If Godzilla were a sportsman, the .50-caliber sniper rifle would be his instrument.

This is a weapon that can shoot down airplanes or helicopters from more than a mile away.

Its bullets can penetrate armored vehicles and exterior walls.

One such rifle was found in the ashes of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.

Criminals and terrorists worldwide love this weapon.

You could love it too. It's perfectly legal for anyone 18 or older in Illinois to own one.

So of what possible legitimate use could the .50-caliber weapon be, even to sportsmen lurking in the forests and glens of Illinois?

Coyote. Shooting coyote.

That's what a gun lobbyist claimed during a recent state Senate committee hearing about a measure aimed at outlawing .50-caliber sniper rifles.

Did he possibly mean . . . obliterating the state's entire coyote species with a single shot? Some sport.

There's no reason this weapon should be in the hands of anyone other than law enforcement, military or forensic specialists.

State Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) has proposed legislation that would prohibit the sale, manufacture, purchase, possession or carrying of .50-caliber rifles in Illinois. Exceptions would be made for anyone who already owns such a rifle, or the aforementioned authorized users. Other exemptions provide for those who use .50-caliber rifles in shooting competitions, including the Olympics (should it ever become an event).

"The fact that supporters say it's used in hunting is a cynical attempt by the gun industry to legitimize this very dangerous weapon," Kotowski said.

This isn't the first time this legislation has been proposed in Illinois. But enough, already. Let this be the last.

The only mystery is why any legislator thinks such a monster of a weapon should be allowed, particularly in an age of terrorism.

Yet those who still need convincing on the issue include legislators who should know better: Sens. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale), Dan Cronin (R-Elmhurst), Christine Radogno (R-Lemont), Michael Bond (D-Grayslake), Linda Holmes (D-Aurora), Pamela Althoff (R-McHenry), Debbie Halvorsen (D-Crete) and Matt Murphy (R-Palatine).

Please, senators. Explain how a 5-foot-long weapon that can be used to attack chemical or industrial plants is worth defending for civilian use? Explain that to your largely suburban constituents, who generally support reasonable gun control measures such as these.

There may be a handful of "sportsmen" who get their kicks by firing expensive, military-like weapons at small animals or targets. But to put their kicks before the public safety of millions makes no sense at all.