Let's hear it for Barrett !!!... BRAVO!


PDA






Topgun
October 13, 2005, 01:21 PM
In their American Rifleman ad this month, they are carrying the message that due to California's banning of the .50 BMG for citizens, Barrett will no longer sell to or SERVICE guns from any.......GOVERNMENT AGENCY.... in California.

I wish they made a lot of other stuff so I could buy it to say "thanks" for that statement.

:) :) :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's hear it for Barrett !!!... BRAVO!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boofus
October 13, 2005, 01:22 PM
I bought a T-shirt and M82A1 keychain from them. Drives my communist boss crazy :o

El Tejon
October 13, 2005, 01:37 PM
If only more gun makers would do this. :)

Let the police of California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York do their jobs with sticks and rocks! :cool:

tuna
October 13, 2005, 01:39 PM
Need to get the ammo makers in on this too!

Barret had the whole letter a couple months ago in the Rifleman stating that they were doing this, and why.

Awesome!

J Miller
October 13, 2005, 01:43 PM
Most of the LEOs here in IL cary Glocks. A foreign gun that might be made here, but the parent company is in a foreign country that also has very restrictive gun laws.
As much as I apalud Barrett, if the American gun companies boycotted the state govts with restrictive laws, nothing would change. These states would just go to foreign companies and buy their black guns.

We citizens, 'er servants of the crown, get screwed no matter what.


Joe

Lupinus
October 13, 2005, 02:00 PM
If they can go other place's or not this is a great move in the right direction.

orangeninja
October 13, 2005, 02:29 PM
I'm glad Barrett did this...they are the best of the big boy rifles....it may not make him popular in Cali and I'm sure more than one cop will be pissed, but hey, you can't have your cake and all that.

boofus
October 13, 2005, 03:11 PM
Why would the cops be pissed? All those .50BMG rifles are good for is blowing up nuclear power plants, shooting down planes, and indiscriminately mowing down school children. :rolleyes:

Topgun
October 13, 2005, 03:40 PM
Or maybe DEFENDING A POLICE STATION.

When we have finally HAD ENUFF!!

:what: :D

R.H. Lee
October 13, 2005, 03:42 PM
:D

nfl1990
October 13, 2005, 04:24 PM
I don't know if we should trust policemen with guns, because guns are dangerous, and cause violence, and dead children.

(I am of course joking but I could see Brady saying this.)

Standing Wolf
October 13, 2005, 05:06 PM
Once upon a time, Ronnie Barrett's moral integrity was commonplace.

mr_dove
October 13, 2005, 07:00 PM
I've never wanted a 50 but this makes me reconsider. Sounds like a great company.

dasmi
October 13, 2005, 07:02 PM
Once upon a time, Ronnie Barrett's moral integrity was commonplace.

Yes indeed. Not so much anymore. Makes a guy sad...

garrett1955
October 13, 2005, 07:40 PM
SWEET!! glad to see them stick it to kommyfornia.

Topgun
October 13, 2005, 07:42 PM
Yes indeed. Not so much anymore. Makes a guy sad...

Well, nothing will change until "sad" changes to "mad."

PEOPLE put the creeps in office. Ignorant people, but people nevertheless.
Remember, it is YOUR government that has put Social Security in jeopardy and is teaching the younger generation not to expect ANYTHING.

And YOUR government approved NAFTA, GATT and "Most Favored Nation" status for China.

And PEOPLE will still support WalMart and its Chinese junk because they have been TAUGHT (starting with Satan Reagan) that "globalism" and tax breaks for corporations are ...GOOD...for American workers. As an example, how many times have you heard that it is YOUR responsibility to become all that you can be? And then see another "trade agreement" approved.

All lies. As are all the lies about .50 BMG criminal usage.

Double Naught Spy
October 13, 2005, 09:26 PM
What Barrett is doing is great, but as far as for not selling to any government agency in California, it isn't like Barrett has a lot of government contracts there. The big money is with the military contracts and the US military in California will get all the Barretts they want.

It isn't the same thing as when Glock, Sig, Beretta, or S&W gets a contract from a large department for 5,000, 10,000, or 20,000 guns. LAPD might have, what, 2 or 3 Barretts?

So what will all those California agencies do to get Barretts? Simple, they will pay a little more and order them through a 3rd party vendor. They can get all the parts they want the same way.

I understand the sentiment that Barrett is sticking it to California, but keep in mind that the people that might be most hurt by his political efforts won't be the politicians who came up with the stupid notions of banning the guns, but the officers who would be deployed with the Barretts and the officers they support. The people Barrett is sticking it to are not the ones who need and use the guns.

Technosavant
October 13, 2005, 10:43 PM
I understand the sentiment that Barrett is sticking it to California, but keep in mind that the people that might be most hurt by his political efforts won't be the politicians who came up with the stupid notions of banning the guns, but the officers who would be deployed with the Barretts and the officers they support. The people Barrett is sticking it to are not the ones who need and use the guns.

It will be the people who created, nurtured, and took joy in a hoplophobic culture. I have sympathy for them if they suffer, but had they taken more care at the ballot box, CA wouldn't be the cesspool of Constitutional disobedience it has become.

Besides, let the police use Remington 700s in .308. If they wanted Barrett .50BMGs that badly, they would not have been primary advocates for their banning. If weapons themselves are that dangerous, we should not allow even the police to possess them.

boofus- I looked on Barrett's website for the keychain, but only found a tie tack. Where did you get that keychain?

PromptCritical
October 14, 2005, 12:04 AM
Exactly. The .gov of California screwed him with the full support of the law enforcement brass. Too bad Colt didn't do the same to the fed.gov in '86. That wold have been interesting.

Hawkmoon
October 14, 2005, 12:47 AM
In their American Rifleman ad this month, they are carrying the message that due to California's banning of the .50 BMG for citizens, Barrett will no longer sell to or SERVICE guns from any.......GOVERNMENT AGENCY.... in California.
Old news.

VERY old news.

Texshooter
October 14, 2005, 02:07 AM
Strength and Honor start with one thought and then action.

MountainPeak
October 14, 2005, 02:13 AM
Old news.

VERY old news. BUT, worth repeating!!!!!

artherd
October 14, 2005, 05:08 AM
I bought a T-shirt and M82A1 keychain from them. Drives my communist boss crazy :o

Awesome!

I bought the real M82 when the commies banned 'em here in CA! Kudos to Barrett for dumping an extra 100+ of the SEMI-AUTO .50cals alone into this state in record time (they were working 14+ hour shifts aparently at times.)

Janitor
October 14, 2005, 08:58 AM
If they wanted Barrett .50BMGs that badly, they would not have been primary advocates for their banning. If weapons themselves are that dangerous, we should not allow even the police to possess them.
Exactly right. Why on earth should anyone in a police department be considered any more trustworthy than a private citizen?

Because they've had a background check?
Well ... a lot of us have had one. (thanks to DOD contracts, I've had a MUCH deeper background check than the vast majority of LEOs - just can't really use it for anything. It's all about the seekrits. ;) )

Because they've had training?
Lot's of private citizens have been to Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, etc. There are a lot of people out there that have taken the time, and spent their own money to get training. Just as there are a lot of LEOs out there that have done the same on their own for the same reasons.

Because they get a lot more practice?
Some of them do. Some of them don't. LEOs are just like citizens wrt guns. Some of them are collectors, affecionados, nuts. Some of them consider guns an evil they need for their job and that's it. There are citizen gun nuts that probably get 10-100 times the practice that some leos get.

At the end of the day, when it comes to firearms, the police are just like normal citizens but in uniform. Why on earth do they merit having access to rights that are doled out to citizens as privileges?

Yardstick
October 14, 2005, 12:58 PM
I told my wife about this ban and Barrett's response. Her response: "That's awesome! That's freakin' awesome!! Hey, we should get one!"

I love my wife! :D

Working Man
October 14, 2005, 02:08 PM
I told my wife about this ban and Barrett's response. Her response: "That's awesome! That's freakin' awesome!! Hey, we should get one!"

Does she have a like minded sister? :evil:

Mnemesyne
October 14, 2005, 03:50 PM
I'm currently saving up for a Barrett as my next purchase :D Had to agree to get the husband his Sharps rifle in 45/110 though eventually....

Sleeping Dog
October 14, 2005, 03:56 PM
Calif PD's can just buy them "straw"-style from the NJ PD's. NJ PD's know that cops gotta be there for each other. Except those bums in VA, that is.

How's Barrett going to keep his guns from going interstate, outside his control?

Nice gesture, though.

Regards.

Stebalo
October 14, 2005, 04:12 PM
If only more gun makers would do this.

Let the police of California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York do their jobs with sticks and rocks!

Unfortunately, some gun makers are falling over each other to develop smart guns to sell in New Jersey. This is maddening because the NJ smart gun law does not take effect until a smart gun product comes to market. If all gun makers colluded to not develop any smart gun products, the law would be meaningless. They should all follow Barrett's example.

Of course, the NJIT is developing smart gun tech by virtue of generous grants from NJ State gov and from the fed coming by way of Senators Corzine and Lautenberg. So once NJIT develops a smart gun tech, don't be surprised if George Soros or Corzine buy/found some minor gun company just to bring a smart gun to market and then close it down. Then we will be screwed in NJ.

Double Naught Spy
October 14, 2005, 04:43 PM
It will be the people who created, nurtured, and took joy in a hoplophobic culture. I have sympathy for them if they suffer, but had they taken more care at the ballot box, CA wouldn't be the cesspool of Constitutional disobedience it has become.

Besides, let the police use Remington 700s in .308. If they wanted Barrett .50BMGs that badly, they would not have been primary advocates for their banning. If weapons themselves are that dangerous, we should not allow even the police to possess them.

This is exactly the sort of wrong thinking I was talking about. It isn't the SWAT Team sniper, team members, or team leader that is wanting the .50s banned. Its the administration. The admin. doesn't use heavy guns. So are we hurting the police by not selling to or servicing their Barretts. Sure, but we aren't hurting the right individuals, are we? It won't be anyone in administration that gets killed raiding a meth lab or bad guy strong hold.

My guess is that most of you claiming that you are saving up for a Barrett won't ever get one, not until you feel like your rights are about to be taken away. Even then, it isn't likely. I say this not because I distrust any of you, but because every so often there is a thread like this and you get people posting about wanting to buy and saving up for Barretts, but then they never post about getting a Barrett. The post about every other gun they have purchased, but not about their Barretts...because they didn't ever buy one.

If the private sector purchased more Barretts, Barrett would not have to depend on military contracts and he depends on military contracts because of the low level of civilian sales.

Mostly I just see lots of scabbard rattling. There isn't really any saber rattling because so few of us have the Barrett sabers to rattle.

If I have offended you, then go buy a Barrett, get some decent long range Barrett training, come back, and rub my face in it. Then let's go to a 1000 yard range and bust some caps together.

PromptCritical
October 14, 2005, 05:00 PM
Calif PD's can just buy them "straw"-style from the NJ PD's. NJ PD's know that cops gotta be there for each other. Except those bums in VA, that is.

How's Barrett going to keep his guns from going interstate, outside his control?

Nice gesture, though.

Regards.

Yeah, but what happens if it needs to be serviced? Barrett has terminated all service contracts with the State of Kalifonistan. One can only hope a bubba on the police force volunteers and totally screws up the rifle.

No_Brakes23
October 14, 2005, 08:52 PM
I told my wife about this ban and Barrett's response. Her response: "That's awesome! That's freakin' awesome!! Hey, we should get one!" My wife said the same thing. Too bad the M468 is unavailible in Cali.

GigaBuist
October 16, 2005, 03:48 PM
If the private sector purchased more Barretts, Barrett would not have to depend on military contracts and he depends on military contracts because of the low level of civilian sales.
Errr... I don't think that's right. If my memory serves me correctly in his 60 Minutes interview Ronnie said that if civlian sales were shut off he'd be out of business.

The segment can be viewed here: http://justinbuist.org/images/60minutes-50cal-lieslieslies.wmv

Think about it... how many small arms does the military buy per soldier? I don't have a hard number, but when you consider folks in support roles it's probably less than 1 -- and there's only half a milliion and change of them. Heck, even the USMC probably only has 2 small arms per enlisted men, if not less.

Now, take a gander at your gun safe... more than 2 in there? Thought so. Now think about how many "gun nuts" there are like us out there compared to the half a million troops. If you figure 20 small arms per gunny out there we'd only need 1/10th the number of people in the military to equal that buying power, which means 50,000 people.

There's a lot more of us gunnies here in the USA than that!

Granted we were talking about police agencies... but the same idea holds true. One handgun purchased per officer every 3-5 years? A carbine or shotgun maybe every 10 years?

Private ownership of small arms dwarfs police and military ownership of small arms. The only upside to selling to the military/police is that they buy in bulk and they're less whimsical than us. They're more predicitable, but we're a bigger market.

No_Brakes23
October 21, 2005, 01:52 PM
Heck, even the USMC probably only has 2 small arms per enlisted men, if not less. Many bases do not have enough rifles for each Marine. Aboard MCAS Yuma, I had the same M16A2, and got to know it pretty well, (+23 left on the windage got me expert, third time to the range.) I had the SerNo memorized.

Aboard MCAS Miramar, you turn your rifle card back in after each range visit, because someone else will need it when they go to the range. I had a different rifle every year.

I bet MCB Camp Pendleton doesn't have that problem, though.

NineseveN
October 21, 2005, 02:02 PM
Yardstick:

I told my wife about this ban and Barrett's response. Her response: "That's awesome! That's freakin' awesome!! Hey, we should get one!"

I love my wife!


I love your wife too! :D

Tom Servo
October 22, 2005, 01:54 PM
Does anyone have a link to the actual letter? I'd like to see it.

Taurus 66
October 22, 2005, 06:26 PM
Is this thread anything like http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=150770 this thread? ;)

Black92LX
October 22, 2005, 07:29 PM
If only more gun makers would do this. :)

Let the police of California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York do their jobs with sticks and rocks! :cool:

I was fortunate enough to meet Mr. Barrett and his son down at Knob Creek last weekend. In our conversation he mentioned that a few other manufacturers were going to be following in his footsteps.

biere
October 23, 2005, 02:22 PM
This is exactly the sort of wrong thinking I was talking about. It isn't the SWAT Team sniper, team members, or team leader that is wanting the .50s banned. Its the administration. The admin. doesn't use heavy guns. So are we hurting the police by not selling to or servicing their Barretts. Sure, but we aren't hurting the right individuals, are we? It won't be anyone in administration that gets killed raiding a meth lab or bad guy strong hold.

Snipped some of the quote to make it shorter.


Until the team sniper and others are able to band together and tell the higher ups how badly they messed things up, not much will change.

And this concept is not just for police. You can go back to the passing of the awb and see how many elected folks lost their seats because of how they voted for that piece of legislation.

I am glad barret is doing this and I hope more do it with him.

Here in ohio when ccw was being worked on even the local tv sometimes mentioned that when someone said, "the police do not back ccw permits" that really meant the higher ups did not back it while the police on the street often said they were in favor of ccw.

I doubt you will ever get the higher ups to not say and do things that make it harder for the ones doing the actual work, but these days things are so far gone that it is time to speak up.

And if you are not willing to speak up to your boss because he is making your job that much harder and more dangerous, then I don't know what else to say.

MudPuppy
October 23, 2005, 09:03 PM
While I can't affort a 50 at the moment, I would definitely take a gun mfg's pro 2A stance into consideration when buying a firearm in my price range.

Freedspeak
October 24, 2005, 12:52 AM
I think the main point is that they will no longer SERVICE the weapons that have been bought.

Based on his actions I may have to add a Barret to the Serbu in the collection!:evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's hear it for Barrett !!!... BRAVO!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!