What does Law Enforcment use a .50 BMG Rifle for?

Batousaii · Jul 9, 2009

imported post

911Boss wrote:

Batousaii wrote:

There was a case (in CA. i think) where a guy stole a older tank (no ammo) from a military armory and drove it down the freeway. It was some years back, but all they could do was follow him as they had no equipment to deal with something of that nature... it only stopped when the guy high-sided the tank on the cement divider and ran... if he had stayed inside, it woulda taken a couple days to get him out.

Click to expand...

He did more than run down the freeway. He crushed cars parked on the street, destroyed a big RV , even took out a couple of houses. It threw a tread when he tried to go over a jersey barrier on the freeway. He didn't run, he kept trying to get it going. A CHP officer with balls the size of cantelopes scrambled up onto the turret, and popped the hatch. When he didn't comply, he was shot and killed inside the tank.

AAHH!! - Ya Ya, your right, i remember some of the video with smashing things up. I forgot about the CHP officer (for some reason i remember it as him running, but after metioning the CHP guy - yeah.) it was in all a crazy scene eh. He must have forgot to lock the hatch ?? I know you can secure a tank and its a pain to get into.

TY For the info.

Bat

usaf0906 · Jul 9, 2009

imported post

U8Dust wrote:

Went on a tour of the Kent Police Department a few weeks ago.. they showed me everything from old open case files of the Green River killings, to their patrol cars, their AR-15's, their shotguns, and pretty much everything they had. Then he went to show me their .50 BMG Barrett Rifle. I asked what they would use it for, and he responded to "Well, we've never needed to use one, but it's for in times of need" and that's all he said.

My question is, what would a Law Enforcement agency need with that kind of firepower in city limits? That's a little overkill. I could understand some rural department out in the middle of nowhere, but KENT?! Jeezus

One possibility as to why they got it: leftover budget.

not sure how many of you have or currently work for any part of thegovernment, but at the end of the fiscal year, and surplus budget monies is lost, and is usually cut out of the next years budget. So when it gets down to the last few months, thats when you see offices get LCD screens, stock up on supplies, and items like this pop up.

FE427TP · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Department of Homeland Insecurity probably paid for it.

And who paid the Dept. of Homeland Security? yeah it's rhetorical

Boo Boo wrote:

maybe they are going to shoot airplanes down.

Don't fall Victim to the Anti-Gun hysteria, While a 50BMG could do enough damage to make a airplane unsafe to take off from a airport try to remember that in WW2 they used 6-8 50 caliber machine guns shooting in total close to 100 rounds a second in fighters and each gun had 27' of linked 50 caliber Armor Piercing Incendiary ammunition to shoot down other single engine airplanes and were not always successful. The notion that a terrorist is going to use a bolt action or even semi automatic one to shoot down a jetliner is ridiculous propaganda that needs fought and refuted every time we hear it.

amlevin · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Department of Homeland Insecurity probably paid for it.

OR

It might have been a siezure from a Drug Dealer or Felon. Lots of Police Departments will hang on to things like this for "Show Off" value mainly because it doesn't cost them a cent.

If I found myself in similar circumstances I probably would hang on to it too.

I get more heartburn when a City like Monroe buys two Model 24 SWS Sniper rifle systems to the tune of $6,000 each. I just bought essentially the same rifle for $1,000(a Remington 700 SS 5-R Milspec with the same barrel, just 2" shorter).The SKB case was another $300 and a great scope will cost me another $1,600 (Nightforce). So, for less than half the price, and without the Law Enforcement Discount I ended up with a rifle that can shoot the testicles off a low flying gnat at 500 yards or more. Since when will any SWAT Operator be taking a shot at that distance (most police snipers set up for shots in the 50-150 yard range).

Bill Starks · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

I kept hearing about Barrett taking his weapons back from Kaifornia, I found the letter.

"Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California's passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution's 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California." -Ronnie Barrett Owner and CEO Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.

From an open letter by Ronnie Barrett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389702/posts
[size="+1"][/size]

Bader · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

I kept hearing about Barrett taking his weapons back from Kaifornia, I found the letter.

"Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California's passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution's 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California." -Ronnie Barrett Owner and CEO Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.

From an open letter by Ronnie Barrett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389702/posts

Well good for them. Seriously.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

Bader wrote:

M1Gunr wrote:

I kept hearing about Barrett taking his weapons back from Kaifornia, I found the letter.

"Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California's passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution's 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California." -Ronnie Barrett Owner and CEO Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.

From an open letter by Ronnie Barrett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389702/posts

Click to expand...

Well good for them. Seriously.

Ditto...I like to see firearm companies like that. It really irritates me when I see companies that advertise a cool product and then have the disclaimer......for law enforcement or military only.

Bader · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

Yeahsudden valley gunner wrote:

Bader wrote:

M1Gunr wrote:

I kept hearing about Barrett taking his weapons back from Kaifornia, I found the letter.

"Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California's passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution's 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California." -Ronnie Barrett Owner and CEO Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.

From an open letter by Ronnie Barrett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389702/posts

Click to expand...

Well good for them. Seriously.

Click to expand...

Ditto...I like to see firearm companies like that. It really irritates me when I see companies that advertise a cool product and then have the disclaimer......for law enforcement or military only.

Yep. I feel the same. So far the products I've seen that with disclaimer are explosives (grenades, and even some flash bangs), certain kind of blades, the "Thor Shield" (An electronic stun defense vest) and some automatic firearm manufacturers.

nofoa · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

Isn't this the same arguement against civilians. "What does Johnny American need a 50 Caliber sniper rifle for?"

Because they want one.

sv_libertarian · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

Way I see it, an LEO should be able to have anything I can, but I get real dang grumpy when they get tools a mere citizen can't have.

Flash bangs are often regulated by the ATF because of the amount of explosives they contain BTW...

Boo Boo · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

FE427TP wrote:

Don't fall Victim to the Anti-Gun hysteria, While a 50BMG could do enough damage to make a airplane unsafe to take off from a airport try to remember that in WW2 they used 6-8 50 caliber machine guns shooting in total close to 100 rounds a second in fighters and each gun had 27' of linked 50 caliber Armor Piercing Incendiary ammunition to shoot down other single engine airplanes and were not always successful. The notion that a terrorist is going to use a bolt action or even semi automatic one to shoot down a jetliner is ridiculous propaganda that needs fought and refuted every time we hear it.

-------------------------------------------

you are grossly mistaken. thus uninformed. I will not say anything other than that as I don't need the added headache. but its where you put the bullet and a 2 manteam can make any airline crash

Bader · Jul 10, 2009

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Way I see it, an LEO should be able to have anything I can, but I get real dang grumpy when they get tools a mere citizen can't have.

Flash bangs are often regulated by the ATF because of the amount of explosives they contain BTW...

Oh I know, I was just saying I've seen some Flash Bang manufacturers have that disclaimer on their product.

FE427TP · Jul 11, 2009

imported post

Boo Boo wrote:

you are grossly mistaken. thus uninformed. I will not say anything other than that as I don't need the added headache. but its where you put the bullet and a 2 manteam can make any airline crash

I call bull shit

your saying that a shooter can accurately aim at a flying aircraft and make it crash, you're claim is preposterous to say that someone could accurately compensate for windage and yardage for a object traveling 150mph+ or >220 feet per second hundreds or yards away by anything but chance and this same chance we need for your ridiculous scenario to happen is just as likely to happen with any bullet and doesn't need a 50. You wont say anything else because you don't have a valid argument you have a lottery tickets chance of success. Sarah could use more of your lack of knowledgeable argument. I will concede that damage could be done to a parked aircraft that could make it crash, but a hunting rifle could do the same thing with your "2 man team" But gunshots near airports would draw attention rapidly meaning again your scenario is one of a antigunners wet dream instead of a practical action in a metropolitan airport

Boo Boo · Jul 11, 2009

imported post

FE427TP wrote:

its ok you can troll. i had my fill already i wont bite your worm. try fishing someplace else

tat2ed_guy · Jul 11, 2009

imported post

They use them for people that do this:

"I'll often walk around with a duty belt, where I open carry my 1911 Colt, my Wildfire Pepper Spray, my M18 L taser, and my Smith & Wesson Extreme Ops Folding Knife - all carried on my belt.

Sometimes I'll even have my sheathed Claymore sword slung over my back."

shad0wfax · Jul 11, 2009

imported post

U8Dust wrote:

Went on a tour of the Kent Police Department a few weeks ago.. they showed me everything from old open case files of the Green River killings, to their patrol cars, their AR-15's, their shotguns, and pretty much everything they had. Then he went to show me their .50 BMG Barrett Rifle. I asked what they would use it for, and he responded to "Well, we've never needed to use one, but it's for in times of need" and that's all he said.

My question is, what would a Law Enforcement agency need with that kind of firepower in city limits? That's a little overkill. I could understand some rural department out in the middle of nowhere, but KENT?! Jeezus

It's in case they have two guys standing one in front of the other and both wearing level III-A vests with Level IV+ multi-strike rifle plates on over them and they need to kill both of them with one center-of-mass shot.

... :what: .... :lol:

Vandal · Jul 11, 2009

imported post

Don't forget that those vests are tactically duct taped together so one guy can use his body as a shield. It is all for the safekeeping of the Mayor's nephews virginity.

amlevin · Jul 12, 2009

imported post

Vandal wrote:

Don't forget that those vests are tactically duct taped together so one guy can use his body as a shield. It is all for the safekeeping of the Mayor's nephews virginity.

How can they be relatives of a politician and still be virgins? Considering what they do to the taxpayers wouldn't you think that they get to their relatives first?

PT111 · Jul 12, 2009

imported post

What does Law Enforcment use a .50 BMG Rifle for?

Better question is what does anyone need one for. Maybe the military has a need for one but an average citizen? And that is the entire purpose of this thread, if LEO can have one then why can't I have one.

Bader · Jul 12, 2009

imported post

PT111 wrote:

What does Law Enforcment use a .50 BMG Rifle for?

Click to expand...

Better question is what does anyone need one for. Maybe the military has a need for one but an average citizen? And that is the entire purpose of this thread, if LEO can have one then why can't I have one.

Who says ya can't have one?

What does Law Enforcment use a .50 BMG Rifle for?

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member