Open letter from Ronnie Barrett **Read**

[fabsroman]

What I do not understand is that this guy bought over 100 guns, ONE of which happened to be a .50 cal. I am willing to bet that more people will be killed with the other 99 guns than will be killed with the .50 cal.

As far as the .50 cal taking out an airplane, it probably could, just as it could take out a tank if the shooter is using depleted uranium rounds. Now, taking out a plane flying through the air will require a lot of skill, and I doubt that the terrorists will have that level of skill. Heck, I doubt that the majority of military snipers have that level of skill.

SOMEBODY PLEASE POST ONE INCIDENT OF A PLANE BEING BROUGHT DOWN BY A .50 CAL THAT IS A SNIPER RIFLE AND NOT FULLY AUTO.

[M.T. Pockets]

There was an old guy in my hometown named Norwood Hanson. He flew a small recon plane in the Asian theater in WWII. He flew many, many legs between the small islands hauling people & supplies. He said he was shot down once, he was making a beer run from one island to another and a Japanese sniper still on the island shot out the oil pan on his plane.

I think the Japanese used 7mm's of some type didn't they ? Better ban them too then.

[Andy L]

Oh Yeah!! 7x57s, Gone.


Just a perfect example MTP.

I also hear that alot of our people are killed by 7.62x39 rounds. Better get rid of them. And the 5.56, its killed millions, gone.

But, probably more are killed with 9mm than anything, better ditch them as well.

They are all deadly and we cant be trusted, lets just get rid of all of them. And deer kill thousands of people each year by jumpin in front of cars, better poison them.

Its a wonder any of us are alive.......

Andy

[iwerk2hard]

Fabs
I think you read the article too quickly, the second paragraph after the BS story about the elephant hunting club seems to clarify your assumption.

What I do not understand is that this guy bought over 100 guns, ONE of which happened to be a .50 cal. I am willing to bet that more people will be killed with the other 99 guns than will be killed with the .50 cal.

Unless that's a line of BS too.

What was Krasniqi's largest shipment of .50-caliber rifles to Kosovo? "One was on an airplane that he filled up with weapons," says Sullivan. "And I think there were about a hundred guns in there,… 100 .50-caliber rifles."

I'm having a hard time understanding 2 things:
First, how these people admitted their illegal activities, with plenty of evidence, on national television and haven't been arrested.
Second, Why is our media so willing to broadcast lessons to teach anyone how to get away with breaking the law?

This isn't the only "Terrorist 101" lesson that has been broadcast or put into print.
Aren't our enemies dangerous enough already?

[Steverino]

These SOB's would love nothing better to convince the US populace (along with the U.N.) that there is no sporting use for a .50 caliber weapon and therefore, no need to have these in the hands of private citizens.

DO NOT be sucked down this path of deceit folks and read your history!

As to whether the .50 is a "sporting" cartridge arm is irrelevant-the anti-gunners will demonize each and every cartridge, ball, and shotshell until firearms are banned from the hands of private citizens. This is the goal of these groups. Nothing else.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms guaranteed to us in the 2nd ammendment was NOT to be utilzed to ensure the hunting rights or shooting sports but rather to overthrow a tyranical government. There is a reason that our forefathers authored this right after the right to exercise freedom of speech.

People, even pro-gun advocates, sadly don't like talking about this less they sound a little "wacky" in this age of terrorism but these are the facts folks and we have a bevy of history to draw upon as to what road this nation heads-down if our freedoms continue to erode.

[Andy L]

I would assume a good number of folks reading this are NRA memebers. In this months magazine, there is an article on this very subject.

Andy

[fabsroman]

Iwerk2hard,

To be honest with you, I didn't read much more than the first page of your post. I have been pretty busy today, so that was the extent of it. Don't think I will have time over the weekend either because I have promised people a lot of stuff over the weekend.

[Purebred Redneck]

Well that makes 3 of us that werktwohard

Don't jump me for this because I am very sincere and mean no disrespect.

My take (and I believe the take of many gun owners) is as follows: (and I may be very broad on some of this because I have to prepare for work tommarow and need to get)

It's not a matter of "I don't need this gun so no one should have it".

1. I have a lot of government background. I put aside any feelings and look at how the law and rights actually are (not to say you don't). But the problem with the second amendment is that it's only a right because we say it is. Laws are interpreted (especially one that is worded as questionable as this one) by the courts. The courts can overrule this and every single judge has been approved by the magority of the voters either directly or indirectly through other branches of goverment that we voted for.

2. The principle of logic and winning an arguement has to be applied. "Because we can" never trumps a more detailed answer even if that other answer is wrong or questionable. When asked why we need guns, I always reply "to use for recreational sport, relaxation, target shooting, etc". And many other gun owners say that too and I believe that is the best answer we can give.
But all to often, other answers come first
"Because I can"
"Because the second amendment says I can"
"Because of self defence"
"So when the government that the majority elect legally trys to take my guns away I can have a shootout and a civil war to the death"
Now I may have stretched the last one out a little bit (just returning the favor done to me )
But do you see how radical this sounds if you are a moderate on the issue of guns?

There is evidence (and also counter-evidence I know ) that suggests the lifestyle that people lead determines whether or not they experience crime in that you know the person who commited a crime against you or you put yourself in a situation where you are vunrable. The opposition will say - bringing a gun grocery shopping is totally unnecisary. And I do understand your point about the fact that you do legally and safely carry that gun.

Something I firmly believe is that the NRA and gun owners MUST bend or else get all our guns taken away. Now I definatly understand the NRA is a lobby and its their job to take a very tough stand. But you also have anti-gun and animal lobbies as well. It's a fact in 2005 that people feel afriad of guns and are attracted to children and furry creatures. Now I'm not saying lots of children die because of guns (because I've already seen the stats you will throw at me), but I am saying that society feels safe when children are safe. A woman was raped or a child was raped - which is going to make the news? That's just how people feel about it plain and simple.

The same can be said about my statement regarding "the government taking guns away. Do you honestly know how it looks to the general public to hear "out of my cold dead fingers" or Ted Nugent playing an m-16 as a guitar? People think they are absolutly out of their mind It scares the hell out of them.

We have to cut our loses and lick our wounds before it's too late. If gun owners continue the road they are on about large caliber guns, ak/sks style high cap rifles, and even full auto, then yes all guns will be taken away. If we continue the way we are, there will very soon be enough people in the U.S. that could LEGALLY make gun ownership against the law. And then your battle, and my battle, is lost.
We have already established the fact that 99.9% of gun owners have absoltly no use for a 50BMG. There may be some target shooters and the one member who wants to lug that heavy 20 pound SOB up a mountain
If it comes down to screwing over 5% by taking away a 50cal or even the ak/sks type gun compared screwing over 50% of gunowners that have semi-auto shotguns or pistols, you cut your loses and move on.

What we need is a moderate organization that presents itself as a respectful and practical group. This organization needs to promote recreation and not radical beliefs. They need to promote a practical use of weapons. (and this does include self defence and military style semi-autos).
I believe an organization like this would stand a great chance at succeeding in politics, promoting the sport, and making the sport grow.

One final comment regarding andy's post.
Anyone that has talked to me on the internet (whether posting or instant messenger) knows I love hunting and shooting. I do take a different approach than many that go on sites like this because the people here are more devoted than most gun owners and hunters. I try to speak my mind as well as throw out the other side's point of view. So some times it is hard to tell when I'm talking about my beliefs or what I percieve is society's belief. And I have probably once again made that unclear in this post. One thing that is very clear in my mind - while I do like arguements, my mood is never one of disgust, anger, or singling out one person. And by my post count and membership date, it looks like I'm new here. I'm not new here. I've had over 5000 posts on this board dispite a 2 year dry spell. Some of the older members can probably think back and remember the very civil, educational, imformationall but still going nowhere conversations we have had in the politics and gun realm

OMG, it's 6:30
ttyl

[Andy L]

Good post PBR, but still dont agree.

Just because you have no use for a 50BMG has no bearing on why a I, who can legally own weapons, can buy one if I want to. Even if its for no other reason than shooting coke cans at 1000k or hunting deer, should I see fit.

I dont see how its anyone elses business as long as I dont break the law with it.

I also do not agree with the "bending" to the antis.

Sorry.

Andy

[TreeDoc]

PBR...
I want to take away your first amendment right because I don't agree with what you say one bit. By your argument that would be acceptable, right?

It's obvious that you see the Constitution as a "living, dynamic document" that can be flexible, can be changed, can be interpreted as one feels.

I don't think so, bud.

[fabsroman]

It doesn't matter whether you are new here or not. That shouldn't matter as far as your opinion is concerned. It is kind of like saying the older people are always right, which we know isn't true. They are just right most of the time.

Personally, I think that was a pretty good post, with a couple of soft spots open for attack, so here I go.

1. I truly believe in "Give an inch, they take a mile." You even state that the anti's are radical groups. The problem with giving into a radical group is that they don't usually back down after that. They don't just stop after the .50 BMG is gone. Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire.

2. I agree that society feels better when children are safe, but a lot of children get molested and killed without the use of a firearm. I think Val will be able to give you some stats on that one. Of course, I am not an expert, so I might be wrong on the stats on this one, but I just do not hear much about children being molested and killed at gun point.

3. In the end, I do not think there is any simple way to lessen the amount of crime or terrorism in the world. Look at 9/11. That entire thing happened without a single terrorist using a single gun. Look at the Oklahoma bombing which was 10 years old this past week. Not a single gun was used there. How about the little girl that was abducted and killed in Florida a couple of months ago. I do not remember anything about a gun there either. People that have never used a gun or been around one fear them just because they do not know them. So, they want to get rid of them. Just as schools teach children how to swim, they should teach them how to treat, handle, and shoot a gun. A hundred years ago, the use and respect of a gun was a lot different than it is today. Back then, almost everybody knew how to handle them.

It is just tough to give into these people based upon stupid facts. Hell, I am willing to bet that more people are killed by aggressive driving than are killed by firearms in the US every year. Sad thing is that traffic is only going to get worse. I do not see anybody banning SUV's. Who NEEDS an SUV? Why won't a stationwagon do instead of a SUV. What is the increase in the probability of injury when an SUV collides with a passenger car? Right now my fiance and I are kind of debating this because I am looking at an AWD car instead of an SUV but she really wants an SUV because she feels safer in them. I understand her point because I feel a lot safer in my F-350 than I do in my Taurus. Now, if there weren't as many soccer mom/dad, non-driving, SUV drivers on the road, I might feel better driving around in the Taurus.

America has a lot of problems right now, but I do not think that the .50 BMG is on the top of the list. Hell, I would love to know of the last shooting that involved a .50 BMG. About the only people that own them are the people with money, and those people aren't usually the ones going out shooting everybody. Then again, that is only my opinion.

[Purebred Redneck]

Fabs, I agree.
"Give an inch, they'll take a mile" would slowly happen. Then again, by meeting a reasonable objective, it may win public support. My point was that fighting fire with fire would either prolong the political arguement, it would evenually win although I don't see that happening presently unless the two party system does it for the shear fact that republicans in office would help prevent this.
But on the other hand, we have our chance to compromice. If we fail to do so, then we will "fight fire with fire" - but that could mean we lose everything too.
So it's a game of risk.

Doc, I'm not quite sure what your first amedment analogy is. I supose if you gathered enough public support, present it to the government, and it passed - I'm not going to like it but it's now the new law, supported by the people.


But you are correct in the fact I believe in the famous quotation you provided. One thing though - I don't believe it's correct saying it can be changed based upon how "one" feels. I think it can be changed based upon how the majority of the people feel and according to the rules of amending and creating law.

Andy, we have the right to life, liberty, and property/happiness --- so long as it does not infringe on someone else's life, liberty, happiness. Now the problem is this can be interpreted two ways
1. firearms take someone's life
2. firearms protect someone's life

You don't break the law, you are correct. There are people who do. As you remember from grade school, the actions of a some and failure to stop it results in no recess for everyone. It's not fair but it might be the only way.

I don't have the answer to these questions


I will say that every time we vote we are voting on our position on the matter. Because someone would vote to remove a weapon he/she doesn't like is no different than voting pro-life, or for increased highway funding.
My view of democrat government is that it supports the will of the people and when the will changes - the government changes with it. It might not be the long term solution, but that's the way the government is actually set up.

[fabsroman]

I agree with government changing with the people. Problem is if the majority is a nightmare. What if the majority of people in the US, 51% wanted to pass a law allowing the use of crack coccaine for personal purposes? Life gets a little complicated. The majority is not always right on issues.

Another thing that I found somewhat interesting was an AOL poll that was done when the assualt weapon ban was scheduled to fall into the sunset (i.e., the sunset provision within the bill itself). The poll asked how many people were in favor of it going away and the majority were. The poll also asked how many people had owned a gun at some point in their life and I believe it was close to 80% that answered they had owned a gun in their life. Somehow, I don't think it is the majority of people speaking out on the .50 BMG in California, but merely a couple of people that have influenced the legislature. I am surprised that Arnold signed the bill.

[iwerk2hard]

PBR
I have to disagree with some of your logic on this issue. You seem to be too willing to compromise. Rebecca Peters, George Soros and a whole long list of anti's have made it perfectly clear that they are not willing to compromise at all. They are willing to go to any extreme to get exactly what they want and nothing less. If we start right off with a compromise, we've lost ground before we started and will have to fight even harder to hold our ground. Imagine a tug-of-war at a company picnic, blue collar on one side and white collar on the other. The white collar team suggests that because blue collar does physical labor and has bigger participants they should compromise and reduce the number on their team. Sounds like a fair compromise, consider it done. Some of the white collar team are very healthy and active, therefore a lot stronger than blue collar thought. The contest starts, white collar gains ground immediately and is picking up momentum. Blue collar calls in those who were excluded by the compromise, they try, but white collar has gained momentum. Now blue collar has a heck of a job just to stop the momentum before they can reverse it and gain back the ground they lost. Only then will they have an opportunity to win if they're not exhausted from the additional fight.
And as for the way you present some of your other arguments:

Andy, we have the right to life, liberty, and property/happiness --- so long as it does not infringe on someone else's life, liberty, happiness.

The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Note that nothing is mentioned about property, and that happiness is not listed as an unalienable right, however, the PURSUIT of Happiness is. If we want to hold our ground we will have to be sure to make accurate statements or the other side will start there to tear us apart.

Now the problem is this can be interpreted two ways
1. firearms take someone's life
2. firearms protect someone's life

I have to strongly disagree with that logic. I have several firearms and not once has any one of them even tried to take someones life or offered to protect someones life.
I think that it's angry, violent, mentally ill, uneducated, or desperate people who take peoples lives. It can also be inattentive, uneducated, careless or otherwise distracted people who cause accidents that take peoples lives. Likewise, it is people who protect peoples lives. A firearm can be used as a tool or an aid, but by itself it does not take or protect life. The same can be said for a car, baseball bat, golf club, axe, hammer, poison, fire or any of a seemingly endless list of other tools. They can all be easily used to take a life, or save a life. A firearm is usually superior to most other tools, therefore I prefer to have access to the tool of my choice when it comes to self defense, ( which, by the way is first on my list and third on yours), and I feel that every law abiding citizen of the United States of America should have the freedom to choose their tools from a virtually unrestricted assortment of suitable implements.
The next statement isn't directed at you PBR, it's directed at anyone reading this post;
If you are a member of the NRA and don't subscribe to "America's 1st Freedom" I would like to recommend that you give it a try. If you're not a member of the NRA, I strongly suggest that you join.

[Tall Shadow]

Fellow Hunters & Shooters.

As an Owner of 2 ( Yes!, he said Two!) .50BMG rifles, I can not believe that there are still hunters/shooters that support PBR & Other's stand that "Maybe, if we just >Give-up< the .50 cal guns, the anti's will go away and leave Us alone!?!"

WAKE THE HECK UP PEOPLE!

Today it's ".50 cal Super-guns"
Tomorrow it's "Scoped Sniper Rifles" (Hunting rifles)
The Next day it's "Shoot from the hip with no need to aim Shotguns".
Then it's "Pocket death bringers!"(All Handguns)

Do You really think they will stop with the .50's??
How Foolish!


When John M. Browning designed the .50BMG cartridge, all he did was to scale up the 30.06 cartridge.


Most "Hunting" guns actions were developed for military use first.

Still think that there is no connection between hunting guns & Military guns?


Like the old tail of putting a frog in hot water....He'll jump out. But put him in with the water cold and slowly raise the temperature, and he'll cook.

The Anti's aren't going to be just coming for one type of gun.....

THEY WANT THEM ALL!!

They have learned that they can't just take all of the guns outright, People, Even PBR, would fight that. But chip away at them a little at a time.......set one group of owners against another.......Use their friends in the media to vitrify guns....and before we know it...POOF!
They are all gone.

There is also the further writing of PBR, in which he stated (something to the effect of The second amendment rights are ours only because the courts say so.

I Guess >inalienable< means something different to some people.

In my view (And the founding father's) inalienable means......
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Do you see "Hunting rifle anywhere in there?

Do you get that the whole idea behind the "Keeping and bearing of arms" is to protect ourselves from a government gone "out of control"?

Before you say "A bunch of yokels with guns can't stand up to Our military"....tell that to the north vietnamese......

Is this not what Our founding fathers were trying to make Us understand?


Do I ever plan on dragging a >41lb< .50BMG rifle around with me through the woods, hunting squirrel's....Heck No!

Does this mean that My .50s serve no purpose?

(A.) No, it does not.
(B.) What does that have to do with me wanting/owning them?

The 2nd isn't about hunting bubba!


If you are ever in Michigan, drop me a line. If it's possible, We can go shoot my wicked, evil("Fricken' LAZER beams!"), scary, , naughty, guns.......You will see that, like most things you hear from the anti's, they are just inanimate objects. Steel and plastic...nothing more.

Tall Shadow