Author Topic:  (Read 13765 times)

Offline stoneaglewolf

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
    • View Profile
    • http://www.tacticalmilsim.com
(No subject)
« Reply #105 on: May 01, 2005, 11:11:20 PM »
What kills me is that gun activists are scared of 7 rds from a 50 cal when it is perfectly legal to own large caliber belt fed automatic weapons. Anyone can, you just need to qualify for a class 3 license etc... (ask someone who has one) There are many more automatic weapons legally owned than 50 cal sniper rifles. And these ARE capable of downing a airliner...

http://www.machinegunshoot.com/archive.htm

http://www.rmgo.org/50photos/50photos2002.htm

And don't forget these guys... one hit from them and your mobile home is toast.

http://www.n-ssa.org/NATIONAL/can_match.html

BTW there are more functioning civil war cannons and mortars than Barrett M82's. (Yes I got carried away here...)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by stoneaglewolf »
-Stone

http://www.TacticalMilSim.com
  Honor the Fallen SPC Marc A. Anderson 1/75th Ranger KIA 3/8/02, AF

Offline Reaver

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • View Profile
    • http://teamfe0.tripod.com
(No subject)
« Reply #106 on: May 02, 2005, 06:28:00 AM »
Quote from: "Cheeze_IZ_G00d"
So basically, you guys feel that anyone should be able to carry any gun that they feel so inclined? Like I said before, I am not anti-gun, I am pro-common sense. A .50 cal for target shooting is fine, but just having a .50 cal for s*its and giggles is just a little bit unnerving. It is also unfortunate that the Constitution has been misinterpreted so many times. The second amendment actually states that you have the right to form a militia, with that comes the right to bear arms. There are other provisions in the amendment as well which I am not sure of. It is much like the line in the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal," when in fact it means all white, land owning men are created equal.


  The Department of Justice released a report in October of last year that would disagree with you.  The most important part of the second ammendement states the right to have and to bear arms is a right of the PEOPLE, not a militia.  :)

Here's the link for the report.   http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

  So, the right of the people to have and to bear arms is not a misinterpretation.  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Reaver »

Offline TheRev

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
.50 cal
« Reply #107 on: May 02, 2005, 03:48:06 PM »
Let's step back and get a little perspective here. Any red blooded American who enjoy's his (or her) right to keep and bear arms would (and in reality should) be upset at ANY governmental intrusion into their rights. Remember folks, we're dealing with RIGHTS here. Not allowances, or permissions or some other legislation that gives the governments blessing. We, as citizens of this great country, have an inalienable right, to own firearms. And, according to the framers of the constitution, that firearm needs to be suitable for military purposes. The idea behind the second amendment of the Constitution is that in order for Americans to be truly free, we need to be able to secure that freedom (and consequently hold that freedom) by the use of arms. It is the only tool outlined in our Constitution that provides the method and means to guarantee all the other freedoms outlined in the Constitution. And if you really want to get down to brass tacks and nails, we, as citizens, are obligated... no, commanded, to take up arms against our own government if they ever became as totalitarian and egalitarian as the former British government was at the time. Hmmmmm, something to think about isn't it. It is no wonder our government wants to control (or outright ban) such military weaponry as the .50 BMG. They've already controlled and banned such weapons as the 20mm Solothurn or Lahti (anti-tank rifles used in WWII). It seems the logical "next step" to get rid of the .50. So, this brings us back to the Constitution, and our little discussion here. We should not be quibbling about the usefulness of a weapon or it's suitability for a particular purpose when talking about the next ban. Any ban, no matter how well justified in the eyes of the public, or in the eyes of our all knowing government, is just plain bad. It erodes the very basic tenet of the purpose of the second amendment in the first place. So what if a particular weapon doesn't serve well as a hunting arm. So what if a pistol serves no legitemate purpose other than killing. This is not why we have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to arm ourselves because the framers of the constitution knew that someday our government would become just as totalitarian and intrusive as the previous government was. The framers of the constitution knew that the only way it's citizens would be able to keep that government in check was if that citizenry was armed to the teeth and didn't lack the stomach to check that government, by force if necessary. This, by the way, is not sedition or treason. It is the right of the people, to consent to be governed. Our government is at our leave, not the other way around. This is why we vote. Our government is here to serve us. So the next time you hear about some plan by the government to control our rights (particularly our right to keep and bear arms), remember this; If a right can be legislated, it is not a right at all, but a priviledge. And priviledges can be revoked.

TheRev
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by TheRev »
No plan, no matter how well conceived, survives first contact - Murphy\'s Law 124

Books, my young Padawan, are the food of the mind - Me

Offline TTBRNHRT

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Private
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #108 on: May 02, 2005, 05:45:15 PM »
Hey Rev,

Thanks a bunch.......never quite thought about it like that. Much better said than I could ever put it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by TTBRNHRT »

Offline PHX COBRA

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #109 on: May 02, 2005, 05:52:07 PM »
Posted over on AZShooting, Mr. Barrett has it right on:

A message from Ronnie Barrett:

In the never-ending battle to destroy our constitution, more “big lieâ€￾ propaganda is being dumped on our elected officials. The rhetoric given forth by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) so easily deceived the legislators of California resulting in the banning of fifty caliber rifles because they are powerful and their bullets punch holes when they strike. Even single shot .50 cal rifles were banned. It’s hard to believe we live in such a dark time that someone has actually banned a single shot rifle. But as you will see, this is the cleverest of all gun bans, and the end goal is civilian disarmament, the confiscation of your tools of liberty, your rifles.

What lies before us is the continuation of the misinformation campaign, trying to coax yet another state to infringe upon the U.S. Constitution as California did. The anti- freedom/anti-gun movement has discovered how transparent they appear when they propose sweeping gun bans and now are successful by biting off a little at a time. Ever so small, many politicians are trading off your rights without you recognizing their violations.

First we had the “Saturday Night Specialsâ€￾ which was all affordable handguns, then “sniper riflesâ€￾ which were any scoped deer rifle. Those were obvious, too big a scam to go unnoticed, but with the creation and demonization of the term “assault weaponâ€￾, the Clinton’s Crime bill produced a 10-year setback on your freedoms and safe gun design. Now comes another scam. This time they are shocked to discover that rifles are “accurate and powerfulâ€￾.

This is the same bull the officials in the 1950’s fell for when they banned the self-unfolding knife. First the knife was demonized by giving it an evil name, “switchbladeâ€￾, then we (the trusting public) were told that the problem of gang violence was solved with its banning. How ridiculous. It’s surprising they didn’t ban the leather jacket. In reality, gang violence was and is a serious social problem, but it was not related to manually unfolding versus self-unfolding knives. The elected officials voting to ban an object like a knife proved themselves unwilling or uncaring to understand the problem, and thus, incapable of any real solutions.

A handful of people that makes up the VPC are solely responsible for the big lie on .50’s, claiming fantastic destruction capabilities. They manipulate fear by claiming terrorists will use these rifles on targets of our infrastructure. “They will shut down our airports in flamesâ€￾ they claim. VPC’s Tom Diaz refers to them as “super gunsâ€￾ lying to his dupable group of politicians, concealing the facts that there are many rifle cartridges that are comparable in performance (those will be added to the list in phase two). He is boldly telling these officials and all who will listen that the risk of terrorist attacks on these targets will be solved with the banning of powerful rifles, in this case, the .50 caliber rifle. In reality, terrorism is complex and will be defeated with improved intelligence. In this instance, the officials voting to ban an inanimate object like a rifle proves them ignorant of the problem of terrorism and is wasting time and resources.

You must understand the brilliance of this dangerous back door deception. Your politicians are being told that the fifty is a highly destructive cartridge that can destroy airplanes, fuel transport trucks and depot storages of fuel. They show videos like the one on 60 Minutes showing a ½ inch plate of steel being pierced by a .50 cal round while stopping a .308 caliber. This is all to confuse the people, those with little exposure to firearms; their impression concludes that the .50 punches holes in sensitive targets where other rifles cannot. Had they shot actual aluminum that is used on airplane construction, or aluminum or steel used in actual transport or tank construction, both the .50 and the .308 would pierce along with most all centerfire cartridges, but this, they must keep secret.

First, with the confusion of massive, (although incorrect) technical data and the hammering of urgency, the VPC demands a ban or strict regulations on rifles that chamber a cartridge that has the ability to penetrate targets. Sound ridiculous? It is.

VPC’s Tom Diaz appears often on TV with maps of Washington, DC, irresponsibly instructing where to position one's self to illegally fire on vulnerable important targets of our government, promising these specific targets will be safe when .50s are banned. He pressures politicians to act quickly on this URGENT legislation needed to make these terrorist targets safe, hoping they will act before the VPC lies are discovered.

Now slow down, a ban on a rifle because it chambers a cartridge that has the ability to penetrate targets? By the legislation naming and defining the targets that are damageable by rifle fire, and in this case, .50 cal. rifle fire, they create a new class of rifles, not defined by such foolishness as detachable magazines, flash hiders or pistol grips, but defined by the harm it could do when criminally misused! This is what California has just done! The ultimate gun ban trick has just been created, the banning of rifles before they can be misused!

Now, we are only talking about those powerful .50 calibers, right? That’s what is in the VPC’s direct orders. No, remember they are banning rifles because specific targets named in our infrastructure are susceptible to damage. Now tell me, what centerfire rifle cartridge won’t penetrate those targets? What centerfire rifle cartridge is not powerful? Not many or not any? So in order to comply with the spirit and intent of the law the Attorney General or State Secretary must add those cartridges to the banned list. The big lie is exposed. They aren’t just talking about .50s. They’re after your hunting rifles, centerfire target rifles - just about any rifle you own.

Unlike California, we cannot allow any of our local, state or federal officials to be deceived with any of this “big lieâ€￾ gun control propaganda. The U.S. has every gun law that could possibly be needed. Virtually every real world scenario of firearm abuse is already covered in some law that is currently on the books.

Many of you have inquired as to the outcome of the letter I wrote to Police Chief Bratten of the LAPD. Unfortunately, the chief’s position did not change. He continued to use his officers in the same deceptive practices formerly utilized with the city council. These few officers testifying in Sacramento ultimately contributed to the unconstitutional AB50 law being passed. It saddened me to have to tell members of the LAPD SWAT team they would have to send someone for their rifle, because I refused to assist anyone or any organization that is in violation of the United States Constitution. In turn, the department arranged to pick up their un-serviced rifle.

Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB 50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any Government agency of the State of California.

I appreciate all the phone calls and emails from LAPD officers and civilians during that time encouraging and supporting our actions. We shall see if other firearms companies will follow this path. I know many are corporately owned and feel like they are unable to risk the life of their company for the liberties of our nation, but if we lose our Republic, our freedom, what good is any of it? I am in the proud and fortunate position that many of our forefathers were in when they risked all for our liberties.

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!â€￾ Patrick Henry

This “ban large boreâ€￾ insanity failed in Washington years ago, but that didn’t discourage the VPC. Now it’s resurfacing in city council meetings in individual states, and it’s being reintroduced in Washington. NRA-ILA Executive Director, Chris Cox, once told me “These (anti-freedom, anti-gun) guys never go away, and they never quit.â€￾

I’ve received thousands of emails and letters from you offering encouragement and support. Our Republic, our liberty needs and demands your support. You must take action to guard your rights. First, find your State Senator and State Representative. Tell them not to fall for this scam. This lie depends on the elected official being naive about firearms and their capabilities. Stand ready to carry this same message to your U.S. Senator and Representatives. Know all of your elected officials’ position on gun issues. DO NOT ELECT ANY ANTI-GUN PERSON TO ANY POSITION!

Position yourself with me in the battles we must fight. You need to join the NRA, the .50 Caliber Shooters Association, and the NSSF in order to stay informed. These people have been with me in the trenches fighting for every inch of the liberty you enjoy.

Today we draw a line; there will be no more nibbling at our freedom. Today you stand idle no longer. Today you do something to save our country!

Ronnie Barrett
Owner and CEO
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by PHX COBRA »


Offline Lightning_Man

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #110 on: May 06, 2005, 04:57:11 PM »
You can't even get a rifle such as the ones they are targeting for less than $3k and that is for a bolt action. The barrett runs more like $6500 before you put on the $2000 scope without which the gun isn't really worth having.

Someone challenged us to name a use for a >50 other than killing people. They use them to detonate mines froma  safe distance. Now to that person I challenge you to find a documented case of a .50 being used in a crime.

The fact is that they are mostly owned by collectors, and by people who shoot competitively. You can't even buy one on the shelf at a gun store, you have to order it and they have to do a background check.

The logic of protecting aircraft is a load of crap, any jackass with a .308 could go out under the flight path at sky harbor and punch holes in planes.

Bans do nothing. They acomplish absolutely nothing in the way of safety. If a terorist wants to shoot a plane down, all he has to do is build a single shot .50 out of some pipe, hell, he could build a pack of them for less than $100. Maybe we should ban pipes, only sell it to liscensed contractors? Oh and he has to get there in a car, better get rid of those too. You think he will be wearing clothes?...

Here is a fact for you to chew on, Kalifornia only actually does 1  of every ten background checks that are submitted. If they were enforcing the laws they already have they would have less problems.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Lightning_Man »
____________________________________

It is what we do,
when we believe we can do no more\' that makes us who we are.

Offline Lightning_Man

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #111 on: May 06, 2005, 05:10:47 PM »
As long as we are on the sunbect, I don't want to hear any crap about the 2nd amendment being intended only to cover muskets. At the time, it was intended to cover muskets but the purpose was to allow that the population have access to a level of weaponry that would allow it, if it became necessary, to overthrow it's government.

Any american history/constitutional scholars out there? Anyone aware of the details of the subject, including basically all major researchers and historians, conclude that this is the case. THAT is why the articles of confederation were so weak and why so much of the constitution was so carefully balanced. There was nothing that the founding fathers feared more than an overly powerful central government. I am sure most of them are turning in their graves.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Lightning_Man »
____________________________________

It is what we do,
when we believe we can do no more\' that makes us who we are.

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #112 on: May 06, 2005, 06:07:50 PM »
Quote from: "Lightning_Man"
As long as we are on the sunbect, I don't want to hear any crap about the 2nd amendment being intended only to cover muskets. At the time, it was intended to cover muskets but the purpose was to allow that the population have access to a level of weaponry that would allow it, if it became necessary, to overthrow it's government.


I've always been under the impression that the right to bear was so you could support the gov't if it came under attack from a foreign force (ie, redcoats back then).

For the sake of discussion, let me ask this question:  Since we have the right to bear arms, does that mean I should be allowed to own an AT4, minigun, or Ma Deuce?  Where must the line be drawn?  What is/should there be a limit?

It seems that those who fight legally for their right to bear arms are the same ones who say they'd use them to rise-up against their own government if need be.

I guess for guys who have no one else to fight, it's fun to think about a great battle versus "the Man".  Me?  I'll concentrate on the enemies in rest of the world before turning my aggression inward.  Then again, I took an oath ". . .Foreign and Domestic."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »

Offline Greg

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #113 on: May 06, 2005, 06:48:00 PM »
Quote from: "Lightning_Man"
Now to that person I challenge you to find a documented case of a .50 being used in a crime.


They usually just cite the branch-davidian bullshit and the fact that there have been a few .50's found during raids on gang bangers' homes. I think waco may have been the only time a .50 rifle round has been fired in anger on US soil.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Greg »
-Greg of Christian\'s Team


Offline Lightning_Man

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #114 on: May 06, 2005, 06:52:43 PM »
I guess you might say that it was intended to prevent tyrany, regardless of the source. Internal or external.

It was also never intended that the US maintain a standing army. It was the intent, that people would posess whatever would make them a functional soldier and that an army could thus be called up in short order if need be.

The question of such things as anti-tank weapons and stingers ir really not an issue although some say it is. The fact is that with basic battle rifles/assault weapons, a force much smaller than our army, has the ablity to wage a guerilla war against our government if it runs amock, as well as any invading power. The presence of these types of arms are enough to insure our ability to fight the police, and in short order to secure the more devastating weapons you mentioned. Unpopular as it is to talk about, eliminating tyrany in the case of a government run amock is more going to be about killing off politicians and persons of power who are part of the problem. In a full blown revolution, most of fighting would be taking place inside cities, where the military class small arms are enough to put up a considerable fight.

I am ok with the way things are as far as machine gun and silencer registration because I know if it came down to it, I could take an AR15 and get what I needed for my enemy. If all I had was a musket, well I'm not sure I could secure what I needed.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Lightning_Man »
____________________________________

It is what we do,
when we believe we can do no more\' that makes us who we are.

Offline Cheeze_IZ_G00d

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #115 on: May 06, 2005, 07:40:35 PM »
I agree with azsarge 100 percent. I believe that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and .50 cal might be a good place. I mean really, if a .308 can do the same damage, does it really matter if you have a .50 cal? Also, if the .308 does the same damage, hunting with a .50 cal becomes useless. I swear, some people just want to push the 2nd amendment to its breaking point. Like I said before, the 2nd amendment applies to militias, and the people that make up the militia.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Cheeze_IZ_G00d »
Visit my website -
http://www.iwantafreedollarnow.com!!!

Get great ringtones here!

Offline gixser13

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2221
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #116 on: May 06, 2005, 08:05:51 PM »
I was In Kali for 3 days. The Whole time I was there ALL I HEARD ON THE RADIO WAS ABOUT FREEWAY SHOOTING, There has bee 8 so far this year.... So yeah gun control works in Kali, lets all fallow there lead....

My hat goes off to Ronnie Barrett,

I bought a hat and tee shirts from him with a side note on how I love how he took a stand, We should all fallow his lead.

If you dont stand for something you will fall for anything!!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by gixser13 »

Offline Lightning_Man

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #117 on: May 06, 2005, 08:07:14 PM »
Well, since you are 17, I am guessing you haven't had any college level classes on the constitution, constitutional law, or probably law in general I am going to have to disagree with you. As a teacher, I can assure you what you have learned in high school is only the smallest tip of the iceberg.

You see, while it is intended for "the militia", that was defined then as all able bodied males and was later redifined to include all abel bodied persons btween 17 and 45. So, by your logic we should only allow military grade weapons to all able bodied personse between 17-45. What you think of as the militia is nonsense. The popular (to the anti gun crowd) idea that the national guard is the modern equivelant of the militia is crap. The NG takes it's orders from the AS Army, and is a component thereof. If it were the equivelent of the militia it wouldn't be in iraq right now.

There does have to be a line but America is not about what you need, it is about what you want and are willing to A) pay for and B) use responsibly. (unless you are really rich or famous, then you can use whatever you want irresponsibly and it will all be fine)

A.308 has the potential to bring down a plane. Yes, but it does not serve the same function. Long range competition shooters need the range of the .50, and for a hunter, greater range and vastly improved KET are desirable if you are on about big game.

By your logic we would outlaw ferraris because you don't need them and you can never really go over 75 anyway right? Muscle cars too, the are too fast and not needed, a hyundai will get you to work just as fast. Don't even step on the "cars and guns are not the same" issue because far more people die every year in this country from car realted incidents than from guns in general and more will die in car accidents in the phoenix valley this month than have EVER been killed by modern .50 rifles or machine guns in the United States.

A line does have to be drawn and it has been. It has been in place for some time. You have to have a federal liscence to buy a USAS, a grenade launcher, a machine gun, a silencer, a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches, the list goes on. I am from California and went to the police academy there and I can assure you because I have seen the stats, the banning of guns has done precisely dick. All it does is piss off gun owners, hurt the firearms industry, and get votes from anti-gun groups.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Lightning_Man »
____________________________________

It is what we do,
when we believe we can do no more\' that makes us who we are.

Offline gixser13

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2221
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #118 on: May 06, 2005, 08:11:13 PM »
The lines are being drawn, but if push comes to shove american(american miltary) will never fire upon other americans(People like you and me defending our rights)...So that when the United Nations will be on our soil...if you think I am full of it they(UN soldiers) are already training in texas right now as we speak!

Fcuk the UN!!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by gixser13 »

Offline Lightning_Man

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #119 on: May 06, 2005, 08:14:22 PM »
I almost forgot, Hats of to Barrett, Glock did the same thing a while back and I really respect their stance.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Lightning_Man »
____________________________________

It is what we do,
when we believe we can do no more\' that makes us who we are.