Well, War on Guns found an interesting editorial.
Why do I hear that guns not suitable for hunting should be banned, then that arms with no military use aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment? If I'm supposed to be allowed military arms (I am), allow them. This editorial, of course, figures that civilians have no need for a .50 caliber rifle (it mentions hunting coyote, though I might point out that there is game bigger than that--but hunting isn't a Constitutional right, so let's stay off of that).
The myth of shooting down airplanes from several miles away is repeated again. The trajectories of airliners and bullets do not make this scenario possible. Given the speed of a jet, the problem with sighting in at those ranges on even stationary targets, the high altitude, and the effect of wind on the bullet, it's not something even the best marksman would be capable of.
The paper's editorial board would also like us to know that the .50 is capable of piercing armor and disabling vehicles. Of course it is. That's what the military's supposed to use it for. Of course, should we ever be at war with a tyrant from within, that capability would be very useful. The paper declares that civilians shouldn't own a .50, "particularly in an age of terrorism." Will a terrorist shy from armoring a vehicle in any way possible?
Finally, the paper mentions possible attacks on chemical and industrial plants. Of course, explosives are cheaper and far more effective. Also, what would one target? Chemical vats are very strong, generally behind thick walls, and would be quickly and effectively repaired with minimal problems. Unlike what movies like to show, the vats don't blow up in spectacular special effects.
Suburbia generally supports "reasonable" gun laws? Perhaps, but that doesn't make those people right, the law any more Constitutional, or your points any more valid. It just means those people are willing to trust the government a bit mroe than I am. I'd like the ability to defend my freedoms with a weapon capable of aiding resistance to armored vehicles. I may never need it, but that doesn't make it less of a good idea. I haven't been sick in a long time. Does that mean I should save money by cancelling health insurance?
Finally, I must ask some questions:
Is the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune willing to accept "reasonable" controls on the freedom of the press? The internet gives a worldwide audience. You could influence too many people. Scale back to print. Oh, and you sell outside of Chicago...that needs to stop, since you are, in fact, the Chicago Tribune. Every journalist must be licensed, and they're going to have to provide addresses, phone numbers, criminal background checks, and consent to make this information available publically.
Also, are you aware of the severity of your hyperbole? "Did he possibly mean . . . obliterating the state's entire coyote species with a single shot?" Come on. I expect some level of hyperbole in every editorial, but this is just dumb. Someone may have thought it clever, but it is neither witty nor intelligent.