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.
Here is a discussion on the definition of "well regulated" as in use in 1789.
Don't you have strawberries to count, spaceman?
The Supremacy Clause (Article 6) is the opposite of the Tenth Amendment...leaving aside any bastardization that has occured since ratification.
Not at all. They compliment each other as to defining State powers, and the prohibitions on State powers.
The Tenth says any power this Constitution doen't specificly give to the federal government is reserved to the states.
Some are "prohibited by it to the States"
And the Supremacy Clause says those powers the Constitution *does* give to the federal government always take precedence over the states right to exercise that power.
Not exactly true. It says that the Constitution is supreme, and that all officials, -- fed, state, or local, shall be bound by oath to support it.
That's why Roe v. Wade is such a bastard. The Supreme Court claimed abortion was a Constitutional right, so no state could make a law against it no matter how many people opposed it.
Again, not exactly true. Roe said that States couldn't decree that early term abortions were murder. Juries in the USA decide what is murder, not state or fed legislators.
The legislators liked that just fine because they could *say* anything they wanted, but wouldn't have to take the responsibility of a vote. It also explains why the democrats are so terrified of Originalist Justices on the Supreme Court. They KNOW the Constitution is really silent on abortion, and they KNOW without the Court claiming jurisdiction over abortion they don't have any authority to force the entire country to accept it, and they don't have the votes to get it state by state.
The Constitution has never been "silent" on our individual rights. Prohibitions on big rifles - or on private early term abortion matters, are not decisions we have ever empowered our government officials to make.
I agree. We each are militias of one, to borrow the US Army's current recruiting slogan. Collective rights, starting with those conferred by judges and journalists on two people seeking the privilege of marriage do not exist, no matter how much hot air and ink is expelled in their defense. Neither is the right to keep arms a right to anyone but those who as individuals who agree to defend their lives and liberty alone or in voluntary groups.
If you feel you've been subjected to a form of McCarthyism here, please pardon our manners, but in any second amendment-defending on line forum, it's considered proper etiquette to debate the finer points of patriotism with passion and significant amounts of peer pressure. We're losing our God-given right to self-defense one caliber, one state, and one judge at a time. If you care as much as we do, even if you don't always agree, you'll forgive us and point your rhetorical sharp edges outward.
Those who want to call me a troll for those last three words can piss up a rope because they're just looking for a fight.
We know who is looking for a fight. It's the elitists in the VPC, HCI, and their lackey media barons, politicians and civil "servants." We learn codewords for their positions and tend to lash out at them when we even think we've heard them.
There's still time to lash rhetorically. It's worth arguing on line about these things because we have a Republic to save.
And that didn't work out too well for them either....
....making my point for me, of course.
Why aren't you a member? Are you a member of any other gun rights organization in it's place?
I think public opposition to firearms laws, knowledge and practice of firearms skills, and political activism are the best indicators of patriotism, rather than membership in any organization. This is a citizen's job. Remember that Michael Moore has a lifetime membership in the NRA.
That doesn't, by itself, impugn it.
I was once a member of the ACLU. That doesn't, by itself, redeem it.
Heh! I'm just saying that no mere membership in the NRA can prove that one is a patriot.
carryng a big-ass gun in a sloped armour turret? Try M1A1 with turret trained to the rear.
That might be an M88, but it's not an M1, I don't think - the rear deck/slope is wrong, even for an M1 with the turret reversed.
Well bless your heart; thanks for the corrections.
I'm sure John Moses Browning would disagree with that were he here to make a statement. I can think of two people who'd get Mr. Browning's back:
Mr. Garand, and Tovarich Kalashnikov.
You might also mention the late, great Eugene Stoner, Lazmataz.
Jack.
I'm not a memeber because although I've used guns and seem to have a knack for it, I just don't have the time to practice or feel the need to own a gun. Some folks can't seem to grasp that just because I don't WANT a gun doesn't mean I don't think everyone who does want one (a few lunatics aside) should have the right to own and carry one. I've lived among Libs most of my life and am weary of their ridiculous arguments, so when they start in about guns I get a disgusted look on my face and say something like "So you think women should be raped instead of having the right to protect themselves?"
Uh, yeah, whatever, Professor Paranoid. Your weirdo obsessing makes all the points necessary. So if you're done with your bizarre hysteria with my posting about the actual point of the article, go back to your stateroom, cap'n. ;)
I've been coming here without posting long enough to think it is a site about a broader range of issues than just guns. What annoyed me was the rudeness with which one poster in particular decided that since I was refering to one very specific element of an article--the irony that 60 Minutes suddenly has such respect for police, because they're talking about taking AWAY guns, as opposed to their usual "evil cops" position--he could simply lie about me. That ain't cool.
But back to your more meaningful post. The MSM's wholesale buying into the handgun control philosophy speaks to a much larger problem, which is the easily disproved idea that guns are these relics of frontier days. Forget the tons of data available, just look at the blatant contradiction of a media telling us at all times that law enforcement and military personel are abusive and rougue, and that we should only trust THEM with the guns. They simply IGNORE that second amendment, as if it is as casually tossed aside as prohibition, when citizens having access to self-protection of their property and lives is one of the most important rights we have. They seem to believe that if all the citizens lost their guns then somehow we would live in this magical society without violence, and somehow the criminals would have no access to weapons, and would just give up B&E's and rapes and muggings and stalkings.
On the one hand the MSM tells us to beware of the police, even though the police are the ones who protect them; on the other hand, they tells us we shouldn't be taking care of ourselves even though we can't trust the police. I guess they must believe in the power of prayer after all, because their loopy vision of a world with no guns = a world of no violence is one big ol' fairytale.
You won't last on this forum because your ill manners and constant attacks will -- eventually -- not be tolerated. I've seen it a million times.
And with that, I terminate communication with you, at this time.
Stoner's design had original flaws that make me consider him more of a level-B designer who still managed to rank -- barely -- in the level-A ranks. Browning, Garand, and Kalashnikov were superior firearms engineers.
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.