As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.
The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.
"The Obama administration was unable to ban America's most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it's trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group's policy and lobby shop. "The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama's latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms."
At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.
Can we just defund the ATF already? It seems like they exist just to infringe on constitutional rights and waste tax payer money trying to do so. Not to mention repeatedly showing they don't have a brain cell among them.
jreilly89 wrote: So...why is this important? I don't see the big deal other than "Mah gun rights!!!"
Because it fits into conservative ideology about "OBAMA WILL BAN YOUR GUNS!!!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!!!". Honestly the biggest effect is probably on gun dealers, who can use it as another opportunity to raise prices while simultaneously screaming "BUY NOW BEFORE THE BAN" and make even more easy profit.
TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.
Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.
1) Lots of that ammo already exists.
2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.
jreilly89 wrote: So...why is this important? I don't see the big deal other than "Mah gun rights!!!"
Because it fits into conservative ideology about "OBAMA WILL BAN YOUR GUNS!!!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!!!". Honestly the biggest effect is probably on gun dealers, who can use it as another opportunity to raise prices while simultaneously screaming "BUY NOW BEFORE THE BAN" and make even more easy profit.
Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step. Where does it stop?
If the Administration really cared about gun violence, they'd take real steps to mitigating it instead of going after guns. Especially symbolic attempts like going after armor piercing.
TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.
Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.
1) Lots of that ammo already exists.
2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.
1) So? If it gets banned, thats still less being made.
2) So then why keep it available if its so easy to make?
I've never really gotten the point of civilian armour piercing ammunition. I don't really see why you would pay extra on something that will never (legaly) be more effective than normal ammuntion.
TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.
Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.
1) Lots of that ammo already exists.
2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.
jreilly89 wrote: So...why is this important? I don't see the big deal other than "Mah gun rights!!!"
Because it fits into conservative ideology about "OBAMA WILL BAN YOUR GUNS!!!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!!!". Honestly the biggest effect is probably on gun dealers, who can use it as another opportunity to raise prices while simultaneously screaming "BUY NOW BEFORE THE BAN" and make even more easy profit.
Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step. Where does it stop?
If the Administration really cared about gun violence, they'd take real steps to mitigating it instead of going after guns. Especially symbolic attempts like going after armor piercing.
Obama is definitely not gun friendly.
Something something guy just killed at gun range. But right, its Obamas fault.
And 5.56 is another way of saying .223 which is not exactly huge.
Old mosins are cheap and fire a far more powerful round, full battle round. 12.7mm is legal in places.... And then there's the very rare but enormous elephant/double rifles.
Some states even ban 5.56mm for hunting deer etc.
TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.
A very commonly used form of ammunition, that is cheap to acquire due to it's production as a military bullet. No, Obama did not do it, YET. Hence the title, to ban, as in to be done in the future.
TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.
Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.
1) Lots of that ammo already exists.
2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.
1) So? If it gets banned, thats still less being made.
2) So then why keep it available if its so easy to make?
1) Maybe, but again banning it accomplishes nothing. So why waste taxpayer money?
2) Because choice. AP ammo doesn't cause problems, so why not let people have it if they want it? Its like banning Ferraris and other high end Sports cars because lots of people die in regular old car accidents. If someone wants a Ferrari let them have a Ferrari.
Except it's a "first step" that's already been done. This isn't a new ban, it's simply a reclassification of a certain type of armor-piercing 5.56mm ammunition from "sporting" to "armor-piercing". If you don't like the ban then you should have a problem with the original ban on armor-piercing ammunition, not the decision to state the obvious and put the armor-piercing variety of 5.56mm ammunition into its proper category.
No, Obama didn't do it at all. Read the link I posted, the article in the OP is blatantly lying about Obama doing this by executive order to get around congress.
Except it's a "first step" that's already been done. This isn't a new ban, it's simply a reclassification of a certain type of armor-piercing 5.56mm ammunition from "sporting" to "armor-piercing". If you don't like the ban then you should have a problem with the original ban on armor-piercing ammunition, not the decision to state the obvious and put the armor-piercing variety of 5.56mm ammunition into its proper category.
No, Obama didn't do it at all. Read the link I posted, the article in the OP is blatantly lying about Obama doing this by executive order to get around congress.
You are attempting to use facts for people who use Fox News and "common sense" to justify their perspective. It won't work.
TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.
Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.
1) Lots of that ammo already exists.
2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.
1) So? If it gets banned, thats still less being made.
2) So then why keep it available if its so easy to make?
1) Maybe, but again banning it accomplishes nothing. So why waste taxpayer money?
2) Because choice. AP ammo doesn't cause problems, so why not let people have it if they want it? Its like banning Ferraris and other high end Sports cars because lots of people die in regular old car accidents. If someone wants a Ferrari let them have a Ferrari.
Making murder illegal hasnt stopped everyone from killing each other so we might as well remove that law from the books too.
Grey Templar wrote:Can we just defund the ATF already? It seems like they exist just to infringe on constitutional rights and waste tax payer money trying to do so. Not to mention repeatedly showing they don't have a brain cell among them.
TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.
I also agree with this.
But lets go with blatantly misleading people about what's happening in government. That doesn't say anything at all about the NRA or pro-gun or anything. No sir
Obama has been in office for six years, two of those with a Democrat controlled house and senate. How many guns that you had before he was elected have you had to give up since he was elected? Quit your paranoia already. The gullibility would be astounding if it wasn't expected. Really, you use The Washington Examiner as a source and expect not to be laughed at? This is not news. Merely click bait. Good job mindless fish, you fell for it.
Grey Templar wrote:Can we just defund the ATF already? It seems like they exist just to infringe on constitutional rights and waste tax payer money trying to do so. Not to mention repeatedly showing they don't have a brain cell among them.
I agree with this.
That sounds like bad idea
from wikipedia.
"Its responsibilities include the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives; acts of arson and bombings; and illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products. The ATF also regulates via licensing the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives in interstate commerce."
Djones520,
Would you please modify the title and clarify the text of your post to reflect the reality of the situation?
The banning of a certain type of ammo is a subject worthy of discussion, but you muddy the waters and do everyone a disservice through such irresponsible posting that enflames rather than informs.
Grey Templar wrote: Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step. Where does it stop?
If the Administration really cared about gun violence, they'd take real steps to mitigating it instead of going after guns. Especially symbolic attempts like going after armor piercing.
The "Administration" isn't going after guns, the ATF did submitted this proprosal without Obama being involved.
Obama is definitely not gun friendly.
Yeah, because of Obama no one is able to buy guns in America any more.
Sure, but all of those things could be done by the FBI. It doesn't make much sense to have multiple redundant federal law enforcement organizations, just consolidate everything into one organization.
What peregrine said. Of all the Federal enforcement agencies, the ATF is far and away the most redundant. Tabacco should be the purview of the DEA and FDA, and guns the FBI (FBI already does lots with guns anyway). Alcohol isn't illegal anymore.
Grey Templar wrote: Can we just defund the ATF already? It seems like they exist just to infringe on constitutional rights and waste tax payer money trying to do so. Not to mention repeatedly showing they don't have a brain cell among them.
Wait, what ?
ATF also handles Federal level arson and a lot of other crimes that people don't give them credit for. They caught a guy about a year ago that had set 38 major fires that was traveling up and down the eastern seaboard (good friend of mine is ATF).
I mean, i'm not in favor of banning 5.56 mm (though a screaming liberal, i'm a 2nd amendmentist), but i think this is painting ATF with an overly broad brush. Also most ATF are really stand up guys / LE agents trying to do their job / make a difference. It's the administration level management that typically bones things up on them, at least from what I hear from my buddy (which granted may be anecdotal, but its sounds similar to most organizations i know ; management too distant from the business end of an organization fething up the rank and file getting work done and hampering results).
I'm just saying, lets not gak on the agents for stupid ass things the politically minded upper echelons do.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, but all of those things could be done by the FBI. It doesn't make much sense to have multiple redundant federal law enforcement organizations, just consolidate everything into one organization.
It was a department of the FBI (and a part of the DoJ) for a short time in the 1930s but the AFT spent most its time as a part of the Treasury, until Bush transferred it back to the DoJ in the expansion of the Federal government following 9/11. Also, until 2003 it was in charge of collecting taxes from the production tobacco and alcohol.
Grey Templar wrote: Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step. Where does it stop?
.
Banning a type of ammo is not s dangerous first step. Various ammos and and guns have already been banned. It's an established part of US law that the Government puts regulations on weapons and ammunition.
It's entirely fair to argue for or against banning a particular type, but it's neither a "first step" nor is it inherently dangerous.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Considering one can make them at home for free, and anybody who cares about it knows how to do it already, the answer is no difference.
Really? I know people can make their own ammunition by assembling pre-made components, but how many people are really making their own bullets? And doing it with the same precision as factory-made stuff?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Considering one can make them at home for free, and anybody who cares about it knows how to do it already, the answer is no difference.
Really? I know people can make their own ammunition by assembling pre-made components, but how many people are really making their own bullets? And doing it with the same precision as factory-made stuff?
Lots of people make their own ammo. Especially shotgun ammo. Just like how car guys like to fix their cars, gun guys like to make their own ammo.
Reloading casings and kits to do it yourself are common.
Their definition of "armor piercing" is that it will defeat level 2 and 3a body armour which police wear.
ANY rifle ammo will do that, not just the M855 round in question here.
They are basing it on the fact there are "pistols" that can fire this round. But ANY 5.56/.223 can be fired from pistols that can fire M855 because M855 is in that caliber. There are other "pistols" that fire rifle ammo such as 7.62 and even 30-30. Should we just ban ALL rifle ammo then?
Of course not, and the original law banning AP ammo even exempts any cartridge designed for, and primarily used in a rifle. M855 is a type of 5.56 round which fits this description and was also specifically exempted, by name, from the original law. ATF just now suddenly wants to ban this ammo for no particular reason other than they apparently came to the conclusion that they believe it suddenly becomes an order of magnitude more dangerous when fired from a "pistol", when actually the opposite is true if anything.
It's nonsensical behavior from the ATF, but that's what they specialize in...
The ammo in question is usually sold as surplus and in bulk to civilians. It is/was cheap, clean and fairly accurate. It allowed AR owners to shoot often without breaking the bank. By threatening supply with this ban they have already ensured a shortage and a price hike on other 5.56/.223 ammo as well as the M855. That means less civilian stockpiling of ammo and less practice with their ARs. Can't ban the gun? Ban the ammo...
nkelsch wrote: Reloading casings and kits to do it yourself are common.
Yes, I know reloading is common, but that's different from manufacturing your own bullets. And creating steel-core rifle bullets is harder than casting lead shotgun ammo.
Alex C wrote: Their definition of "armor piercing" is that it will defeat level 2 and 3a body armour which police wear.
This is not the legal definition of armor piercing as it applies to the legislation in question.
17)
(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
The ammunition in question, despite the spectacularly trollish headline - posted by someone who knows full well how full of gak it is - is not "a ban on 5.56 bullets". It's the elimination of waiver previously granted to military surplus ammunition, M855, which has a steel penetrator tip. The term "projectile core" is not legally defined.
This is a pretty crappy move, but it's not a ban - it's not even in effect. It's a proposal. Don't like it? Write your elected official and get the Gun Control Act updated, it's full of stupid nonsense.
Alex C wrote: Fair enough, but their stated concern was danger to law enforcement due to it ripping through vests, which ANY rifle ammo will do.
Oh, no doubt. They aren't even addressing steel 7.62, which is presumably next. But if they were effective or efficient, they wouldn't be the ATF; a federal department which in my opinion should not even exist.
Desubot wrote: Just how much cheaper/expensive/available are they compared to the alternatives?
M855 is trending at 50-55 cents a round, give or take (and trending up, of course!). Regular 5.56 varies wildly depending on how the quality is. You can get XM193 ammo for about 35 cents a round, 40 cents a round for PMC, and you can get steel-cased Wolf ammo - which I would not shoot in an AR - for 30 cents a round if you watch for sales. Which you shouldn't, because if you wanted to shoot cheap steel cased Russian ammo, you should have bought an AK.
M855 has higher velocity and better penetration - it's got a hair more powder and is a little heavier. XM193 is really a training\plinking round so it's the cheapest.
Eshhh I remember the Teflon rounds were in use when this was debated on the time stamp of the document. In fact IIRC this was was enacted because of "Teflon" rounds
Bullets were coated with teflon, but it had nothing to do with what happened after the round left the gun, and everything to do with wear on the barrel, if I recall. I may be mistaken.
Ahtman wrote: Seems like one last chance for the Firearm Industry to make a little money off scaring people about Obama.
One last chance? Not even close. They'll just move on to "Hillary is going to take your guns" instead.
At that point it has moved to scare mongering for profit using Hillary as the boogeyman instead of Obama. I'm not saying that people are done making money of peoples inane fears, just that the time to use Obama's Presidency as a means is running out.
Alex C wrote: Their definition of "armor piercing" is that it will defeat level 2 and 3a body armour which police wear.
ANY rifle ammo will do that, not just the M855 round in question here.
They are basing it on the fact there are "pistols" that can fire this round. But ANY 5.56/.223 can be fired from pistols that can fire M855 because M855 is in that caliber. There are other "pistols" that fire rifle ammo such as 7.62 and even 30-30. Should we just ban ALL rifle ammo then?
Of course not, and the original law banning AP ammo even exempts any cartridge designed for, and primarily used in a rifle. M855 is a type of 5.56 round which fits this description and was also specifically exempted, by name, from the original law. ATF just now suddenly wants to ban this ammo for no particular reason other than they apparently came to the conclusion that they believe it suddenly becomes an order of magnitude more dangerous when fired from a "pistol", when actually the opposite is true if anything.
It's nonsensical behavior from the ATF, but that's what they specialize in...
The ammo in question is usually sold as surplus and in bulk to civilians. It is/was cheap, clean and fairly accurate. It allowed AR owners to shoot often without breaking the bank. By threatening supply with this ban they have already ensured a shortage and a price hike on other 5.56/.223 ammo as well as the M855. That means less civilian stockpiling of ammo and less practice with their ARs. Can't ban the gun? Ban the ammo...
I get what you're trying to say, but just reread that last sentence...
Alex C wrote: Fair enough, but their stated concern was danger to law enforcement due to it ripping through vests, which ANY rifle ammo will do.
Yea, but they can't just outright ban all rifle ammo. Doing it this way is like the camel pushing its nose under the tent. Still, it's all a stupid stunt by the ATF. Criminals don't go around using AR-15s. You can't really conceal them (even the pistol variants) and they're expensive. That's why you see gangs with 9mm or .45 pistols; they're relatively cheap and can be easily concealed.
As I've said a whole bunch of times before, I have no problem with guns, but I have a massive problem with US gun culture. The happy embrace of utter nonsense stories like this, and the lack of any response when they're shown to be total nonsense is one of the biggest problems with that particular gun culture. Reality fething matters, and when you surround your culture with made up stories like this, you end up with some very, very silly politics.
Ouze wrote: Oh, no doubt. They aren't even addressing steel 7.62, which is presumably next. But if they were effective or efficient, they wouldn't be the ATF; a federal department which in my opinion should not even exist.
To comment on this, the funny thing about bimetal 7.62x39 is it's not armor piercing at all, despite AP ammo being banned for importation on this platform -- really it's just the caliber of bullet that causes the damage. The steel itself is mild, so at most you have hollow point bullets that don't deploy properly, but the steel will deform if up against something of sufficient thickness and/or hardness. It's surprising how many "gun" people think bimetal cartridges are AP rounds, so you have to wonder what the legislators think about it. On this flip side, it worries me that some people in this thread think that supporting your second amendment rights means you're a Republican. Looking at you, guy on the first page that shall not be named.
Still, the entire premise of this ban is that M855 can be used in AR pistols to defeat soft body armor worn by cops, but they (the ATF) have failed to provide any reasonable evidence (or any at all!) that would support their claim to ban this specific type of munition. As stated before, standard 5.56 ball round fired out of an AR pistol can easily defeat level II and III armor worn by this country's law enforcement. Beyond that, the amount of AR type firearms used in crimes in exceedingly low, and the number of those used against police is like finding a unicorn in a haystack. This opens up an entire can of worms and can lead to future bans. Might as well halt the ball here and let M855 slide. Hell, the 7.62 caliber itself is a minefield because the x25, x39 and x54 all complicate body armor scenarios. The Tokarev cartridge, the smallest of these, is known to slice through level III with relative ease and would certainly give the heeby-jeebies to the ban-happy crowd. As to why the ATF and gov't haven't dropped the hammer on these munitions is beyond me, but I'm glad they haven't. I rather enjoy the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
This whole craze of "ban this for the children/public safety/law enforcement!" type deals really grate my nerves. If there is not a problem to begin with, why create one?
The Airman wrote: On this flip side, it worries me that some people in this thread think that supporting your second amendment rights means you're a Republican.
No, but the people that scream "OMG OBAMA IS GOING TO BAN ALL GUNS!!!!!!!", despite Obama not even attempting to do anything related to gun control, certainly tend to be republicans. And that's exactly what we have here: a conservative news source posting a blatantly dishonest article to scare people into voting republican.
If there is not a problem to begin with, why create one?
I don't know, why not ask the people who wrote and passed the original ban on armor-piercing ammunition? It probably doesn't make any sense when you're talking about rifles, but that's what the law has been and the only change is that the ATF is saying "yes, the armor-piercing version of 5.56mm ammunition is in fact armor-piercing ammunition" and taking away the "sporting purpose" exemption that currently allows it to be sold.
Ouze wrote: Oh, no doubt. They aren't even addressing steel 7.62, which is presumably next. But if they were effective or efficient, they wouldn't be the ATF; a federal department which in my opinion should not even exist.
To comment on this, the funny thing about bimetal 7.62x39 is it's not armor piercing at all, despite AP ammo being banned for importation on this platform -- really it's just the caliber of bullet that causes the damage. The steel itself is mild, so at most you have hollow point bullets that don't deploy properly, but the steel will deform if up against something of sufficient thickness and/or hardness. It's surprising how many "gun" people think bimetal cartridges are AP rounds, so you have to wonder what the legislators think about it. On this flip side, it worries me that some people in this thread think that supporting your second amendment rights means you're a Republican. Looking at you, guy on the first page that shall not be named.
Still, the entire premise of this ban is that M855 can be used in AR pistols to defeat soft body armor worn by cops, but they (the ATF) have failed to provide any reasonable evidence (or any at all!) that would support their claim to ban this specific type of munition. As stated before, standard 5.56 ball round fired out of an AR pistol can easily defeat level II and III armor worn by this country's law enforcement. Beyond that, the amount of AR type firearms used in crimes in exceedingly low, and the number of those used against police is like finding a unicorn in a haystack. This opens up an entire can of worms and can lead to future bans. Might as well halt the ball here and let M855 slide. Hell, the 7.62 caliber itself is a minefield because the x25, x39 and x54 all complicate body armor scenarios. The Tokarev cartridge, the smallest of these, is known to slice through level III with relative ease and would certainly give the heeby-jeebies to the ban-happy crowd. As to why the ATF and gov't haven't dropped the hammer on these munitions is beyond me, but I'm glad they haven't. I rather enjoy the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
This whole craze of "ban this for the children/public safety/law enforcement!" type deals really grate my nerves. If there is not a problem to begin with, why create one?
This.
It is true that the ATF is currently only going after M855 but if their rationale is that it is "armor piercing" then it doesn't make sense because a great majority of rifle bullets are are such and the actual incidence of someone using M855 against police is nil despite its current abundance in US public.
So out of curiosity how many people were killed by these bullets? Rifles are used in an exceeding low number of crimes, I would like to know how many AR pistols are used in crimes that would justify this ban.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: As I've said a whole bunch of times before, I have no problem with guns, but I have a massive problem with US gun culture. The happy embrace of utter nonsense stories like this, and the lack of any response when they're shown to be total nonsense is one of the biggest problems with that particular gun culture. Reality fething matters, and when you surround your culture with made up stories like this, you end up with some very, very silly politics.
In that case you should be positively reviled by anti gun culture given their well documented aversion to the truth.
Peregrine wrote: [No, but the people that scream "OMG OBAMA IS GOING TO BAN ALL GUNS!!!!!!!", despite Obama not even attempting to do anything related to gun control, certainly tend to be republicans. And that's exactly what we have here: a conservative news source posting a blatantly dishonest article to scare people into voting republican.
Do not confuse Republicans and conservatives. Additionally, in this country the political left has a history of going after firearms. As to why you seem content in trying to ignore this is beyond me.
I don't know, why not ask the people who wrote and passed the original ban on armor-piercing ammunition? It probably doesn't make any sense when you're talking about rifles, but that's what the law has been and the only change is that the ATF is saying "yes, the armor-piercing version of 5.56mm ammunition is in fact armor-piercing ammunition" and taking away the "sporting purpose" exemption that currently allows it to be sold.
As stated, they (the ATF) want to ban M855 ammunition because it can be used in AR pistols. But if you bothered to read what I wrote, standard ball 5.56 out of an AR pistol does the same thing. Arguably, AP ammo is safer for the wearers of body armor as the round cuts through with little damage, whereas a standard round would sledgehammer its way in after penetrating the rather thin layer of armor, causing more tissue damage due to a "mushroomed" round. All of this would call into question the entire premise of the ATF's proposed ban on this type of munition in the first place. In the article, a veteran of the force reaffirms this by stating that an AR pistol can easily be seen, whereas a smaller gun is inherently more dangerous because it cannot be seen.
Now, I don't see the problem with M855 as it's primarily used as a sporting round. Live and let live.
The Airman wrote: As to why you seem content in trying to ignore this is beyond me.
Because the left right now is not taking anything seriously. Nobody is doing more than talk vaguely about how nice it would be if guns went away, and there's no sign at all that anyone is going to commit political suicide by making a serious attempt to push gun control. You might as well ask why nobody is paying attention to the right's history of supporting gun control (after all, let's not forget that a lot of the current laws were created by racists trying to keep the "wrong" people from getting guns, not by the left).
PS: the "OBAMA IS TAKING OUR GUNS" crowd have done way more to limit the availability of guns than anyone on the left, by panic-buying the entire inventory of every gun store in their area.
Now, I don't see the problem with M855 as it's primarily used as a sporting round.
Neither do I, I think the entire concept of "armor piercing ammunition" is silly when applied to rifles. I'm just pointing out the fact that you're wrong about this being some kind of new issue. The ATF is just applying existing laws in a consistent manner. If you don't like what's happening then you should be complaining about the current laws on armor-piercing ammunition, not the proposed reclassification (with good reasons) of one specific type of 5.56mm ammunition.
Peregrine wrote: Because the left right now is not taking anything seriously. Nobody is doing more than talk vaguely about how nice it would be if guns went away, and there's no sign at all that anyone is going to commit political suicide by making a serious attempt to push gun control. You might as well ask why nobody is paying attention to the right's history of supporting gun control (after all, let's not forget that a lot of the current laws were created by racists trying to keep the "wrong" people from getting guns, not by the left).
Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), and other leaders from the black community news conference on gun control in February. (CSPAN)
The purposeful restriction of knowledge has been at the heart of untold misery and hardship in this world. Serfs were kept illiterate so as to not jeopardize the feudal system. Slaves were kept in the dark on a variety of subjects so as to not provide them the possibility of escape.
Today, knowledge remains elusive to so many because the media does not allow for facts that run contrary to the narratives they favor. Nowhere is this more evident than in the narratives concerning gun control. Though our supposed betters in the media see no reason to share this with the American public, gun control, a sanitized term for the systemic restriction of rights, has its earliest origins in racism. The concept is simple enough: enable the selected group to remain armed while working to disarm the unselected group. In America, this has been mainly black, Hispanic and immigrant populations.
Long before gun control was touted as "common sense" measures, the concept was promoted as a means to keep ethnic populations in an unequal position while assuaging the fears of whites.
Recently, I appeared at a press conference with a dozen black ministers and other leading members of the black community to stand together and voice our support for our right to keep and bear arms. It was here that I discussed the longstanding history of racism behind gun control and discussed the infamous Dred Scott decision, where Chief Justice Taney asserted that the Court could not recognize the humanity of blacks. For if their humanity was fully recognized, they would be afforded Constitutional protections, including the protections offered by the Second Amendment.
After the Civil War, when blacks fought along whites to secure freedom for all, southern states enacted Black Codes, laws that restricted the civil rights and liberties of blacks. Central to the enforcement of these laws were the stiff penalties for blacks possessing firearms.
As these laws came under fire from federal authorities, extra-legal groups sprouted up to terrorize and enforce these laws if not by statute, by sheer intimidation. The most notorious, formed in Tennessee, and was the Ku Klux Klan.
In the turmoil after the Civil War, as America tried to mend itself, Southern Democrats aimed to disenfranchise black voters who voted overwhelmingly for Republicans, the Party of Lincoln. To do so required terrorism by the Klan and other similar groups. Their intimidation campaigns required a disarmed black population.
Over the years, the Black Codes faded away and were replaced with the racist Jim Crow laws that still sought to keep blacks as lesser citizens. And while the black communities were bridled with the shameful laws in the South, the North enacted laws to disarm their ethnic populations. The infamous Sullivan Act was enacted to keep the immigrant populations from carrying pistols and serves as the forefather of today's modern "may issue" gun permit laws that allow unelected officials to decide who is and who is not upstanding enough to own a gun.
Today, gun control efforts are not only trying to disarm the black community; gun control efforts are creating victims in places where gun control measures are law. Criminals, who, by definition, do not abide by laws, remain armed having circumvented the legal means of obtaining firearms while law-abiding citizens remain defenseless from want of easy, legal means of obtaining guns with which to defend themselves, their families or their homes. While black Americans in urban centers may not be frequently terrorized by members of the Klan, we are terrorized by armed criminal elements that, like the Klan before them, know that the law-abiding have been disarmed for their convenience.
In celebration of the 151st anniversary of Washington DC's Emancipation Day, I joined several leaders of the black community to hold a Lincoln-Douglas debate to discuss the issues affecting our community. While Al Sharpton hailed gun control measures, he glossed over the long and continual efforts by legislators to disarm blacks. After the Civil War, Democrats still did not recognize the full humanity and maturity of blacks and crusaded to deny them the rights attached to citizenship- in particular, the right of armed self-defense.
Today, that mentality is still alive and serves as an underlying motivation of many Democrats (both white and black) to deny the right to self-protection in inner cities. We are still seeing this abhorrent effort to deny Constitutionally-protected rights in the numerous attempts to ban legal ownership of arms in federally subsidized public housing.
Today, just as it has always been, it is immoral to force a man to choose whether to become a criminal by obtaining the means to protect his family or to become a possible victim of violence.
Days after my press conference with the community leaders, I returned to the barber shop I frequent. This barbershop, decked with Obama pictures and other assorted liberal material, is owned by a black Democrat who I good-naturedly chide about his political leanings. He does the same to me. Though our politics are different, as I walked through the door, I was confronted with a mob of support from fellow black patrons and as the owner hugged me, he explained that he had had no idea about the history surrounding gun control. It was then that it hit me- people needed to know.
Understanding the long, sordid history of gun control in America is key to understanding the dangers of disarming. Free citizens of any race, any ethnicity or background must be wary of any government that claims, "Trust us; relinquish your means of defense."
Peregrine wrote: The ATF is just applying existing laws in a consistent manner. If you don't like what's happening then you should be complaining about the current laws on armor-piercing ammunition, not the proposed reclassification (with good reasons) of one specific type of 5.56mm ammunition.
This. It's a government agency doing their job in accordance with law, if the law is silly it's not the agency's fault that the outcome is silly because they're not supposed to be allowed to ignore laws they don't feel like following.
jreilly89 wrote:[I get what you're trying to say, but just reread that last sentence...
Breotan wrote:Yea, but they can't just outright ban all rifle ammo. Doing it this way is like the camel pushing its nose under the tent. Still, it's all a stupid stunt by the ATF. Criminals don't go around using AR-15s. You can't really conceal them (even the pistol variants) and they're expensive. That's why you see gangs with 9mm or .45 pistols; they're relatively cheap and can be easily concealed.
Ouze wrote: Oh, no doubt. They aren't even addressing steel 7.62, which is presumably next. But if they were effective or efficient, they wouldn't be the ATF; a federal department which in my opinion should not even exist.
To comment on this, the funny thing about bimetal 7.62x39 is it's not armor piercing at all, despite AP ammo being banned for importation on this platform -- really it's just the caliber of bullet that causes the damage. The steel itself is mild
I think you're missing what I was saying. I'm not making an comment on the efficacy of the rounds in question. I'm speaking to what the legal definition of "armor piercing" is, as per the Gun Control Act. If the ATF considers the steel tip in M855 to be the "bullet core", it's not a reach to think that the steel core of a Tulammo bimetal 7.62 is also a steel core by their thinking (and frankly by common sense).
Again, the performance is irrelevant, the law defines specific metals and combinations thereof as what constitutes a banned round.
Alex C wrote: Their definition of "armor piercing" is that it will defeat level 2 and 3a body armour which police wear.
This is not the legal definition of armor piercing as it applies to the legislation in question.
17)
(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
The ammunition in question, despite the spectacularly trollish headline - posted by someone who knows full well how full of gak it is - is not "a ban on 5.56 bullets". It's the elimination of waiver previously granted to military surplus ammunition, M855, which has a steel penetrator tip. The term "projectile core" is not legally defined.
This is a pretty crappy move, but it's not a ban - it's not even in effect. It's a proposal. Don't like it? Write your elected official and get the Gun Control Act updated, it's full of stupid nonsense.
Back the conversation a bit. The thread title is stretching the truth a bit, but not by much.
Im actually in firearms sales and training, so I actually know what Im talking about on this issue. Ammunition is defined as a complete round (bullet, powder, casing, primer) and bullet is the actual projectile.
The exemption for XM855 ammunition and the S109 bullet was pulled quietly, wiithout public comment in December 2012. Went completely under the radar, the PDF on the ATF site was scrubbed. We can find links for it using WABAC, and some people on 4Chan dug a little deeper and found that yes, ATF did make the determination December 2012.
The ammo is banned - for all intents and purposes.
Importers and manufacturers cannot sell to the civilian market. Civilians may still posses the ammo PROVIDED their state does not make possession of armor piercing ammo illegal - Ill get back to this in a minute. Manufacturers have ceased production in light of the March 16th date. The current comment period is for manufacturers and importers to suggest how best to cease production and import without affecting their overall business.
The exemption was pulled via a request from the Justice Department (Eric Holder) under the idea that since this particular NON ARMOR PIERCING ammunition can be fired from a handgun, it can now be considered armor piercing. 30 years after the determination was made that this round was not AP, it was in effect reversed and now considered AP, though nothing has changed about the bullet in question. The reasoning being that a centerfire round can be considered AP if it can be fired from a handgun, not its composition.
Guess what: most centerfire rounds (hunting/pistol) can be fired from handguns. So, if this "ban" goes uncontested, ANY caliber can be considered AP and therefore banned That's the slippery slope someone suggested.
Now, back to civilian possession.
If the state you are in does not allow AP ammunition in the hands of the peasants - because of this new determination - you are now a criminal in possession of contraband. In those states where possession is not prohibited, you can still own and sell this ammo. BUT, there is a finite supply and demand is through the roof. Great time for the neckbeards. As this occurs, other weights (this is what the GR stands for - grains) that can be fired in the AR then go up in price and scarcity - 62gr bullets made up over 25% of the ammunition used in ARs. So, now there is a run on 55gr 556/223 ammunition. The ammunition companies were already under stress to meet demand BEFORE this occurred.
So, it's not much of a stretch to call this a ban on 5.56mm bullets. But it falls woefully short in that it doenst include the effect it has on all ammunition that can be fired from an AR.
Spacemanvic wrote: The exemption for XM855 ammunition and the S109 bullet was pulled quietly, wiithout public comment in December 2012. Went completely under the radar, the PDF on the ATF site was scrubbed. We can find links for it using WABAC, and some people on 4Chan dug a little deeper and found that yes, ATF did make the determination December 2012.
Are these the same 4chan detectives that identified that missing college student as the boston bomber?
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16,
2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to
do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or
before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments.
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple
times or by more than one method):
ATF website: APAComments@atf.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs
and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue,
NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and
Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone:
(202) 648-7070.
Alex C wrote: Their definition of "armor piercing" is that it will defeat level 2 and 3a body armour which police wear.
This is not the legal definition of armor piercing as it applies to the legislation in question.
17)
(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
The ammunition in question, despite the spectacularly trollish headline - posted by someone who knows full well how full of gak it is - is not "a ban on 5.56 bullets". It's the elimination of waiver previously granted to military surplus ammunition, M855, which has a steel penetrator tip. The term "projectile core" is not legally defined.
This is a pretty crappy move, but it's not a ban - it's not even in effect. It's a proposal. Don't like it? Write your elected official and get the Gun Control Act updated, it's full of stupid nonsense.
Back the conversation a bit. The thread title is stretching the truth a bit, but not by much.
Im actually in firearms sales and training, so I actually know what Im talking about on this issue. Ammunition is defined as a complete round (bullet, powder, casing, primer) and bullet is the actual projectile.
The exemption for XM855 ammunition and the S109 bullet was pulled quietly, wiithout public comment in December 2012. Went completely under the radar, the PDF on the ATF site was scrubbed. We can find links for it using WABAC, and some people on 4Chan dug a little deeper and found that yes, ATF did make the determination December 2012.
The ammo is banned - for all intents and purposes.
Importers and manufacturers cannot sell to the civilian market. Civilians may still posses the ammo PROVIDED their state does not make possession of armor piercing ammo illegal - Ill get back to this in a minute. Manufacturers have ceased production in light of the March 16th date. The current comment period is for manufacturers and importers to suggest how best to cease production and import without affecting their overall business.
The exemption was pulled via a request from the Justice Department (Eric Holder) under the idea that since this particular NON ARMOR PIERCING ammunition can be fired from a handgun, it can now be considered armor piercing. 30 years after the determination was made that this round was not AP, it was in effect reversed and now considered AP, though nothing has changed about the bullet in question. The reasoning being that a centerfire round can be considered AP if it can be fired from a handgun, not its composition.
Guess what: most centerfire rounds (hunting/pistol) can be fired from handguns. So, if this "ban" goes uncontested, ANY caliber can be considered AP and therefore banned That's the slippery slope someone suggested.
Now, back to civilian possession.
If the state you are in does not allow AP ammunition in the hands of the peasants - because of this new determination - you are now a criminal in possession of contraband. In those states where possession is not prohibited, you can still own and sell this ammo. BUT, there is a finite supply and demand is through the roof. Great time for the neckbeards. As this occurs, other weights (this is what the GR stands for - grains) that can be fired in the AR then go up in price and scarcity - 62gr bullets made up over 25% of the ammunition used in ARs. So, now there is a run on 55gr 556/223 ammunition. The ammunition companies were already under stress to meet demand BEFORE this occurred.
So, it's not much of a stretch to call this a ban on 5.56mm bullets. But it falls woefully short in that it doenst include the effect it has on all ammunition that can be fired from an AR.
The arbitrary redefining of "armor piercing" by unelected bureaucrats is worrisome. XM855 was not designed and intended to be used in pistols, it was specifically developed for use in M4 rifles, it is a centerfire rifle round. The fact that "pistol" variants of AR-15s exist does not rewrite the history of the R&D of XM855. To declare that a 5.56 round is intended and designed for use in a pistol as if the R&D process was the same as an actual pisol round like .40 S&W is crazy.
Any centerfire rifle cartridge is going to be able to punch through Level II or Level IIA or Level III soft body armor, typically worn under uniforms by LEOs because the armor isn't designed to stop rifle rounds. It's just a matter of ballistics .30-30, .30-06, .308, .270 will all punch through Level II as well and it's not because of some contrived definition of "armor piercing."
Nobody was running around murdering people in Level II vests via AR-15 pistols loaded with M855 rounds. It's a nonexitent problem that didn't need to be solved.
Spacemanvic wrote: The exemption for XM855 ammunition and the S109 bullet was pulled quietly, wiithout public comment in December 2012. Went completely under the radar, the PDF on the ATF site was scrubbed. We can find links for it using WABAC, and some people on 4Chan dug a little deeper and found that yes, ATF did make the determination December 2012.
Are these the same 4chan detectives that identified that missing college student as the boston bomber?
Actually, if you reread my post carefully and probably slowly, you'll notice that 4Chan was looking for proof of the link to the comment request that ATF took down, so 4Chan isnt listed as a source. The "source" was industry wide knowledge of the "sporting purpose" BATFE was defining back in 2012.
Here are two articles from 2012 that discuss the commentary period regarding "sporting purposes":
From page 15 of the 17 page document you provided a link to:
ATF recognizes that this ammunition is widely available to the public. Because it is legally permissible to possess armor piercing ammunition under current law,
withdrawing the exemption will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition. However, with few exceptions, manufacturers will be unable to produce such armor piercing ammunition, importers will be unable to import such ammunition,and manufacturers and importers will be prohibited from selling or distributing the ammunition. ATF is specifically soliciting comments on how it can best implement withdrawal of this exemption while minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety.
Oh no!Americas well regulated militia is doomed!But seriously maybe this is a stupid question but:Why do people NEED armour piercing bullets anyway?Why not use regular bullets?Is this to do with the weird "goverment is going to take our freedoms" stuff I have seen on dakka before?
Da krimson barun wrote: Oh no!Americas well regulated militia is doomed!But seriously maybe this is a stupid question but:Why do people NEED armour piercing bullets anyway?Why not use regular bullets?Is this to do with the weird "goverment is going to take our freedoms" stuff I have seen on dakka before?
I believe that you are factually incorrect. From page 1:
This notice is provided to ensure that the regulated industry and members of the public understand the statute and
relevant legislative history, and have an opportunity to review and provide comments or suggestions on the proposed framework.
As in, the comment period has not ended. The framework for withdrawing from the market isn't even present, so how can that be commented upon?
Do you have any sources that aren't from the derposphere?
Da krimson barun wrote: Oh no!Americas well regulated militia is doomed!But seriously maybe this is a stupid question but:Why do people NEED armour piercing bullets anyway?Why not use regular bullets?Is this to do with the weird "goverment is going to take our freedoms" stuff I have seen on dakka before?
Why do you care?
Why do we import irish whiskey?
Thanks.Very helpful.You import Irish whiskey because its better then yours I guess.Also because it isnt designed to kill people. Maybe because you dont need to reference a law that says only well organized militias can have it.
Ouze wrote: I believe that you are factually incorrect. From page 1:
This notice is provided to ensure that the regulated industry and members of the public understand the statute and
relevant legislative history, and have an opportunity to review and provide comments or suggestions on the proposed framework.
As in, the comment period has not ended. The framework for withdrawing from the market isn't even present, so how can that be commented upon?
Do you have any sources that aren't from the derposphere?
Dear God.
You do understand that "sporting purpose" was defined already, and that XM855 was found to NOT be of "sporting purpose" WAAAAYYYYY back in 2012, and that the framework presented in 2015 is, and I quote from the ATF document itself (cant get any closer to source material than the authors themselves):
ATF recognizes that this ammunition is widely available to the public. Because it is legally permissible to possess armor piercing ammunition under current law,
withdrawing the exemption will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition. However, with few exceptions, manufacturers will be unable to produce such armor piercing ammunition, importers will be unable to import such ammunition,and manufacturers and importers will be prohibited from selling or distributing the ammunition. ATF is specifically soliciting comments on how it can best implement withdrawal of this exemption while minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety.
At some point, you have to realize that some things just cant be fixed. In that spirit, Ill end my "discussion" on the matter with you and Ill go fix something else.
I really could go on and on. (I haven't even gotten to the Brady Campaign which says its better to be raped than defend yourself.)
Spoiler:
The fact that they've tried and failed to ban "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines doesn't mean they won't try again. And after that they'll go after "high caliber sniper rifles" which is any hunting rifle.
Washington DC and Chicago are what they want, guns for the elite, not for the peasants.
ATF recognizes that this ammunition is widely available to the public. Because it is legally permissible to possess armor piercing ammunition under current law,
withdrawing the exemption will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition. However, with few exceptions, manufacturers will be unable to produce such armor piercing ammunition, importers will be unable to import such ammunition,and manufacturers and importers will be prohibited from selling or distributing the ammunition. ATF is specifically soliciting comments on how it can best implement withdrawal of this exemption while minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety.
Yep, best implement withdrawal of the exemption does not leave room for commenting on if the withdrawal itself should take place.
And as I recall, Ouze or Hats or someone when this last came up showed how easy it was to fake the "photo of a screen" picture. Using whembly. Was funny.
Ouze wrote: Oh, no doubt. They aren't even addressing steel 7.62, which is presumably next. But if they were effective or efficient, they wouldn't be the ATF; a federal department which in my opinion should not even exist.
To comment on this, the funny thing about bimetal 7.62x39 is it's not armor piercing at all, despite AP ammo being banned for importation on this platform -- really it's just the caliber of bullet that causes the damage. The steel itself is mild
I think you're missing what I was saying. I'm not making an comment on the efficacy of the rounds in question. I'm speaking to what the legal definition of "armor piercing" is, as per the Gun Control Act. If the ATF considers the steel tip in M855 to be the "bullet core", it's not a reach to think that the steel core of a Tulammo bimetal 7.62 is also a steel core by their thinking (and frankly by common sense).
Again, the performance is irrelevant, the law defines specific metals and combinations thereof as what constitutes a banned round.
Tulammo 7.62x39 does NOT have a steel core. It is composed of 80% lead core and a 20% steel jacket. I shoot that ammo so I have experience on the matter. This round IS NOT armor piercing, and having a mild steel tip (if you are shooting Tulammo FMJs) would not make it armor piercing either.
Peregrine wrote: The ATF is just applying existing laws in a consistent manner. If you don't like what's happening then you should be complaining about the current laws on armor-piercing ammunition, not the proposed reclassification (with good reasons) of one specific type of 5.56mm ammunition.
This. It's a government agency doing their job in accordance with law, if the law is silly it's not the agency's fault that the outcome is silly because they're not supposed to be allowed to ignore laws they don't feel like following.
So...legalism? For the third time, the problem them have is they claim citizens are using M855 in AR pistols, but have yet to offer evidence of this. Really what law enforcement has to worry about are hand guns.
jhe90 wrote: Even if higher end body armour stops these big rounds that are still legal, the damage done to human body is still high.
Stopping a bullet in few inches, from that velocity will hurt like hell and maybe break ribs etc.
Somehow I doubt that armor piercing ammo is commonly used in crimes and would warrant a ban. Having a round slice cleanly through human tissue is better for you than a non-AP round. There is a reason the Soviets replaced the Tokarev cartridge (7.62x25) with the Makarov (9x18) and then later the 9MM Parabellum. Overpenetration proved ineffective in stopping a target. It's not fun to be shot at all, though in the scenario AP ammo was used, it would be better to have it used in this scenario. Long gun crime with AR pattern guns is very low in this country so it's a non issue.
All in all this ban makes no sense other than to serve on a feel-good basis.
The Airman wrote: Tulammo 7.62x39 does NOT have a steel core. It is composed of 80% lead core and a 20% steel jacket. I shoot that ammo so I have experience on the matter. This round IS NOT armor piercing, and having a mild steel tip (if you are shooting Tulammo FMJs) would not make it armor piercing either.
Thank you for the information. I too shoot Tulammo 7.62 but was mistaken as to how it was the rounds were built.
Kilkrazy wrote: Not having read the theead but surely there isn't any such thing as bullets per se?
It's cartridges that you load into your clip.
In this case, it's the bullets themselves which are the concern - the steel penetrator tip is an intrinsic part of the bullet, which is then built into a cartridge.
But I am now realizing this might have been a roundabout subtle joke.
The Airman wrote: Tulammo 7.62x39 does NOT have a steel core. It is composed of 80% lead core and a 20% steel jacket. I shoot that ammo so I have experience on the matter. This round IS NOT armor piercing, and having a mild steel tip (if you are shooting Tulammo FMJs) would not make it armor piercing either.
Thank you for the information. I too shoot Tulammo 7.62 but was mistaken as to how it was the rounds were built.
Yeah, it's not common information unfortunately. I'd profess it from the mountaintops if I could!
Though what concerns me is a possible "snowball" ban of steel cased/bimetal ammunition because of the misinformation surrounding it, like that of the M855 through AR pistols. I mean, if a criminal wanted something that would negate an officer's protective vest, something like an affordable new production M57 Tokarev would do the job. If you were also so inclined, a Mosin can definitely pose a threat to said armor. (I don't endorse this, I am just pointing out the flaws in their reasoning) The Soviet calibers are definite penetrators by their design so I'd hate to see them go the way of the dinosaur because of unfounded fear.
Peregrine wrote: The ATF is just applying existing laws in a consistent manner. If you don't like what's happening then you should be complaining about the current laws on armor-piercing ammunition, not the proposed reclassification (with good reasons) of one specific type of 5.56mm ammunition.
This. It's a government agency doing their job in accordance with law, if the law is silly it's not the agency's fault that the outcome is silly because they're not supposed to be allowed to ignore laws they don't feel like following.
As a side note, this applies to judges as well. So the next time you ask "how could the Supreme Court rule X", it's because the law says X, even if it probably should be Y.
I really could go on and on. (I haven't even gotten to the Brady Campaign which says its better to be raped than defend yourself.)
Spoiler:
The fact that they've tried and failed to ban "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines doesn't mean they won't try again. And after that they'll go after "high caliber sniper rifles" which is any hunting rifle.
Washington DC and Chicago are what they want, guns for the elite, not for the peasants.
I’m really really getting tired of the whole “gun nuts are paranoid about President Obama” meme that the antis are pushing. And pushing. And pushing. The latest culprit is Timothy Egan of The New York Times, author of ‘Gun Nuts in a Rut’, published Thursday:
When it became clear in the early fall of 2008 that Barack Obama, son of a Kansan and a Kenyan, would be the 44th President of the United States, many citizens rushed to their gun shops, stocked up on ammo and camo, and tried to fortify their nests with all manner of lethal weapons.
Though he had said nothing about gun control in the campaign, Obama, to a certain kind of person, appeared to be a grave threat to the Second Amendment. …
That “certain kind of person” would be anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature who had been paying the slightest bit of attention, because Obama’s actions as a legislator spoke volumes about his feelings on the gun issue. Senator Obama’s statements on the campaign trail weren’t any more reassuring. For example:
Obama opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have protected homeowners from weapons charges if they used an “illegal” gun in self-defense.
In a primary debate in 2008, Obama the candidate stated that the second amendment confers an individual right, BUT (there’s always but where the second amendment is concerned) the fact that it is an individual right “does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right”. In addition, for a supposed constitutional scholar to state that the Bill of Rights confers rights, rather than protects pre-existing rights is also worrisome.
When running for the Illinois senate in 1996, Obama most assuredly did fill out a questionnaire (despite his later claims that a staffer did it) in which he unequivocally supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, a ban on the possession of ‘assault weapons’ and waiting periods before purchasing a firearm.
Need I mention the whole “bitter clingers” episode?
Although he claimed to respect the second amendment, he also said that the D.C. gun ban (banning all handguns and operable long guns) was constitutional. When pressed for his rationale, he said there was nothing wrong with a community establishing their own “reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]” while still respecting the second amendment. Did you catch that? A complete ban is his idea of a reasonable gun control measure.
In the Illinois legislature, he supported licensing and registering gun owners as a measure to keep unlawful guns off the street. This purported constitutional scholar was apparently unaware that the supreme court has ruled that criminals don’t need to register (and can’t be punished for failing to register) their guns because it would be a violation of their right against self-incrimination.
In 2000 Obama cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month and in 2003 he voted in favor of HB 2579 which had the same one gun per month provision.
According to a Chicago Defender article in December of 1999, “Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.”
At an NAACP forum in 2007 Obama stated “We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities.” What?!? Is that what he really thinks? That federally licensed gun dealers are loading up vehicles and selling guns out of the back in inner cities?
In the Illinois senate he supported a confiscatory ‘assault weapons’ ban which would have included semi-auto shotguns and even some pump, double and single barrel shotguns.
As a Presidential candidate he called for passage of H.R. 6257, deceptively titled “Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008″ which would have explicitly banned far more weapons than the Clinton AWB.
As a Senator, Obama voted against prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers and voted in favor of an amendment to that bill which would have banned most rifle ammunition, under the guise of banning ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition.
As a Senator Obama did not sign the amicus brief supporting the individual rights view in Heller v. DC.
Obama voted to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which would have eliminated most gun stores in America.
He supported legislation to “close the gun show loophole” which would have imprisoned show organizers if a single person at a show offered a gun for sale privately.
As a Senator, Obama stated he supported a federal ban on concealed carry laws and as a Presidential candidate he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review “‘I am not in favor of concealed weapons,’ Obama said. ‘I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.'”
Barack Obama’s actions as President have done nothing to change our perceptions, either. On his first day in office, on the White House website, under “Urban Policy” we found this gem posted:
Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
See above regarding how little the Obama AWB resembed the Clinton-era AWB. When he talks about keeping guns away from children, what he’s really talking about are various blue-sky proposals to make guns “childproof.”
And who can forget the Obama Administration’s employment questionnaire Question 59: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
Once Obama had settled into power, there were more ‘indicators’ of his anti-gun feelings:
In March, 2009 the DoD ‘revised’ its policy on the disposal of once-fired brass. Instead of selling it to consumers and domestic agencies for reloading, all once-fired brass from the military would be shredded and sold as scrap. This policy was reversed fairly quickly after outraged shooters contacted their legislators and Senators Tester and Baucus (both D-MT) faxed a letter to the DoD asking them to change the policy. The fact that Senator Tester was Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee might have had something to do with the quick volte-face.
The DHS report, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment [.pdf] which cited as a key finding: “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
In April of 2009, President Obama announced he wanted the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials (called by its Spanish acronym of CIFTA for obvious reasons). A close look at the Definitions section of the treaty reveals that it would require a government license for “the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials”. That doesn’t sound too bad, right? I mean we sort of have that now, don’t we? But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Or, in this case, the definitions, because the way they’re written, you could be required to get a government license to reload ammo, add or change out a scope on a rifle, replace a factory trigger with an upgraded one, or even so much as load a weapon. Preposterous you say? Look at how they define “other related materials.” Go ahead, I’ll wait. Back? Okay, when they say “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm” you think an anti-gun administration wouldn’t say that applies to magazines and ammo? So – technically – putting rounds in a mag or a mag in a weapon would constitute “assembly” which would require a license. So how much will the license cost? What will the application process be? Will it be “shall-issue” or “may-issue”? How long will it be good for? How much will it cost to renew? All of these details could be used to drastically reduce gun ownership.
The Obama administration reversed a decision to import over 800,000 surplus M-1 rifles and carbines from South Korea. Not only are these weapons of some historical significance, but their arrival on the market would reduce prices on these sorts of weapons, at least in the relatively short term. The rationale (or perhaps rationalization would be a better term) given to the South Korean government for the decision was that the administration “was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.” Well that tells us something interesting. Since all of these rifles would have been sold through FFLs, the Obama administration is saying they believe every firearm sale in the country could put guns in the hands of “terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.” And they call us paranoid.
Under the Obama administration, the CDC did an end-run around the decade-old prohibition on performing research on gun control issues by maintaining they were not researching the gun issue, “rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances.” When Republicans in Congress questioned why money was being spent on these sorts of studies, an NIH spokesman replied “Gun-related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH.” But wait, aren’t you supposed to do the studies before you come to the conclusion that guns have a net negative impact on public health? See, coming to conclusions and then ginning up research to support them is what got Congress to implement the ban in the first place.
Fast & Furious and the whole “90% of illegal weapons in Mexico come from the U.S.” with the subsequent unlawful and unconstitutional long gun sales reporting requirement implemented by the ATF via bureaucratic fiat. And please, don’t even try to say “But Bush did it first!” Under oath, Attorney General Holder stated that he would not equate F&F with Operation Wide Receiver. Among other things, under OWR the ATF informed the Mexicans when, where and in what kind of car guns were crossing the border while under F&F not only were the Mexicans kept in the dark, the ATF liaison officers in Mexico were kept in the dark.
Under the Obama administration the ATF suddenly reversed a forty-two year old ruling, stating that “[t]he temporary assignment of a firearm by an FFL to its unlicensed agents, contractors, volunteers, or any other person who is not an employee of the FFL, even for bona fide business purposes, is a transfer or disposition for purposes of the Gun Control Act” which then requires that the transfer be processed by an FFL, complete with NICS check and a 4473, lengthening the transfer process considerably.
In an op-ed for the Arizona Star, Obama capitalized on the Tucson shooting, calling for more gun control. Except he didn’t call it ‘gun control’, he called it “sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place”.
Then there was this piece in the Huffington Post in which Obama admitted that he could not achieve gun control through legislation, so “only executive orders or administrative actions — and not an actual bill — are expected to be handed to Congress.” What was it Bill Clinton’s aide said? “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.” Yeah, who needs that whole “work within constitutional limits” stuff anyway, right?
So the next time some ignorant anti says “But Obama hasn’t done anything on gun control . . . why are you so paranoid?” give them chapter and verse. Not that facts ever make much of an impression on hoplophobes.
So if we assume that actions speak louder than words and look at what Obama and his party have done recently, instead of what they have talked about doing and then ignored once the latest shooting was forgotten, we have two things:
1) They ended or tried to end a couple of programs that gun owners benefited from, which is only "gun control" if you assume that you have a right to have the federal government sell you cheap guns and ammunition.
2) They allowed the CDC to research gun violence, which is only "gun control" if you assume that you have a right to enforce a rule that your tax money can't be spent on researching things you don't want the government to learn about.
So if we assume that actions speak louder than words and look at what Obama and his party have done recently, instead of what they have talked about doing and then ignored once the latest shooting was forgotten, we have two things:
1) They ended or tried to end a couple of programs that gun owners benefited from, which is only "gun control" if you assume that you have a right to have the federal government sell you cheap guns and ammunition.
2) They allowed the CDC to research gun violence, which is only "gun control" if you assume that you have a right to enforce a rule that your tax money can't be spent on researching things you don't want the government to learn about.
Administration has done nothing to attempt to advance gun control;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/obama-gun-control-speech-_n_3040363.html "Obama is hoping to build support among lawmakers for several gun control measures, including universal background checks for gun buyers. The Senate is expected to take up gun control legislation as early as this week.
The president has invited 11 parents of children killed in Newtown to fly back to Washington with him aboard Air Force One after his speech. The parents are set to lobby Congress this week for gun control measures, although it may be too late to rescue major legislation sought by Obama.
Some of Obama's proposals - reinstating a U.S. ban on assault weapons and cracking down on high-capacity ammunition clips - already appear to have little chance of passing the Democratic-led Senate, let alone the Republican-controlled House of Representatives."
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16544842-obama-unveils-sweeping-new-gun-control-proposals?lite "While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil," Obama said at a mid-day announcement at the White House, "if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it.
. . .
Some of the main legislative proposals backed by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are:
requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales
banning "military-style" assault weapons
limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
strengthening penalties for gun trafficking "
I recounted our POTUS's disdain for firearms, and his attempts to reduce gun ownership. You tried to brand it as "paranoid". I think I can safely end this discussion with you at this point.
Da krimson barun wrote: Thanks.Very helpful.You import Irish whiskey because its better then yours I guess.Also because it isnt designed to kill people. Maybe because you dont need to reference a law that says only well organized militias can have it.
I'm only three generations removed from the homeland (great grandparents immigrated) and I don't think the Irish even make the best whiskey in the UK. If you think Irish Whiskey is better than some Kentucky bourbon, you're just fooling yourself. And I love some Bushmill's 16.
Kelly502 wrote: The BATF&E came about after prohibition, they had all these agents about to be out of work and bam! Here's a new agency... yay!!!
Not exactly... The Bureau and it's predecessors spent most of their 200 year history as part of the Treasury Department.
The ATF traces it's roots to the formation of Office of Internal Revenue within the Department of the Treasury in 1862. From their formation then until the Volstead Act in the 30s, they were a department of the Treasury. In the early 1930 they were transferred to the DoJ but then re-transferred back to the Treasury in 1933. In 1972 they because an independent Bureau reporting directly to the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Enforcement, Tariff and Trade Affairs, and Operations.They were again transferred back to the DoJ in 2003 by the Bush Administration as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
I'm a meathead. I can't help it, man. You've got smart people and you've got dumb people.
Keanu Reeves
Automatically Appended Next Post: In 1972 ATF was established as a separate bureau within the Treasury Department when Treasury Department Order 221, effective July 1, 1972, transferred the responsibilities of the ATF division of the IRS to the new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Rex D. Davis oversaw the transition, becoming the bureau's first director, having headed the division since 1970. During his tenure, Davis shepherded the organization into a new era where federal firearms and explosives laws addressing violent crime became the primary mission of the agency.[9] However, taxation and other alcohol issues remained priorities as ATF collected billions of dollars in alcohol and tobacco taxes, and undertook major revisions of the federal wine labeling regulations relating to use of appellations of origin and varietal designations on wine labels.
In the wake of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, on September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In addition to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the law shifted ATF from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice. The agency's name was changed to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. However, the agency still was referred to as the "ATF" for all purposes. Additionally, the task of collection of federal tax revenue derived from the production of tobacco and alcohol products and the regulatory function related to protecting the public in issues related to the production of alcohol, previously handled by the Bureau of Internal Revenue as well as by ATF, was transferred to the newly established Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which remained within the Treasury Department. These changes took effect January 24, 2003.
Yes, the AFT became an independent bureau in 1972, but you're missing the "The Bureau and it's predecessors" line. The ATF as we know it today is the end result of over 200 years of federal law enforcement, with a majority of that time spent in as a part of the Treasury. Besides, the stuff you are copying and pasting doesn't support your claim that "the BATF&E came about after prohibition, they had all these agents about to be out of work" as the Volstead Act was repealed by the Blaine Act in 1933, some 39 years before the ATF became an independent bureau.
Also, I don't need you to copy and paste. I know what the ATF is and I can read.
I'm not hopping into the discussion over whether to defund the ATF or blame Obama or whatnot.
I just find the idea that banning a certain type of ammunition because it meets a specific regulatory statute regarding metal content and its ability to defeat L2 or L3a body armor to be asinine when *any* type of ammunition of the round in question will defeat L2 & L3a body armor, regardless of metal content or design intent, simply because such armor was never intended to provide protection against weapons that would fire such a caliber in the first place.
It's one of those regulatory things where the letter of the law is overrunning the common sense of the people involved and the reality of the situation.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I recounted our POTUS's disdain for firearms, and his attempts to reduce gun ownership. You tried to brand it as "paranoid". I think I can safely end this discussion with you at this point.
You're right, it is paranoid. Because, again, actions speak louder than words. And what do your own sources say? That back in 2013 Obama talked about gun control. And what exactly did he do after that? Absolutely nothing. It never went beyond talk, and once the previous shooting left the front page of the news everyone forgot about those gun control proposals. Because it turns out that nobody has any interest in using gun control as more than a propaganda stunt to appeal to certain left-leaning voters.
Also, let's not forget that the previous republican president also expressed similar support for bans on "assault weapons", so this isn't limited to Obama and the democrats.
Talk is still a dangerous thing. And believe me, if they actually felt they could get that legislation passed they would do so. And besides, they're not stupid. They know they have to chip away slowly with minor regulation and grandstanding. They're playing a long game. We should have none of it.
Grey Templar wrote: Talk is still a dangerous thing. And believe me, if they actually felt they could get that legislation passed they would do so. And besides, they're not stupid. They know they have to chip away slowly with minor regulation and grandstanding. They're playing a long game. We should have none of it.
Considering Obama is near the end of his term and Republicans hold house majority, I don't think gun owners should be that concerned about it. If Obama wanted to take away all the gunz, he would've tried to push more rather than pushing Obamacare.
Grey Templar wrote: And believe me, if they actually felt they could get that legislation passed they would do so.
So why didn't they do it back in 2009 when they had control of both houses of congress and a president who was supposedly eager to sign any gun control laws congress could produce? Why didn't they stop talking about it and start taking some guns away? The indisputable fact is that the democrats had a perfect opportunity to pass all the gun control laws they could invent and instead they did nothing but talk. The people panic buying the entire inventory of every gun store in their area did way more to limit access to guns than Obama's supposed "gun control agenda".
Grey Templar wrote: And believe me, if they actually felt they could get that legislation passed they would do so.
So why didn't they do it back in 2009 when they had control of both houses of congress and a president who was supposedly eager to sign any gun control laws congress could produce? Why didn't they stop talking about it and start taking some guns away? The indisputable fact is that the democrats had a perfect opportunity to pass all the gun control laws they could invent and instead they did nothing but talk. The people panic buying the entire inventory of every gun store in their area did way more to limit access to guns than Obama's supposed "gun control agenda".
because there are actually a fair few democrats who oppose gun control AND at that time it would still have been political suicide to attempt. Just because your party has control doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Grey Templar wrote: because there are actually a fair few democrats who oppose gun control AND at that time it would still have been political suicide to attempt. Just because your party has control doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Ok, now what reason is there to believe that either of these things will change in the foreseeable future?
Grey Templar wrote: And believe me, if they actually felt they could get that legislation passed they would do so.
So why didn't they do it back in 2009 when they had control of both houses of congress and a president who was supposedly eager to sign any gun control laws congress could produce? Why didn't they stop talking about it and start taking some guns away? The indisputable fact is that the democrats had a perfect opportunity to pass all the gun control laws they could invent and instead they did nothing but talk. The people panic buying the entire inventory of every gun store in their area did way more to limit access to guns than Obama's supposed "gun control agenda".
because there are actually a fair few democrats who oppose gun control AND at that time it would still have been political suicide to attempt. Just because your party has control doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Yep. Instead, push gun control when your party leader is almost out of office and you hold, what, a 2-3 majority? That makes sense Besides, factoring in those few Democrats who oppose gun control, that pushes minority further.
Grey Templar wrote: because there are actually a fair few democrats who oppose gun control AND at that time it would still have been political suicide to attempt. Just because your party has control doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Ok, now what reason is there to believe that either of these things will change in the foreseeable future?
Its not because things will change, its because they might change. We have to be guarded against the possibility.
Ouze wrote: You're not gonna sell a lot of guns with that kinda talk, son.
Oh, sorry. "Obama wants to melt my guns down into free healthcare, social security, and jobs for the illegals!!!" Am I doing it rite?
I hear that Obama wants everybody to have more guns, because people who get shot or shoot themselves will need health care so they are more likely to buy health insurance and keep ObamaCare alive!
So if we assume that actions speak louder than words and look at what Obama and his party have done recently, instead of what they have talked about doing and then ignored once the latest shooting was forgotten, we have two things:
1) They ended or tried to end a couple of programs that gun owners benefited from, which is only "gun control" if you assume that you have a right to have the federal government sell you cheap guns and ammunition.
2) They allowed the CDC to research gun violence, which is only "gun control" if you assume that you have a right to enforce a rule that your tax money can't be spent on researching things you don't want the government to learn about.
Administration has done nothing to attempt to advance gun control;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/obama-gun-control-speech-_n_3040363.html "Obama is hoping to build support among lawmakers for several gun control measures, including universal background checks for gun buyers. The Senate is expected to take up gun control legislation as early as this week.
The president has invited 11 parents of children killed in Newtown to fly back to Washington with him aboard Air Force One after his speech. The parents are set to lobby Congress this week for gun control measures, although it may be too late to rescue major legislation sought by Obama.
Some of Obama's proposals - reinstating a U.S. ban on assault weapons and cracking down on high-capacity ammunition clips - already appear to have little chance of passing the Democratic-led Senate, let alone the Republican-controlled House of Representatives."
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16544842-obama-unveils-sweeping-new-gun-control-proposals?lite "While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil," Obama said at a mid-day announcement at the White House, "if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it.
. . .
Some of the main legislative proposals backed by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are:
requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales
banning "military-style" assault weapons
limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
strengthening penalties for gun trafficking "
I recounted our POTUS's disdain for firearms, and his attempts to reduce gun ownership. You tried to brand it as "paranoid". I think I can safely end this discussion with you at this point.
If the ATF is going to ban anything, they should ban the verbal thrashing Peregrine just received.
@Peregrine: The bottom line here is the ATF claims AR pistols with M855 are a clear and definite threat to law enforcement, which would warrant the banning of this type of munition due to its armor piercing nature despite numerous flaws in their reasoning.
Here is an example of what we're talking about. This armor is soft body armor, but it serves as a decent example of what a standard 5.56 ball round cartridge can do to an officer's armor when fired out of an AR pistol towards the end of the video, 4:50.
The Airman wrote: If the ATF is going to ban anything, they should ban the verbal thrashing Peregrine just received.
Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?
@Peregrine: The bottom line here is the ATF claims AR pistols with M855 are a clear and definite threat to law enforcement, which would warrant the banning of this type of munition due to its armor piercing nature despite numerous flaws in their reasoning.
And you'll notice that I never said these bullets should be banned. I just pointed out two things:
1) The law banning them already exists and is not some new attack by Obama. Armor-piercing bullets are not legal unless they have a specific "sporting purpose" exemption. The only change here is saying "yes, the armor-piercing variety of 5.56mm ammunition is in fact armor-piercing". It doesn't make any sense when applied to rifle ammunition, but if you want to be outraged about it then get your target right.
2) Acting like this is the first step in Obama banning all of our guns (as the article in the OP does) is blatantly dishonest. Obama is not banning all AR-15s, or banning all 5.56mm ammunition. The only ban here applies to one specific type of bullet, and the only reason anyone cares is that it happens to be one of the cheaper varieties. It's a stupid ban, but it's not even close to the end of the world like certain people want to portray it.
Da krimson barun wrote: Thanks.Very helpful.You import Irish whiskey because its better then yours I guess.Also because it isnt designed to kill people. Maybe because you dont need to reference a law that says only well organized militias can have it.
I'm only three generations removed from the homeland (great grandparents immigrated) and I don't think the Irish even make the best whiskey in the UK. If you think Irish Whiskey is better than some Kentucky bourbon, you're just fooling yourself. And I love some Bushmill's 16.
I never said it was the best.I dont drink.I assume its better then yours otherwise why import it?
Peregrine wrote: You're right, it is paranoid. Because, again, actions speak louder than words. And what do your own sources say? That back in 2013 Obama talked about gun control. And what exactly did he do after that? Absolutely nothing. It never went beyond talk, and once the previous shooting left the front page of the news everyone forgot about those gun control proposals. Because it turns out that nobody has any interest in using gun control as more than a propaganda stunt to appeal to certain left-leaning voters.
Also, let's not forget that the previous republican president also expressed similar support for bans on "assault weapons", so this isn't limited to Obama and the democrats.
Against my better judgement; he did more than just talk about it. The evidence I showed goes back to before his presidency. And he did attempt gun control. He failed.
Before you make any more attempts to turn this into a partisan issue I also take exception to Republicans who favour gun control.
Da krimson barun wrote: Thanks.Very helpful.You import Irish whiskey because its better then yours I guess.Also because it isnt designed to kill people. Maybe because you dont need to reference a law that says only well organized militias can have it.
I'm only three generations removed from the homeland (great grandparents immigrated) and I don't think the Irish even make the best whiskey in the UK. If you think Irish Whiskey is better than some Kentucky bourbon, you're just fooling yourself. And I love some Bushmill's 16.
I never said it was the best.I dont drink.I assume its better then yours otherwise why import it?
Peregrine wrote: Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?
Except for trying to pass them in increments after Newtown. That was testing the water for further measures. He failed
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-takes-senate-task-failed-gun-control-measure/story?id=18981374 'President Obama accused members of Congress of having "a pretty shameful day in Washington," a reaction to the Senate's failure to pass a key gun control measure that would have expanded background checks."
"As anticipated, the Senate also failed to pass the assault weapons ban, by a vote of 40-60." - that isn't just expressing support for curtailing rights. That is an active attempt to enact gun control. Actions, as you said, speak louder than words.
After that do you think that this Administration decided to listen to the will of the people?
"Biden, who was presiding over the Senate and announced the vote on background checks, reacted with scorn, saying: "This is far from over. This is far from over." "
But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. "
So I'm probably way behind and this joke has already been made, but what will we do when the fallout occurs? We'll have no ammo for our Assault Rifles or our Chinese Assault rifles! THINK OF THE PLAYER CHARACTERS!
Spoiler:
Fallout 3 joke
Jokes aside I haven't read through the whole thread. SO I'm just gonna post my opinion based on the 1st few posts. If this goes through. Well darn. Obama trying to butcher our rights as American Citizens. This whole gun control thing is BS. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns just made is a whole lot easier.
Holder does admit to one failure as Attorney General. When asked about the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, he replied:
“It was the worst day I had as Attorney General. It is, I think, the single failure that I point to in my time as Attorney General, that I was not able to…convince Congress to really follow the will of the American people, which is to enact meaningful, reasonable gun safety measures. The gun lobby simply won, you know.”
Holder does admit to one failure as Attorney General. When asked about the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, he replied:
“It was the worst day I had as Attorney General. It is, I think, the single failure that I point to in my time as Attorney General, that I was not able to…convince Congress to really follow the will of the American people, which is to enact meaningful, reasonable gun safety measures. The gun lobby simply won, you know.”
Not to sound like a jackass, but if I'm given the choice between feeling sorry for not having done enough to prevent the death of one agent or feeling sorry for not having done enough to prevent a school shooting, then the agent is going to draw the short straw every time. Same with the mentally ill man and their many fethed up sting operations. I would worry about you if you feel like you were in a position to prevent the deaths of that many children during your tenure and you don't feel any regret over your percieved failure to prevent those deaths.
Besides, if the anti-gun-control arguments are actually true, then the agent would still be dead anyway because guns don't kill people and the cartel would have just found another way to kill him.
The pro-gun crowd really needs to stop with the bi-polar argument of "guns don't kill people/these guns killed the agent/people will find a way to kill without guns/this agent wouldn't have died if they didn't get these guns".
d-usa wrote: Not to sound like a jackass, but if I'm given the choice between feeling sorry for not having done enough to prevent the death of one agent or feeling sorry for not having done enough to prevent a school shooting, then the agent is going to draw the short straw every time. Same with the mentally ill man and their many fethed up sting operations. I would worry about you if you feel like you were in a position to prevent the deaths of that many children during your tenure and you don't feel any regret over your percieved failure to prevent those deaths.
Besides, if the anti-gun-control arguments are actually true, then the agent would still be dead anyway because guns don't kill people and the cartel would have just found another way to kill him.
The pro-gun crowd really needs to stop with the bi-polar argument of "guns don't kill people/these guns killed the agent/people will find a way to kill without guns/this agent wouldn't have died if they didn't get these guns".
The Administration is on record saying that their proposed legislation would not have stopped Newtown. So your argument doesn't even get off the starting blocks. The Isla Vista killer obtained firearms under much tougher legislation than was in force in Connecticut. That did nothing to stop him. Instead this Administration, and others in favour of gun control, used the if-it-saves-just-one-life line of argument. So if it saves just one life then the ATF clearly shouldn't be giving guns to the cartels. Or stopping people from being able to defend themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm gonna be that guy: where in the constitution is the right to ammunition established?
It is entirely implicit or else the Amendment is worthless. Sort of like saying you have free speech, but cannot use the internet, telephone, etc. to share your views.
d-usa wrote: Not to sound like a jackass, but if I'm given the choice between feeling sorry for not having done enough to prevent the death of one agent or feeling sorry for not having done enough to prevent a school shooting, then the agent is going to draw the short straw every time. Same with the mentally ill man and their many fethed up sting operations. I would worry about you if you feel like you were in a position to prevent the deaths of that many children during your tenure and you don't feel any regret over your percieved failure to prevent those deaths.
Besides, if the anti-gun-control arguments are actually true, then the agent would still be dead anyway because guns don't kill people and the cartel would have just found another way to kill him.
The pro-gun crowd really needs to stop with the bi-polar argument of "guns don't kill people/these guns killed the agent/people will find a way to kill without guns/this agent wouldn't have died if they didn't get these guns".
The Administration is on record saying that their proposed legislation would not have stopped Newtown. So your argument doesn't even get off the starting blocks. The Isla Vista killer obtained firearms under much tougher legislation than was in force in Connecticut. That did nothing to stop him. Instead this Administration, and others in favour of gun control, used the if-it-saves-just-one-life line of argument. So if it saves just one life then the ATF clearly shouldn't be giving guns to the cartels. Or stopping people from being able to defend themselves.
Which still does not mean that Holder can't feel bad about not having been able to anything to prevent those kids from getting killed.
It also doesn't change the fact that pro 2nd groups keep saying that guns don't kill people/these guns killed the agent/people will find a way to kill without guns/this agent wouldn't have died if they didn't get these guns. It doesn't matter what argument Obama/Holden/Whoever makes because that is the argument that the pro-gun crowds are making.
d-usa wrote: Which still does not mean that Holder can't feel bad about not having been able to anything to prevent those kids from getting killed.
It also doesn't change the fact that pro 2nd groups keep saying that guns don't kill people/these guns killed the agent/people will find a way to kill without guns/this agent wouldn't have died if they didn't get these guns. It doesn't matter what argument Obama/Holden/Whoever makes because that is the argument that the pro-gun crowds are making.
He didn't care about the kids. His agenda was gun control. He failed.
Perhaps the agent would have still been killed by the cartel. At least the US government would not have helped kill one of their own agents, or countless others south of the border.
He didn't care about the kids. His agenda was gun control. He failed.
Pure speculation.
Perhaps the agent would have still been killed by the cartel. At least the US government would not have helped kill one of their own agents, or countless others south of the border.
If you believe that the US government helped kill one of their own agents then you are making the argument that guns do kill people. Every anti-gun argument that invokes the guy just ends up making the case for gun control.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm gonna be that guy: where in the constitution is the right to ammunition established?
It's just part of the whole "bear arms" package, since arms without ammo are pretty damn useless.
What, can't you just use a kitchen knife? If people want to injure someone they'll find a way, no?
You can injure people with anything, but the 2nd is not just about injuring people it's about being able to defend yourself even if you have to injure someone in the process.
And guns are just that much better at injuring people than a knife or a hammer or a baseball bat. That's why I carry one.
He didn't care about the kids. His agenda was gun control. He failed.
Pure speculation.
No, they just know, man.
Perhaps the agent would have still been killed by the cartel. At least the US government would not have helped kill one of their own agents, or countless others south of the border.
If you believe that the US government helped kill one of their own agents then you are making the argument that guns do kill people. Every anti-gun argument that invokes the guy just ends up making the case for gun control.
D, here is a visual representation of the phenomena you are describing:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm gonna be that guy: where in the constitution is the right to ammunition established?
It's just part of the whole "bear arms" package, since arms without ammo are pretty damn useless.
What, can't you just use a kitchen knife? If people want to injure someone they'll find a way, no?
You can injure people with anything, but the 2nd is not just about injuring people it's about being able to defend yourself even if you have to injure someone in the process.
And guns are just that much better at injuring people than a knife or a hammer or a baseball bat. That's why I carry one.
No its not. The 2nd Amendment is about the right to be armed for the purposes of overthrowing a tyrannical government.
The right to defend yourself is one of those inalienable rights that isn't defined in the constitution because its a blatantly obvious basic human right to anyone with a brain. The founders would have found the idea of putting it in to be as dumb as suggesting to put in a right to breath air.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: "As anticipated, the Senate also failed to pass the assault weapons ban, by a vote of 40-60." - that isn't just expressing support for curtailing rights. That is an active attempt to enact gun control. Actions, as you said, speak louder than words.
Sigh. Did you miss the "as expected" part of that? If your bill fails by a 60-40 margin you never had any chance of success, and unless you're a complete moron (and Obama isn't) you're going to know it has no chance of success. Obama did his token "think of the children" bill after a horrible shooting that left people demanding more gun control, and then once everyone moved on to the next big story Obama made no effort to try again. Making one token attempt at gun control and then saying "well, we tried, guess this won't work" is hardly the sign of someone determined to take away all of our guns.
Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. "
Ok, more words and vague promises of gun control. Now can you point to any actions the Obama administration did to "protect our communities" and ban guns? Or was this just more empty talk to keep a particular kind of voter pressing the "democrat" button?
Grey Templar wrote: No its not. The 2nd Amendment is about the right to be armed for the purposes of overthrowing a tyrannical government.
Then it's time to get rid of it. This situation is never going to happen, so there's no reason to have a law protecting the "right" to do it.
The right to defend yourself is one of those inalienable rights that isn't defined in the constitution because its a blatantly obvious basic human right to anyone with a brain. The founders would have found the idea of putting it in to be as dumb as suggesting to put in a right to breath air.
And I guess it's an inalienable right to be allowed to own whatever weapons you want just in case you have to exercise your right to self defense?
Grey Templar wrote: No its not. The 2nd Amendment is about the right to be armed for the purposes of overthrowing a tyrannical government.
Then it's time to get rid of it. This situation is never going to happen, so there's no reason to have a law protecting the "right" to do it.
Thats a pretty strong assertion.
The right to defend yourself is one of those inalienable rights that isn't defined in the constitution because its a blatantly obvious basic human right to anyone with a brain. The founders would have found the idea of putting it in to be as dumb as suggesting to put in a right to breath air.
And I guess it's an inalienable right to be allowed to own whatever weapons you want just in case you have to exercise your right to self defense?
d-usa wrote: Not to sound like a jackass, but if I'm given the choice between feeling sorry for not having done enough to prevent the death of one agent or feeling sorry for not having done enough to prevent a school shooting, then the agent is going to draw the short straw every time. Same with the mentally ill man and their many fethed up sting operations. I would worry about you if you feel like you were in a position to prevent the deaths of that many children during your tenure and you don't feel any regret over your percieved failure to prevent those deaths.
Besides, if the anti-gun-control arguments are actually true, then the agent would still be dead anyway because guns don't kill people and the cartel would have just found another way to kill him.
The pro-gun crowd really needs to stop with the bi-polar argument of "guns don't kill people/these guns killed the agent/people will find a way to kill without guns/this agent wouldn't have died if they didn't get these guns".
The Administration is on record saying that their proposed legislation would not have stopped Newtown. So your argument doesn't even get off the starting blocks. The Isla Vista killer obtained firearms under much tougher legislation than was in force in Connecticut. That did nothing to stop him. Instead this Administration, and others in favour of gun control, used the if-it-saves-just-one-life line of argument. So if it saves just one life then the ATF clearly shouldn't be giving guns to the cartels. Or stopping people from being able to defend themselves.
Which still does not mean that Holder can't feel bad about not having been able to anything to prevent those kids from getting killed.
It also doesn't change the fact that pro 2nd groups keep saying that guns don't kill people/these guns killed the agent/people will find a way to kill without guns/this agent wouldn't have died if they didn't get these guns. It doesn't matter what argument Obama/Holden/Whoever makes because that is the argument that the pro-gun crowds are making.
Ok, so if you want to know if guns kill people, it should be a fairly simple thing to prove. Though, really, it's kind of a loaded question. It's phrased in a very imprecise way designed to meet political agendas (for conservatives, it's guns don't kill people, people kill people, for liberals it's the opposite).
Really, what the question should be is "does low standards of gun ownership lead to high violent crime rates?" Not I didn't specify violent gun crime, simply violent crime. While superficially it might seem beneficial to minimize gun crime specifically, it's actually quite irrelevant if criminal just start beating people to death with baseball bats, or knifing people, etc. This a bit of a can of worms, but do a little digging and you'll find this is pretty much exactly what happens: ban guns, and criminals replace any reduction in gun violence with either illegal guns from the black market or with alternative means of violence (arson, knives, bombs, etc).
Since we want to isolate gun ownership rates and violent crime rates, you can start by simply graphing the two. I've done it before, though I don't have the excel spreadsheet anymore. It looks pretty interesting. Basically, all the western nations (USA included) are extremely low on the violent crime axis, scattered all across the ownership axis. Some nations have very high gun ownership yet virtually zero crime, some have low ownership and very little crime, etc. The USA has higher crime rates than most western nations, but considering that we own a laughably absurd number of guns relative to literally everone else on the list we're not getting much of a clear correlation here, especially when you look at the nations with high violent crime rates. Turns out, almost as a universal rule, high violence nations fall very, very low on the gun ownership axis. Now, the data is extremely scattered. There is no statistical correlation here that you can draw. Gun ownership does not lead to violent crime, but neither do we find any evidence that it prevents it. The corrrelation coefficient is too low to draw any reasonable conclusions.
So, do a little research and contrary to the political message of both liberals and conservatives, you quickly find there isn't any correlation between gun ownership rates and violent crime globally. What about on a more local level?
Within the USA, you find some weird trends in the data as well. Roughly 50% of all homicides are committed by roughly 10% of the population (to be blunt, African Americans), and that 10% has far lower gun ownership rates than other ethnic groups in the USA. In fact, blacks commit roughly 8 times the number of violent crimes as whites, despite owning less than half the number of firearms. Meanwhile, hispanics have very low homicide rates while have a similarly low gun ownership rate.
Well, that's kind of weird. I wonder if there might be something else explaining why there are such discrepancies between racial group's gun ownership and violent crime rates? Maybe something cultural, or socio-economic, that might lead a more impoverished group to commit more crimes despite not being able to afford as many firearms? Do you actually need me to answer that question?
Violence is cultural. It has nothing to do with how many guns you have access to, and absolutely everything to do with the way you are raised, the environment you grow up in, and the things you choose to do with your life.
Side note: I'll also note that AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms account for a tiny percentage of crime in the USA. Handguns are used in nearly 85% of all gun-related crimes, the remaining 15% is scattered fairly evenly between various classifications of long arms (shotguns, hunting rifles, semi-autos, etc).
The right to defend yourself is one of those inalienable rights that isn't defined in the constitution because its a blatantly obvious basic human right to anyone with a brain.
No, that's wrong. While the right to self-defense may be considered inalienable it is not protected by the Constitution, and it has been well established that the Constitution merely protects rights.
As a side note, it should be pointed out that violent crime in the US is decreasing at a pretty large rate. Gun ownership remains high relative to other countries.
The right to defend yourself is one of those inalienable rights that isn't defined in the constitution because its a blatantly obvious basic human right to anyone with a brain.
No, that's wrong. While the right to self-defense may be considered inalienable it is not protected by the Constitution, and it has been well established that the Constitution merely protects rights.
Isn't that what I said? Its not in the Constitution because the Founders would never have fathomed anyone thinking you didn't have the right to protect yourself.
Back then if someone attacked you and you shot them nobody blinked.
Isn't that what I said? Its not in the Constitution because the Founders would never have fathomed anyone thinking you didn't have the right to protect yourself.
No, it isn't.
It isn't in the Constitution because it isn't in the Constitution. You're blatantly trying to add things to the document in order to suit an agenda.
Peregrine wrote: Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?
Yes, it is a thrashing. And yes, the political left does have an anti-firearm agenda. It's not paranoia if they've said it themselves; refer to Dreadclaw69 for some learnin'.
And you'll notice that I never said these bullets should be banned. I just pointed out two things:
1) The law banning them already exists and is not some new attack by Obama. Armor-piercing bullets are not legal unless they have a specific "sporting purpose" exemption. The only change here is saying "yes, the armor-piercing variety of 5.56mm ammunition is in fact armor-piercing". It doesn't make any sense when applied to rifle ammunition, but if you want to be outraged about it then get your target right.
2) Acting like this is the first step in Obama banning all of our guns (as the article in the OP does) is blatantly dishonest. Obama is not banning all AR-15s, or banning all 5.56mm ammunition. The only ban here applies to one specific type of bullet, and the only reason anyone cares is that it happens to be one of the cheaper varieties. It's a stupid ban, but it's not even close to the end of the world like certain people want to portray it.
Peregrine, let's be honest here. I never said YOU wanted them banned, only that the ATF did. That's the bottom line here, the gov't wants them gone. Additionally, did you know that AP ammunition is expensive to manufacture and is not cost effective because it's rarely used by militaries to begin with? Well, that's what I was told but I dunno. It could be paranoid right wing propaganda! Spooky!
@1) M855 is used for sporting or plinking purposes by the American civilian populace. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. Otherwise, shut up.
@2) Again, the political left does have an agenda against firearms. I'm not sure how you can blatantly deny this. Obama has said it himself, but then you have other characters like Charles Shumer, Hillary Clinton and even Feinstein. Banning things for firearms always opens the door for future bans and campaign. As I have stated, there are many in the firearms community who are concerned the government will target bimetal (steel case) or even Soviet calibers due to their capacity to penetrate the rather lacking armor of law enforcement in this country. Call me crazy, call me insane, call me whatever until you're blue in the face. But it's a legitimate concern considering there are also plenty of people who just want firearms gone to begin with. I like to err on the side of caution as a Libertarian. "Don't touch my stuff, it's none of your business, nor your concern." is my motto in life.
Peregrine wrote: Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?
Yes, it is a thrashing. And yes, the political left does have an anti-firearm agenda. It's not paranoia if they've said it themselves; refer to Dreadclaw69 for some learnin'.
.
Clearly American politicians only ever state things that they honestly believe in, and refrain from any of the empty political posturing, lie-filled manifestos, and half truths we endure over here in Britain. It must be a great thing to belong to a nation where you can take the word of a politician as a gospel truth without having to try and discern deeper motives.
Peregrine wrote: Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?
Yes, it is a thrashing. And yes, the political left does have an anti-firearm agenda. It's not paranoia if they've said it themselves; refer to Dreadclaw69 for some learnin'.
Clearly American politicians only ever state things that they honestly believe in, and refrain from any of the empty political posturing, lie-filled manifestos, and half truths we endure over here in Britain. It must be a great thing to belong to a nation where you can take the word of a politician as a gospel truth without having to try and discern deeper motives.
Peregrine wrote: Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?
Yes, it is a thrashing. And yes, the political left does have an anti-firearm agenda. It's not paranoia if they've said it themselves; refer to Dreadclaw69 for some learnin'.
.
Clearly American politicians only ever state things that they honestly believe in, and refrain from any of the empty political posturing, lie-filled manifestos, and half truths we endure over here in Britain. It must be a great thing to belong to a nation where you can take the word of a politician as a gospel truth without having to try and discern deeper motives.
I don't know, this one got a lot of support from figures like Obama. I implied the duplicity of politicians, not the honesty -- but nice misrepresentation of what I said, however.
Peregrine wrote: Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?
Yes, it is a thrashing. And yes, the political left does have an anti-firearm agenda. It's not paranoia if they've said it themselves; refer to Dreadclaw69 for some learnin'.
.
Clearly American politicians only ever state things that they honestly believe in, and refrain from any of the empty political posturing, lie-filled manifestos, and half truths we endure over here in Britain. It must be a great thing to belong to a nation where you can take the word of a politician as a gospel truth without having to try and discern deeper motives.
I don't know, this one got a lot of support from figures like Obama. I implied the duplicity of politicians, not the honesty -- but nice misrepresentation of what I said, however.
Misrepresentation? I was merely congratulating you on having a nation that has successfully advanced beyond any need for interpretation of political motives. I think it must be a wonderful thing.
The right to defend yourself is one of those inalienable rights that isn't defined in the constitution because its a blatantly obvious basic human right to anyone with a brain.
Isn't that what I said? Its not in the Constitution because the Founders would never have fathomed anyone thinking you didn't have the right to protect yourself.
Back then if someone attacked you and you shot them nobody blinked.
It seems quite clear that you want the Constitution to protect things that it does not, pretending that said document implies whatever you want it to.
So when people argue that they have a constitutional right to carry a gun on their hip, they are arguing that they have a constitutional right to protect themselves in case they run into the Queen while she is in the process of taking the colonies back, or to shoot a politician that is just a bit too tyranical of they see him on the street?
Because if the right to shoot a guy trying to rob you isn't part of the 2nd, since it's inaliable and the 2nd only covers protection from tyrants and government, then I need my single shot .22 in case I run into the crown prince of Austria.
The right to defend yourself is one of those inalienable rights that isn't defined in the constitution because its a blatantly obvious basic human right to anyone with a brain.
Isn't that what I said? Its not in the Constitution because the Founders would never have fathomed anyone thinking you didn't have the right to protect yourself.
Back then if someone attacked you and you shot them nobody blinked.
It seems quite clear that you want the Constitution to protect things that it does not, pretending that said document implies whatever you want it to.
Again, my posts really don't say what you think they're saying.
I never claimed it was in the Constitution, and my posts don't say otherwise.
And a pretty accurate one. I have yet to see any proposed scenario where armed revolution by civilians with their own weapons is both justified and possible.
Yes.
So you support the right to own a nuclear weapon for defense?
And a pretty accurate one. I have yet to see any proposed scenario where armed revolution by civilians with their own weapons is both justified and possible.
Well this country exists for starters because of that.
Yes, it got support, but not enough support from its own party to pass. And it's a pretty safe assumption that all of the party leadership knew that the bill would fail, because part of running a political party is knowing which way your members are going to vote before you ever have an official vote. They made their token effort to say "look, we're trying to do something about those evil guns" in the aftermath of a shooting that left a lot of people screaming for gun control, and then they did absolutely nothing to get the bill passed. A party that really wants something done doesn't just put a bill up for vote and then say "well, I guess that didn't work" when it fails. They lobby, they make deals, etc, until they either have enough votes or they're out of office. So we can conclude from this that Obama and the rest of the democrats are willing to offer a lot of empty talk about how nice gun control is, but when it comes to actually passing gun control laws they don't give a about it as long as their voters are distracted by some other news story.
I'm talking about a revolution NOW, not a revolution with 1700s technology against an enemy on the other side of an ocean.
Also, you didn't answer the question about owning a nuclear weapon: do you support the right to own one for self defense and/or protection against the government?
I'm talking about a revolution NOW, not a revolution with 1700s technology against an enemy on the other side of an ocean.
Yup... I totally believe it can happen.
Do I think I'll see it in my lifetime? Not even close.
Also, you didn't answer the question about owning a nuclear weapon: do you support the right to own one for self defense and/or protection against the government?
Classic strawman.
To answer that question... nope. It's illegal under some act I can't remember right now....
EDIT: found it... it's under: Title 18 USC Section 921
Then could you describe a plausible situation where it does? Please be sure to include information about why the revolution is justified, and how the civilians with private weapons aren't just slaughtered.
Classic strawman.
It's not a strawman, it's a demonstration of the fact that nobody believes that the right to own weapons should be truly unlimited. We all agree that some kind of limits are necessary, we're just debating exactly which kinds of weapons should be illegal and which should be banned. So talking about the second amendment as some kind of absolute right to ownership of any weapon you want is not useful.
I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.
Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.
If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.
I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.
Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.
If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.
Ok, so let's use a different example then if you think nobody will ever get a nuke: fighter jets. If you're going to fight a revolution against the government you'll probably need some, so they certainly qualify as a defensive weapon. And you can buy them fairly cheap (MIG-21 for under $200k, guns not included). But because of the unfortunate history of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft flown by under-qualified pilots the FAA has some pretty strict laws about who can fly one, where you can fly it, etc. Do you think that this is a sensible approach to regulating a dangerous weapon, or do you think that the FAA's rules are a violation of your second amendment rights?
Peregrine wrote: Ok, so let's use a different example then if you think nobody will ever get a nuke: fighter jets. If you're going to fight a revolution against the government you'll probably need some, so they certainly qualify as a defensive weapon. And you can buy them fairly cheap (MIG-21 for under $200k, guns not included). But because of the unfortunate history of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft flown by under-qualified pilots the FAA has some pretty strict laws about who can fly one, where you can fly it, etc. Do you think that this is a sensible approach to regulating a dangerous weapon, or do you think that the FAA's rules are a violation of your second amendment rights?
You won't need fighter jets to topple the government.
You fight them by blending into the civilian population and conducting a guerrilla war. That eliminates the usefulness of a lot of military hardware which is only practical against another armed military force.
The government can't take the drastic actions necessary to root you out because that would involve alienating the entire population, by way of indiscriminate killings and brutal oppression. Which only fuels the rebellion more, and causes the soldiers in your army to like you less(after all they're citizens too, they have families in the population)
Besides, owning fighter jets isn't illegal as you pointed out. Anyone can buy them and learn to fly them. And fighter jets aren't weapons, the machine guns and missiles they carry are the actual weapons.
Peregrine wrote: Ok, so let's use a different example then if you think nobody will ever get a nuke: fighter jets. If you're going to fight a revolution against the government you'll probably need some, so they certainly qualify as a defensive weapon. And you can buy them fairly cheap (MIG-21 for under $200k, guns not included). But because of the unfortunate history of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft flown by under-qualified pilots the FAA has some pretty strict laws about who can fly one, where you can fly it, etc. Do you think that this is a sensible approach to regulating a dangerous weapon, or do you think that the FAA's rules are a violation of your second amendment rights?
I don't *think* nobody will ever get a nuke - it's almost certain that a lone private citizen couldn't manufacture one. Look at Iran - the whole fething country is behind the push and it's taken them over a decade with underground Dr. Evil laboratories.
Airspace is already regulated. The plane isn't the weapon - the things that go on it are weapons. I don't see a problem with licensing pilots for the exact same reason I don't have a problem with the DMV requiring licensing for drivers' licenses, even though a sedan could be used as a car bomb and that is technically an improvised "arm."
If Cletus wants to own a fething mk82 then more power to him. It'd make a hell of a conversation piece, but I'm not particularly threatened by it. I'm more worried about the guy with tons of fertilizer and nothing to lose.
Grey Templar wrote: You fight them by blending into the civilian population and conducting a guerrilla war.
Which implies that most of the civilian population is against the government and doesn't just turn you in to the secret police. If this is the case then why hasn't the government been voted out of office and replaced? Why hasn't the military intervened to remove such an unpopular government?
The more likely scenario is that the government is still in power because most of the population wants it to be in power, and your guerrilla war has no chance of success.
Besides, owning fighter jets isn't illegal as you pointed out. Anyone can buy them and learn to fly them.
Yes, but only under very strict regulations. Regulations that are pretty comparable to a hypothetical law that you can own an AR-15, but you have to keep it locked up at a licensed gun range and can only use it under the direct supervision of the range officials.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The plane isn't the weapon - the things that go on it are weapons.
This is just nitpicking. By this argument it's fine to ban "assault weapons" because an AR-15 is just a device that holds the bullets, and as long as you're allowed to buy bullets your rights haven't been violated.
I don't see a problem with licensing pilots for the exact same reason I don't have a problem with the DMV requiring licensing for drivers' licenses, even though a sedan could be used as a car bomb and that is technically an improvised "arm."
Ok, so you accept that government regulation of weapons is allowed, and now we're just working out the details of which weapons should be banned or restricted.
If Cletus wants to own a fething mk82 then more power to him. It'd make a hell of a conversation piece, but I'm not particularly threatened by it.
You don't see any problem with unqualified idiots owning a 500lb bomb? I would think it would be pretty obvious why people with no training in handling weapons like that shouldn't be allowed to own them. Do you really want to have Cletus accidentally blow up a whole apartment building and kill all of his neighbors because he thought it would be cool to own a bomb?
Yes, it got support, but not enough support from its own party to pass. And it's a pretty safe assumption that all of the party leadership knew that the bill would fail, because part of running a political party is knowing which way your members are going to vote before you ever have an official vote. They made their token effort to say "look, we're trying to do something about those evil guns" in the aftermath of a shooting that left a lot of people screaming for gun control, and then they did absolutely nothing to get the bill passed. A party that really wants something done doesn't just put a bill up for vote and then say "well, I guess that didn't work" when it fails. They lobby, they make deals, etc, until they either have enough votes or they're out of office. So we can conclude from this that Obama and the rest of the democrats are willing to offer a lot of empty talk about how nice gun control is, but when it comes to actually passing gun control laws they don't give a about it as long as their voters are distracted by some other news story.
I'm not convinced that there isn't a strong, political group that wants to ban firearms all together, or at least post restrictions upon them. This entire time we have demonstrated this to you and you deem it acceptable to just brush it off as paranoia or pandering to demographics.
But, again, you're ignoring the baseline here: can you VERIFY or at least try to prove the ATF's claims on this matter, or are you going to keep redirecting this conversation? M855 isn't currently banned because it's used for plinking and sporting, but is it a legitimate threat to the United States when fired out of AR pattern pistols even when standard rounds do the same thing? That's where the disconnect is -- their reasoning is entirely crap.
Ketara wrote: Misrepresentation? I was merely congratulating you on having a nation that has successfully advanced beyond any need for interpretation of political motives. I think it must be a wonderful thing.
Dear friend, please explain to me how these motives should be interpreted.
And a pretty accurate one. I have yet to see any proposed scenario where armed revolution by civilians with their own weapons is both justified and possible.
Well this country exists for starters because of that.
If you honestly believe that (and I'm sure you do), a history lesson might be of good use to you.
And a pretty accurate one. I have yet to see any proposed scenario where armed revolution by civilians with their own weapons is both justified and possible.
Well this country exists for starters because of that.
If you honestly believe that (and I'm sure you do), a history lesson might be of good use to you.
Real life wasn't a subpar Mel Gibson movie.
Do you honestly think the Revolution wasn't achieved through violent means? I think you're the one in need of a history lessen if thats the case.
Yes, but only under very strict regulations. Regulations that are pretty comparable to a hypothetical law that you can own an AR-15, but you have to keep it locked up at a licensed gun range and can only use it under the direct supervision of the range officials.
The regulations for owning a MIG are different than the regulations for owning a G6?
This is just nitpicking. By this argument it's fine to ban "assault weapons" because an AR-15 is just a device that holds the bullets, and as long as you're allowed to buy bullets your rights haven't been violated.
That's a ridiculous interpretation by any stretch at all. The JET is a VEHICLE. An AR15 is a WEAPON. If you can't see the difference then there really is no purpose continuing to engage you.
What would you call a Toyota Tacoma, a weapon because when you mount a DSHK to it, it becomes a technical?
Ok, so you accept that government regulation of weapons is allowed, and now we're just working out the details of which weapons should be banned or restricted.
No. You fail at reading comprehension. A PLANE is not a WEAPON. A CAR is not a WEAPON. Flying a plane requires a license the same as driving a car.
You don't see any problem with unqualified idiots owning a 500lb bomb? I would think it would be pretty obvious why people with no training in handling weapons like that shouldn't be allowed to own them. Do you really want to have Cletus accidentally blow up a whole apartment building and kill all of his neighbors because he thought it would be cool to own a bomb?
I don't have a problem with someone owning it, assuming they can legally obtain it. General Dynamics is the only company currently certified to manufacture bombs for the military, and it's the seller's discretion as to whether or not they're going to sell to a customer. This precedent can be seen especially in the body armor industry. Plenty of companies won't sell armor to civilians.
This approach to ownership vs. purchase has a precedent - the FDA's regulation of lasers. It's illegal for manufacturers to sell you an IZLID laser, but there are grey market sources you can buy them second hand. Just look at AR15.com...plenty of civilians own high power IZLID and other infrared lasers that will fry your eyeballs in half a second, even though they're VERY difficult to purchase. These guys also live in million dollar houses, and are giant fething nerds. I'm really not worried about them doing anything stupid with them...anyone who can afford an IZLID probably did something right with his life.
Every few years in Israel, they ask citizens to bring back stuff that they stole from the army, no questions asked. Every year they get back TANKS, HELICOPTERS, LAW launchers, things like that. How often do you read about Israelis negligently discharging their Merkava into the neighbor's house? It DOES NOT HAPPEN. Given the number of safety briefings we received in the IDF, and the content, I can tell you that more accidents happen in the military than would ever happen outside of it, among people who have the means to procure expensive and rare items.
Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?
Da krimson barun wrote: Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?
It also says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, and the right to keep and bear arms has consistently been upheld by our courts to be an individual right. Your interpretation is not only uniformed, it is blatantly incorrect.
Da krimson barun wrote: Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?
The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). From the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."
Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]
Da krimson barun wrote: Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?
It's saying that because a well regulated (I.e. trained/competent) militia is a necessity of a free country that the government should not infringe upon the inaliable right of anyone to keep and bear arms. That a person is able to own arms was a given, this amendment was supposed to stop the government from disarming people.
The requirement of having to be "in a militia" is leftist fabrication. Many people are/were, under the militia act, but it is not a prerequisite to owning arms.
Da krimson barun wrote: Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?
It basically came down to the gramatical structure of the ammendment. One side argued that militias are only the recognized militias once they were called up. Another argued that since militias are made up of the people, it is the people that are all potential members of the militia (and not the formal militia once established) that are covered by the 2nd. Both sides point to sentence structures, punctuations in the ammendment itself, prior drafts, non-Constitutional sources to make their case. (This is a pretty simplified explanation of course).
If I remember right that argument did make it to the Supreme Court at one point (ie: what exactly is covered by "militia") and if I remember right 5 SCOTUS judges decided it is everyone and 4 judges disagreed with that. But at this point the judicial interpretation of the 2nd is that it does cover everyone. It could always change in the future, it's not exactly unusual for the court to change their mind, but I wouldn't expect it any time soon.
d-usa wrote: To be fair, he was only one Supreme Court justice away from being right (if I remember that vote right).
Well that and until the 1970's the SC was always on the militia side of the argument, so for most of the US's existence.
SCOTUS can be fickle, something everybody should always remember when using SCOTUS rulings as a justification or the SCOTUS itself as any sort consistent authority.
Peregrine wrote: Ok, so let's use a different example then if you think nobody will ever get a nuke: fighter jets. If you're going to fight a revolution against the government you'll probably need some, so they certainly qualify as a defensive weapon. And you can buy them fairly cheap (MIG-21 for under $200k, guns not included). But because of the unfortunate history of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft flown by under-qualified pilots the FAA has some pretty strict laws about who can fly one, where you can fly it, etc. Do you think that this is a sensible approach to regulating a dangerous weapon, or do you think that the FAA's rules are a violation of your second amendment rights?
A 'fighter' is no more a weapon than a Hummer or a Jeep Wrangler, or a damn Prius, for that matter, because vehicles, despite being able to have firearms (or just things that make things go BOOM) mounted upon them, are not themselves classified as weapons, as their general function is simply to move. This being the case, the Second Amendment has no baring on their regulation.
A bomb, when activated, goes boom. A gun, when activated, goes bang. A jet, when activated, goes roar. They all make noises, yes. The noises made by the first two indicate some level of violent action, and are of themselves destructive. The noise made by the jet indicates that someone turned it on, and is of itself a sign that said jet may or may not be moving. You see the difference, right?
A better argument would be based around grenades, or something similar.
A lot of those rebellions were conducted by paramilitary forces far inferior to the dominant political and/or military powers they sought to overthrow. Many of those were successful. If you do not think that an armed and motivated populace can successfully fight even a modern military power, you have not been paying attention to modern military history. Especially considering that in the context, we would be talking about the US military trying to fight its own people. Desertion and dissent within the ranks could easily cripple the military, political restrictions would probably prevent the military from ever bringing its power to bear, and if revolution is widespread then how is a military that fought for more than a decade to hope to hold Iraq and Afghanistan, who combined are in the ball park the size of California plus Texas, ever hope to maintain any level of control over the entire USA? The success or failure of any civil war within a given country is not based on its military might, but how widespread the will to resist that military is.
I don't have a problem with someone owning it, assuming they can legally obtain it. General Dynamics is the only company currently certified to manufacture bombs for the military, and it's the seller's discretion as to whether or not they're going to sell to a customer. This precedent can be seen especially in the body armor industry. Plenty of companies won't sell armor to civilians.
This approach to ownership vs. purchase has a precedent - the FDA's regulation of lasers. It's illegal for manufacturers to sell you an IZLID laser, but there are grey market sources you can buy them second hand. Just look at AR15.com...plenty of civilians own high power IZLID and other infrared lasers that will fry your eyeballs in half a second, even though they're VERY difficult to purchase. These guys also live in million dollar houses, and are giant fething nerds. I'm really not worried about them doing anything stupid with them...anyone who can afford an IZLID probably did something right with his life.
Every few years in Israel, they ask citizens to bring back stuff that they stole from the army, no questions asked. Every year they get back TANKS, HELICOPTERS, LAW launchers, things like that. How often do you read about Israelis negligently discharging their Merkava into the neighbor's house? It DOES NOT HAPPEN. Given the number of safety briefings we received in the IDF, and the content, I can tell you that more accidents happen in the military than would ever happen outside of it, among people who have the means to procure expensive and rare items.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/01 01:44:48
It's also worth noting that it's perfectly possible to legally own fully automatic weapons, including actual machine guns. There are several hundred thousand floating around the USA, as a matter of fact. Guess how many violent crimes have been committed with a legally owned full automatic firearm in the history of fully automatic firearms in the USA?
One. An off-duty SWAT officer took his submachine gun and killed the guy his wife was having an affair with.
That's the extend of violent crime committed with legally owned fully automatic weapons in the USA over the past 100 years or so. Scary stuff indeed.
Grey Templar wrote: Do you honestly think the Revolution wasn't achieved through violent means? I think you're the one in need of a history lessen if thats the case.
For the record, I've never seen The Patriot.
I didn't say anything about violence nor deny that it was, you know... a war.
It's your characterization of the Revolution it is what is so laughably elementary: "America overthrew the tyrannical British Empire because we had guns." I know it's the right wing fantasy that we won the war because we just loved freedom so damn much. However, that completely ignores the otherwise complex world war that was taking place at the time, that in reality, we were just one part of. We weren't the scrappy underdogs waging a guerrilla war armed only with our patriotism and muskets going up against the full might of the British Empire; despite our early disadvantages, we were evenly pitched on the battlefield, had powerful allies (who also had allies), and in the end got really lucky.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The regulations for owning a MIG are different than the regulations for owning a G6?
Actually they are. The MIG doesn't have a US type certificate, so it's in the "experimental" category and subject to various restrictions that don't apply to a normal civilian aircraft. And then it gets even more restrictions because it's a large jet with a maximum speed over a certain limit. And I bet its emergency checklist contains at least one item where the only solution is "eject", which puts it into the strictest category of restrictions.
That's a ridiculous interpretation by any stretch at all. The JET is a VEHICLE. An AR15 is a WEAPON. If you can't see the difference then there really is no purpose continuing to engage you.
Sorry, but I'm just going to have to laugh at the idea that a MIG-21 with its hardpoints intact is somehow magically not a weapon. Perhaps you'd like to try selling one to North Korea and then explain to the government how it isn't a weapon?
What would you call a Toyota Tacoma, a weapon because when you mount a DSHK to it, it becomes a technical?
Do you understand the difference between a vehicle that can be modified to carry a weapon and a military aircraft designed from the beginning to carry weapons?
I don't have a problem with someone owning it, assuming they can legally obtain it. General Dynamics is the only company currently certified to manufacture bombs for the military, and it's the seller's discretion as to whether or not they're going to sell to a customer. This precedent can be seen especially in the body armor industry. Plenty of companies won't sell armor to civilians.
So do you have a problem with a civilian manufacturing their own equivalent of a Mk 82? Or a new company deciding to enter the market of "paranoid gun nuts who want a bigger bomb than their neighbor" and selling to anyone with the cash to buy a bomb?
Given the number of safety briefings we received in the IDF, and the content, I can tell you that more accidents happen in the military than would ever happen outside of it, among people who have the means to procure expensive and rare items.
Counter example: you know those regulations about owning a MIG-21 I mentioned? They were imposed because a lot of people with more money than training were buying old military aircraft and crashing them. Look at the accident reports and then come back and tell me that putting dangerous weapons in the hands of untrained users is hardly ever going to be a problem.
The Airman wrote: I'm not convinced that there isn't a strong, political group that wants to ban firearms all together, or at least post restrictions upon them. This entire time we have demonstrated this to you and you deem it acceptable to just brush it off as paranoia or pandering to demographics.
It's paranoia because it isn't happening. There's a group that wants to ban all guns, but you know what? They're an irrelevant minority. There are a lot more people in power who either want to keep private ownership of guns or don't give a about the issue beyond the occasional "let's ban the guns" speech to keep the anti-gun voters pressing the "democrat" button every four years.
But, again, you're ignoring the baseline here: can you VERIFY or at least try to prove the ATF's claims on this matter, or are you going to keep redirecting this conversation? M855 isn't currently banned because it's used for plinking and sporting, but is it a legitimate threat to the United States when fired out of AR pattern pistols even when standard rounds do the same thing? That's where the disconnect is -- their reasoning is entirely crap.
I already said that the proposed ban on M855 bullets is a bad policy, and the entire law about armor-piercing rifle bullets is just plain stupid. But that doesn't justify all the paranoid rants about how the sky is falling and Obama is going to ban all of the guns (like the article in the OP claimed). This is a fairly minor change that is based on an existing law, not a new invention by Obama or a major threat to gun owners. In fact, if the M855 bullets weren't one of the cheapest options for 5.56mm hardly anyone would notice they were gone.
The Airman wrote: I'm not convinced that there isn't a strong, political group that wants to ban firearms all together, or at least post restrictions upon them. This entire time we have demonstrated this to you and you deem it acceptable to just brush it off as paranoia or pandering to demographics.
It's paranoia because it isn't happening. There's a group that wants to ban all guns, but you know what? They're an irrelevant minority. There are a lot more people in power who either want to keep private ownership of guns or don't give a about the issue beyond the occasional "let's ban the guns" speech to keep the anti-gun voters pressing the "democrat" button every four years.
But, again, you're ignoring the baseline here: can you VERIFY or at least try to prove the ATF's claims on this matter, or are you going to keep redirecting this conversation? M855 isn't currently banned because it's used for plinking and sporting, but is it a legitimate threat to the United States when fired out of AR pattern pistols even when standard rounds do the same thing? That's where the disconnect is -- their reasoning is entirely crap.
I already said that the proposed ban on M855 bullets is a bad policy, and the entire law about armor-piercing rifle bullets is just plain stupid. But that doesn't justify all the paranoid rants about how the sky is falling and Obama is going to ban all of the guns (like the article in the OP claimed). This is a fairly minor change that is based on an existing law, not a new invention by Obama or a major threat to gun owners. In fact, if the M855 bullets weren't one of the cheapest options for 5.56mm hardly anyone would notice they were gone.
I think you're over reacting buddy.
Obama advocated for more gun control. Publically, numerous times.
So, when the ATF is looking to ban certain ammos (for no apparent justified reasons)... it's no wonder that some of us would think that "the Obama administration" is trying to exert some form of gun control via backdoor method. (ie, no ammo... the AR is just a pretty hunk of metal).
Peregrine wrote: You don't see any problem with unqualified idiots owning a 500lb bomb? I would think it would be pretty obvious why people with no training in handling weapons like that shouldn't be allowed to own them. Do you really want to have Cletus accidentally blow up a whole apartment building and kill all of his neighbors because he thought it would be cool to own a bomb?
Well, in this scenario, the survivors and relatives could simply sue Cletus, or if he also died in the blast, his estate. Once again the government with it's onerous job-killing regulations complicates a simple matter easily solved between sovereign job creators.
whembly wrote: Obama advocated for more gun control. Publically, numerous times.
Have you ever heard the saying "actions speak louder than words"? Obama talked a lot about gun control, but barely made a token attempt (which everyone in the party almost certainly knew was doomed to fail) to do anything about it. That's a sign of someone who knows that an occasional "ban the guns" speech keeps an important group pressing the "democrat" button every four years, not a determined anti-gun crusader who is willing to do whatever it takes to get rid of guns.
(ie, no ammo... the AR is just a pretty hunk of metal).
But we're not even close to that. It's a potential ban on one specific type of ammunition, all of the other varieties of 5.56mm ammunition are untouched. As I said before, if the banned stuff wasn't one of the cheapest options for 5.56mm hardly anyone would even notice the loss.
Peregrine wrote: The ATF is just applying existing laws in a consistent manner. If you don't like what's happening then you should be complaining about the current laws on armor-piercing ammunition, not the proposed reclassification (with good reasons) of one specific type of 5.56mm ammunition.
This. It's a government agency doing their job in accordance with law, if the law is silly it's not the agency's fault that the outcome is silly because they're not supposed to be allowed to ignore laws they don't feel like following.
As a side note, this applies to judges as well. So the next time you ask "how could the Supreme Court rule X", it's because the law says X, even if it probably should be Y.
Why does everyone keep overlooking the fact that XM855 doesn't meet the ATF's own definition of " armor piercing"? The US Army started the development of XM855 in 2005 and started using it in Iraq in 2010. It is specifically a rifle round not a pistol round and therefore doesn't meet the ATF's definition for armor piercing. The fact that pistol AR15s are available on the civilian market doesn't change that fact. It like using the NASCAR truck series as evidence that pickups were designed to be race cars. The classification of XM855 as armor piercing has nothing to do with facts or public safety it is simply a matter of petty vindictive and oppressive politics.
Peregrine wrote: The ATF is just applying existing laws in a consistent manner. If you don't like what's happening then you should be complaining about the current laws on armor-piercing ammunition, not the proposed reclassification (with good reasons) of one specific type of 5.56mm ammunition.
This. It's a government agency doing their job in accordance with law, if the law is silly it's not the agency's fault that the outcome is silly because they're not supposed to be allowed to ignore laws they don't feel like following.
As a side note, this applies to judges as well. So the next time you ask "how could the Supreme Court rule X", it's because the law says X, even if it probably should be Y.
Why does everyone keep overlooking the fact that XM855 doesn't meet the ATF's own definition of " armor piercing"? The US Army started the development of XM855 in 2005 and started using it in Iraq in 2010. It is specifically a rifle round not a pistol round and therefore doesn't meet the ATF's definition for armor piercing. The fact that pistol AR15s are available on the civilian market doesn't change that fact. It like using the NASCAR truck series as evidence that pickups were designed to be race cars. The classification of XM855 as armor piercing has nothing to do with facts or public safety it is simply a matter of petty vindictive and oppressive politics.
Pretty sure your dates are off because I was issued that stuff in the IDF in 2007.
Also pretty sure the X (as in XM) stuff is called "X" specifically because it is factory seconds that aren't issued to soldiers.
Also pretty sure the X (as in XM) stuff is called "X" specifically because it is factory seconds that aren't issued to soldiers.
Actually the X usually designates something as a prototype or experimental, or an improved version.
M855 is the US Military designation of the 5.56×45mm 62-grain ball cartridge with a steel penetrator tip over a lead core in a partial copper jacket. Identifiable by it's green tip, IIRC.
....
And they can pry my magazine fed 90mm F3 out of my cold, dead, turret.
Also pretty sure the X (as in XM) stuff is called "X" specifically because it is factory seconds that aren't issued to soldiers.
Actually the X usually designates something as a prototype or experimental, or an improved version.
M855 is the US Military designation of the 5.56×45mm 62-grain ball cartridge with a steel penetrator tip over a lead core in a partial copper jacket. Identifiable by it's green tip, IIRC.
....
And they can pry my magazine fed 90mm F3 out of my cold, dead, turret.
According to LC, the X designation pertains to factory seconds. You can get the X-designated stuff all day today, nothing experimental about it.
Again, my posts really don't say what you think they're saying.
I think your posts are saying that you want inalienable rights not protected by the Constitution to be protected by the Constitution, and that the Founders' intent should be considered sufficient justification for such protection.
According to LC, the X designation pertains to factory seconds. You can get the X-designated stuff all day today, nothing experimental about it.
I've heard about four different stories on it.
One, that Federal is selling seconds/contract overruns. Federal, btw, has denied this, and the sheer number of them for sale suggests this is untrue.
Two: that it's a civilian version. As far as anyone seems to be able to determine, they're identical.
Three: the 'XM' designation on several rounds currently in service. Typically these are tracers, though some 'improved' rounds seem to still carry the 'X'.
Four, that they're designated surplus following the switch to the M855A1. Given everything else, this one smells the most legit to me.
However, Federal, who slapped the 'XM855' name on it hasn't said one way or the other, other than that they're not seconds or over runs.
I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.
Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.
If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.
What I am hearing is "make it so people can't buy it and people will be less likely to use it to kill others with it". If nuclear weapons became legal to produce and sell, what is stopping a group of patriotic nuclear scientists and engineers setting up the " Atomic Weapon Company" and building and selling weapons using their skills and knowledge to manufacture atomic weapons for home defence, concealed carry (for self defence about town) and sports and hunting?
Then any true blooded American could purchase one and be able to overthrow the government if the people elect someone they don't like into office. And of course, people could purchase them who might not love America, and instead want to use them against the American people! Maybe little Jimmy might decide to take his dads suitcase nuke into school because those teachers are really mean and teach them a lesson for a change!
And maybe while this is going on a group of biologists and chemists could turn their hands to producing handy purse sized cannisters of biological and chemical weapons, for when pepper spray is just not enough for that otherwise defenceless lady to fight off that evil immigrant rapist! Or you know... For that terrorist group to wipe out its enemies.
Also pretty sure the X (as in XM) stuff is called "X" specifically because it is factory seconds that aren't issued to soldiers.
Actually the X usually designates something as a prototype or experimental, or an improved version.
M855 is the US Military designation of the 5.56×45mm 62-grain ball cartridge with a steel penetrator tip over a lead core in a partial copper jacket. Identifiable by it's green tip, IIRC.
....
And they can pry my magazine fed 90mm F3 out of my cold, dead, turret.
According to LC, the X designation pertains to factory seconds. You can get the X-designated stuff all day today, nothing experimental about it.
It's right in the link you posted, the "green tip" M855 was developed by the U.S. Army in 2005 and M855A1 was issued for use in 2010. There may be some inaccurate media representations of M855 and the green tip M855 that the ATF wants to ban but your links don't contradict my post.
Regardless of the nomenclature confusion the round in question is still and always has been a rifle round that fails to meet the definition of armor piercing pistol rounds used by the ATF.
The SS109 was developed in the 1970s for the FN FNC rifle and the FN Minimi machine gun. To increase the range of the Minimi, the round was created to penetrate 3.5 mm of steel at 600 meters. The SS109 had a steel tip and lead rear and was not required to penetrate body armor.
It's right in the link you posted, the "green tip" M855 was developed by the U.S. Army in 2005 and M855A1 was issued for use in 2010. There may be some inaccurate media representations of M855 and the green tip M855 that the ATF wants to ban but your links don't contradict my post.
Regardless of the nomenclature confusion the round in question is still and always has been a rifle round that fails to meet the definition of armor piercing pistol rounds used by the ATF.
Ahhh...I see...you're confusing M855 with M855A1. The A1 stuff is new...M855 has been around since the 70's. M855 has a "green tip" whereas M855A1 is "green ammunition." Stupid distinction, I know.
I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.
Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.
If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.
What I am hearing is "make it so people can't buy it and people will be less likely to use it to kill others with it". If nuclear weapons became legal to produce and sell, what is stopping a group of patriotic nuclear scientists and engineers setting up the " Atomic Weapon Company" and building and selling weapons using their skills and knowledge to manufacture atomic weapons for home defence, concealed carry (for self defence about town) and sports and hunting?
Then any true blooded American could purchase one and be able to overthrow the government if the people elect someone they don't like into office. And of course, people could purchase them who might not love America, and instead want to use them against the American people! Maybe little Jimmy might decide to take his dads suitcase nuke into school because those teachers are really mean and teach them a lesson for a change!
And maybe while this is going on a group of biologists and chemists could turn their hands to producing handy purse sized cannisters of biological and chemical weapons, for when pepper spray is just not enough for that otherwise defenceless lady to fight off that evil immigrant rapist! Or you know... For that terrorist group to wipe out its enemies.
I wish the Army banned the M855 and M855A1. Horrible dirty rounds they is. With the A1 so horrible that with out the barrel upgrade on the M4A1 it will reduce the life of the barrel by half with regular use.
Ugh can't stand those little guys.
Also in no way are they armor piercing. Black tips sure but then you need chromium plate barrels to reasonably use them.
I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.
Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.
If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.
What I am hearing is "make it so people can't buy it and people will be less likely to use it to kill others with it". If nuclear weapons became legal to produce and sell, what is stopping a group of patriotic nuclear scientists and engineers setting up the " Atomic Weapon Company" and building and selling weapons using their skills and knowledge to manufacture atomic weapons for home defence, concealed carry (for self defence about town) and sports and hunting?
Then any true blooded American could purchase one and be able to overthrow the government if the people elect someone they don't like into office. And of course, people could purchase them who might not love America, and instead want to use them against the American people! Maybe little Jimmy might decide to take his dads suitcase nuke into school because those teachers are really mean and teach them a lesson for a change!
And maybe while this is going on a group of biologists and chemists could turn their hands to producing handy purse sized cannisters of biological and chemical weapons, for when pepper spray is just not enough for that otherwise defenceless lady to fight off that evil immigrant rapist! Or you know... For that terrorist group to wipe out its enemies.
Steel being used as armor for a human body, specifically the head.
The SS109 was made to pierce steel helmets at long range from the Minimi, not improve terminal performance on soft tissue from rifles or carbines
Yeah, back in the 70's. Helmets today aren't exactly made of steel anymore. (most of the modern world at least, I can't speak for to many of the less developed nations).
So we're arguing that we are banning a bullet today because it was designed to pierce 40 year old armor? And if that was the case 40 years ago, why was it given a pass when the bill was originally passed?
The ammo's ability to penetrate armor has not changed in the last 45 years. So, no they should not reclassify it.
But it is still armor piercing.
No it's not.
On it's face, the M855 does not meet the ATF's definition of armor piercing.
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and
which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron,
brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended
for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25
percent of the total weight of the projectile
It is not entirely made of steel, only having a steel tip with a copper jacketed lead core.
It was not designed for use in a pistol. It was designed for use in a rifle.
Those are the ATF's 2 qualifications, one of which has to be met. It doesn't meet either. They are saying that 45 years after the round was designed, some yahoo designed a "pistol" that you can put the bullet in, so now we need to take the bullet away from the entire public.
Grey Templar wrote: I'd never fire that Thompson or Shotgun with one hand. Hello fractured wrist!
Actually I've never had a problem with that. The TA5 has somewhat better recoil than a 1911 actually. Mind you, I never had one to shoot that was full auto, though, either. With the 100 round drum on it masses more than a 1911 so...
No, real monsters are when you fire an 75 or 80 cal dragoon pistol. Those hurt.
The real wrist breaker is specimen number 3. Fires .50 cal BMG rounds.
The ammo's ability to penetrate armor has not changed in the last 45 years. So, no they should not reclassify it.
But it is still armor piercing.
Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.
Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.
On the flip side, a SLAP round probably is. (IIRC SLAP is basically APDS for pistols.)
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.
Doesn't the length of the barrel also factor into armor piercing capability via achievable mussel velocity? A "pistol" with an 8" barrel would have a harder time penetrating armor than one with a 12" barrel.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.
Doesn't the length of the barrel also factor into armor piercing capability via achievable mussel velocity? A "pistol" with an 8" barrel would have a harder time penetrating armor than one with a 12" barrel.
Probably due to the fact that the bullet won't be as "accurate". It might gain more wobble or something.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.
Doesn't the length of the barrel also factor into armor piercing capability via achievable mussel velocity? A "pistol" with an 8" barrel would have a harder time penetrating armor than one with a 12" barrel.
It doesn't factor into the definition of armor piercing by the ATF, which is all that matters here.
It is not entirely made of steel, only having a steel tip with a copper jacketed lead core.
The projectile, or projectile core, doesn't have to be entirely constructed from steel in order to fall under (i). It is vague legislation, I'll give you that, but the ATF is probably not out of bounds.
If I were arguing against the proposal I would argue that the SS109 is primarily used as sporting round, and therefore deserves the sporting exemption.
Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.
Doesn't the length of the barrel also factor into armor piercing capability via achievable mussel velocity? A "pistol" with an 8" barrel would have a harder time penetrating armor than one with a 12" barrel.
100% - longer barrel length generally means more efficient use of the powder (to an extent of course...after a certain point you're increasing drag on the bullet).
Barrel length has very little to do with accuracy though...a 7" barreled AR15 will be just as accurate, if not more accurate, than a 24" barreled AR15. What you lose though is muzzle velocity, so increased bullet drop could be perceived as inaccuracy. Weird no?
All that said, I can't think of a bullet that will pierce armor out of a rifle-length barrel (16") but won't do it out of a handgun. Maybe hot 9mm rounds out of a rifle, or .357 fired out of a lever action?
It is not entirely made of steel, only having a steel tip with a copper jacketed lead core.
The projectile, or projectile core, doesn't have to be entirely constructed from steel in order to fall under (i). It is vague legislation, I'll give you that, but the ATF is probably not out of bounds.
If I were arguing against the proposal I would argue that the SS109 is primarily used as sporting round, and therefore deserves the sporting exemption.
Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.
And the weapon which a bullet can be fired from.
No it doesn't. The definition used by the ATF to define armor piercing specifies that the round must be designed for and intended to be used in a pistol, which is entirely different from speficying that it includes rifle rounds that may be fired from pistol versions of rifles. I don't think a single 5.56 round has every been designed for and intended to be used in pistols, certainly not by the US military. It's a rifle round.
It is not entirely made of steel, only having a steel tip with a copper jacketed lead core.
The projectile, or projectile core, doesn't have to be entirely constructed from steel in order to fall under (i). It is vague legislation, I'll give you that, but the ATF is probably not out of bounds.
If I were arguing against the proposal I would argue that the SS109 is primarily used as sporting round, and therefore deserves the sporting exemption.
Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.
And the weapon which a bullet can be fired from.
1. How is it vague. It says entirely made of (even puts a note in there excusing some impurities). It is not entirely made of it. Entirely is a pretty clearly defined word. Nothing vague about it.
2. No, the weapon that the bullet was INTENDED to be fired from. When it was designed, it was for the sole intended purpose of being used in a rifle.
No it doesn't. The definition used by the ATF to define armor piercing specifies that the round must be designed for and intended to be used in a pistol, which is entirely different from speficying that it includes rifle rounds that may be fired from pistol versions of rifles.
When LEOPA was finally passed by Congress in 1986, however, the final bill did not include a performance-based standard, or limit the definition of armor piercing ammunition to ammunition “designed” for use in a handgun
1. How is it vague. It says entirely made of (even puts a note in there excusing some impurities). It is not entirely made of it. Entirely is a pretty clearly defined word. Nothing vague about it.
A projectile or projectile core, which may be used in handgun, shall be considered armor piercing if it is constructed entirely from (or a combination thereof) a series of alloys; including brass, bronze, beryllium copper, steel, and any alloy including tungsten.
No it doesn't. The definition used by the ATF to define armor piercing specifies that the round must be designed for and intended to be used in a pistol, which is entirely different from speficying that it includes rifle rounds that may be fired from pistol versions of rifles.
When LEOPA was finally passed by Congress in 1986, however, the final bill did not include a performance-based standard, or limit the definition of armor piercing ammunition to ammunition “designed” for use in a handgun
1. How is it vague. It says entirely made of (even puts a note in there excusing some impurities). It is not entirely made of it. Entirely is a pretty clearly defined word. Nothing vague about it.
A projectile or projectile core, which may be used in handgun, shall be considered armor piercing if it is constructed entirely from (or a combination thereof) a series of alloys; including brass, bronze, beryllium copper, steel, and any alloy including tungsten.
2. No, the weapon that the bullet was INTENDED to be fired from. When it was designed, it was for the sole intended purpose of being used in a rifle.
The M249 isn't a rifle.
How is it vague? Is it entirely made out of those components? No? Then it doesn't meet the definition.
The M249 didn't exist when the round in question was designed. The platform was built around the ammunition. And LMG's are generally nothing more then "upgunned" rifles.
why go after 5.56? 7.62 is superior at punching through most types of armor and vs ALL types of armor outside of 100 yards. They are just trying to keep antigun culture alive. Screw them, you really have to wonder if it's a revolution that they want.
The idea of doing it over any single item is usually laughable. Eventually though, a lot of single items add up.*
*This is not me in anyway, shape, or form, saying this justifies an act of revolution/overthrowing the US government, etc. Go away NSA people, don't tell me commanders that I'm advocating revolution.
Jihadin wrote: SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) is a upgunned rifle..will....it can be mag feed but only at last resort..still though.....
I dunno about your M249s, but our Negevs would never get through an M16 magazine without a jam. Then again, I never really saw one get through a belt without jamming either. Pile...of...gak.
The M249 didn't exist when the round in question was designed. The platform was built around the ammunition. And LMG's are generally nothing more then "upgunned" rifles.
But the Minimi did, and the SS109 was adopted to insure armor penetration at long range from that platform.
Why is it hilarious? The purpose of the 2nd Amd is to protect our people against tyrannical government. If it came down to it - I'm sure the tyrants soldiers are going to be wearing armor - why should we not be properly armed to meet the threat? Banning a single type of 5.56 ammo wouldn't start a revolution but what do you think would happen if they say...banned all rifle ammo larger than .22. What do you think would happen then?
Ok Dogma, I'm going to guess here that you are saying it is vague, simply because you don't know a lot about firearms.
A projectile simply means the bullet. The actual part that leaves the weapon and impacts the target. This is not something that is vague, or up for debate. That is what the term is for it.
A projectile core is the part of the projectile, inside of the jacket of the bullet.
The left most object is the projectile. The copper coating on it is the jacket. The projectile core, would be the lead inside of the copper jacket.
Now, if you wanted a round that would meet the ATF's definition of Armor Piercing, it would be this. The M995.
That is a tungsten bullet. It's the middle one in the picture. Entirely made of tungsten. Designed to penetrate up to 12mm of armor, 4 times what you are claiming is "armor piercing".
Why is it hilarious? The purpose of the 2nd Amd is to protect our people against tyrannical government. If it came down to it - I'm sure the tyrants soldiers are going to be wearing armor - why should we not be properly armed to meet the threat? Banning a single type of 5.56 ammo wouldn't start a revolution but what do you think would happen if they say...banned all rifle ammo larger than .22. What do you think would happen then?
I don't think a revolution would start. Think to yourself, what percentage of Americans would be upset over a loss of guns right, and then you have to think about what percentage of those people would be willing to put the lives of themselves, their families, friends, and millions of others on the line for that. Significantly less than 50%, I'll bet. I'm positive that if the second amendment was repealed and gun laws similar to those in Britain were put in place, there would be no revolution (some extremist groups might commit acts of terrorism, but that's because they are extremists). Not only would it be a very stupid thing to do, it would also be doomed to fail. And if they really did have enough support, not only would the repeal have pretty much no chance of success, they could always re-instate it via peaceful means (voting).
Why is it hilarious? The purpose of the 2nd Amd is to protect our people against tyrannical government. If it came down to it - I'm sure the tyrants soldiers are going to be wearing armor - why should we not be properly armed to meet the threat? Banning a single type of 5.56 ammo wouldn't start a revolution but what do you think would happen if they say...banned all rifle ammo larger than .22. What do you think would happen then?
I don't think a revolution would start. Think to yourself, what percentage of Americans would be upset over a loss of guns right, and then you have to think about what percentage of those people would be willing to put the lives of themselves, their families, friends, and millions of others on the line for that. Significantly less than 50%, I'll bet. I'm positive that if the second amendment was repealed and gun laws similar to those in Britain were put in place, there would be no revolution (some extremist groups might commit acts of terrorism, but that's because they are extremists). Not only would it be a very stupid thing to do, it would also be doomed to fail. And if they really did have enough support, not only would the repeal have pretty much no chance of success, they could always re-instate it via peaceful means (voting).
While I'll sidestep the topic of "what would happen if...", I would point out that the American revolt against colonial British rule had significantly less than 50% of the populations support when it began, possibly as low as 20% of the population in open favor (with a high usually quoted at about 33% or so), and with almost parallel numbers of staunch loyalists, and a vast majority in between that really care.
Why is it hilarious? The purpose of the 2nd Amd is to protect our people against tyrannical government. If it came down to it - I'm sure the tyrants soldiers are going to be wearing armor - why should we not be properly armed to meet the threat? Banning a single type of 5.56 ammo wouldn't start a revolution but what do you think would happen if they say...banned all rifle ammo larger than .22. What do you think would happen then?
I don't think a revolution would start. Think to yourself, what percentage of Americans would be upset over a loss of guns right, and then you have to think about what percentage of those people would be willing to put the lives of themselves, their families, friends, and millions of others on the line for that. Significantly less than 50%, I'll bet. I'm positive that if the second amendment was repealed and gun laws similar to those in Britain were put in place, there would be no revolution (some extremist groups might commit acts of terrorism, but that's because they are extremists). Not only would it be a very stupid thing to do, it would also be doomed to fail. And if they really did have enough support, not only would the repeal have pretty much no chance of success, they could always re-instate it via peaceful means (voting).
Repealing amendments is hard.
Very Hard.
That's why there's so much emphasis on additional regulations.
However, in this case anyone who isn't for or against the laws is going to be against any war in general, as they don't what to die/have their stuff damaged or sized/be inconvenienced in any way/ect.
I couldn't give a gak either way, but I sure as hell don't want a war.
for what its worth, AP ammo is defined in similar terms up here "Body-armour piercing handgun cartridges"
and this round is 100% legal up here, as its a rifle round, designed for rifles.
This is an example of the ban what you can attitude from the anti gunners. Simple as that, not safety related, not anything related, they can ban it, so they will try to ban it.
Frazzled wrote: thank Sig for their messed up rifle/pistol thingy with "arm brace."
Whoa whoa whoa...don't dogpile Sig as if they did anything wrong. They designed a product, the ATF said it was legal (to buy AND TO SHOULDER), then they did a complete 180 on prior letters. It's not Sig's fault that the ATF wants takesie-backsies.
Whoa whoa whoa...don't dogpile Sig as if they did anything wrong. They designed a product, the ATF said it was legal (to buy AND TO SHOULDER), then they did a complete 180 on prior letters.
This is the ATF's fault, not Sig.
Would I be correct in assuming this made Sig, *puts on sunglasses* sour?
Why is it hilarious? The purpose of the 2nd Amd is to protect our people against tyrannical government. If it came down to it - I'm sure the tyrants soldiers are going to be wearing armor - why should we not be properly armed to meet the threat? Banning a single type of 5.56 ammo wouldn't start a revolution but what do you think would happen if they say...banned all rifle ammo larger than .22. What do you think would happen then?
I don't think a revolution would start. Think to yourself, what percentage of Americans would be upset over a loss of guns right, and then you have to think about what percentage of those people would be willing to put the lives of themselves, their families, friends, and millions of others on the line for that. Significantly less than 50%, I'll bet. I'm positive that if the second amendment was repealed and gun laws similar to those in Britain were put in place, there would be no revolution (some extremist groups might commit acts of terrorism, but that's because they are extremists). Not only would it be a very stupid thing to do, it would also be doomed to fail. And if they really did have enough support, not only would the repeal have pretty much no chance of success, they could always re-instate it via peaceful means (voting).
While I'll sidestep the topic of "what would happen if...", I would point out that the American revolt against colonial British rule had significantly less than 50% of the populations support when it began, possibly as low as 20% of the population in open favor (with a high usually quoted at about 33% or so), and with almost parallel numbers of staunch loyalists, and a vast majority in between that really care.
It was only 3% of the colonial population that actively engaged British forces during the AWI
I can assure you, that if an outright ban on guns were to take place in the US, there would be quite a few people that would take exception to the confiscation, especially in the rural areas of the country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: thank Sig for their messed up rifle/pistol thingy with "arm brace."
Actually, the SB15 brace is tres chic on an AR pistol.
Uncle Sugar just doesnt like the fact that he isnt getting the $200 tax for an otherwise SBR.
Whoa whoa whoa...don't dogpile Sig as if they did anything wrong. They designed a product, the ATF said it was legal (to buy AND TO SHOULDER), then they did a complete 180 on prior letters.
This is the ATF's fault, not Sig.
Would I be correct in assuming this made Sig, *puts on sunglasses* sour?
Whoa whoa whoa...don't dogpile Sig as if they did anything wrong. They designed a product, the ATF said it was legal (to buy AND TO SHOULDER), then they did a complete 180 on prior letters.
This is the ATF's fault, not Sig.
Would I be correct in assuming this made Sig, *puts on sunglasses* sour?
The steel tip is a part of the projectile... It is not the projectile.
I didn't say that it was.
For what its worth, I don't want the round banned. But I do think the ATF is within the laws establishing it, and the regulations it has created, to do so. I am very much on the page of "The ATF should not exist." but it unfortunately does, and should be allowed to operate withing it purview until such time as it does not.
Frazzled wrote: thank Sig for their messed up rifle/pistol thingy with "arm brace."
Whoa whoa whoa...don't dogpile Sig as if they did anything wrong. They designed a product, the ATF said it was legal (to buy AND TO SHOULDER), then they did a complete 180 on prior letters. It's not Sig's fault that the ATF wants takesie-backsies.
This is the ATF's fault, not Sig.
I'd agree with this. Sig did everything right, cleared everything with the ATF, and got it in writing.
5.56mm "pistols" were around before the Sig brace, they just weren't as popular, but they were there.
The problem with the brace was that people kept trying to be snarky with the ATF and play lawyer and things got silly.
With regards to the ammo, not sure what's going on there really, but this decision could easily have come down quite a while ago.
Xenomancers wrote: Why is it hilarious? The purpose of the 2nd Amd is to protect our people against tyrannical government. If it came down to it - I'm sure the tyrants soldiers are going to be wearing armor - why should we not be properly armed to meet the threat? Banning a single type of 5.56 ammo wouldn't start a revolution but what do you think would happen if they say...banned all rifle ammo larger than .22. What do you think would happen then?
It's hilarious because while an effective revolution is incredibly hard, it isn't because guns can be hard to come by. Any revolt that's worth half an donkey-cave will get its hands on way more guns than it can use.
You can take an example - look at Bosnia War. Here you had a country with near to zero military following the collapse of Yugoslavia, with little military industry, with its territory being steadily taken by Serbian military and Bosnian Serb paramilitaries. With a new complete misunderstanding the situation (possibly on purpose), the UN General Assembly actually banned any weapon imports in to Bosnia (thinking that it would disarm both Bosnian and Bosnian Serb milities, not realising that most Serb weapons and fighting troops were supplied by Serbia). Bosnia still raised and equipped a sufficient military to stop the Serb advance, inflict heavy casualties, and undertake successful conventional military offensives of its own. Despite the weapons ban, more than 100 million bullets were supplied to its militias, and countless small arms. These weapons were brought in through smuggling operations, and built in improvised workshops within Bosnia.
Simply put - revolutions don't fail because the revolutionaries lack for small arms. Maintaining some kind of operational effectiveness in the face of combat and your inevitable casualties, that's stuff if hard. Outlasting the various counter-insurgency operations is hard.
Just buying a gun and thinking you've got the capability to take on your government is fantasy roleplaying.
Jihadin wrote: Think you need to refresh on the Bosnian War/Genocide
That genocide was committed in captured territory is completely irrelevant to the point - any organisation that wants to take up arms will get them. Even with a total arms ban there an organisation can access an immense number of small arms.
Vaktathi wrote: While I'll sidestep the topic of "what would happen if...", I would point out that the American revolt against colonial British rule had significantly less than 50% of the populations support when it began, possibly as low as 20% of the population in open favor (with a high usually quoted at about 33% or so), and with almost parallel numbers of staunch loyalists, and a vast majority in between that really care.
They also had French support almost from the start. Not just cheering, mind you, but huge deliveries of weapons (newer than the brits had) and gunpowder (most of it) and the French fleet making it incredibly difficult for the British to send help. If they'd had any help to send, ofc, seeing as they were fighting the French all around the world. At great cost, using money they'd never collected from the colonies.
As for today... Revolution would require something more than the ATF banning some 5.56 bullets. And it would certainly not be decided by a few pickup trucks of guys with AR-15s.
Vaktathi wrote: While I'll sidestep the topic of "what would happen if...", I would point out that the American revolt against colonial British rule had significantly less than 50% of the populations support when it began, possibly as low as 20% of the population in open favor (with a high usually quoted at about 33% or so), and with almost parallel numbers of staunch loyalists, and a vast majority in between that really care.
They also had French support almost from the start. Not just cheering, mind you, but huge deliveries of weapons (newer than the brits had) and gunpowder (most of it) and the French fleet making it incredibly difficult for the British to send help. If they'd had any help to send, ofc, seeing as they were fighting the French all around the world. At great cost, using money they'd never collected from the colonies.
As for today... Revolution would require something more than the ATF banning some 5.56 bullets. And it would certainly not be decided by a few pickup trucks of guys with AR-15s.
Absolutely there was French support (though initially more in the form of distraction away from the colonies, and we're not exactly talking any sort of gigantic gap in weapons technology and the brits maintained superiority in artillery and command functionality most of the time). What's most amusing is that the debt load incurred by supporting the American revolution in turn contributed greatly to the financial crisis that sparked the French revolution
I don't exactly like the direction of where this conversation is going, but I'd like to remind everyone of what the first battle of the American Revolution was fought over.
The sovereign government trying to take our bloody weapons away from us.
sebster wrote: Just buying a gun and thinking you've got the capability to take on your government is fantasy roleplaying.
Perhaps you hadn't considered that my Patriot is level 17, or that he owns a +2 AK and is garbed in a 12AC Kevlar vest.
Hey sometimes you need an AK in case that Home Owner's Association sends you another letter about the car parked in your front yard. if a man can't park a car on blocks in his front yard, then a man can't have freedom!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I don't exactly like the direction of where this conversation is going, but I'd like to remind everyone of what the first battle of the American Revolution was fought over.
The sovereign government trying to take our bloody weapons away from us.
See thats why Texas is so awesome. Our first fight was over a cannon. Ours was bigger
djones520 wrote: I don't exactly like the direction of where this conversation is going, but I'd like to remind everyone of what the first battle of the American Revolution was fought over.
The sovereign government trying to take our bloody weapons away from us.
If tomorrow the second amendment was repealed and Britain-like gun laws were put in place, would you be willing to go to war over that? Would you allow thousands, if not millions, of people die over that?
Most people wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't, and I've slowly been leaning towards a "stop making stupid gun laws" stance. Not only would it be your very last option, if you aren't completely insane, it id just a stupid thing to go to war over. If there were massive 1st amendment, and voting rights restrictions, I could see it, but all peaceful methods would have to have been tried first before I would condone it.
A revaluation would not just be a simple march into the capital or something like that, it would mean another civil war, and we sure as hell don;t want another one of those.
CptJake wrote: I guess another way to ask the same question would be:
Would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die in order to repeal the 2nd amendment?
Isn't that just as stupid to go to war over?
I'm pretty sure the "revolution against the tyrrany of Washington!" rhetoric isn't being pushed by gun control advocates. They tend to work within the existing democratic framework.
djones520 wrote: I don't exactly like the direction of where this conversation is going, but I'd like to remind everyone of what the first battle of the American Revolution was fought over.
The sovereign government trying to take our bloody weapons away from us.
If tomorrow the second amendment was repealed and Britain-like gun laws were put in place, would you be willing to go to war over that? Would you allow thousands, if not millions, of people die over that?
Most people wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't, and I've slowly been leaning towards a "stop making stupid gun laws" stance. Not only would it be your very last option, if you aren't completely insane, it id just a stupid thing to go to war over. If there were massive 1st amendment, and voting rights restrictions, I could see it, but all peaceful methods would have to have been tried first before I would condone it.
A revaluation would not just be a simple march into the capital or something like that, it would mean another civil war, and we sure as hell don;t want another one of those.
Also, do some research *why* the founding founders had the 2nd Amendment. There was a fairly LARGE point.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.
Eh... I still think you're missing the point.
The Bill of Rights (where the 2nd Amendment is derived) was about restrainingthe Federal Government.
Which was essentially cribbed from the English's Bill of Rights. (Kings were disarming their political oppositions).
Another way to look at your statement, is the fact that no one has attempted to overthrow democracy from within, in America, is not proof we don’t need the Second Amendment... it's proof it is working.
Jihadin wrote: Think you need to refresh on the Bosnian War/Genocide
That genocide was committed in captured territory is completely irrelevant to the point - any organisation that wants to take up arms will get them. Even with a total arms ban there an organisation can access an immense number of small arms.
Granted weapons were supplied but being a typical Russian satellite state they already had a huge stockpile of small arms and freaking landmines. Also in typical Russian fashion Yugoslavia was a main producer of landmines and AK's. The ban effected western nations most of all and not the countries surrounding Bosnia/Kosovo. So refresh your knowledge or not. Bosnia/Kosovo was already flushed with weapons.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.
If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.
Because repealing the 2nd amendment means that they have relaed the 1st and 26th? Didn't know the constitution worked that way. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it
This. I mean, even Che Guevara believed that armed revolution should only be a last resort when all democratic avenues for change had been blocked.
Pro-gun people in the USA can hardly claim that if guns were banned there would be no avenue for a peaceful change to that law, unless they believe that the entire US system of government is broken and doesn't represent the people, at all on any policy.
If they don't think that but want armed revolution anyway, then just point out to them that they are even more extreme in their beliefs about tyrannical governments than Che was, who they probably believe was a mass-murdering psychopath. Might give them a bit of perspective.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it
This. I mean, even Che Guevara believed that armed revolution should only be a last resort when all democratic avenues for change had been blocked.
Pro-gun people in the USA can hardly claim that if guns were banned there would be no avenue for a peaceful change to that law, unless they believe that the entire US system of government is broken and doesn't represent the people, at all on any policy.
If they don't think that but want armed revolution anyway, then just point out to them that they are even more extreme in their beliefs about tyrannical governments than Che was, who they probably believe was a mass-murdering psychopath. Might give them a bit of perspective.
Wow... quoting a murderer mobster like Che.
Makes me wanna go out and purchase some more gunz 'n ammos.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.
If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.
Because repealing the 2nd amendment means that they have relaed the 1st and 26th? Didn't know the constitution worked that way. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I can't belive I have to say this, but: Two wrongs don't make a right.
If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices: a. reinstate them via the same system or b. deal with it
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
You can releal ammendments you know...
And yet, none of the 10 amendments making up the bill of rights has been repealed. And none of the gun control types seem to have the intestinal fortitude nor the support to attempt to repeal the 2nd. It would be fantastic if they did in my opinion. It would end a lot of the argument one way or the other. Instead, gun control types are using the 'cook the frog' technique, turning up the heat a bit at a time and hoping the frog gets used to the new higher temp before they incrementally turn it up a bit more. Unfortunately for them, a lot of frogs seem to be catching on.
Frazzled wrote: It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."
If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.
And yet, none of the 10 amendments making up the bill of rights has been repealed. And none of the gun control types seem to have the intestinal fortitude nor the support to attempt to repeal the 2nd. It would be fantastic if they did in my opinion. It would end a lot of the argument one way or the other. Instead, gun control types are using the 'cook the frog' technique, turning up the heat a bit at a time and hoping the frog gets used to the new higher temp before the incrementally turn it up a bit more. Unfortunately for them, a lot of frogs seem to be catching on.
Good thing too, IMO. Although I know of lots of people who want to repeal parts of the 1st mostly separation of church and state).
I'm not arguing for gun control here. Keep your guns. You should be allowed to. I am arguing against the idea of armed rebellion because of a removal of gun rights. I know quite a few people who would love to have Britain-esque gun laws. While I see where they are coming from, I don't really agree with them. But the idea of making another civil war over gun laws is laughable at best, horribly depressing at any other time.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.
If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.
Because repealing the 2nd amendment means that they have relaed the 1st and 26th? Didn't know the constitution worked that way. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
You can releal ammendments you know...
I don't know about relealing but repealing requires serious hurdles to cross, such that I can only think of one time that occurred, and that was over....whiskey.
Oh, god. Releal isn't even a word! I don't know what's happened to me lately.
edit:Although I do think it's impressive that they managed to pass prohibition. But TBF, prohibtionists were even more crazy than anyone on either side of the gun debate.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it
This. I mean, even Che Guevara believed that armed revolution should only be a last resort when all democratic avenues for change had been blocked.
Pro-gun people in the USA can hardly claim that if guns were banned there would be no avenue for a peaceful change to that law, unless they believe that the entire US system of government is broken and doesn't represent the people, at all on any policy.
If they don't think that but want armed revolution anyway, then just point out to them that they are even more extreme in their beliefs about tyrannical governments than Che was, who they probably believe was a mass-murdering psychopath. Might give them a bit of perspective.
Brits should not presume to talk about this subject. You're not a citizen. You're a subject.
Frazzled wrote: It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."
If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.
Only amendment has been repealed. Contrary to the govenrment confiscators, gun rights have massive support in this country. Ask the Colorado politicians thrown out after they passed unfavorable legislation.
Makes me wanna go out and purchase some more gunz 'n ammos.
Better stock up before Obama takes away all your gunz
My point was not supporting Che's actions. He did a lot of wrong, no denying that. It was pointing out that when even a hardline communist revolutionary from the Cold War like him says you need to try every avenue of democratic change before you are justified to use violence against governments which are imprisoning and killing their own people, it makes people who would be willing to go to war because the government took away their guns through a democratic and legal process look pretty damn psychotic.
Xenomancers wrote: Why is it hilarious? The purpose of the 2nd Amd is to protect our people against tyrannical government. If it came down to it - I'm sure the tyrants soldiers are going to be wearing armor - why should we not be properly armed to meet the threat? Banning a single type of 5.56 ammo wouldn't start a revolution but what do you think would happen if they say...banned all rifle ammo larger than .22. What do you think would happen then?
It's hilarious because while an effective revolution is incredibly hard, it isn't because guns can be hard to come by. Any revolt that's worth half an donkey-cave will get its hands on way more guns than it can use.
You can take an example - look at Bosnia War. Here you had a country with near to zero military following the collapse of Yugoslavia, with little military industry, with its territory being steadily taken by Serbian military and Bosnian Serb paramilitaries. With a new complete misunderstanding the situation (possibly on purpose), the UN General Assembly actually banned any weapon imports in to Bosnia (thinking that it would disarm both Bosnian and Bosnian Serb milities, not realising that most Serb weapons and fighting troops were supplied by Serbia). Bosnia still raised and equipped a sufficient military to stop the Serb advance, inflict heavy casualties, and undertake successful conventional military offensives of its own. Despite the weapons ban, more than 100 million bullets were supplied to its militias, and countless small arms. These weapons were brought in through smuggling operations, and built in improvised workshops within Bosnia.
Simply put - revolutions don't fail because the revolutionaries lack for small arms. Maintaining some kind of operational effectiveness in the face of combat and your inevitable casualties, that's stuff if hard. Outlasting the various counter-insurgency operations is hard.
Just buying a gun and thinking you've got the capability to take on your government is fantasy roleplaying.
It's called being prepared.
Revolutions don't fail when revolutionaries outnumber the army 10:1 or even 20:1. Ofc this is crazy talk because it will never happen. Nor do I want it to happen. The question you have to ask yourself is what do "they" want.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Oh, god. Releal isn't even a word! I don't know what's happened to me lately.
edit:Although I do think it's impressive that they managed to pass prohibition. But TBF, prohibtionists were even more crazy than anyone on either side of the gun debate.
Well its an interesting historical event. At the time alcoholism was off the chart, and politicians didn't want to look bad. note the President actually vetoed the legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point was not supporting Che's actions. He did a lot of wrong, no denying that. It was pointing out that when even a hardline communist revolutionary from the Cold War like him says you need to try every avenue of democratic change before you are justified to use violence against governments which are imprisoning and killing their own people, it makes people who would be willing to go to war because the government took away their guns through a democratic and legal process look pretty damn psychotic.
Note the Cuban communists later took all the firearms, after they had won their revolution...
I'm for the 2A, but no point trying to legally or constitutionally (rationally) convince someone about it if they are already entrenched in an opposing view.
And further, I would probably say that they're entitled to their own view.
At that point, only personal experience might changed their mind.
(Btw the above doesn't imply that we don't fight for it).
So, I read the first page, and then skipped to the last page.
Out of curiosity when does the revolution start? I'm guessing it's detailed somewhere in the intervening 8 pages, because people here seem awfully convinced that this time, they really are coming for the guns. All the guns. And the revolution begins when?
I mean, so I can start ferrying some friends out of the warzone before the citizenry rise up against their oppressors.
Frazzled wrote: It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."
If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.
Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.
But they aren't. Unless you write a new constitution that can't be changed and get it recognized, you have to live with the fact that if a group can get congress and a majority of the states to agree on something it can be made constitutional law. Or unmade in this case.
CptJake wrote: And yet, none of the 10 amendments making up the bill of rights has been repealed. And none of the gun control types seem to have the intestinal fortitude nor the support to attempt to repeal the 2nd. It would be fantastic if they did in my opinion. It would end a lot of the argument one way or the other. Instead, gun control types are using the 'cook the frog' technique, turning up the heat a bit at a time and hoping the frog gets used to the new higher temp before they incrementally turn it up a bit more. Unfortunately for them, a lot of frogs seem to be catching on.
Repealed? No. Limited? Yes. The Eighteenth Amendment has been the only one repealed so far (by the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933).
As others have said, it is extremely difficult to completely repeal a constitutional amendment and outside of a few wingnuts, I don't think that there is a serious foundation for a complete repeal of the Second Amendment (which would be impossible anyway). However, it has been well documented by the courts that there are limits to constitutional rights, meaning that none are absolute. There are Supreme Court cases dealing with limitations to every amendment in the Bill of Rights (save the for the Third Amendment, which has never been the basis of a Supreme Court ruling) and even in Scalia's opinion in Heller addressed the very idea that even the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
Frazzled wrote: It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."
If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.
Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.
Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?
Forar wrote: So, I read the first page, and then skipped to the last page.
Out of curiosity when does the revolution start? I'm guessing it's detailed somewhere in the intervening 8 pages, because people here seem awfully convinced that this time, they really are coming for the guns. All the guns. And the revolution begins when?
I mean, so I can start ferrying some friends out of the warzone before the citizenry rise up against their oppressors.
Just checking in.
There won't be a warzone. More than likely it would be our own military seizing power from a corrupt congress and presidency in a coup d'etat. It would last a few hours. New legestlation would be passed to protect against future corruptions and wed all go on with our little lives.
Besides, factoring in those few Democrats who oppose gun control, that pushes minority further.
about it as long as their voters are distracted by some other news story.
but repealing requires serious hurdles to cross, such that I can only think of one time that occurred, and that was over....whiskey. 