Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Bank of America
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="J.P." data-source="post: 1913161" data-attributes="member: 6"><p>Oh, I thought it was well known around these parts or at least on <em>most</em> of the gun boards.</p><p>However for those who do not know.....</p><p></p><p>Impending legislation (or perhaps on the heels of it) in California actually banned .50 cal weapons/ammo.</p><p>This obviously placed the almighty Barrett .50BMG rifles on the evil no-no list.</p><p>Ronnie Barrett took a stand and decided to inform the California DOJ of his extreme displeasure with the legislation and that Barrett firearms would no longer service nor support any of their service/duty weapons.....he was straight up cutting them off.</p><p>I'm sure the infamous letter from Barrett to the DOJ would be easy to find with a Google search.</p><p></p><p>Additionally, in a very slick move indeed he introduced a new non-.50 cal cartridge caliber for his newest upcoming line of weapons:</p><p></p><p>The .416 Barrett, which actually packed more power than the .50BMG and further told them to "suck it".</p><p></p><p>Of course now I doubt we'll ever see SIG, S&W, or HK take a similar stand considering they hold very lucrative contracts with ye ol' Department of Homeland Security.....and if you ask me I think it's just this side of chickensh!+.....</p><p></p><p>I firmly believe that with the firearm/ammo manufacturers holding this much power, we seriously need to ask them....why aren't they taking a stand?</p><p></p><p>This, I believe, is an area that can/should be addressed.</p><p>Of course I harp about it from time to time but I have seen little to no response in favor of this from members of the gun community.</p><p>If anything you might get the ol'..."it's all about money" line here and there but that's about it.</p><p>Sure it's about money but it seems rather obvious in this situation that the manufacturers hold a very unique position of power with virtually nothing to lose if they'd stick together...</p><p></p><p>Therefore I contend that if they truly care, they would apply the appropriate pressure as needed......and if they don't, we should let them know what we think.</p><p>We really should hold some feet-to-fire on this!</p><p></p><p>This would seemingly have a far greater impact on preserving 2A rights than bitching about the Piggly-Wiggly puttin' up a "no guns" sticker.</p><p></p><p>There, I said it...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J.P., post: 1913161, member: 6"] Oh, I thought it was well known around these parts or at least on [I]most[/I] of the gun boards. However for those who do not know..... Impending legislation (or perhaps on the heels of it) in California actually banned .50 cal weapons/ammo. This obviously placed the almighty Barrett .50BMG rifles on the evil no-no list. Ronnie Barrett took a stand and decided to inform the California DOJ of his extreme displeasure with the legislation and that Barrett firearms would no longer service nor support any of their service/duty weapons.....he was straight up cutting them off. I'm sure the infamous letter from Barrett to the DOJ would be easy to find with a Google search. Additionally, in a very slick move indeed he introduced a new non-.50 cal cartridge caliber for his newest upcoming line of weapons: The .416 Barrett, which actually packed more power than the .50BMG and further told them to "suck it". Of course now I doubt we'll ever see SIG, S&W, or HK take a similar stand considering they hold very lucrative contracts with ye ol' Department of Homeland Security.....and if you ask me I think it's just this side of chickensh!+..... I firmly believe that with the firearm/ammo manufacturers holding this much power, we seriously need to ask them....why aren't they taking a stand? This, I believe, is an area that can/should be addressed. Of course I harp about it from time to time but I have seen little to no response in favor of this from members of the gun community. If anything you might get the ol'..."it's all about money" line here and there but that's about it. Sure it's about money but it seems rather obvious in this situation that the manufacturers hold a very unique position of power with virtually nothing to lose if they'd stick together... Therefore I contend that if they truly care, they would apply the appropriate pressure as needed......and if they don't, we should let them know what we think. We really should hold some feet-to-fire on this! This would seemingly have a far greater impact on preserving 2A rights than bitching about the Piggly-Wiggly puttin' up a "no guns" sticker. There, I said it... [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Bank of America
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
