Posted on 05/29/2005 11:43:58 PM PDT by John Filson
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, centralized 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.
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.
Read the book, "Unintended Consequences"?
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. :-)
Wasn't the 20mm rifle in "Unintended Consequences" a Solothurn??
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.
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.
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:
For academic discussion only.
Read more--poor mouth less.....Boot.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
Only the police should have guns? Do you work for the VPC?
>>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.
Don't forget that every mention of "Browning" requires an "amen" after it.
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
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.
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.