Here is what I just emailed them.
Mike,
You are severely lacking political and Constitutional depth on the issue of Ronnie Barrett and the FSC gun club exercising their rights. First, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) recognizes the unalienable rights of man. One of those rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Now it doesn't say to keep and bear arms for hunting, sport shooting, or collection. It says to insure the security of a free state. How do you insure the security of a free state? You sometimes have to fight for it or at least be able to convince the politicians you are willing to fight for it. The Second Amendment is solely about over throwing the government. It might not be popular, it might be a little bit scary, but it is what it is. You can try and twist the well-regulated militia section into meaning the National Guard, but a basic understanding of the meaning of well-regulated (look it up in the dictionary) tells us it means a well-equipped militia and a fundamental aspect of 18th century militia tells you it is the civilian population, not a military force.
Now that we have that established, your idea that banning .50 calibers or using this bullet technology is somehow a great democratic process that guarantees the safety of the citizenry through democracy is absurd. First, we are not a democracy. If we were, no one would have rights and what ever the majority decided, would be the rule of the land. Thankfully we have a Constitution that recognizes the rights of the people and limits the power the government has. So if California or the federal government decides to ban a type of firearms that could be used for legitimate militia activities, that violates our rights as outlined in the Constitution and it is not right. It is a violation of the freedom loving principles this country was founded on.
This leads into your general attitude that private business somehow owes the government and the people something. Again, an absurd socialistic view. Ronnie Barrett does not have to do business with anyone he doesn't want to. I know that goes against the whole utopian ideal of collectivism and that we owe the government because the government gives us authority and power. However, it is consistent with the liberty centered Constitution that we enjoy today. You call it crying and even go so far as to call it treason. That is consistent with your overall socialistic, "big brother knows best" attitude. Barrett can vote and I am sure he does. He can also tell the government if they don't wish to treat all citizens equally, he will refuse to do business with them. That isn't treason, that is consistency and integrity.
So to conclude, it is a patriot's duty to stand up and do what you can against the fingers of oppression and tyranny as they attempt to brush away the liberties and freedom that this country was founded on. Ronnie Barrett did that. The rest of America is doing that by electing more conservatives and letting ineffective legislation like the "assault weapons ban" expire. The only reason you call Ronnie Barrett a cry baby and criticize the NRA because they are getting their way and you are not. You challenge them to try and change the system, but when they take the steps to do so, you criticize them for not going with the flow. You contradict yourself and it appears you are the one doing most of the crying here. I hope some day you can throw off your ill notions that the collective, nanny state knows what is best for its citizens and that you recognize that citizens make the government and control it. Just because a cop thinks it is a good idea to have every bullet serialized doesn't meant he majority of America does. More importantly when you add unnecessary and ineffective restrictions and costs for legitimate business conducted by citizens of a free state, you should oppose it by principle instead of encouraging it by socialistic loyalty to a nanny state.
El Rojo, California
) ... or else (here's the catch) ease up on a lot of the current gun control laws. I vote for the latter. But what good's a vote anyways? 
)