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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The idea of a revolution over this is hilarious.

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?

 Xenomancers wrote:
What do you think would happen then?

A whole bunch of saber rattling and then going on with life because at the end of the day no one cares quite that much.

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".

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The idea of a revolution over this is hilarious.

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).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The idea of a revolution over this is hilarious.

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.

Can we not go there with the revolution talk...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The idea of a revolution over this is hilarious.

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.

Edit: double ninjaed

yeah, its OT.


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.

thank Sig for their messed up rifle/pistol thingy with "arm brace."

 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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


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?

I'm terrible...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The idea of a revolution over this is hilarious.

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


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?

I'm terrible...

Exalted!

 LordofHats wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


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?

I'm terrible...

 djones520 wrote:

Now, if you wanted a round that would meet the ATF's definition of Armor Piercing, it would be this. The M995.

Doesn't the SS109/M855 have a steel projectile core which is distinct from its lead projectile core?

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Now, if you wanted a round that would meet the ATF's definition of Armor Piercing, it would be this. The M995.

Doesn't the SS109/M855 have a steel projectile core which is distinct from its lead projectile core?

The steel tip is a part of the projectile... It is not the projectile. The core of the SS109/M855 is lead.

 djones520 wrote:

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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 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.

Think you need to refresh on the Bosnian War/Genocide

 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.

 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.

 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.

Spetulhu wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

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?

That's the point.