Big Rifle A Terrorist Tool? [See BS's 60 minutes on the Barrett 50 caliber]

CBS ^ | May 29, 2005 | CBS Worldwide Inc

[misanthrope]

But seriously, in case you missed it, I'll repeat ;

"That said, I am personally in favor of the citizenry's posession of destructive devices. I do think there have to be reasonable limits, but they should not be so low as to prevent the citizenry from being a viable threat to the Fedguv."

No, I don't think ANYONE should have suitcase nukes, including any govornment.

[DocH]

Way back in the early 60's my brother bought a 20mm Lahti and several hundred rounds of ammo.Now THAT was a powerful weapon.How times have changed-no permits required back then.

Read the book, "Unintended Consequences"?

[Bear_Slayer]

When then situation arises that a US citizens could legitimately use a nuke -- suitcase, or otherwise -- against the US government, the meaning of the 2A becomes mute

Dancing angels on the head of a pin.

I do see a legitimate purpose for a private citizen to own, and if not use, at the least, threaten the use of a nuclear weapon.

If the southern states had nukes, they could have threatened the north with their use. We would then, possibly, become the Untied States of America.

If a citizen or group of citizens, found no relief from the tyranny of a Fed Gov, and their own state gov was willing to live under the tyranny of that Fed Gov, these same citizens might use nukes to secede from their Fed/State Goverments.

------------------------

for discussion purposes only; not to be viewed as an opinion to overthrow the US gov. :-)

[misanthrope]

Wasn't the 20mm rifle in "Unintended Consequences" a Solothurn??

[f zero]

Remember the California Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA). It banned and confiscated SKS's throughout the state. Even tough I wan born there I will never move back to CA.

[papertyger]

Papertyger, could you please direct me to the portion of the Constitution that states "You can't have a private army according to the Constitution". I had always thought the "militia" was origionally envisioned to be comprised of nothing but private citizens.

Article 2, Section 2 states: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.

The milita is NOT a private army, but are subject to military discipline despite being drawn from private citizenry.

No military force is allowed in the United States that is not subject to the President of the United States.

[Bear_Slayer]

No military force is allowed in the United States that is not subject to the President of the United States

What if the president were a despot? Would the military still report to him? What if they did?

Would it be immoral, illegal, unethical, unconsititution for a private army to arise to overthrow a despotic president and his armies?

---------------

DISCLAIMER:

[Bear_Slayer]

DISCLAIMER:

For academic discussion only.

[S.O.S121.500]

Read more--poor mouth less.....Boot.

[yarddog]

Since the second amendment was put there, partly for the purpose of being a check on the powers of the federal government, if the citizens rebelled, then they probably would not consider themselves as under the president's authority.

Of course there was also the idea which is present in Switzerland that the citizens be always ready for call to duty which is why they all keep assault rifles (real ones) in their closets.

[misanthrope]

"If a citizen or group of citizens, found no relief from the tyranny of a Fed Gov, and their own state gov was willing to live under the tyranny of that Fed Gov, these same citizens might use nukes to secede from their Fed/State Goverments."

True enough, but whether that is a good thing or not is a question to consider. I, for one, don't relish the thought of an intra-continental nuclear war.

As a matter of fact, I would imagine that were an individual, or group of individuals, become known to be in posession of a nuclear device, they would very swiftly find themselves the target of the full force the Federal government could possibly bring to bear. I doubt there would be any negotiating.

[shellshocked]

"Number of crimes committed with .50 BMG semiauto weapons in the US to date - zero. "


Actually there have been about a dozen. One here where a guy shot a cop in a cop car using one.

[papertyger]

What if the president were a despot? Would the military still report to him? What if they did?

The Constitution says what it says.

Don't conflate the 2nd Amendment's reference to "the people" with the milita. They are two distinct entities, one being composed from members of the other.

[yarddog]

Does the Constitution say anything about forbidding private armies? It may but I don't recall it. I do know they existed and so did private armed ships.

[B4Ranch]

Here is a statement directly from Diaz's website, vpc.org:

David Koresh and his fellow Branch Davidians had several 50 caliber sniper rifles among the weapons in their substantial arsenal. During the 1993 siege at the Waco, Texas compound, FBI agents used armored vehicles to protect against the weapons. This decision was made after four Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents were killed in the initial assault.

Let's go through this one item at a time.

David Koresh and his fellow Branch Davidians had several 50 caliber sniper rifles

According to federal testimony, they had TWO. Now would also be a good time to note that owning a .50 Barrett rifle is LEGAL in 49 states. (Thanks, Ahnold for infinging the rights of Californians.)

During the 1993 siege at the Waco, Texas compound, FBI agents used armored vehicles to protect against the weapons.

The Barrett rifles were NOT fired during the siege. There is no evidence to support this claim. There is, however, significant evidence to support the allegations that the FBI fired .50 Barretts INTO the Branch Davidian compound.

FBI agents used armored vehicles to protect against the weapons. This decision was made after four Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents were killed in the initial assault.

This is great. What we have here is a typical trick used by journalists. This statement implies that the FBI decided to use armored vehicles because of the threat posed by the Barrett rifles. This is not true. It is true that they rolled in armor after 4 agents died, but those agents were NOT shot by Barrett rifles. There is no evidence to support this except for a single report from the GAO claiming that an FBI agent testified that they were fired on by .50 Barrett rifles. Unfortuantely, none of the OFFICIAL Waco documents concerning the incident indicate any such thing.

I just get so sick of this garbage. This tripe on CBS is nothing but fear-mongering.

Sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/06/60minutes/main665257.shtml
http://www.wmsa.net/news/CNSNews/cns-030609_barrett_boycott.htm
http://archive.gao.gov/f0502/162586.pdf
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/004077.shtml
http://www.waco93.com/faq.htm

Posted by Finster at 02:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thirteen head shots. Good sniping?

Hallway (room next to the kitchen)
7 - Steve Schneider - gunshot wound, mouth
8 - David Koresh - gunshot wound, mid-forehead

Kitchen
20 - Jimmy Riddle - gunshot wound, mid-forehead
21 - Steven Henry - gunshot wounds
22 - Phillip Henry - multiple gunshot wounds, head and upper torso

Inside Pantry (room next to the kitchen)
31A - Aisha Summers - gunshot wound to the left chest
31D-E - parts of human skull, 11-14 yrs., gunshot wound to left skull
43 - Lisa Ferris - gunshot wound to the left head
44 - John Doe - gunshot wound to the left chest
45 - Mary Jean Borst - gunshot wound of the back 47 - Jane Doe - gunshot wound to the head
53 - Jane Doe 5-5.5 yrs. - gunshot wound to the left chest
66 - Jane Doe - gunshot wounds to the left back and thorax
67-B - infant - gunshot wound to the head

Pantry Roof 34 - Sonobe - gunshot wound of the head
35 - Shari Doyle - gunshot wound left posterior head
36 - David M. Jones - gunshot wound of the head
39 - Novellette Hipsman - gunshot wounds of the head and chest
41 - Neil Vaega - gunshot wound to the head ......"

http://www.alamo-girl.com/103.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Advocates of unrestricted civilian sale of 50 caliber sniper rifles argue that they are "too heavy" for criminal use. But Ronnie G. Barrett was pictured in Forbes magazine holding the Barrett M82A1 without apparent effort. Barrett literature also says, "The 82A1's light weight makes transportation as easy as walking." The Barrett Model 99, introduced later, weighs 6.5 pounds less than the model shown here.

When my girls weighed only 30 pounds, I could carry both of them at the same time "without apparent effort" and I'm only a couple of inches taller than Ronnie is. Just guessing I would say he's stronger than I am, probably from carrying a big .50 everywhere he goes. LOL

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now if you want to become terrified of civilians owning .50's, read this!

Voting From the Rooftops

[coloradan]

The purpose of having a deadly weapon is so the police can use deadly force when they have to; this weapon does that job.

Only the police should have guns? Do you work for the VPC?

[B4Ranch]

>>No military force is allowed in the United States that is not subject to the President of the United States.<<

State militias are under the State governors command.

[mad_as_he$$]

Don't forget that every mention of "Browning" requires an "amen" after it.

[Bear_Slayer]

but whether that is a good thing or not is a question to consider

I agree; I would not like to see an intra-continental missile war.

But the question remains: If a despotic government always has the next trump card, i.e. greater force, uo to , and including nuclear threat, then a citizen is always at the mercy of a despotic government. Could that citizen morally/ethically use or threaten use of a nuke, to separate him/herself from that despotic government?

When the colonies seperated from the crown, they used the force available

and even sought the assistance of France's navy. Could this equate to a citizen seeking and negotiating the threat of foreign nukes against a despotic government? --------------------

Disclaimer:

for academic discussion only

[ExtremeUnction]

Then I'm gonna need one.

California is a joke. I read that despite passing all of their strict gun control measures, literally millions of its citizens break the laws by getting their guns in adjacent, gun-friendly states. And to top it off, California can do nothing about it, because they don't have the funds or the personnel to enforce their laws. So, in effect, their gun laws exist in name only.