FN five seven part 2
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
- Status
Dan said: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Even if the mfg determines who they sell to, the slant of the article
was almost supporting the the mfg's decision.
Does Charlie Petty feel this way? I don't know, but it comes across as if he does.[/quote]
Look at the article again and re-read the 4th from last paragraph. It states that the ATF has ruled the cartridge (and by extension, the gun) to be 'non-sporting", thus restricting sales to military & LEO.
What would one expect AH to do? Advocate that "law-abiding" gun owners should march on the FN facility here in Columbia, sack the place, and depart with stolen weapons & ammo so that one can prove gun onwers are capable of owning such devices without using them to commit acts of mayhem? I rather think not. (Besides, they've got extremely well-trained & armed security at the plant. You don't even want to pull into their driveway to turn around. I know. I did it once, and it wasn't too comforting to see guys with M-16's giving me hard looks while letting their muzzles begin to drift in my direction. No, they never pointed them where they shouldn't, but they damn well weren't "at ease.")
I saw only an editorial stance which reported the facts and didn't advocate anything political, one way or the other. As for how Charlie feels, I think his feelings were pretty well summed up in Shawn Dobson's post in part 1 of this thread. Any "you don't need this" attitude is not coming from a totalitarian, authoritarian point of view, but rather a practical point of view. Jimminy Christmas, look at the umpteen zillion cartridges available to the American shooter. Look at the overlap. From a practical point of view, do we really need a new cartridge? Gawd, there's dozens out there already that will do the job the 5.7X28 will do. If you think about it, wouldn't it be accurate to say that just about any job requiring a firearm could be handled by just a few basic calibers & guages? From a purely practical point of view, I can see the need for only the following: 12 ga., .30 & .37 centerfire in rifles, 9mm & .45 in handguns, and of course, the .22RF in both rifles and handguns. Proper ammo selection in .30-06 and .375 H&H Mag. could give one a world class battery, capable of killing any animal on the planet from "tree rats" to elephants, given proper shot placement. (Head shots on squirrels with 110 gr bullets from the -06.)
But hey, isn't it great to have all those choices? I personally like .270 Winchester for no reason other than an Interarms Mark X Mauser in this caliber was my first gun other than a shotgun.
Again, it all boils down to the damn gubmint creating a hodge-podge of ridiculous, un-enforceable, and unconstitutional laws which, like it or not, we all have to live with. Let's get it together, stop attacking our own, and get with the program to change the gov't and its laws. Maybe then, manufacturers won't have to worry about producing arms and ammo that can't be sold to the general populace, and debates such as this one could become a thing of the past.
I think I'll drop Charlie a line and let him know of this discussion. If he feels it merits a response, he will do so. Then again, its entirely possible he'll look at all this and decide that it's a waste of valuable time.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
was almost supporting the the mfg's decision.
Does Charlie Petty feel this way? I don't know, but it comes across as if he does.[/quote]
Look at the article again and re-read the 4th from last paragraph. It states that the ATF has ruled the cartridge (and by extension, the gun) to be 'non-sporting", thus restricting sales to military & LEO.
What would one expect AH to do? Advocate that "law-abiding" gun owners should march on the FN facility here in Columbia, sack the place, and depart with stolen weapons & ammo so that one can prove gun onwers are capable of owning such devices without using them to commit acts of mayhem? I rather think not. (Besides, they've got extremely well-trained & armed security at the plant. You don't even want to pull into their driveway to turn around. I know. I did it once, and it wasn't too comforting to see guys with M-16's giving me hard looks while letting their muzzles begin to drift in my direction. No, they never pointed them where they shouldn't, but they damn well weren't "at ease.")
I saw only an editorial stance which reported the facts and didn't advocate anything political, one way or the other. As for how Charlie feels, I think his feelings were pretty well summed up in Shawn Dobson's post in part 1 of this thread. Any "you don't need this" attitude is not coming from a totalitarian, authoritarian point of view, but rather a practical point of view. Jimminy Christmas, look at the umpteen zillion cartridges available to the American shooter. Look at the overlap. From a practical point of view, do we really need a new cartridge? Gawd, there's dozens out there already that will do the job the 5.7X28 will do. If you think about it, wouldn't it be accurate to say that just about any job requiring a firearm could be handled by just a few basic calibers & guages? From a purely practical point of view, I can see the need for only the following: 12 ga., .30 & .37 centerfire in rifles, 9mm & .45 in handguns, and of course, the .22RF in both rifles and handguns. Proper ammo selection in .30-06 and .375 H&H Mag. could give one a world class battery, capable of killing any animal on the planet from "tree rats" to elephants, given proper shot placement. (Head shots on squirrels with 110 gr bullets from the -06.)
But hey, isn't it great to have all those choices? I personally like .270 Winchester for no reason other than an Interarms Mark X Mauser in this caliber was my first gun other than a shotgun.
Again, it all boils down to the damn gubmint creating a hodge-podge of ridiculous, un-enforceable, and unconstitutional laws which, like it or not, we all have to live with. Let's get it together, stop attacking our own, and get with the program to change the gov't and its laws. Maybe then, manufacturers won't have to worry about producing arms and ammo that can't be sold to the general populace, and debates such as this one could become a thing of the past.
I think I'll drop Charlie a line and let him know of this discussion. If he feels it merits a response, he will do so. Then again, its entirely possible he'll look at all this and decide that it's a waste of valuable time.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
45King,
Let me reiterate what I have posted previously. I did not see anywhere that anyone attacked your friend.
My opinion of the article remains unchanged. It's just my opinion. Why do you feel this need to defend it? You are not going to change my mind on what I felt the tone of the article to be.
Also, I really don't care who you rub elbows with.
Anything else? Take to E-Mail.
------------------
Dan
Si vis pacem para bellum!
Check me out at:
<A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm" TARGET=_blank>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm</A>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
Let me reiterate what I have posted previously. I did not see anywhere that anyone attacked your friend.
My opinion of the article remains unchanged. It's just my opinion. Why do you feel this need to defend it? You are not going to change my mind on what I felt the tone of the article to be.
Also, I really don't care who you rub elbows with.
Anything else? Take to E-Mail.
------------------
Dan
Si vis pacem para bellum!
Check me out at:
<A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm" TARGET=_blank>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm</A>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
Gwinnydapooh
Retired Screen Name
Wow! I missed a few things over Thanksgiving break! Here's my take personalized for a few folks:
Everybody: No need for flames. We're just disagreeing. We're all still cool, and 12-34hom isn't calling for you to be disarmed, he just thinks there's certain stuff neither you nor he has the right to own. I disagree too, but I bet you've all got relatives who feel the same way, as do I. They have good intentions; try to remember that even as you destroy their arguments.
12-34hom--I have to respectfully disagree with your position, especially when you say you haven't called us peons or said that cops are "better" than civilians. You may not have MEANT to do so, but when a man tells me I shouldn't have the right to own something but he should, I assume he is implying superiority. If not, please explain?
Keith--There is a fourth choice. They could report on the gun, and couch their disagreement with FN and the BATF in simple diplomatic terms. Something like:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Unfortunately, FN has already decreed that this weapon will never be sold to civilians. We here at (insert gunrag here) fear that this decision can only lose sales for FN, since American gun owners don't take kindly to being refused the right to possess a weapon simply because it is effective. Although FN certainly has the right to sell to whomever it wishes, this decision mars the introduction of an otherwise fine weapon."[/quote]
This way, they don't have to alienate FN. Hell, even the gun rags occasionally criticize manufacturers' decisions, and the sky doesn't fall.
Personally, I cannot afford this WunderGun, nor do I need it--dad's got an AR 15 that'll do the same, if necessary. But I do get tired of hearing that I don't "need" certain guns. Who cares? If I want it, and can afford it, that should be it. If you don't trust me to carry a weapon, you don't trust me at all. Most people, despite the hype about the Green Berets, can kill with their bare hands. If you don't trust me with a gun, or only with a weak gun, does that make sense?
------------------
Don
"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
Everybody: No need for flames. We're just disagreeing. We're all still cool, and 12-34hom isn't calling for you to be disarmed, he just thinks there's certain stuff neither you nor he has the right to own. I disagree too, but I bet you've all got relatives who feel the same way, as do I. They have good intentions; try to remember that even as you destroy their arguments.
12-34hom--I have to respectfully disagree with your position, especially when you say you haven't called us peons or said that cops are "better" than civilians. You may not have MEANT to do so, but when a man tells me I shouldn't have the right to own something but he should, I assume he is implying superiority. If not, please explain?
Keith--There is a fourth choice. They could report on the gun, and couch their disagreement with FN and the BATF in simple diplomatic terms. Something like:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Unfortunately, FN has already decreed that this weapon will never be sold to civilians. We here at (insert gunrag here) fear that this decision can only lose sales for FN, since American gun owners don't take kindly to being refused the right to possess a weapon simply because it is effective. Although FN certainly has the right to sell to whomever it wishes, this decision mars the introduction of an otherwise fine weapon."[/quote]
This way, they don't have to alienate FN. Hell, even the gun rags occasionally criticize manufacturers' decisions, and the sky doesn't fall.
Personally, I cannot afford this WunderGun, nor do I need it--dad's got an AR 15 that'll do the same, if necessary. But I do get tired of hearing that I don't "need" certain guns. Who cares? If I want it, and can afford it, that should be it. If you don't trust me to carry a weapon, you don't trust me at all. Most people, despite the hype about the Green Berets, can kill with their bare hands. If you don't trust me with a gun, or only with a weak gun, does that make sense?
------------------
Don
"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
Two things:
First of all, I did see at the end of the article where it points out that ATF has (apparently) ruled this cartridge "non-sporting". WTF!?! I was positive that "sporting purpose" and points test BS applied ONLY to imports of firearms. How in the world can it apply to any CARTRIDGE, foreign or domestic? Wholly apart from second amendment grounds, if this is true, this can and should (and must) be struck down by the courts under the doctrine of "ultra vires" - meaning the agency (BATF) has made rules beyond its power under the organic statute. To my knowledge (admittedly I'm no guru in this area), there is NOTHING statutorily that gives BATF the authority to declare a cartridge "non-sporting" - my god, if this is true, the time for the revolution has come and already passed, my friends - if true, they could arbitrarily declare ANY (read that word again, ANY) cartride "non-sporting" if the felt the whim.
Second, 45King, sorry, but your friend deserves the blasting he's getting, IMO, because of his TONE (i.e. "the reasons will become obvious"). I do in fact doubt the devotion to RKBA of anyone who utters such nonsense. He could have phrased the legality issue in dozens of different ways (e.g. "though controversial, the round is not legal for citizens under current law", or "although this author does not understand why, ....", etc.). He SEEMS part of the establishment. If his actual tone was not his intended tone, then he certainly needs to take action to have a retraction/modification printed.
As far as the practicality issue, it's just not about that. It's about a distinction between police and other royalty, and citizens. It's about giving an agency (not Congress) the power to arbitrarily decide what is "sporting" and thus OK for the subjects to own. What are folks going to say when BATF rules a 1911-style .45 "non-sporting" - I know what I will say: "You should have stood up and fought with us when the gov't took that first step down the ever-so-slippery slope". 45King, I am very glad to see you stand with us on the core issue of this thread. I just think your friend (unfortunately) deserves the flak here. A retraction could convince me to order a new subscription.
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited November 28, 1999).]
First of all, I did see at the end of the article where it points out that ATF has (apparently) ruled this cartridge "non-sporting". WTF!?! I was positive that "sporting purpose" and points test BS applied ONLY to imports of firearms. How in the world can it apply to any CARTRIDGE, foreign or domestic? Wholly apart from second amendment grounds, if this is true, this can and should (and must) be struck down by the courts under the doctrine of "ultra vires" - meaning the agency (BATF) has made rules beyond its power under the organic statute. To my knowledge (admittedly I'm no guru in this area), there is NOTHING statutorily that gives BATF the authority to declare a cartridge "non-sporting" - my god, if this is true, the time for the revolution has come and already passed, my friends - if true, they could arbitrarily declare ANY (read that word again, ANY) cartride "non-sporting" if the felt the whim.
Second, 45King, sorry, but your friend deserves the blasting he's getting, IMO, because of his TONE (i.e. "the reasons will become obvious"). I do in fact doubt the devotion to RKBA of anyone who utters such nonsense. He could have phrased the legality issue in dozens of different ways (e.g. "though controversial, the round is not legal for citizens under current law", or "although this author does not understand why, ....", etc.). He SEEMS part of the establishment. If his actual tone was not his intended tone, then he certainly needs to take action to have a retraction/modification printed.
As far as the practicality issue, it's just not about that. It's about a distinction between police and other royalty, and citizens. It's about giving an agency (not Congress) the power to arbitrarily decide what is "sporting" and thus OK for the subjects to own. What are folks going to say when BATF rules a 1911-style .45 "non-sporting" - I know what I will say: "You should have stood up and fought with us when the gov't took that first step down the ever-so-slippery slope". 45King, I am very glad to see you stand with us on the core issue of this thread. I just think your friend (unfortunately) deserves the flak here. A retraction could convince me to order a new subscription.
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited November 28, 1999).]
Futo,
IMHO, "the reasons will become obvious" is a reference to the paragraph previously mentioned. As for Charlie being part of the "establishment", well, he is part of the gunzine establishment.
Perhaps I find myself in this position simply because I know his writing style from a different perspective than does anyone who reads him only in the 'zines. Sometimes, he can come across as being slightly condescending in the same way that Jeff Cooper does with his (Cooper's) use of the "royal we."
As to the ATF and "sporting purposes" cartridges, well, I guess that's some sort of "natural extension" of their (unconstitutional) powers after Bush's import ban, locked in with the "cop killer bullet" legislation. It's enough to make me puke.
Dan,
I'm not trying to drop names, it just happens that I know the guy. Funny thing, the first time I ever corresponded with him, I had not heard of him, and I was trying to correct him about something to do with 1911's. Now THAT'S a laugh; he's forgotten more technical stuff than I know. (He was right & I was wrong, so there.
)
I don't think there's really a big beef here, I just defend my friends when I feel they're being attacked or dissed. No need for going to e-mail.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
IMHO, "the reasons will become obvious" is a reference to the paragraph previously mentioned. As for Charlie being part of the "establishment", well, he is part of the gunzine establishment.
Perhaps I find myself in this position simply because I know his writing style from a different perspective than does anyone who reads him only in the 'zines. Sometimes, he can come across as being slightly condescending in the same way that Jeff Cooper does with his (Cooper's) use of the "royal we."
As to the ATF and "sporting purposes" cartridges, well, I guess that's some sort of "natural extension" of their (unconstitutional) powers after Bush's import ban, locked in with the "cop killer bullet" legislation. It's enough to make me puke.
Dan,
I'm not trying to drop names, it just happens that I know the guy. Funny thing, the first time I ever corresponded with him, I had not heard of him, and I was trying to correct him about something to do with 1911's. Now THAT'S a laugh; he's forgotten more technical stuff than I know. (He was right & I was wrong, so there.
)I don't think there's really a big beef here, I just defend my friends when I feel they're being attacked or dissed. No need for going to e-mail.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
Acutally it can be argued that because it is a non-sporting round we should have access to it. I forget the exact case, but an individual was found with a sawed off shotgun and was arrested. It went to the supreme court. The court said the second ammendment did not apply because a sawed-off shotgun does not have a military use, ( i.e. the milita part of the clause.) This implies that we can have access to military weapons/calibers/etc.
YMMV and it is all subject to interpretations.
YMMV and it is all subject to interpretations.
I want to add a few words here about Charles E. Petty. I have traded a few emails with him both online and off. I have never gotten the slightest hint of elitism or condescension. Whenever some topic would get a little heated, Charlie was usually the one to bring some sense to it.
What has happened in the past, is that the magazine editor will change his words or add some, much to Charlie's dismay, I guarantee you. After he has submitted an article, it takes many months for it to appear in print, and quite often they have changed it to make it more "salesy" or PC. He has absolutely no control over that as he no longer owns the words. I recall several instances where this happened, and this may be the case with the article in question.
RAJ, I can't imagine how you felt after finding out who CP was and questioning his 1911 knowledge.
If anybody else wants to get an idea of his 1911 knowledge, dig out your April '97 issue of Guns Magazine and read his story.
BTW, RAJ, I don't suppose you made a video tape of the recent Gunstock, did you?
[This message has been edited by Mal H (edited November 29, 1999).]
What has happened in the past, is that the magazine editor will change his words or add some, much to Charlie's dismay, I guarantee you. After he has submitted an article, it takes many months for it to appear in print, and quite often they have changed it to make it more "salesy" or PC. He has absolutely no control over that as he no longer owns the words. I recall several instances where this happened, and this may be the case with the article in question.
RAJ, I can't imagine how you felt after finding out who CP was and questioning his 1911 knowledge.
If anybody else wants to get an idea of his 1911 knowledge, dig out your April '97 issue of Guns Magazine and read his story.BTW, RAJ, I don't suppose you made a video tape of the recent Gunstock, did you?
[This message has been edited by Mal H (edited November 29, 1999).]
cornered rat
Moderator
I think the argument here is "if a REAL improvement in weapons shows up, non-JBTs will probably nave no access to it."
Sporting purpose is, IMO, an insult -- how could shooting skeet or hunting doves be more important that fighting to save your life or your family!?
Unfortunately, the only solution I see to this is to try to lean weapons in general and apply the skill to any captured examples, if need be.
------------------
happy Cornered Rat
http://dd-b.net/RKBA RKBA posters
http://dd-b.net/olegv Portrait, nature photos
Aaahhh....what a great life!
Sporting purpose is, IMO, an insult -- how could shooting skeet or hunting doves be more important that fighting to save your life or your family!?
Unfortunately, the only solution I see to this is to try to lean weapons in general and apply the skill to any captured examples, if need be.
------------------
happy Cornered Rat
http://dd-b.net/RKBA RKBA posters
http://dd-b.net/olegv Portrait, nature photos
Aaahhh....what a great life!
I finally got my copy of AH to see what all the fuss is about, and I'm just amazed.
The obvious reason that the gun will not be sold to individuals is because BATF says it is illegal to do so. Why get upset with the gun writer for stating the truth? He expressed no opinion about what he thought about the BATF's policies. I don't see how one can read any "tone" into his statement.
If you've got a gripe, take it to where it will do some good. Write your congresscritter.
------------------
TB., NC
rosie.acmecity.com/bebe/6/index.html
The obvious reason that the gun will not be sold to individuals is because BATF says it is illegal to do so. Why get upset with the gun writer for stating the truth? He expressed no opinion about what he thought about the BATF's policies. I don't see how one can read any "tone" into his statement.
If you've got a gripe, take it to where it will do some good. Write your congresscritter.
------------------
TB., NC
rosie.acmecity.com/bebe/6/index.html
Take a broad overview of the dynamics of this thread in its entirety.
We have been under relentless attack by the anti's in so many ways for so long, we have almost gotten to the point where anyone who is less than militant about preserving gun rights is considered to be anti-gun rights in some way. It's become a very polarized issue, with little room for anything approaching moderation on either side.
I, for one, believe it is a basic human right (self-defense) for any person on earth to be able to own any small arm ever made. I don't beliive anyone should have to go through any more trouble to purchase a gun than they would to purchase a loaf of bread. I think that the only people who should be barred from possession are those whom have been convicted of violent felonies, those under indictment, fugitives from justice, and those whom have been adjudicated as being insane or incompetent.
This is a pretty extremist point of view, and I'm willing to state it in plain terms only in certain company. Political realities, however, dictate that when dealing with fence sitters or anti types, I must present this radical argument in bits and pieces, each bit or piece appearing, by itself, to not be so radical.
Again, this entire string wouldn't even exist if it weren't for bad law. Let's deal with it. Election year coming up. I hate the choices of potential candidates, but I'm gonna vote for someone, even if I have to hold my nose while doing it. Gotta get moving in the right direction, and it's going to take the unified efforts of gun owners & all the other decent, moral, freedom loving citizens of this country to get us back on the track we should be on.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
We have been under relentless attack by the anti's in so many ways for so long, we have almost gotten to the point where anyone who is less than militant about preserving gun rights is considered to be anti-gun rights in some way. It's become a very polarized issue, with little room for anything approaching moderation on either side.
I, for one, believe it is a basic human right (self-defense) for any person on earth to be able to own any small arm ever made. I don't beliive anyone should have to go through any more trouble to purchase a gun than they would to purchase a loaf of bread. I think that the only people who should be barred from possession are those whom have been convicted of violent felonies, those under indictment, fugitives from justice, and those whom have been adjudicated as being insane or incompetent.
This is a pretty extremist point of view, and I'm willing to state it in plain terms only in certain company. Political realities, however, dictate that when dealing with fence sitters or anti types, I must present this radical argument in bits and pieces, each bit or piece appearing, by itself, to not be so radical.
Again, this entire string wouldn't even exist if it weren't for bad law. Let's deal with it. Election year coming up. I hate the choices of potential candidates, but I'm gonna vote for someone, even if I have to hold my nose while doing it. Gotta get moving in the right direction, and it's going to take the unified efforts of gun owners & all the other decent, moral, freedom loving citizens of this country to get us back on the track we should be on.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
- Status