Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Big Rifle A Terrorist Tool?
KUTV ^ | Jan 9, 2005

Posted on 01/10/2005 5:00:00 AM PST by TERMINATTOR

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided there’s a weapon that’s too dangerous to be in the hands of private citizens.

This past week, a new law went into effect in California banning that weapon. It’s the .50-caliber rifle, the Rolls Royce of sniper rifles. It’s a big gun, a favorite of armies around the world, and it’s still available in 49 states in this country to anyone over 18 with a clean record.

It is, without a doubt, the most powerful weapon you can buy. And, as Correspondent Ed Bradley reports, it's powerful enough to kill a man or pierce armor from more than a mile away.

A Senate report said that a bullet from a .50-caliber rifle, even at 1.5 miles, crashes into a target with more energy than a bullet fired at point-blank range from Dirty Harry’s famous .44 Magnum.

The .50-caliber rifle, one of the world’s best combat weapons, was invented 22 years ago in Murfreesboro, Tenn., by Ronnie Barrett.

How did he come up with the idea? "I was just a 26-year-old kid, and didn't know any better," he says.

But he knew enough to design a weapon that today is used by the armed forces of 35 different countries. He showed 60 Minutes a semi-automatic 82A1 rifle. "This was the first rifle that I designed, and has been our most popular rifle," he says. "This is the one that the United States Army ordered. Matter of fact, this is a U.S. Army rifle here."

Even though the .50-caliber rifle is a military-grade weapon, federal gun laws treat it like any other hunting rifle, and Barrett can sell the gun to civilians. He says he needs to, because military sales vary widely from year to year.

"If it weren’t for the civilian sales, I wouldn’t be here. There’s a lot of defense contractors that would not be here," says Barrett.

He has sold thousands of .50-caliber rifles to private citizens who, he says, want the guns for target shooting and big game hunting.

But he scoffs at critics who claim that .50-caliber rifles are too dangerous in the hands of civilians. "The .50 has an excellent record. You know, as far as the abuses with .50-caliber rifles, they are so few, if any, that all other calibers ought to aspire to have as good a record as it has," says Barrett. "And it's a long rifle. When you hear people say it’s a criminal’s weapon, this is 5-and-a-half feet tall, or something like that. This is not a weapon that a criminal would use."

It’s not convenience store robberies that worry Tom Diaz, a gun control advocate who was an expert witness in the California campaign to ban the gun.

Diaz says the .50-caliber rifle made by Barrett and other manufacturers is a menace in the hands of terrorists. "This gun is designed and built to smash things up and to set things on fire," says Diaz. "It’s a battlefield weapon. Yet it is sold as freely on the American civilian market as a .22 bolt action rifle."

What's wrong with Barrett's product?

"I'm glad Ronnie Barrett makes his rifle for our military forces. I think it's a great thing on the battlefield," says Diaz. "I just think that there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it."

But isn’t any gun in the hands of a terrorist a threat?

"Well of course any gun is. But it is a gun that is unparalleled by any other small arm available to civilians," says Diaz. "We control every other kind of weapon of war you can think of – machine guns, plastic explosives, rockets. But this thing has flown under the radar for about 20 years."

Why would you need a weapon this powerful if you're not fighting a war? "It's a target rifle. It's a toy," says Barrett. "It's a high-end adult recreational toy. Any rifle in the hands of a terrorist is a deadly weapon."

But New York City’s Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says the .50-caliber rifle is in a class by itself. He agreed to show 60 Minutes just how powerful the .50 caliber is.

First, a police sharpshooter fired the NYPD’s own .30 caliber sniper rifle at a steel target. Downrange, three football fields away, the three shots from the .30 caliber rifle bounced off the half-inch thick steel.

"You can see it hasn’t penetrated it," says Kelly.

Then the sharpshooter fired three rounds from a Barrett .50-caliber rifle at the same target.

"Went right through," says Kelly. "It is clearly a weapon of war, a round to be used in a wartime situation. It’s appropriate for the military. The effective range is about 2,000 yards. It’s a very formidable weapon."

In other words, if the NYPD’s range had been 20 football fields long, instead of three, the .50-caliber rifle – firing ordinary ammunition -- still would have been devastatingly effective.

"Clearly, it is a very powerful weapon. We saw what it could do as far as going through armor," says Kelly. "It would be a weapon that could do a lot of damage – no question about that."

This is exactly what the FBI learned in 1993 at Waco when Branch Davidians fired a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle at them.

In response, the FBI deployed Bradley fighting vehicles for protection. But even that wasn’t sufficient, and heavier armor was brought in.

What happened at Waco was one of the arguments made for banning the weapon in California. Other states are now considering a similar ban for fear of potential terrorist attacks.

"If you go through virtually any industrial state, you’ll see right off the highways all kinds of highly toxic and or flammable materials stored in big tanks. These are ideal targets," says Diaz. "The point is you can plan your attack from a longer distance. It’s the combination of range and power."

The standard .50-caliber bullet is four times heavier than the .30-caliber bullet, and 10 times heavier than the M16 bullet.

In addition to the standard .50-caliber bullet, some bullets are designed to pierce armor, some to set things on fire. Those are all legal to buy. But the most devastating .50-caliber bullet is an armor-piercing, incendiary and explosive round sometimes called Raufoss, after the company that makes it.

Barrett says he’s not concerned about Raufoss because it’s illegal. "It's a high-explosive round," he says. "It’s not available commercially. I can’t even buy it."

In fact, 60 Minutes found a number of sites on the Internet that claimed to be selling the explosive Raufoss ammunition. On one site, it witnessed someone making an apparent transaction of the illegal round.

Barrett said he was surprised. "If it is out there and if someone other than our military has it, then it is stolen," he says. "And those people need to be prosecuted. We have laws against that. Passing additional laws, you know, is just a redundancy."

But, according to Diaz, the threat posed by legal ammunition is frightening enough. There are many potential targets, he says, but the most obvious is commercial aviation.

"Do I believe I could shoot an aircraft at altitude? Of course not, but on takeoff and landing, I could take you to places in Washington, D.C., where I’m absolutely certain you could shoot an aircraft with one of these guns," says Diaz.

"Clearly, with the range that it has, and the impact capability that it has, it would put an airliner or an airplane at risk if it hit that plane," adds Kelly.

Could the gun be used by a terrorist to shoot down a commercial airliner?

"It'd be very difficult. It would if it were a tactic that were even remotely possible," says Barrett. "Then our military, who happens to use the rifle, would be training their troops to do such."

But in his sales brochures, Barrett advertises the .50-caliber as a weapon that can take planes down.

"There's some military brochures that we had early on that showed that you could damage aircraft on a runway or Scud missiles and things like that," says Barrett. "Yes, you could if you have a parked target."

But not in the air? "That's correct," says Barrett.

Just this past year, the Rand Corporation released a report identifying 11 potential terrorist scenarios involving Los Angeles International Airport.

In one scenario, “a sniper using a .50-caliber rifle fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.” The report concludes: “We were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions” for such an attack.

Diaz told 60 Minutes about other much more specific scenarios in which terrorists might use the weapon, which we chose not to broadcast.

"I consider some of the stuff Tom Diaz lays out irresponsible," says Barrett. "I know a lot of things, but I’m not going to go on the television and tell people what the capabilities of equipment are and possibly give ideas to people."

Is what Diaz is saying accurate? "Yes, it could be. But it also, seeming begging someone to commit this crime. Somebody please commit this crime so I can validate what I’ve been saying so long," says Barrett. "And it’s repeated over and over, and I fear that somebody will answer that call."

Diaz disagrees. "Its kind of a classic gun-industry argument," he says. "First, they deny there’s a problem and then when something happens, they point the finger at people who tried to warn about it and say you guys caused this and you just hoped it would happen."

Federal agencies responsible for preventing terrorist attacks declined to be interviewed about the .50-caliber rifle. But last June, the Department of Homeland Security told the Dallas Morning News, “We remain concerned about any weapon of choice that could potentially be used by a terrorist, including a .50-caliber rifle.”

"Any rifle could be used to engage a target that it might stand a chance of hitting, of course," says Barrett. "You know, you don’t want to shoot any high-speed projectile at an airplane. It’s illegal."

"A terrorist is not concerned about what’s legal or not," says Bradley.

"That’s correct," says Barrett. "And a terrorist is not concerned if you pass, or Tom Diaz passes, another law."

Diaz wants Congress to pass a law requiring, at a minimum, records to be kept of who’s buying .50-caliber rifles.

"The real question here is we do not know who has these terribly destructive rifles," says Diaz. "No one in the United States government knows who has these guns."

"Aren't records kept when a gun is sold," asks Bradley.

"The answer is no," says Diaz.

Under the Brady Bill, sales records of guns used to be kept for 90 days, which enabled the FBI to check the names of gun purchasers against terror watch lists.

A year ago, at Attorney General John Ashcroft’s initiative, Congress reduced the period of record keeping from 90 days to 24 hours. That’s the policy that’s in effect today.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 50; bang; banglist; barrett; diaz; gungrabbers; joshsugarmann; sugarmann; tomdiaz; vpc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
The last part that says Ashcroft asked congress to reduce the record keeping for NICS, is a big fat LIE! AG Reno increased record keeping to 90 days in violation of the Brady bill, which says records can only be kept a maximum of 24 hours.

When they were shooting at the 1/2" steel plate at 300 yards, it sure looked like the .30 cal rounds were hitting the berm, kicking the snow up, and then ricochetting into the target with a DING! The .50 cal's were hitting in the center of the plate and making big holes.

1 posted on 01/10/2005 5:00:00 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

Millions of unregulated womens uteruse's have been used to kill millions of the unborn. But we can't regulate that. So, let's control mean ole guns.


2 posted on 01/10/2005 5:03:06 AM PST by isthisnickcool (Free Scott Peterson!!! In Iraq. Wearing an "Allah is the Devil" tee shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
3 posted on 01/10/2005 5:04:57 AM PST by The Teen Conservative (Taglines really get me worked up to write something in them for nothin', y'know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

Hanging over my fireplace is a .50 Caliber Hawken. I always get a kick out of the reaction of my less firearm literate frineds when I tell them ..."yep... it's a .50 Caliber... a plains rifle.... a buffalo gun" They look at the thing like it's going to jump off the wall and attack them. Like it's innate power will harm them from it's place on the wall.


4 posted on 01/10/2005 5:06:33 AM PST by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
This is the guy that hopes to one day run for president under the GOP banner.

No RINOs in the GOP!

If he can do this for guns, imagine what he can do for unborn babies and immigration and who knows what other liberal crap he will endorse.
5 posted on 01/10/2005 5:09:28 AM PST by Stringfellow Hawke (#6: Be seeing you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

"The real question here is we do not know who has these terribly destructive rifles," says Diaz. "No one in the United States government knows who has these guns."

***

This is a good thing.

BLOAT


6 posted on 01/10/2005 5:09:38 AM PST by lodwick (Integrity has no need of rules. Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

My new 82A1 will be here in April, just in time to have some fun at a nearby 1,000yd range in southcentral Penna.

My "old" 82A1 was sold on EBay for $900 more than I paid for it, in '01, sans Leupold Glass.

Sorry I missed the TV show, last evening.


7 posted on 01/10/2005 5:15:30 AM PST by 7.62 x 51mm (• veni • vidi • vino • visa • "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

At least they're not calling it an Assault Rifle anymore.

The 50 cal is a battlefield weapon. Ok. Whatever. Why shouldn't Americans have battlefield weapons? If you require an armed militia under the terms of the Constitution, you're going to need AT/AA weapons - not just poncey .50s. An armed militia can do without Aircraft carriers and Global Force projection, but a MILITIA MUST BE ABLE TO FIGHT A BATTLE.


8 posted on 01/10/2005 5:23:47 AM PST by agere_contra (Its official! Global warming causes global cooling! We're dooomed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

"Tom Diaz, a gun control advocate who was an expert witness in the California campaign to ban the gun."

I googled Tom Diaz and La Raza, didn't find anything conclusive yet--but have some suspicions that Diaz is against our whole U.S. Constitution, not just the Second Amendment....

"Citizens Against Gun Violence" is a front for gun-grabbers who don't want to prosecute those who use guns for self-protection and to protect our Constitution.

Che Guevara awareness ping!



9 posted on 01/10/2005 5:31:47 AM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (REMEMBER THE ALGOREAMO--relentlessly DEMAND the TRUTH, like the Dems demand recounts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7.62 x 51mm

>>," says Diaz. "We control every other kind of weapon of war you can think of – machine guns, plastic explosives, rockets. But this thing has flown under the radar for about 20 years."<<


We need to be in control of everything that the people eat, drink or have fun with!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah sure, Diaz dip_hit


10 posted on 01/10/2005 5:34:30 AM PST by B4Ranch (((The lack of alcohol in my coffee forces me to see reality!)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Good grief! These folks would have a conniption if they had lived in the 60's.

I remember Guns and Ammo running ads for war surplus .5" Boys and Lahti anti-tank rifles,20mm and 30mm anti-tank cannons and even 80mm mortars.

The fervent claims of the anti-gun lobby that "ready access to firearms" causes crime and shootings would be laughable were it not being utilized to effect the abrogation of a constitutionally defined fundamental individual right.


The truth is that firearms are more difficult to obtain now than ever before in our nation's history....yet crime and youthful violence have soared to unprecedented levels.
11 posted on 01/10/2005 5:37:07 AM PST by ijcr (Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ijcr; Happy2BMe

You're going to give me nightmares if you keep posting this frightening stuff!

wimper, wimper, wimper, wimper, wimper, wimper, please stop telling the truth. I'm afraid now. boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo


12 posted on 01/10/2005 5:47:16 AM PST by B4Ranch (((The lack of alcohol in my coffee forces me to see reality!)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1; Nailbiter; Forecaster
It’s not convenience store robberies that worry Tom Diaz, a gun control advocate who was an expert witness in the California campaign to ban the gun.

That's two strikes- right off the bat Anytime the MSM calls someone an ex[ert witness, you know they're full of it, and bent on taking something away from you.

Diaz says the .50-caliber rifle made by Barrett and other manufacturers is a menace in the hands of terrorists. "This gun is designed and built to smash things up and to set things on fire," says Diaz. "It’s a battlefield weapon. Yet it is sold as freely on the American civilian market as a .22 bolt action rifle."

Jamie Gorelick gave the terrorists more firepower than Ronnie Barrett. Why isn't this numbnuts doing anything about HER?

"I'm glad Ronnie Barrett makes his rifle for our military forces. I think it's a great thing on the battlefield," says Diaz. "I just think that there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it."

Hey, Diaz, if a terrorist has one of these, don't I deserve the right to have one too?

13 posted on 01/10/2005 5:49:59 AM PST by IncPen (Beware the fury of a patient man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen

See my #9 post. We're on the same page here. Anything you know about CAGV links to La Raza, Marxism, etc?

No doubt they exist, just want to find them....


14 posted on 01/10/2005 5:55:15 AM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (REMEMBER THE ALGOREAMO--relentlessly DEMAND the TRUTH, like the Dems demand recounts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
The esteemed Mr. Diaz, courtesy of CNN


15 posted on 01/10/2005 6:03:46 AM PST by IncPen (Beware the fury of a patient man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
This past week, a new law went into effect in California banning that weapon.

WTF? Details? Is this true?

Does it prohibit new sales and grandfather existing guns?

Pathetic, Arnold is clearly out to lunch.

16 posted on 01/10/2005 6:04:32 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HangFire; AnnaZ

bump


17 posted on 01/10/2005 6:12:14 AM PST by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen

Now I want one, and am going to go buy one right away before this state does a stupid thing.


18 posted on 01/10/2005 6:16:09 AM PST by Nuzcruizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
The .50 cal rifle really is more of an assassination danger.

I don't know any way to change that. For that matter, it's effectiveness is one reason it should be available to the general public, so not just the Government has power.

19 posted on 01/10/2005 6:18:21 AM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Barrett said he was surprised. "If it is out there and if someone other than our military has it, then it is stolen," he says. "And those people need to be prosecuted. We have laws against that. Passing additional laws, you know, is just a redundancy."

But…but…how can politicians claim to be protecting us from Great Evil if they don’t enact redundant laws?
20 posted on 01/10/2005 6:19:27 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson