Desubot wrote:
So its just banning the green tips right?

Just how much cheaper/expensive/available are they compared to the alternatives?

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

nkelsch wrote:
Reloading casings and kits to do it yourself are common.

 Alex C wrote:
Their definition of "armor piercing" is that it will defeat level 2 and 3a body armour which police wear.

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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 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.

 Desubot wrote:
Just how much cheaper/expensive/available are they compared to the alternatives?

 Ahtman wrote:
Seems like one last chance for the Firearm Industry to make a little money off scaring people about Obama.

 whitedragon wrote:
Truly Obama is history's greatest monster, second only to Reece, who dared to nerf invisibility for the LVO.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 whitedragon wrote:
Truly Obama is history's greatest monster, second only to Reece, who dared to nerf invisibility for the LVO.

 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...

 DarkLink wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:
Truly Obama is history's greatest monster, second only to Reece, who dared to nerf invisibility for the LVO.

And rerollable 2++ before that, don't forget. Thanks, Reebama.

 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.

 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.

 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.

If there is not a problem to begin with, why create one?

 The Airman wrote:

 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?

 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.

 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.

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.

 The Airman wrote:
As to why you seem content in trying to ignore this is beyond me.

Now, I don't see the problem with M855 as it's primarily used as a sporting round.

 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."