Barrett’s Position Regarding the Assault on Liberty

Status
Not open for further replies.
oneounceload said:
Bet Barret will still sell to the Federal Government, since that is what keeps them in business. The fed will just give them to NY and whomever else wants them - as long as they will be used against us if and when a revolution comes around
Click to expand...

And that is the issue with some of these companies, do as I say not what I do...Oh, we wont sell to the locals or state, but silence when it comes to the feds...

I have very little respect for companies who want to separate either local, state, or feds (and military), but yet say that they make a stand.

Want my respect? Say no to sales to local, state and fed LE as well as the military, or else make no statement at all. Afterall, the military loans firearms to local LE, and has for years. Want to make a statement? Make a statement! Period. No exceptions.

I guess to Barrett its ok to sell to feds or military and then loan (or give) to local LE and that's ok, but a straight sale to local LE? No way....

I don't care what Barrett sales, if I want something that they share the market with, I will choose another brand. Make a stand or don't, half-way doesn't cut it.
 
Yeah, because Barrett owes it to people who post on the internet to go totally bankrupt and leave military service people in harms way downrange in the lurch. Unless one is living off grid, growing their own food, and studiously avoiding buying anything not made in America, and then only from companies with appropriate social positions and policies, I'd say less ranting and more attending to the beam in ones own eye.
 
Homeland security surplus.

We need to pass legislation that whenever DHS ammo stores exceed one box(50 rounds) per armed agent, the excessive ammo must be sold to the public at half the purchase cost.
In fact any ammo purchased by the govt. that is commonly used by civilians, should be matched by subsidized ammo sales to the public, at a two to one ratio.
I'd feel much more secure in my freedom knowing that the public will always have two rounds for every one round owned by the government. This is in line with the statements of the founding fathers.
 
A private company has zero responsibility whatsoever to what the US Government chooses to arm military personnel with downrange.
Click to expand...

Well, the M107 .50 cal sniper rifles we've used in units I've been in are just Barrett M82s with a new number slapped on them. So had Barrett boycotted federal sales we would not have had that tool in the tool box.

Zero responsibility? While a sweeping declaration, it's an irrelevant one. Barrett has contract with the .mil for guns that are being used to ensure our side comes home in one piece and the other side gets an unmarked grave in the desert. Cutting off those contracts to stick it to a federal government which, despite all the sound and fury from the Obama White House has yet to pass anything new in the anti-gun column, strikes me as morally irresponsible and pretty much out of character for the patriotic and socially responsible stance Barrett it taking.

Your opinion may differ. If your opinion does not have some basis in having his sniper rifles overwatch you and provide for your security in some third world hell hole, your opinion doesn't count, however.
 
Did Feinstein's bill pass? I'm failing to see where the Federal government has passed legislation prohibiting Barrett's weapons. Why would you suggest punishing the military just because a couple of legislators have proposed something crazy?
 
Regarding Barrett's position on not selling to states...

I have YET to find any logical reason why a State government would need a long range anti-materiel rifle.

*I* own one because I *can*....

But Governments have to justify what they do with my money.

And I don't like the idea of police agencies running around with 50 cals.
 
Regarding Barrett's position on not selling to states...

I have YET to find any logical reason why a State government would need a long range anti-materiel rifle.

*I* own one because I *can*....

But Governments have to justify what they do with my money.

And I don't like the idea of police agencies running around with 50 cals.
Click to expand...

What you "like" is irrelevant. Lots of local PDs have .50 caliber weapons. When I bought my Barrett, the dealer had two large boxes sitting against one wall. I said, "50 caliber?" He said, "Yes - going to one of the local police departments."

One of the PD ranges is next to the gun club that I belong to, and you can often hear fully automatic weapons + large caliber guns being used.

If you haven't noticed, governments don't "justify" what they do with "your money." Once they collect the money it gets allocated to various budgets and at that point, it's their money - not yours.
 
buckhorn_cortez said:
If you haven't noticed, governments don't "justify" what they do with "your money." Once they collect the money it gets allocated to various budgets and at that point, it's their money - not yours.
Click to expand...

Their money. And, I for one, think this is a real problem, although I agree this is how they see it.
 
HorseSoldier said:
Well, the M107 .50 cal sniper rifles we've used in units I've been in are just Barrett M82s with a new number slapped on them. So had Barrett boycotted federal sales we would not have had that tool in the tool box.

Zero responsibility? While a sweeping declaration, it's an irrelevant one. Barrett has contract with the .mil for guns that are being used to ensure our side comes home in one piece and the other side gets an unmarked grave in the desert. Cutting off those contracts to stick it to a federal government which, despite all the sound and fury from the Obama White House has yet to pass anything new in the anti-gun column, strikes me as morally irresponsible and pretty much out of character for the patriotic and socially responsible stance Barrett it taking.

Your opinion may differ. If your opinion does not have some basis in having his sniper rifles overwatch you and provide for your security in some third world hell hole, your opinion doesn't count, however.
Click to expand...

If Barrett were the only company anywhere who produced, or had the capability to produce, such a firearm, then you may have a point.

They, however, are not.
 
I have YET to find any logical reason why a State government would need a long range anti-materiel rifle.
Click to expand...

The homemade armored cars that have turned up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and that meth head in California who stole a tank and went joyriding back in the day both illustrate that while they are not common occurrences, law enforcement needs some kind of contingency in place to deal with the potential of facing a situation where lethal force is necessary and the target is armored against routine capabilities.

Which is not to say that local or state level law enforcement therefore needs .50 cal sniper rifles or military surplus anti-tank weapons. In a lot of nations, if a threat like that popped up the response would to dial up the military. In regards to the deal with the tank, if I remember correctly, the local PD were talking to the USMC at 29 Palms about getting Cobra attack helicopters scrambled because they ran out of the zero options they had to work with before the guy got the tank stuck and they were able to then resolve it. Of course, that line of solution runs into posse comitatus and in the current political climate talking about modifying posse comitatus to allow limited military use of lethal force against domestic criminals is not going to be a viable option.

So what's the right answer? Beats me, though I am certain that just hoping there will never be a situation needing something like a .50 cal sniper rifle to resolve it probably isn't the right one.

What you "like" is irrelevant. Lots of local PDs have .50 caliber weapons. When I bought my Barrett, the dealer had two large boxes sitting against one wall. I said, "50 caliber?" He said, "Yes - going to one of the local police departments."
Click to expand...

They've been out there for a long time now. I don't know the history, but I'd even go so far as to speculate that the first ones were probably purchased by LAPD SWAT from Barrett before the California anti-gun crowd felt a need to stop that epidemic of .50 cal rifle armed liquor store robberies they had back in the summer of Nineteen Ninety-Never.

I have to ask, though, does anyone know of a situation where they've ever been used by a police SWAT team or similar? Has there ever been a suspect killed by LEOs armed with a Barrett or other .50 cal rifle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top