NRA's Inaccurate Statements about Obama

[Manedwolf]

Steelcore, that's right. I was thinking of something else.

The stuff in the blue, yellow and white boxes. It does go through old appliances nicely.



Ooh, scary.

[roo_ster]

Since you guys like to ask me questions, let me ask you one.

Do you think that ammo capable of being fired out of a handgun and piercing armor should be available to civilians?  And yes, I know that there are different classes of body armor.  Feel feel to make the question more specific if you like.

FYI, law enforcement officers not in the military are civilians. 

The proper analogy between the prohibition of ammunition and speech would be prior restraint. 

You can say or do anything you like, but improper use (slander, libel, etc.) is subject to civil or criminal liability.  In a similar fashion, citizen ownership of any ammunition ought not be prohibited.  The improper use of ammunition (bank robbery, murder, negligence) ought to be subject to civil or criminal liability.


But, all this is just smoke, as you have already decided that some BHO position you also favor is more important than the most basic right/liberty known to mankind (see http://www.a-human-right.com/ for elaboration).

[richyoung]

Since you guys like to ask me questions, let me ask you one.

Do you think that ammo capable of being fired out of a handgun and piercing armor should be available to civilians?  And yes, I know that there are different classes of body armor.  Feel feel to make the question more specific if you like.

Absolutely.  Bad guys can get body armor, and sometimes the good guys are the bad guys - like at Waco.

[AZRedhawk44]

sometimes the good guys are the bad guys - like at Waco.

Uh-oh... controversy alert!

[Perd Hapley]

A free people ought to be armed - with military weapons.  That's freedom.  That's power to the people.  That's how this country was established, and how our founders wanted it to remain.  All of which is basic historical knowledge and American civics. 

[Jamisjockey]

Since you guys like to ask me questions, let me ask you one.

Do you think that ammo capable of being fired out of a handgun and piercing armor should be available to civilians?  And yes, I know that there are different classes of body armor.  Feel feel to make the question more specific if you like.

Absoultely.  I've commited no crimes.  This is akin to saying because I have a dick I'm a potential rapist. 
We already have laws against armed burglary, shooting someone, shooting cops, etc etc.  Banning one type of ammo isn't going to stop those crimes.  Banning all ammo won't stop those crimes.  Its a pipe dream bitterly clung to by idiots that think those types of measures work.

[280plus]

because its logical extension is that we'd might as well repeal all laws, because criminals by definition don't obey them.

DING DING DING!! Give the man a cigar! 

[MechAg94]

The Freedom of Speech analogy is BS. 

Slander and Libel are actionable issues already, but we don't ban public speech for fear of someone getting slandered or libeled. 

In the same way, murder is illegal.  Murder of police officers is illegal.  We should not ban or restrict handguns or ammunition for fear of someone getting murdered. 

[Sawdust]

Since you guys like to ask me questions, let me ask you one.

Do you think that ammo capable of being fired out of a handgun and piercing armor should be available to civilians?  And yes, I know that there are different classes of body armor.  Feel feel to make the question more specific if you like.

I can run over a person who is wearing body armor and kill him/her with my truck.

Should my possession of said truck be banned?

Sawdust

[AZRedhawk44]

I can run over a person who is wearing body armor and kill him/her with my truck.

Or stab him with a pointed stick.

[K Frame]

"I can run over a person who is wearing body armor and kill him/her with my truck."

That very thing happened in Prince George's County, Maryland, at the end of June or beginning of July.

Corporal with 10 years in on the PGCP was run over adn killed during what should have been a routine traffic stop.

It got a LOT more involved, though, a couple of days later when the primary suspect was caught.

Then strangled in his isolation cell at the PGC jail...

[280plus]

Ooo, that does sound a bit complicated. 

[MechAg94]

I can run over a person who is wearing body armor and kill him/her with my truck.

Or stab him with a pointed stick.

Good point, knives do penetrate kevlar.

[ArfinGreebly]

Politicians prefer their "subjects" disarmed.

Number of reasons.

• Armed citizens are less reliant on government.  This is bad.  Someone might wake up one day and realize you (the politician) are not needed.
  
• Armed citizens can defend themselves.  This would be okay, except that politicians would prefer they not defend themselves against government.
  
• Armed citizens can actually exert a last-resort "veto" of abusive uses of power.  This is bad for obvious reasons.  If the politician wasn't interested in having power, he wouldn't be there, right?

There can be, basically, two reasons for arguing in favor of gun control, based on the idea that "they're dangerous" to the public.

One:  Failure to grasp that law-abiding citizens are not dangerous.  This is an epic fail of observation and understanding.  Do you really want someone that stupid running things?

Two:  It's a plausible lie and you (the politician) believe that you can fool the public at large with it.  This is an epic fail of ethical conduct and intent.  Do you really want someone that dishonest running things?

All the other assumptions of gun control are founded on falsehoods, errors in reasoning, or mistakes in observation.

Murder has been illegal for a long time.  Assault has been illegal for a long time.  And fraud.  And slander & libel.  And robbery.  And theft.  And rape.

The people who do the violent stuff have already broken with civility and rule of law.  There are already penalties in place for that.

Trying to win political points by making murder and assault and robbery and rape MORE illegal, and assigning penalties like "double secret probation" in addition to life in prison isn't going to help anyone -- except the politician.

And banning the tools that bad guys use?  That's ascribing motive to inanimate objects, and that's just plain pathetic.

I have a better idea.

How about we make it a crime, punishable by death, to enact legislation which can be shown to be the cause of increased crime or the cause of injury to one's constituents?

I mean, hey, if I make a stupid mistake in traffic, I might hurt someone and wind up paying fines and serving time in jail.  If I write a bad law, that mistake can cause loss and injury on a grand scale.  The potential for harm from a bad law is so much greater than an individual, in-person driving error, the penalties should be governed by a multiplier based on the affected population.

And malicious legislation?  Hey, we have plenty of rope.

But, really, waiting for a politician to cause harm is like waiting for a gun to kill someone (except that the latter is less likely), so, in the true spirit of "prior restraint" why they hell haven't we outlawed politicians?

Think of the lives and fortunes that would be spared.

After all, you have to think of the children.

[Jamisjockey]

I really don't think its a cognizant realization on thier part that taking our guns away makes us easier to control.  They truely think that its the answer to whatever malady, and that guns are capable of being violent all on thier own.  They are illogical thinkers who pursue an agenda to its end if it suits thier lust for power.

[Firethorn]

And I don't buy the "When X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" argument, because its logical extension is that we'd might as well repeal all laws, because criminals by definition don't obey them.  Deterrence is a major purpose of law, and is why some gun control laws may be justified.

Ok, you've run into a core libertarian philosophy point.  In society today, we have two 'classes' of crime - Victimless and Victim.

Many of the people on this board don't believe that the current class of victimless crimes should be so.  We also believe that it should take positive knowing action in order to commit a crime.

Mere possession of AP ammo, marijuanna, dope, crack cocaine, etc...  isn't going to hurt anybody.  Furthermore, the informed usage by consenting adults isn't going to, by default, harm anybody else.

On the other hand, slipping somebody a date-rape drug, shooting them with a AP round or a plain old cast lead bullet creates a victim.  Somebody's rights have been violated by the criminal.  NOW we take action.

Thus, we pretty much agree on some gun 'control' laws - use a gun to shoot somebody, not in defense - Assault & Battery with a Deadly, at the least.  Certain indicative behaviors, such as brandishing or driving drunk(on public roads) are also Ok.  As is banning negligent fire in a city - you're creating an actively dangerous situation.  And I wouldn't exempt firing ranges/homes from noise ordinances solely for guns.  For that matter, banning felons from possession as part of their terms of parole isn't too terrible.  

Anyways - we view any bans on AP ammo as 'solutions looking for a problem'.  I dare you to find any officer killed or injured with AP ammo that wouldn't have penetrated the vest without the specific AP properties.  Something like an AP .30-06 or .308 round when even a standard round of that caliber would have blown through the vest doesn't count.  For that matter - rifle shots wouldn't count, because rifles by nature more than design punch through all but the strongest/heaviest of body armor like it's not there.

[ArfinGreebly]

Wait . . .

How many citizens of various countries have been killed by their governments after first having been disarmed?

In the last century alone?

The old "never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity" may work in some contexts, but not all.

Power does not typically result in amusingly ignorant but well-intentioned philanthropists.

[Manedwolf]

Mere possession of AP ammo, marijuanna, dope, crack cocaine, etc...  Aren't going to hurt anybody.  Furthermore, the informed usage by consenting adults isn't going to, by default, harm anybody else.

That's actually not quite valid. People who are strung out on drugs do create a public hazard when they try to operate a vehicle. Cocaine, when used, causes a physical addiction beyond the control of the user. Hard drugs turn human beings into desparate animals. There is no redeeming feature. They cannot, as ammunition can, be used for saving lives or for harmless enjoyment.

[Jamisjockey]

Mere possession of AP ammo, marijuanna, dope, crack cocaine, etc...  Aren't going to hurt anybody.  Furthermore, the informed usage by consenting adults isn't going to, by default, harm anybody else.

That's actually not quite valid. People who are strung out on drugs do create a public hazard when they try to operate a vehicle. Cocaine, when used, causes a physical addiction beyond the control of the user. Hard drugs turn human beings into desparate animals. There is no redeeming feature. They cannot, as ammunition can, be used for saving lives or for harmless enjoyment.

But until said crackhead commits a crime, how should they be a criminal?
Wasting ones own life away shouldnt be a crime.

[Manedwolf]

Mere possession of AP ammo, marijuanna, dope, crack cocaine, etc...  Aren't going to hurt anybody.  Furthermore, the informed usage by consenting adults isn't going to, by default, harm anybody else.

That's actually not quite valid. People who are strung out on drugs do create a public hazard when they try to operate a vehicle. Cocaine, when used, causes a physical addiction beyond the control of the user. Hard drugs turn human beings into desparate animals. There is no redeeming feature. They cannot, as ammunition can, be used for saving lives or for harmless enjoyment.

But until said crackhead commits a crime, how should they be a criminal?
Wasting ones own life away shouldnt be a crime.

I'm fine with that, as long as they're entirely denied any form of welfare and as long as they lose their license the first time they drive stoned. It's just that, as I said, people who get onto hard drugs cease being human after a while. Nothing matters but the next hit. Not even the lives of people they might take to get money for that next hit. They become animals. Especially meth-heads.

But let's not get away from the "guns are bad" thing of the Obamite here...

[Jamisjockey]

Mere possession of AP ammo, marijuanna, dope, crack cocaine, etc...  Aren't going to hurt anybody.  Furthermore, the informed usage by consenting adults isn't going to, by default, harm anybody else.

That's actually not quite valid. People who are strung out on drugs do create a public hazard when they try to operate a vehicle. Cocaine, when used, causes a physical addiction beyond the control of the user. Hard drugs turn human beings into desparate animals. There is no redeeming feature. They cannot, as ammunition can, be used for saving lives or for harmless enjoyment.

But until said crackhead commits a crime, how should they be a criminal?
Wasting ones own life away shouldnt be a crime.

I'm fine with that, as long as they're entirely denied any form of welfare and as long as they lose their license the first time they drive stoned. It's just that, as I said, people who get onto hard drugs cease being human after a while. Nothing matters but the next hit. Not even the lives of people they might take to get money for that next hit. They become animals. Especially meth-heads.

But let's not get away from the "guns are bad" thing of the Obamite here...

An armed populace would surely weed those types out quickly.  Others can be victims, I'll be a survivor.

[K Frame]

Pull it back onto topic, Monkeymen...

[ArmedBear]

Here's more support for the NRA's position: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6255.html

[Firethorn]

That's actually not quite valid. People who are strung out on drugs do create a public hazard when they try to operate a vehicle. Cocaine, when used, causes a physical addiction beyond the control of the user. Hard drugs turn human beings into desparate animals. There is no redeeming feature. They cannot, as ammunition can, be used for saving lives or for harmless enjoyment.

Note that about two paragraphs down I mentioned drunk driving(on public roads) as being a valid crime, I grouped it with things like brandishment.  And yes, I think that a lot of drugs CAN be used for harmless enjoyment.  Or at least, that in the legal state they'll cause less harm than being illegal.

So - do drugs in your home, in a den, just don't drive until you're sober, and realized going into it that the State doesn't care what you're hopped up on unless for some strange reason you were drugged against your will or without your knowledge.

[BReilley]

Since you guys like to ask me questions, let me ask you one.

Do you think that ammo capable of being fired out of a handgun and piercing armor should be available to civilians?  And yes, I know that there are different classes of body armor.  Feel feel to make the question more specific if you like.

Food for thought: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/256618
Guys, that was in my backyard.  I wouldn't have survived that event had it gone down at my house, but the fact is that criminals - gang members, "mafia" types, and plain old everyday crooks can obtain body armor, legally or otherwise.  Why should I be denied the ability to defend myself(again, the innocent) against what criminals might bring to bear?  Why should the police - who will most likely show up well after the fact - be allowed to use anything that I can't?

I understand your concern for law enforcement - I share it, to some extent - however I do not believe that banning "armor-piercing" ammunition would have any positive effect.  The fact is(for proof, I submit the District of Columbia over the last couple of decades) that criminals will get the tools that they want to get, regardless of laws or bans.  Even if not, it's been mentioned above that ammunition that is neither designed nor marketed as "armor-piercing" will in fact defeat armor.  What's the sense in banning some, but not all, based on how the manufacturer wants to advertise?  If an officer is shot with any serious rifle round, his body armor probably won't matter, and he's sure not going to care whether the ammo box said "armor-piercing" or not.  He's going to care that the CRIMINAL who shot him has been caught and will be brought to justice.

Furthermore, most military surplus ammo(in calibers I'm interested in) available these days is considered armor-piercing, and banning that would make range-fun days too expensive

I'm sorry that I don't have time to read all your responses right now, so I'll just pick one that jumps out at me.

I should be able to buy tungsten-carbide core, teflon-coated .22 rimfire ammo made specially for snubnose revolvers if I want to.

But this is like saying that I should be allowed to slander someone because the First Amendment guarantees free speech, or that I should be allowed to start a riot, because of freedom of assembly.  All constitutionally-protected rights are subject to limitations.  We just don't agree on what those limitations should be.

And I don't buy the "When X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" argument, because its logical extension is that we'd might as well repeal all laws, because criminals by definition don't obey them.  Deterrence is a major purpose of law, and is why some gun control laws may be justified.

But I'm pretty sure we've all heard each others' arguments before, and that no one is going to change anybody's mind here.

Sure, we've all heard the cliches and one-liners, but when we read the rest of the post we can find out where we all actually stand and why we believe in the principles that we do.

Again, I counter with the example of the DC ban.  Who always seemed to get guns, despite the law?  Criminals.  Who couldn't offer equal resistance to those who wished them harm?  Law-abiding citizens.

Nobody is suggesting that we "repeal all laws".  We all believe in personal responsibility, accountability for choices, and consequences for those who break the law.  The major rebuttal to your example will always be that law-abiding citizens are punished for crimes they never committed and never will commit.  If you were to conduct a comprehensive survey of all American households with legally-owned firearms, I suspect that you would find an overwhelming majority of peaceable, law-respecting citizens.  If you were to take a comprehensive survey of violent criminals(firearm crimes or not), I suspect that you would find that far more consciously chose to break the law, than did not.  Laws deter law-abiding citizens from committing crimes, but there are those who will not be deterred.  For them, there are prisons.

Let me offer a suggestion: widespread(as in more widespread than today) gun ownership may contribute to "equality".  Guns have been called "equalizers" for a hundred years, and not without reason.  I'm a little guy, but that doesn't matter to the burglar in my house, even if he weighs 220 - because I'm holding a gun.  One day my gun may save my life - but I'd be willing to bet that MY GUN will NEVER take an innocent life, nor even be pointed toward an innocent individual.  Responsible gun ownership prevents people from becoming victims.  Isn't the point of liberalism to level the playing field?