Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/8/2004 8:26:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 8:33:32 PM EST by Wobblin-Goblin]
Dear Sir,

As an American, I am utterly disgusted with the remarks Chief Bratton made while performing on the ABC News program "Nightline." I cannot bring myself to call his stint an "interview," given the sheer magnitude of half-truths and whole lies he offered up in his defense of the '94 Assault Weapon Ban.

Saying with a straight face (albeit with eyelids fluttering away like a hummingbird's wings) that the sunset of this law will lead to carnage and blood in the streets is not only folly and hyperbole, it is agenda-driven sensationalism.

Even more bizarre is his comment concerning about 50 police officers being killed by people using assault weapons recently. The chief alluded to the fact that the AWB was important to the families of the slain officers and implied that the law worked for them. What sane person with two brain cells to rub together could make such a claim? Those officers were killed, it was implied, by rifles covered by the ban. HOW DID THE AWB PROTECT THOSE OFFICERS? How on this green earth did the AWB benefit the families of the slain officers? Does the chief have an answer or just more lies?

As underhanded as those comments were, it pales in comparison with the following: While discussing the amount of guns in America and those who own them, the chief said that President George W. Bush took an oath of office to protect the country "against all...action, foreign and domestic." I could see the chief pause right before replacing the word "enemies" with "action." What was the chief implying? That American gun owners and the guns they own are "enemies of the state?" That the Federal Government should treat us as such? It is astounding that a law enforcement officer would even mutter such a thing in private conversation, let alone ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. What would the chief like to see? Detainment camps full of law-abiding American citizens? Private property siezed and destroyed under the guise of "public safety?" Is THIS the role Chief Bratton wishes law enforcement had in the United States? The shame!

It's been said that law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from their law-enforcement servants. After Chief Bratton's performance tonight, I am convinced there is plenty to fear.

Sincerely,

Wobblin' Goblin

Former State Representative
51st District
State of Connecticut
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:29:18 PM EST
You are a former State Representative?

If this post reflects how you conducted yourself previously, then thank you for your service sir.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:29:27 PM EST
Nicely done.....
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:31:57 PM EST
TAGGED, would love to see a reply back from him on why he thinks this way
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:34:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 8:34:50 PM EST by warlord]
Very good, but unfortunately I wouldn't have wasted my time. He is beholdened to the L.A. City, council(which is thoughly anti-gun). LAPD chief Daryl Gates was the last chief who did not report directly to the L.A. City council. The L.A. city charter was changed, because Gates would not kow-tow to the City Council to appease the blacks after the '92 L.A. riots.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:35:43 PM EST
Great Response!!!!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:38:04 PM EST
Bratton is an "Enemy of the People".

Anyone remeber this when it went down? I do.

www.barrettrifles.com/news/ltr_bratton.htm

December 11, 2002
Via Facsimile (213) 847-0676 and
U.S. Mail

Chief William J. Bratton
Los Angeles Police Department
150 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

Re: LAPD 82A1 Rifle, Serial No. 1186

Point of Contact: Jim xxxxx
213-xxx-xxxx


Dear Chief Bratton,

I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years, I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation’s armed forces.

You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other “too powerful” rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States.

The VPC’s most recent efforts directs this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002, the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5 to 0 with 1 abstaining vote.

Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to ban ownership of the .50 caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city’s representatives in Sacrament and in Washington, D.C. to push for bans at their respective levels.

At that council meeting, I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal. Rifle. It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82A1 in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an “assault weapon.” This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles. One councilman even questioned how this rifle was available under current laws, but as I stated, facts were ineffective that day.

Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen, each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed.

Since 1968, with the closing of the U.S. Springfield Armory, all of the small arms produced for the various government agencies are from the private sector. Every handgun, rifle or shotgun that law enforcement needs comes from this firearms industry. Unless the City of Los Angeles has plans of setting up its own firearms manufacturing, it may need to guard the manufacturing sources it has now.

When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individual to own firearms.

I implore you to investigate the facts of the .50, to consider the liberties of the law-abiding people and our mutual coexistence, and to change your department’s position on this issue.

Sincerely,
BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.

Ronnie G. Barrett
President
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:42:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By CAR-10:
You are a former State Representative?

If this post reflects how you conducted yourself previously, then thank you for your service sir.



daaaaannngggg, that was nice, and i second that.

[gump's drill sgt]GODDAMNIT GOBLIN! YOU'RE A GENIUS, YER GONNA MAKE GENERAL SOMEDAY!!![/gump's drill sgt]
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:48:04 PM EST
Damned well said...


Response?
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:52:14 PM EST
Fixed it.


Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Dear Sir,

FUCK YOU BRATTON !
As an American, I am utterly disgusted with the remarks Chief Bratton made while performing on the ABC News program "Nightline." I cannot bring myself to call his stint an "interview," given the sheer magnitude of half-truths and whole lies he offered up in his defense of the '94 Assault Weapon Ban.

Saying with a straight face (albeit with eyelids fluttering away like a hummingbird's wings) that the sunset of this law will lead to carnage and blood in the streets is not only folly and hyperbole, it is agenda-driven sensationalism.

Even more bizarre is his comment concerning about 50 police officers being killed by people using assault weapons recently. The chief alluded to the fact that the AWB was important to the families of the slain officers and implied that the law worked for them. What sane person with two brain cells to rub together could make such a claim? Those officers were killed, it was implied, by rifles covered by the ban. HOW DID THE AWB PROTECT THOSE OFFICERS? How on this green earth did the AWB benefit the families of the slain officers? Does the chief have an answer or just more lies?

As underhanded as those comments were, it pales in comparison with the following: While discussing the amount of guns in America and those who own them, the chief said that President George W. Bush took an oath of office to protect the country "against all...action, foreign and domestic." I could see the chief pause right before replacing the word "enemies" with "action." What was the chief implying? That American gun owners and the guns they own are "enemies of the state?" That the Federal Government should treat us as such? It is astounding that a law enforcement officer would even mutter such a thing in private conversation, let alone ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. What would the chief like to see? Detainment camps full of law-abiding American citizens? Private property siezed and destroyed under the guise of "public safety?" Is THIS the role Chief Bratton wishes law enforcement had in the United States? The shame!

It's been said that law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from their law-enforcement servants. After Chief Bratton's performance tonight, I am convinced there is plenty to fear.


Sincerely,

Wobblin' Goblin

Former State Representative
51st District
State of Connecticut

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:54:08 PM EST
shame on you that's not polite.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:55:49 PM EST
Chief Bratton was a Boston police officer long before he became chiefs of several major American police departments.I have several friends who are/were Boston cops and even they said Bratton was never much of a "street cop",that he "rose through the ranks quickly".I do respect him for what he has done as a police administrator with troubled police departments in Boston and New York and I respect him for serving in Vietnam as a US Army Military Police K-9 handler.I do not however condone his anti-gun sentiments.

Semper Fi,
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:22:29 AM EST
Bump for the day crew.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:35:46 AM EST
I wonder if Ronnie Barrett is going to tell off California when the 50 caliber ban comes into effect. and it will. I can't wait to see what his response is to them. I hope it's severe and puts them on their asses. They deserve it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:44:13 AM EST
If the gun manufacturers would just get together and not sell to departments that blatantly promote anti-gun ideals, it would put a serious muzzle on those who shoot their mouths off for no reason other than political gain.

Bratton knows damn well the sunset will do nothing to change the laws here in California and I don't believe he is just doing this for the good of officers around the country, as many of them disagree with his stance.

IMO...

EAM
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:50:03 AM EST
I find Mr. Barrett to have a pair of cajones. I wish more people in the industry had a pair like him.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:54:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
I find Mr. Barrett to have a pair of cajones. I wish more people in the industry had a pair like him.



+1
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:59:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:01:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
Yeah but that would mean the officers on the street would suffer with a lessor gun because of the brasses political stances.


Then those officers must make it known they have no confidence in their brass.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:02:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Eric_Mayer:
If the gun manufacturers would just get together and not sell to departments that blatantly promote anti-gun ideals, it would put a serious muzzle on those who shoot their mouths off for no reason other than political gain.

Bratton knows damn well the sunset will do nothing to change the laws here in California and I don't believe he is just doing this for the good of officers around the country, as many of them disagree with his stance.

IMO...

EAM



woudn't that be a hoot. your political 'chief' says anti-gun things.... "POOF" no more new guns for the dept. "POOF" no more parts sold to the department. "POOF" no more ammo for the department

See how the cops like being the ones disarmed -- I bet the affected cops get their chiefs to quickly change their minds
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:03:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
Yeah but that would mean the officers on the street would suffer with a lessor gun because of the brasses political stances.



Or it would have the desired effect of keeping the brass out of gun politics, therefore a ban would not be necessary. We've done it their way for too long, time to try something different...

EAM
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:23:43 AM EST
Nice letter. I too was taken back by his statements and blown away by the rediculously illogical conclusion about those officers. I was also really bothered by how biased the reporting and "interveiwing" was on the show. It clearly WAS an advertisement for further gun control. "Maybe we did not go far enough..."
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:33:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
I find Mr. Barrett to have a pair of cajones. I wish more people in the industry had a pair like him.



+1



A very large set I might add.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:54:34 AM EST
Great letter Wobby.

and tagged to see the response


Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:51:04 AM EST
Bumped for the mid-day crew.
Top Top