This is the first of what I’m calling our difficult questions series. Have any difficult questions that you’d like to ask the candidates? Drop us a line.

Last night 60 minutes ran a story about the publicly available Barrett 82A1 Semi Automatic .50 Caliber Rifle.

“Do I believe I could shoot an aircraft at altitude? Of course not, but on takeoff and landing, I could take you to places in Washington, D.C., where I’m absolutely certain you could shoot an aircraft with one of these guns,” says Diaz.

“Clearly, with the range that it has, and the impact capability that it has, it would put an airliner or an airplane at risk if it hit that plane,” adds Kelly.

Could the gun be used by a terrorist to shoot down a commercial airliner?

“It’d be very difficult. It would if it were a tactic that were even remotely possible,” says Barrett. “Then our military, who happens to use the rifle, would be training their troops to do such.”

But in his sales brochures, Barrett advertises the .50-caliber as a weapon that can take planes down.

“There’s some military brochures that we had early on that showed that you could damage aircraft on a runway or Scud missiles and things like that,” says Barrett. “Yes, you could if you have a parked target.”

But not in the air? “That’s correct,” says Barrett.

Just this past year, the Rand Corporation released a report identifying 11 potential terrorist scenarios involving Los Angeles International Airport.

In one scenario, “a sniper using a .50-caliber rifle fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.” The report concludes: “We were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions” for such an attack.


So here’s some questions for Tom Brinkman:

  • Does Tom Brinkman support the right for people, including potential terrorists, to purchase .50 caliber rifles?
  • Does he think that it’s a good idea that because of the actions of the Bush Administration we have NO RECORDS for purchases of dangerous weapons like this?

Based on what I read on Mr. Brinkman’s website the answer would have to be yes. But maybe I’m assuming too much. Maybe he draws the line somewhere else. I wonder where it is? Maybe it’s OK if drug dealers have assault rifles so that it’s easier for them to take out police officers. Maybe that’s Tom Brinkman’s line.

We’ll just have to wait and see if anyone asks Mr. Brinkman this difficult question.

What about the rest of them? What’s their position? After all… if you’re running for Congress you should be able to answer those difficult questions.