StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Meanwhile....

Poster on AR15.com wrote:Just got off the phone with Ruger and they said it will be there policy that they wont sell High cap mags or Mini-14 folders to civilians even now.

So I guess Bill Ruger didn't die after all.

And in other news The Terminator signed in a .50 BMG rifle ban in Kalifornication.



Makes me wonder how long until .499 California appears though

Hmm...I was curious as to who on SD.net is planning on loading up on some firearms.....

Damaramu wrote:Hmm...I was curious as to who on SD.net is planning on loading up on some firearms.....

There's a thread a few pages back. My AR-15 was a bushmaster tho

Barret Speaks

June 30, 2003

Chairman, Public Safety Committee
State of California
Sen. Bruce McPherson

Via: Fax (916) 445-4688

Dear Senator McPherson,

United States defense contractors such as Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc., Murfreesboro, TN USA rely on orders from the US Military as a primary source of income but this government income for most contractors is only part of the necessary income for long term survival. Commercial or civilian product sales are also a main source of income that makes payroll and for good working conditions for their employees. We must support these defense contractors in both peace and war and allow them to operate, market and sell their products under the rules, regulations and law of the Federal Government. There is a balance of customers among defense contractors that is necessary for sound, long term business and by eliminating commercial sales in California this balance is disrupted. To vote against .50 cal rifles puts jobs of your constituents as risk, the lives of your police at risk, and in the end the safety of the State of California at risk. Are you willing to jeopardize this?

The defense industrial base in America is at risk of being unable to fully support our country in time of need without adequate opportunity for commercial sales of various products. In the Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc situation the civilian legal Barrett .50 cal rifle is at risk in the state of California. The attempt to ban a legal firearm not only violates the basic principals of the US Constitution but sets a precedence that endangers many vital defense contractors. In the Barrett case it also endangers California law enforcement agencies from having a proven and important tool in the fight against terrorism.

“The M82A1 Barrett… are manifestations of the important historic cooperation played by private citizens and small business in the United States in the development of weapons and munitions necessary for the US Armed Forces to perform their mission to protect the national security interests of the United States by fighting and winning, with as few friendly casualties as possible.” This statement sums up the vital role both government and commercial business play in the sound business practices of various defense contractors of which Barrett is one.

The Barrett .50 cal rifle was ascertained by the troops on the front lines in Iraq as the best performing small arm and they have the private defense contractor to thank for that weapon. Ban .50 cal rifles in California and you take this tool from your police also. The war on terror is not over! The Barrett .50 cal rifle has been in the hands of competitive shooters, hunters, and collectors for over 20 years and is a mainstay of the long range competitive shooters matches. It also serves on Police SWAT teams as the primary long range anti-sniper weapon.

It is the Barrett position that we choose not to support in anyway state or local governments who are against the US Constitution and the safety and security of this nation. If California were to ban the sale of the Barrett .50 cal rifle we will stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to all State Law Enforcement agencies of the state of California immediately and ask all small arms manufactures to consider similar action. Re-classify the .50 cal rifle and you align yourself and the State of California as being part of the very terrorists who are attempting to destroy this great nation of ours.

Please vote against banning or re-classifying .50 cal rifles.

Respectively,

Ronnie G. Barrett
President
Barrett Firearms Mfg., Inc.
Murfreesboro, TN USA

***************

Oh man, It'll be fun to see the LAPD trying to get parts for their
Barrett 50 calibers now

I wonder how hard it would be to make a .450 cartridge using a necked down
russian 14.5mm case because the CA ban law specifically lays
out the EXACT dimensions of the .50 BMG

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center fire
rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch
to, and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.
(27) As used in this section, ‘‘.50 BMG rifle’’ has the same
meaning as set forth in Section 12278.

Bushmaster was also involved in a recent questionable legal settlement regarding the Maryland sniper fuckers. Details here.

WOW... that is a manufacturer with balls. I like that one very much yes...

Why on Earth would a law abiding citizen interested in defending themselves (which im constantly assured by gun toting US friends that's the main reason behind their ownership) be interested in a weapon like that?

To A&P with you, thread.

Barrett Rifles wrote:[If you won't let civilians buy .50cal rifles, you are] part of the very terrorists who are attempting to destroy this great nation of ours

Man, I would have thought that was a Daily Show parody, except that it's real.

Jon wrote:Why on Earth would a law abiding citizen interested in defending themselves (which im constantly assured by gun toting US friends that's the main reason behind their ownership) be interested in a weapon like that?

Because we can.

Let's not forget Barrett's 25MM Sniper, ahh... "Rifle" (JUST CALL THE FUCKING THING A CANNON ALREADY!)

MKSheppard wrote:

Jon wrote:Why on Earth would a law abiding citizen interested in defending themselves (which im constantly assured by gun toting US friends that's the main reason behind their ownership) be interested in a weapon like that?

Because we can.

I can legally make love to sheep but I don't go around doing it

25 mm? That thing is a cannon.

Jon wrote:Why on Earth would a law abiding citizen interested in defending themselves (which im constantly assured by gun toting US friends that's the main reason behind their ownership) be interested in a weapon like that?

Because some people like to target shoot, or collect. ANd what better way to scare off a home invader armed with a pistol, than to pull out a .50 cal rifle the size of his arm "You might want to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky? Well do ya? Punk!"

Jon wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Jon wrote:Why on Earth would a law abiding citizen interested in defending themselves (which im constantly assured by gun toting US friends that's the main reason behind their ownership) be interested in a weapon like that?

Because we can.

I can legally make love to sheep but I don't go around doing it

Youa re in the Uk... how do we know you dont

But in all seriousness, there are legitimate reasons to buy those things, and if a criminal wants to get one, no number of gun control laws will help. The law becomes completely and utterly pointless because of the black market.

Jon wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Jon wrote:Why on Earth would a law abiding citizen interested in defending themselves (which im constantly assured by gun toting US friends that's the main reason behind their ownership) be interested in a weapon like that?

Because we can.

I can legally make love to sheep but I don't go around doing it

Red Herring

Owning a .50 BMG rifle is victimless; sheep shagging is not. Owning a .50 BMG rifle is exercising a vital Constitutional freedom (albeit to an extreme degree, but the principle is exactly the same from the .50 all the way down to the puniest .22 Short derringer); sheep shagging is not.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Because some people like to target shoot, or collect. ANd what better way to scare off a home invader armed with a pistol, than to pull out a .50 cal rifle the size of his arm "You might want to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky? Well do ya? Punk!"

Indeed, if my house got broken into I'd just have to hope pulling out my girlfriends toys might scare them off... closest thing we've got to a rifle, indeed!

Jon wrote:I can legally make love to sheep but I don't go around doing it

My sources disagree, and we have pictures of you engaged in said act.

Jon wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Because some people like to target shoot, or collect. ANd what better way to scare off a home invader armed with a pistol, than to pull out a .50 cal rifle the size of his arm "You might want to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky? Well do ya? Punk!"

Indeed, if my house got broken into I'd just have to hope pulling out my girlfriends toys might scare them off... closest thing we've got to a rifle, indeed!

Hmm, using a dildo as a club. Good idea, just don't try it with anything smaller than ten inches long. Don't be surprised if the British court system easily convicts you of assault, aggravated sexual battery, and attempted murder; then issues a statement to the effect they'd rather have seen you dead than defend your home against criminals.

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Owning a .50 BMG rifle is victimless; sheep shagging is not. Owning a .50 BMG rifle is exercising a vital Constitutional freedom (albeit to an extreme degree, but the principle is exactly the same from the .50 all the way down to the puniest .22 Short derringer); sheep shagging is not.

When asked to justify that particular rule (which is part of the Constitution), you can't just appeal to the Constitution. This is circular logic.

No debating in A&P or I'll toss this thread somewhere else.

Darth Wong wrote:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Owning a .50 BMG rifle is victimless; sheep shagging is not. Owning a .50 BMG rifle is exercising a vital Constitutional freedom (albeit to an extreme degree, but the principle is exactly the same from the .50 all the way down to the puniest .22 Short derringer); sheep shagging is not.

When asked to justify that particular rule (which is part of the Constitution), you can't just appeal to the Constitution. This is circular logic.

Good point.

Okay, the Constitution's 2nd Amendment was put there to ensure the People had the means and tools to enforce our right to make the government respect our rights as citiozens instead of the government's helping themselves and disregarding our rights as they see fit. Unfortunately, it seems as adaptable as the people are in defense against tyranny, the tyrants are just as adaptable in their self-interested predations against us.