Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/02/28 06:20:39
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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!
2015/02/28 08:59:24
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/28 09:07:36
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
2015/02/28 09:55:24
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/02/28 10:37:56
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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?
Kote!
Kandosii sa ka'rte, vode an.
Coruscanta a'den mhi, vode an.
Bal kote,Darasuum kote,
Jorso'ran kando a tome.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad vode an.
Bal...
Motir ca'tra nau tracinya.
Gra'tua cuun hett su dralshy'a.
Aruetyc talyc runi'la trattok'a.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad, vode an!
2015/02/28 11:22:23
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
2015/02/28 11:47:35
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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?
Because people like a choice?
"The Omnissiah is my Moderati"
2015/02/28 11:49:58
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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. "
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/28 11:50:32
2015/02/28 11:56:36
Subject: Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/28 11:57:05
2015/02/28 12:15:35
Subject: Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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".
2015/02/28 12:34:39
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/28 12:39:10
2015/02/28 12:40:44
Subject: Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
2015/02/28 12:43:59
Subject: Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
2015/02/28 12:47:30
Subject: Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
2015/02/28 12:49:15
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
2015/02/28 13:12:58
Subject: Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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:
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/02/28 17:37:01
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/28 17:37:11
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/02/28 19:19:37
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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?
Yes.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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).
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
2015/02/28 19:34:16
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
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.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/28 19:39:58
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I'm not adding anything. I"m just saying its one of those inalienable rights that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Show me where I attempted to add anything that isn't there.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/28 20:08:14
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
2015/02/28 20:36:09
Subject: Re:Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.
Grey Templar wrote: I'm not adding anything. I"m just saying its one of those inalienable rights that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Show me where I attempted to add anything that isn't there.
Your second sentence. If you weren't attempting to add anything you would have written "...protected by..." not "...mentioned in..."
Do reread my sentence.
It says "isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution."
I said its not in the Constitution. Try reading what people post.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
