range sniping is not an excercise in markmanship, its a physics problem, with calculations for windage and drop.
As for security, it sounds more like a failure of customs, not a flaw in domestic firearms laws.
One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that weapons of all sorts and evil actors are pouring in over our unprotected borders and are shipped in with goods. Then, of course, we have increased activity of old and new gangs, indoctrination of angry and resentful criminals in prisons, and thousands itching for an outlet for their latent violent tendencies. It's not much of a stretch to say that we are about to hit a rough patch in which hundreds of thousands if not millions will die.
More gun-phobia and ignorance from the press. I guess it's politically easier for them to focus on the weapons and ignore the criminals, but how quickly they've forgotten the jihadis who terrorized a city with a beat-up old car and a .22 rifle.
I'm starting to get pretty fed-up with this open-borders,unlimited "free-trade", world-socialism, globalism, "3rd Way" or some-such crap. Aside from a few details(like who's going to call the shots,based on what), the ultimate objective does not look all that different between the neo-cons and the leftists. It's largely semantics.
The point is that pursuit of these objectives precludes effective preventive measures that inflicts pain on the perpetrators specifically. Instead society at large is expected to accept ever-more expansionist,intrusionist government. Which is antithetical to the laws and principles on which this country was based.
Anybody with half a brain knows the first defense to prevent infiltration, subversion, and foriegn terrorist actions inside the country is strict border defense and discriminating immigration policy. But no, we can't have that, instead we have to create a supposedly benevolent police-state.
It's hard to believe that such a dangerous weapon would be available to the public. What legitimate use would a 50 caliber sniper rifle have outside of the military?
I guess you don't know what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. Hint... it has little to do with deer-hunting.
The 50 cal is fun to shoot. Unfortunately Arnold in California has made it illegal. Thus freeing up more guns for our moslems friends to use. I guess someday the only way an American can get to shoot one is to go to your local mosque. Since the islamist know that with such weapons it will be easier to take America when the final stages of the take over by islam is ready to occur. Our liberal friends will do there part by having the honest citizens disarmed.
I don't see any help from our courts our government in the near future. Bush doesn't seem to care and the democrats even care less.
Kentim:
It looks like your comment was directed at me. Please read the accompanying articles regarding this rifle - with appropriate ammunition it has the capability of taking out parked or taxiing aircraft or fuel storage depots from a very long range. The 50 cal. sniper rifle is a long range offensive weapon fired from a concealed position.
Regarding the 2nd amendment; "A well regulated Militia" suggests something other than lunatics (or Islamic terrorists) being able to possess whatever arms and ammunition they can afford. Compare armament in the late 18th century with the destructive power that is available today. Do you draw the line anywhere regarding armaments that an unregulated militia (sorry to refer to the 2nd amendment again) can possess?
Johnb
Not to be a literalist on you, but were you to review the Framer's intent, it was intended that the populace have access to the same weapons as the government.
Allow me to give you a remedial civics lesson... The Bill of Rights is a document intended to expound those powers that the Federal government specifically does *NOT* have. Ergo, from a constitutional point of view, what you propose is invalid on its face. To put it another way, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you understand?
Cthulhu:
If you are comfortable with people named Ahmed, Mohammed, Ibrahim, Hussein, Osama or Ali buying exceedingly destructive weapons legally in your country - then be my guest and good luck when the shooting starts. Remember the chaos created by the Washington snipers and they only had light arms. What part of that do you not understand? You want chaos - just have an airliner ot two blown up on a runway by just this type of weapon or perhaps a few gasoline storage tanks. Again, what part of this scenario don't you understand?
As for the assertion that "it was intended that the populace have access to the same weapons as the government" - not to be a literalist but where, if at all, do you draw the line? Explosives, ricin, heavy machine guns? BTW - in the late 18th century what were the weapons of the government - muskets, cannon, bayonets, swords - can you name anything else? It hardly compares with what a terrorist can obtain today if they are allowed unfettered access to arms and munitions.
Johnb
The flaw in your logic is that the only citizens who abide by gun laws are, definitionally, law-abiding citizens. Thus, if "Ahmed, Mohammed, Ibrahim, Hussein, Osama or Ali" have come here with evil intent, they will gleefully ignore said laws and seek to acquire the firearms anyway.
The Washington snipers did not legally acquire their firearms -- one was obtained fraudulently and subsequently abandoned, while the second one, the one actually used, was stolen, so, again, your use of them as an example seems misplaced. Likewise, a .50 bmg rifle is large (usually in the 5-6 foot range, if I recall off the cuff), heavy and is not a simple weapon to fire.
As for our founder's intent, I would point out to you it is currently legal for a private citizen to own a grenade launcher, a flame-thrower -- even a tank without any undue bureaucratic burden, although the tank / AFV is not considered street legal. The founding fathers understood that there would be developments in weapon's technology -- had even seen the evolution for the firearm from a smoothbore musket to a long-barreled flintlock with a rifled barrel. An armed citizenry was intended as a bulwark against repressive government. Likewise, given that the most successful terrorist action to date was accomplished with short (less than 4") knives and boxcutters, I find your words less than convincing thus far. As for what the terrorists can make, such as ricin (so far as I know, it can't be legally acquired), making the things you say is no great task. Given a legal parts kit, a length of steel pipe and a Dremel (tm) cutter, a modestly competant individual can make a Sten gun... failing that, improvised firearms are neither new or unusual.
You act as if were the govenment simply to outlaw these items, they would magically disappear from the landscape. Your hang-wringing call for self-disarmament seems criminally naive at best.
johnb,
Too bad the gun-grabbers(leftists) are just trying to cover up the fact that THEY are responsible for massive craziness in society.
The success and consolidation of the counter-culture revolution was a war against rationality, and it continues today.
Funny how you ignore " the right of the people to keep and bear arms" part of the amendment. And only acknowlege the "militia" part.
And we are not talking about WMD or stinger missles.
Although in the past, before the leftist wackos lied and scammed their way to power, a pretext for disarming the citizenry did not exist.
Don't like the 2nd amendment?? Then repeal it!
Cthulhu:
Re: "Your hang-wringing call for self-disarmament seems criminally naive at best."
Where did I call for self-disarmament? I simply questioned the logic of a rifle like the Barrett 50 cal. rifle being made easily available to God knows who. Please note my original post "It's hard to believe that such a dangerous weapon would be available to the public. What legitimate use would a 50 caliber sniper rifle have outside of the military?"
Well - I wasn't wringing my hand and it doesn't appear that I was calling for self-disarmament either so did you read my post or are you, shall we say, distorting things?
Your riposte: "given that the most successful terrorist action to date was accomplished with short (less than 4") knives and boxcutters" is a bit disingenuous given the use of commercial jetliners to do the deed. The boxcutters were effective only because this type of highjacking had never been accomplished before (and ineffectively tried once in France). Until Sept.11 conventional wisdom was to obey highjackers - this rapidly changed hence the passenger revolt on the fourth jet.
Kentim:
Re: "Too bad the gun-grabbers(leftists) are just trying to cover up the fact that THEY are responsible for massive craziness in society."
Whew, I'm glad this doesn't apply to me since I have voted conservative for the past 35 years. BTW - are you off your meds?
Cthulhu:
Re: Your comment "As for our founder's intent" and "An armed citizenry was intended as a bulwark against repressive government."
I'm not a legal expert but this appears to be a contentious issue. See the following opinions:
"In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects."
"The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units."
"The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."
"In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
"Where did I call for self-disarmament? I simply questioned the logic of a rifle like the Barrett 50 cal. rifle being made easily available to God knows who. Please note my original post "It's hard to believe that such a dangerous weapon would be available to the public. What legitimate use would a 50 caliber sniper rifle have outside of the military?""
First of all, there is no such thing as a "dangerous weapon." A weapon is an inanimate object, capable of no action in and of itself and is, therefore, not inherently dangerous. I can sit my loaded firearm on the kitchen table and leave it there and the only real danger is that my partner will beat me about the head and shoulders for doing so, bless her heart.
Secondly, the weapon in question has been legally available to civilians for years. You whinge on about the so-called dangers of the weapon. To infer that you would see the confiscation of said arms an desirable end in not an unreasonable one. No distortion, just the extenstion of your thought to its "logical" and readily apparent conclusion.
As for the court case, I repeat, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you understand? Ultimately, it matters not why this power was stripped of Congress, the Bill of Rights has stripped it. Also, as the whole of the male population is part of the militia, as a matter of law, if I recall properly, your point is essentially moot. As a member of the militia, as defined under federal law, I am entitled to arms and, as a law-abiding citizen, should not be limited by your worries.
Sure, johnb, you're a "conservative'.
And so is Michael Bloomberg.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lott081303.asp
"Off-Duty Bans
Should cops have guns?
By John R. Lott Jr.
"After a city-council member was recently killed at New York City Hall, Mayor Michael Bloomberg questioned why James Davis, the murdered councilman, would want to carry a gun. Davis, a retired police officer, had a permit to carry a gun, but Mayor Bloomberg found it very troubling: "I don't know why people carry guns. Guns kill people…"
++++++++++++
And the lunatics of the 60's have had no significant negative influence on society, contrary to what any meaningful statistical measure of a societies health indicates.
Don't rock the boat. Can't we all just get along? Don't worry, be happy.
Cthulhu:
"Whinge" - Verb: whine, grumble peevishly (Oxford dictionary).
No I don't think so. Quite frankly, since I don't live in the U.S., I don't give a shit what you carry. I thought you may be concerned what Hakim or Osama might be carrying.
Cheers.
John
Johnb:
Quite frankly, since I don't live in the U.S., I don't give a shit what you carry. I thought you may be concerned what Hakim or Osama might be carrying.
Cheers.
John
Well, that would explain your highly divergent definition of "voting conservative." So... what neo-socialist nanny state do you reside in?
Canada. I voted Reform (Conservative after the merger). Is that OK?
John
Let's just say it explains a whole lot and leave it there...