Open letter to the LAPD (more gun control)

[Ranb]

Back 2002, Ronnie Barrett of Barrett Firearms was in LA to hear testimony on a proposed ban of 50 bmg rifles. He listened to a police officer (who supported the proposed ban) lie while addressing the council.

After Mr Barrett returned home, he wrote this open letter to the LAPD. http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/la50banbarrett.shtml

I just wonder, did the LAPD ever reply to this letter? I have not been able to find an answer on the net, but what would the LA police chief say to Mr Barrett after reading this open letter?

Ranb

[Tmy]

I understand why hes upset. Itd affect his business. Then agian, isnt Jack Daniels Whiskey produced in a dry county?

I'd like more info on the .50 cal ban. It does sound big. Is it one of those guns that shoots "flying sewercaps". ( A term my buddy uses)

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Tmy
.........I'd like more info on the .50 cal ban. It does sound big. Is it one of those guns that shoots "flying sewercaps". ( A term my buddy uses)

Here is a good link for 50 bmg info.

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/

Here is the bill. Basically it defines what a 50 bmg cartridge is, then defines any rifle that chambers the round as a 50 bmg rifle. It also adds 50 bmg rifles to the list of assault weapons that are banned from importation. Registered owners prior to 1/1/05 can keep theirs.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_50_bill_20041206_introduced.html

The thing to understand is this bill was pushed as an anti-terrorism measure. People were bleating that a person could take out an oil refinery with it. There has never been a murder committed with a 50 bmg single shot or semi-automatic rifle in the USA. No violent crimes of any kind have ever been committed with a 50 bmg rifle in the state of California. Terrorists in this country prefer machine guns, bombs, chemicals and biologics instead of rifles, but the gun controls freaks are too blind to see it that way.

It is a relatively large rifle, 25-45 pouds in most cases. The US Army classifies the 50 bmg sporting models they have adapted for their use as a small arm.

Ranb

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
I understand why hes upset. Itd affect his business. Then agian, isnt Jack Daniels Whiskey produced in a dry county?

I'd like more info on the .50 cal ban. It does sound big. Is it one of those guns that shoots "flying sewercaps". ( A term my buddy uses)

It throws a hefty chunk of metal a long way, creating quite an impact. More so than most weapons out there.

The military use for it would seem to be taking out equipment, such as the controls of a missile, or the engine of a vehicle, from a long distance away.

There has been a movement to ban it for several years now, since in the words of Rep Waxman of Penn. "That thing could go right through a limousine'.

I will have to defer to the Congressman's expertise on being shot at while riding in a limousine, since I don't spend much time riding in them myself.

It sounds like the current bill is old garbage wrapped in fresh paper.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ranb
The thing to understand is this bill was pushed as an anti-terrorism measure. People were bleating that a person could take out an oil refinery with it. There has never been a murder committed with a 50 bmg single shot or semi-automatic rifle in the USA. No violent crimes of any kind have ever been committed with a 50 bmg rifle in the state of California. Terrorists in this country prefer machine guns, bombs, chemicals and biologics instead of rifles, but the gun controls freaks are too blind to see it that way.

Ranb

Should we be proactive or reactive to terrorism? Im not saying that the bill is a good one but the reasoning behind it is not as outragous as you make it.

I do tire of everything being linked to "terror" as an excuse to pass whatever stupid law. Homeland Security has become the new pork barrel overspending troth. Every once in a while youll see some dopey local story about a Homeland Security grant used to buy some useless piece of grabage that will most likely never see action.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by crimresearch
It throws a hefty chunk of metal a long way, creating quite an impact. More so than most weapons out there............

I have to disagree with this part of your post. Most weapons the military uses are much more powerful than the 50 bmg rifle (or machinegun) Most guns mounted on planes and ships such as the 20mm gatling guns make the 50 bmg look like a pip-squeek. Tank mounted guns and rockets also put the 50 bmg to shame when it comes to causing death and destruction.

As a rifle carried by a single soldier, it is however, very powerful.

Tmy,

I do of course agree we need to be proactive in our fight against terrorism. But your "I do tire of everything being linked to "terror" as an excuse to pass whatever stupid law." statement hits the nail on the head. The liberals in CA and other places do not hesitate to use terrorism to make ownerhsip of guns a victimless crime.

Ranb

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ranb
Tmy,

I do of course agree we need to be proactive in our fight against terrorism. But your "I do tire of everything being linked to "terror" as an excuse to pass whatever stupid law." statement hits the nail on the head. The liberals in CA and other places do not hesitate to use terrorism to make ownerhsip of guns a victimless crime.

Ranb

To be fair, the Republicans are much better at crying "terror".

Its so insincere too. How could they let the assualt ban just fade away. I agree it was poorly written, but in a post 911 atmosphere how can you let such major firearm legistlation evaporate without even revisting the issues? That doesnt make sense.

Ill defend the cali legislation. These high powered guns are a serious safety concearn if they can poke holes thru buildings. It doesnt sound like it has any useful applications. Its too powerful for hunting or self defense. (unless you're hunting rhinos.)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Ranb
I have to disagree with this part of your post. Most weapons the military uses are much more powerful than the 50 bmg rifle (or machinegun) Most guns mounted on planes and ships such as the 20mm gatling guns make the 50 bmg look like a pip-squeek. Tank mounted guns and rockets also put the 50 bmg to shame when it comes to causing death and destruction.

<SNIP>Ranb

Are any of those under discussion here? Or is this a thread on legislation aimed at rifles?

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Tmy
To be fair, the Republicans are much better at crying "terror".

Its so insincere too. How could they let the assualt ban just fade away. I agree it was poorly written, but in a post 911 atmosphere how can you let such major firearm legistlation evaporate without even revisting the issues? That doesnt make sense.

Ill defend the cali legislation. These high powered guns are a serious safety concearn if they can poke holes thru buildings. It doesnt sound like it has any useful applications. Its too powerful for hunting or self defense. (unless you're hunting rhinos.)

As crime prevention, the AWB was a joke. It banned importation and new manufacture of 19 weapons by name and others by mostly cosmetic features. It also banned magazines greater than ten rounds. The law did not address machine guns at all, only semi-automatic guns. The law itself did not actually result in the confiscation of a single gun in the USA. Shortly prior to the law taking effect, the sale of the so called assault weapons greatly increased. Try to ban anything in this country and people will want it even more. I'm sure it is the same where you live. During the ten years the ban was in effect, the number of semi-automatic rifles did not go down. The major manufacturers merely made a few cosmetic changes (like taking off the flash suppressor or bayonet lug) to make their rifles and pistols legal to make and sell to civilians. Crime went down, but it was certainly do to other factors, not the increased availability of guns, or the small changes made to design. Gungrabbers also liked to say that the assault weapons were more powerful than "post-ban" weapons, but since they used the same ammo after being modified, this was of course not true. Limiting yourself to a ten round magazine means little in terms of firepower.

You have any reason to think the AWB made life safer in the USA?

The only Americans who liked the AWB were the ones who wanted to slowly chip away at the kinds of guns we can own in this country.

Many smaller guns can poke holes in buildings. All guns are dangerous when handled carelessly. The 50 bmg may be more so than most other guns, but handling in the same manner as a small 22 rimfire rifle will generally ensure it's safe use. The 50 bmg rifle has the same useful applications as any other rifle available in the USA. Some people use them for hunting elk or deer at long range. I have a magazine article about a lady who bagged an elk at 750 yards. Interesting reading to say the least. They are also popular at high power rifle target shooting matches. It is rather clumsy for a civilian to use in for self defense in my opinion.

Some people say 50 bmg rifles have "no sporting purpose". This is of course a lie. They want to deny that they can not be used for hunting and target shooting when of course they are. They hope that if this lie is told often enough, people will believe it.

Ranb

[Tmy]

Of couse the AWB sucked. It was made by tosssing it around tween pro/anti gun crowd. In orderto get it passed, it coudnt really have teeth.

I figure post 911 the pro gunners would be more willing to concede just as the pro civil rights Congressmen did with the the Partriot act.


Im from Mass and we have very tough gun laws. Some of them are too extreme but I like the idea of keeping guns out of he wrong hands. But since this is america, our laws dont apply to other states. And its so easy to get an illegal gun from out of state.

Oh yeah, an elk from 750 yds?? YEAH RIGHT! I also caught a fish this BIG!;)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im from Mass and we have very tough gun laws. Some of them are too extreme but I like the idea of keeping guns out of he wrong hands. In 2002, a total of 56,881 Massachusetts residents died.

(...snip...)

Homicide continues its upward trend for the last three years, increasing from 153 in 2001 to 185 in 2002. Almost half of this increase is due to an increase in firearm deaths.It would appear that you're not doing such a hot job at "keeping guns out of he wrong hands."
Link. (http://mass.gov/portal/eohhsPR.jsp?eohhs_pr=pr_040622_deaths.xml)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
Some of them are too extreme but I like the idea of keeping guns out of he wrong hands.


Your mistake is in thinking gun laws succeed in this.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Tmy
.....I figure post 911 the pro gunners would be more willing to concede just as the pro civil rights Congressmen did with the the Partriot act.........
Oh yeah, an elk from 750 yds?? YEAH RIGHT! I also caught a fish this BIG!;)

Well you have to remember, that many "pro-gunners" consider gun ownership to be a civil right. As I gun owner, I feel we have been giving up way too much since 1934.

Well, there were two witnesses to the shot. But there is always the chance it was a fish story. :) An elk is a large target. A rifle only needs 2 moa accuracy to hit something that big in the vitals at 750 yards. I could have made the shot, if I was capable of lugging my 31 pound rifle into the forest. My rifle's zero is at 550 yards. It is just a matter of holding over with my mil-dot scope to get the right range. I would have needed to use my range finder as my range estimation skills suck.

Ranb