Post by: DaveBeal on September 24, 2008, 04:44:16 PM
Quote
Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
In fact, the amendment that he voted for would have banned rifle ammunition only if it was "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability". See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/~r1098C4m9n, search down for "SA1615".
Quote
Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.
The NRA's reference for this statement is one poorly constructed sentence from a December 13, 1999 issue of an obscure newspaper. Even if the statement is accurate, it was years before Obama became a US senator. See http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml, last sentence on page.
Quote
Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
Here, the NRA's reference is a one word response on a questionaire that Obama may or may not have personally filled out in 1996, before he was even elected to the Illinois state senate. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269_Page2.html, second paragraph.
Quote
Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.
What Obama actually said in the NRA reference: "It's hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic. I said at a forum earlier this week, 'If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn't be hunting' and so that I think is something that we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about."
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 04:51:36 PM
Quote
``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or
That's from the very document you linked to.
Note it doesn't have to be designed to penetrate armor, but only capable of doing so.
.30-30 and .223 handguns exist in mass production.
Post by: DaveBeal on September 24, 2008, 05:02:54 PM
Quote
That's from the very document you linked to.
Note it doesn't have to be designed to penetrate armor, but only capable of doing so.
Note it doesn't have to be designed to penetrate armor, but only capable of doing so.
The NRA's claim was that the bill would have outlawed many kinds of common rifle ammunition. If you look farther down in the document I referenced, it applied only to rifle ammunition that was designed or marketed as armor piercing.
Post by: K Frame on September 24, 2008, 05:05:20 PM
Teddy Kennedy, IIRC, and others used to claim that they weren't trying to interfere with hunters and other sportsmen when, in fact, they supported proposed legislation that would have banned, as armor piercing, about 95 to 99 percent of all sporting ammunition as armor piercing when much of which had absolutely no ability to penetrate body armor.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 05:22:04 PM
Quote
That's from the very document you linked to.
Note it doesn't have to be designed to penetrate armor, but only capable of doing so.
Note it doesn't have to be designed to penetrate armor, but only capable of doing so.
The NRA's claim was that the bill would have outlawed many kinds of common rifle ammunition. If you look farther down in the document I referenced, it applied only to rifle ammunition that was designed or marketed as armor piercing.
No, there are separate provisions, one for handgun, and one for rifle ammunition.
Post by: wacki on September 24, 2008, 05:37:28 PM
Quote
That's from the very document you linked to.
Note it doesn't have to be designed to penetrate armor, but only capable of doing so.
Note it doesn't have to be designed to penetrate armor, but only capable of doing so.
The NRA's claim was that the bill would have outlawed many kinds of common rifle ammunition. If you look farther down in the document I referenced, it applied only to rifle ammunition that was designed or marketed as armor piercing.
I can't believe we are seriously debating this. Read this:
http://obamagun.blogspot.com/2008/08/ban-rifle-ammunition-commonly-used-for.html
Kennedy introduced the bill by calling for a ban of 7.62, 30.30 and .223. All of these rounds are "rifle" rounds. And as my blog post explains there is no such thing as a "rifle" round. Heck, I've fired all of the above bullets from a handgun. The armor piercing clause is a joke that is only meant to fool those that don't understand ballistics. A 9mm round is "armor piercing" against a Type I vest. Heck a high velocity 9mm will penetrate anything up to and including a Type II vest.
The law is so broad it would give the attorney general power to ban just about every bullet out there.
Post by: wacki on September 24, 2008, 05:39:25 PM
Here, the NRA's reference is a one word response on a questionaire that Obama may or may not have personally filled out in 1996, before he was even elected to the Illinois state senate. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269_Page2.html, second paragraph.
You actually denying the questionnaire with Obama's handwriting didn't belong to Mr. "5 mile ban"?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 24, 2008, 05:41:03 PM
Post by: GigaBuist on September 24, 2008, 05:51:14 PM
Post by: wacki on September 24, 2008, 05:55:03 PM
The NRA's been stretching it a bit with their 10 facts about Obama list, which is silly, because they didn't need to at all.
I'm no fan of the NRA's president, he annoys the crap out of me. But what on this list do you consider a stretch?
http://nraila.org/obama/
Post by: MechAg94 on September 24, 2008, 05:56:38 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 24, 2008, 06:40:45 PM
Here's what I found, which I posted on my site here
Here's a video of a Fox news interview with an Obama spokesman. Notice how he tries to wriggle out of the handgun ban charge.
Post by: GigaBuist on September 24, 2008, 06:59:44 PM
The NRA's been stretching it a bit with their 10 facts about Obama list, which is silly, because they didn't need to at all.
I'm no fan of the NRA's president, he annoys the crap out of me. But what on this list do you consider a stretch?
http://nraila.org/obama/
I was referring to their 10 point plan poster/flyer/cards that they were promoting a while ago with that URL at the bottom. You can see it here: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=308&issue=047
Scroll down a bit. I think its' the 2nd graphic.
When I got to #4 ("Close down 90% of gun shops in America.") I felt a little insulted. That wasn't the stated goal, it was local to Chicago, 5 miles, etc. It wasn't as cut an dry as the NRA made it sound there and they could have spared the 7 or 8 words to make it clear.
Post by: wacki on September 24, 2008, 07:53:08 PM
Post by: BReilley on September 24, 2008, 08:06:07 PM
Also, hasn't the Obama campaign admitted that the notes written on the actual survey response are in Obama's own handwriting?
...My wife thinks I'm crazy for planning some serious gun purchases before the election.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2008, 08:08:57 PM
The search has timed out. You'll need to post your search criteria or it will happen again.
Teddy Kennedy, IIRC, and others used to claim that they weren't trying to interfere with hunters and other sportsmen when, in fact, they supported proposed legislation that would have banned, as armor piercing, about 95 to 99 percent of all sporting ammunition as armor piercing when much of which had absolutely no ability to penetrate body armor.
Teddy Kennedy, IIRC, and others used to claim that they weren't trying to interfere with hunters and other sportsmen when, in fact, they supported proposed legislation that would have banned, as armor piercing, about 95 to 99 percent of all sporting ammunition as armor piercing when much of which had absolutely no ability to penetrate body armor.
He also called out 30-30 by name as one of those "armor piercing" calibers.
Quote
...My wife thinks I'm crazy for planning some serious gun purchases before the election.
If Obama wins, prices are going to spike. It's wise to buy what you want now. Entire firearms, receivers, and high capacity magazines. Bolt actions and revolvers you can leave, but anything semiauto you want now...
...because if Obama does win, prices will spike, and then by next year, you won't be able to buy anything like an AR, AK, FAL, SKS, PS90, AUG, HK 91 or any other EBR. And possibly vast restrictions on semiauto handguns. That is what I expect, at least.
Post by: GigaBuist on September 24, 2008, 08:17:15 PM
Quote
I suspect the NRA just prints pamphlets without a whole lot of review and then makes corrections after the fact.
How is that possible? How is that excusable? I do this "gun rights" thing in my spare time and even I know when they're trying to push some BS down my throat. A friggen intern at the NRA could have, or should have, caught the mistakes in that "10 reasons" list.
There's simply no reason for them to have even attempted at stretching the truth with that 10 reasons list. None at all. There are plenty of things about Obama that simply cannot be questioned on the gun rights front. There was absolutely no reason to do this.
The NRA is, unfortunately and unfairly, viewed as an "extremist" group by a good number of people. By publishing semi-truths they're doing a disservice to their members and tarnishing their reputation.
Post by: gunsmith on September 24, 2008, 09:06:44 PM
Quote
What Obama actually said in the NRA reference: "It's hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic. I said at a forum earlier this week, 'If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn't be hunting' and so that I think is something that we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about."
I am not a hunter. I have owned rifles that can take 30 round magazines, they were not for hunting.
Its none of B.O's business (or yours) what firearms I own. How about we have a "reasonable conversation" on what rights you cherish
that we can minimize? hmmmm...I think you need a background check to own a computer or better yet.
it is "only reasonable" that a drivers license be subject to background checks and no one "needs" to own a car that goes faster then a bicycle.
WHAT THE HELL IS A "19-clip semi-automatic."
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2008, 09:12:36 PM
Quote from: gunsmith link=topic=14962.msg276390#msg276390
[i
[i
WHAT THE HELL IS A[/i] "19-clip semi-automatic."
An M1 with a big bandolier of enblocs?
Post by: El Tejon on September 25, 2008, 06:00:26 AM
2. Barry knows absolutely nothing about firearms and has told me that Chicago laws are a "reasonable compromise" which he would like to see enacted nationwide (in case you did not know, Dave, Chicago has had a handgun freeze since 1983).
3. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting.
Post by: Hutch on September 25, 2008, 06:01:39 AM
<crickets.....>
Dimbulb. If someone deeply, truly believes that Mr. Obama's vision for America is worth ignoring his position on firearms ownership, then feel free to try explain why this is so, but DON'T try to re-invent his stance on gun control. As my Daddy said "Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's just rainwater"
Post by: buzz_knox on September 25, 2008, 06:04:14 AM
Quote
Paging Mr. Beal, Mr. David Beal, please return and claim your baggage....
<crickets.....>
<crickets.....>
Give him a minute. He's got other forums to spread disinformation on.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 25, 2008, 06:27:20 AM
Post by: Nitrogen on September 25, 2008, 06:56:39 AM
RIGHT?
AWB McCain?
He changed HIS mind, can't Obama change his?
(I'm not saying Obama changed his mind, I'm saying McCain hasn't changed his.)
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2008, 07:01:47 AM
But McCain is OK, right?
RIGHT?
AWB McCain?
He changed HIS mind, can't Obama change his?
(I'm not saying Obama changed his mind, I'm saying McCain hasn't changed his.)
RIGHT?
AWB McCain?
He changed HIS mind, can't Obama change his?
(I'm not saying Obama changed his mind, I'm saying McCain hasn't changed his.)
McCain is imperfect. Obama is total disarmament for all but the elite.
Post by: DaveBeal on September 25, 2008, 07:02:25 AM
Quote
If that wasn't a drive by, I don't know what is.
Just because I don't quibble with every detail of your rebuttals doesn't mean I'm not reading them. I don't think turning the thread into a p***ing contest serves much of a purpose.
Guys, all I did was follow the NRA's own references on its website and note that in some cases, they don't support the NRA's categorical statements. My guess is that the NRA figures that people will see the footnotes on its webpage and say "Well, it's documented, so it must be true" without actually following the links.
And for what it's worth, I'm just a shooter who is likely to vote for Obama. I have no association with his campaign. I'm even a member of the NRA although I'm not likely to renew next year, because of the misrepresentations I've noted. I'm new to APS, but I've been reading and posting on THR for about a year.
Post by: Pb on September 25, 2008, 07:20:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE
Keep in mind that Obama refused to sign of congress' statement of support for overturning the laws. McCain did sign.
Keep in mind the DC's law were a total ban on self-defense with a gun in any way, shape or form. If you were being stabbed to death by an intruder in your house, it would have been illegal for you to crawl over to your gun safe, unlock it, and re-assemble your shotgun for use in self-defense.
Obama supported this BS. I cannot believe you are taken in by this man. Watch the video I linked.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2008, 07:23:31 AM
And for what it's worth, I'm just a shooter who is likely to vote for Obama.
What do you shoot? What kind of gun?
Maybe you'd prefer CNN's election center factfinding, since they're in the bag for Obama?
Quote
Calls for permanently reinstating assault weapons ban. Voted for 2005 amendment placing restrictions on rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed" to be armor-piercing.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html
Post by: Pb on September 25, 2008, 07:25:14 AM
Obama's old website supported banning all semi-automatic guns, as well as a federal ban on CCW. I saw it myself. He's had those positions removed from his website.
What has Obama ever done that was pro-second ammendment? Tell us that please!
Post by: DaveBeal on September 25, 2008, 07:36:02 AM
Quote
Quote
And for what it's worth, I'm just a shooter who is likely to vote for Obama.
What do you shoot? What kind of gun?
Mainly a S&W Model 41 and a Beretta 92FS. Why do you ask?
Quote
Calls for permanently reinstating assault weapons ban. Voted for 2005 amendment placing restrictions on rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed" to be armor-piercing.
I never claimed that Obama is against an AWB. And thank you for confirming that the amendment he voted for targeted rifle ammunition only if it was intended to be armor-piercing.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2008, 07:39:42 AM
Quote
Quote
And for what it's worth, I'm just a shooter who is likely to vote for Obama.
What do you shoot? What kind of gun?
Mainly a S&W Model 41 and a Beretta 92FS. Why do you ask?
Because Obama has SAID that he would ban both. All semiautos.
Quote
I never claimed that Obama is against an AWB. And thank you for confirming that the amendment he voted for targeted rifle ammunition only if it was intended to be armor-piercing.
ALL RIFLE AMMO IS ARMOR-PIERCING. A generic 30-06 ball will defeat police armor!
And just to confirm...you're okay with an AWB? That's what it sounds like.
He's not just not "against" it, he is FOR it. He WANTS one to be permanent. Don't muddle words. I'm sick of Democrats twisting words like that.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 07:43:47 AM
Quote
I never claimed that Obama is against an AWB. And thank you for confirming that the amendment he voted for targeted rifle ammunition only if it was intended to be armor-piercing.
And for an amendment that would ban all ammo that can fit in a pistol and pierce body armor.
Post by: DaveBeal on September 25, 2008, 07:52:33 AM
Quote
ALL RIFLE AMMO IS ARMOR-PIERCING. A generic 30-06 ball will defeat police armor!
Why do you guys keep ignoring the phrase "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability" in the amendment for which Obama voted? Just being capable of piercing armor wasn't sufficient for rifle ammunition to be banned.
Quote
And just to confirm...you're okay with an AWB? That's what it sounds like.
I think there are more important issues facing our country. I don't get to build my own candidate by selecting one option on each possible issue. I only get to choose between two viable alternatives.
Quote
And for an amendment that would ban all ammo that can fit in a pistol and pierce body armor.
True, but that's not the part of the amendment that the NRA attacked.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2008, 07:54:54 AM
Quote
And just to confirm...you're okay with an AWB? That's what it sounds like.
I think there are more important issues facing our country.
Okay, now I think you're an Obama campaign worker.
That's a quacking Dem question-duck if I've ever seen one.
Quit ducking. Are you okay with an AWB? YES OR NO.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 25, 2008, 07:56:01 AM
I think there are more important issues facing our country.
True and letting me decide how to spend my own hard earned money is one of those.
Post by: Balog on September 25, 2008, 07:57:33 AM
Post by: DaveBeal on September 25, 2008, 07:58:39 AM
Quote
Quit ducking. Are you okay with an AWB? YES OR NO.
A new AWB wouldn't bother me.
But the topic under discussion is the accuracy of the NRA's statements about Obama, not my political opinions.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 25, 2008, 07:59:51 AM
Quote
Quit ducking. Are you okay with an AWB? YES OR NO.
A new AWB wouldn't bother me.
How so?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2008, 08:01:04 AM
Quote
Quit ducking. Are you okay with an AWB? YES OR NO.
A new AWB wouldn't bother me.
But the topic under discussion is the accuracy of the NRA's statements about Obama, not my political opinions.
No, it IS relevant.
Because you just invalidated your political opinions by saying that.
Take your thousand dollar target pistol and go sit with the rest of the old FUDDs down at the BS sporting goods store.
FUDD. You're worse than antis. You do more damage than they ever could because you rot the meaning of the 2A from within.
Just wait till they come for your guns. You won't get any help from those of us who wanted to keep our ARs and AKs.
Post by: Balog on September 25, 2008, 08:04:21 AM
Quote
Quit ducking. Are you okay with an AWB? YES OR NO.
A new AWB wouldn't bother me.
But the topic under discussion is the accuracy of the NRA's statements about Obama, not my political opinions.
The source's bias is important. An article from HuffPo or World Net Daily would be viewed much more sceptically because of the serious bias of the source. Someone who claims to give a *expletive deleted*it about the 2nd but obviously doesn't is also a source of scepticism.
Post by: DaveBeal on September 25, 2008, 08:04:49 AM
Anybody wanna discuss the NRA website?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2008, 08:08:30 AM
Anybody wanna discuss the NRA website?
No. Why do you care? You don't stand for what they stand for anyway.
You don't even understand what the second amendment is for.
Post by: Balog on September 25, 2008, 08:11:18 AM
Anybody wanna discuss the NRA website?
Some of the claims are phrased poorly. Your attempts to twist the "armor piercing" thing are amusing in their yoga master levels of contortion.
Thread drift is a way of life here. Deal with it or leave.
So why are you ok with an AWB? And what problems do you think are so pressing, and how will Obama fix them?
Post by: hoosier8 on September 25, 2008, 08:14:21 AM
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 25, 2008, 08:32:05 AM
Me either. I'd rather discuss your opposition to my basic rights.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 08:33:50 AM
Quote
Quit ducking. Are you okay with an AWB? YES OR NO.
A new AWB wouldn't bother me.
But the topic under discussion is the accuracy of the NRA's statements about Obama, not my political opinions.
The NRA is not running for elected office. Obama is.
Obama would support a new AWB. Most of the posters here are not fine with any new gun laws. Some of us think gun laws in America are too strict.
Why would we support Obama?
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 08:34:55 AM
Quote
True, but that's not the part of the amendment that the NRA attacked.
.30-30 can fit in a pistol and will pierce body armor. It will be banned under that part.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2008, 08:36:55 AM
Quote
True, but that's not the part of the amendment that the NRA attacked.
.30-30 can fit in a pistol and will pierce body armor. It will be banned under that part.
So can anything that can fit in an HK 91/93 clone, AK pistol, or Contender. That's, oh, right...everything.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 08:40:53 AM
Quote
True, but that's not the part of the amendment that the NRA attacked.
.30-30 can fit in a pistol and will pierce body armor. It will be banned under that part.
So can anything that can fit in an HK 91/93 clone, AK pistol, or Contender. That's, oh, right...everything.
But being as this is a .50 BMG, the most powerful rifle round in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?
Post by: DaveBeal on September 25, 2008, 08:50:13 AM
Quote
Here is a collection of Obama's position statements.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Thanks for posting this, hoosier.
Post by: Balog on September 25, 2008, 08:50:19 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2008, 08:55:07 AM
Quote
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. ban.
OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. ban.
My answer to Obama involves a single digit. Goddamned elitist bastard.
I've got a safe full of those misnamed "assault weapons". To this date, they have killed paper, milk jugs, and a tennis ball. They do not sneak out at night and kill people.
They would, however, be used to defend my family and those I care about in the event of disaster or civil disorder, because unlike a Prince of Chicago, I cannot afford armed bodyguards.
He makes me sick.
Post by: gunsmith on September 25, 2008, 01:03:10 PM
Me either. I'd rather discuss your opposition to my basic rights.
DB
I am not a hunter, I like to shoot AR15's and AK's,
Obama and you are trying to crap on my God given right to do so.
You and Obama & yer pals will lose yet another national election due to your blindness on the 2A.
You would rather lose then win because you really don't have a plan to fix anything anyway, your whole worldview can be summed up as
"Dem good Repub bad" you don't give a crap about working people and their needs and neither do most politicians, especially B.O
Post by: Tallpine on September 25, 2008, 01:42:39 PM
Quote
Anybody wanna discuss the NRA website?
To what purpose
You point seems to be that since the NRA is not quite perfect (well, I would agree with that - IMO they compromise too much
), that we should all vote for Obama. 
Post by: Intune on September 25, 2008, 02:13:25 PM
Quote
I only get to choose between two viable alternatives.
For me, there is NO "viable alternative." There is only one viable candidate. The other one running should be thankful to even be mentioned in the same sentence or stand in his crippled shadow.
Post by: TommyGunn on September 25, 2008, 02:38:34 PM
Quote
ALL RIFLE AMMO IS ARMOR-PIERCING. A generic 30-06 ball will defeat police armor!
Why do you guys keep ignoring the phrase "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability" in the amendment for which Obama voted? Just being capable of piercing armor wasn't sufficient for rifle ammunition to be banned.
Quote
And just to confirm...you're okay with an AWB? That's what it sounds like.
I think there are more important issues facing our country. I don't get to build my own candidate by selecting one option on each possible issue. I only get to choose between two viable alternatives.
Quote
And for an amendment that would ban all ammo that can fit in a pistol and pierce body armor.
True, but that's not the part of the amendment that the NRA attacked.
One reason why we "ignore" the phrase "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability"
is because laws are often drafted by politicans who do such a poor job, and/or lack an understanding of the subject, that the resultant law(s) affect a far wider group of products than intended.
And consider that while most centerfire rifle ammo can penetrate some types of body armor, I have never, ever actually seen any ammo marketed to do so. I don't think Remington, Winchester, Federal, et al, market ammo with any idea that their ammo will be used that way, since it obviously would infer use against law enforcement.
And if it were actually marketed that way, what's to stop the manufacturer from slimply stop marketing it that way and keep selling the same stuff?
See what I'm getting at. It is in part atleast, a bad law. It's also useless since even if there was ammo that was designed and marketed for that purpose, other common ammo around for over a century can still penetrate the armor, so it will not "save" any policeman's life, only uselessly hinder honest people.
For the record, I do not, and will not trust Obama on second amendment issues. He "supported" the Washington D.C. gun control law as reasonable ... but also apparantly supports Heller. What the.....
? He is a "machine politician" from out of one of the most corrupt political entities in America; Daley's Chicago.
I have other issues with McCain... so far as this election is concerned I feel I am voting for the lessor evil, not anyone I actually support ... but that's life in this country.
Post by: 280plus on September 25, 2008, 02:50:10 PM
Quote
Here is a collection of Obama's position statements.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Thanks for posting this, hoosier.
Post by: DaveBeal on September 25, 2008, 02:56:54 PM
Quote
See what I'm getting at. It is in part atleast, a bad law.
I didn't say that the bill was a good idea. I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting". The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
Post by: Intune on September 25, 2008, 03:03:12 PM
Post by: 280plus on September 25, 2008, 03:16:23 PM
Quote
The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing,
While the ammo(s) in question were not SPECIFICALLY designed to pierce armor it is inherent in their design that they can. All those morons have to do is shoot one of each type through the flimsiest body armor they can come up with and then say, "Whoop, armor piercing!" and on the ban list it will go. THAT is what the NRA is saying. Way to twist things up to fit your needs though. It is a war of misinformation and semantics you folks are waging and what you don't realize is the INFORMED voter sees right through it all. My only fear is that there aren't enough of them left in this country to beat you people back again seeing how you all run the education system and feed our kids this BS on a daily basis. Go ahead and vote for Obama, I'll vote for McCain and cancel yours out. Don't think I have any special love for McCain, I'd just be voting for the candidate I dislike the least, as usual.
And please don't forget, your boy Bill Clinton was in the Oval office working on getting his willy wet while people were busy plotting the hijacking of multiple airliners so they could crash them into targets here in the US. I sure haven't.
Post by: TommyGunn on September 25, 2008, 06:38:25 PM
Quote
See what I'm getting at. It is in part atleast, a bad law.
I didn't say that the bill was a good idea. I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting". The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
The NRA's statement was actually correct. It is you who does not understand. A number of posters have pointed this out now. Whether you think the bill was a good idea or not is not the point.
But I admit that at THIS point, I am at a loss as to how to better explain this to you . . . . .
Post by: nico on September 25, 2008, 06:40:22 PM
Quote
See what I'm getting at. It is in part atleast, a bad law.
I didn't say that the bill was a good idea. I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting". The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
Quote
(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or
``(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''
``(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''
There is no projectile that can be used in a rifle that cannot also be used in a handgun. EVERY centerfire rifle caliber will penetrate some form of body armor. Therefore, this bill would be a de facto ban on all centerfire rifle ammunition. Kennedy SPECIFICALLY listed .223, 7.62, and 30-30 as calibers that he intended to be banned under the bill. The NRA's characterization of the bill was perfectly consistent with the intent of its author, and if you dispute this or just don't care, then frankly, discussing gun control with you isn't worth the time I took to type this response.
Quote
In a recent report, the ATF identified three, .223 and the 7.62 caliber rifles, as the ones most frequently encountered by police officers. These high-capacity rifles, the ATF wrote, pose an enhanced threat to law enforcement, in part because of their ability to expel particles at velocities that are capable of penetrating the type of soft body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers.
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
Post by: drewtam on September 25, 2008, 06:40:33 PM
Quote
Quit ducking. Are you okay with an AWB? YES OR NO.
A new AWB wouldn't bother me.
Why do you hate America Dave?
Post by: BReilley on September 25, 2008, 06:49:55 PM
Quote
See what I'm getting at. It is in part atleast, a bad law.
I didn't say that the bill was a good idea. I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting". The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
Just remember, the people who decide:
what guns you may purchase with your own money(at least, what they let you keep),
where you may store them(remember, it's just common sense that a stolen gun's rightful owner be punished for crimes committed by someone else in unlawful possession of the weapon, if he did not "properly secure" his own property),
in what state you may store them(really, why would anyone in the nation's crime-riddled capitol need to keep a weapon assembled or even *loaded*?),
what sort of ammunition you may keep in them("cop-killer" bullets? "armor-piercing" bullets?),
and many more factors - ANY ONE OF WHICH may affect whether you live or die in a gunfight or whether a gunfight actually occurs(but remember, your guns don't deter crimes - they "have only one purpose, to kill people") -
Use phrases like "The shoulder thing that goes up".
Don't even try to tell me that lawmakers are going to give us the benefit of the doubt. They're in their own world, and all that matters to them is the perpetuation of that world.
Why, anyway, are we debating this? I agree that the NRA(of which I am not a member, nor do I wish to be) is not perfectly precise regarding Obama's record on 2A issues(precision and accuracy are two different things). So what? They're a political organization with an agenda. They're going to spin his statements to instill fear in readers, and any intelligent consumer of information should know to take any propaganda with a grain of salt.
Can you tell me that Obama has been consistent on any specific gun issue("common sense", his favorite catch-all phrase, is not specific)? He stated that the DC ban was Constitutional, before he stated that he supported the DC v. Heller ruling. His interpretation of the ruling is VASTLY different from my interpretation, but that's another thread.
To sum it all up, the NRA has made imprecise, somewhat misleading statements about Obama. Are they all that far from the truth? I don't think so. I do agree with the general consensus here, however; the truth is frightening enough.
Edit:
Why do you hate America Dave?
Don't go there. He's been perfectly civil.
Post by: wacki on September 25, 2008, 06:52:42 PM
Quote
See what I'm getting at. It is in part atleast, a bad law.
I didn't say that the bill was a good idea. I said the NRA misrepresented it by saying that it applied to "almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting". The great majority of rifle ammo is not designed or marketed as armor piercing, so the NRA's statement was incorrect.
Are you blind or do you ignore what I type? Ted Kennedy called the .30-30 armor piercing in the INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL!
"In a recent report, the ATF identified three, .223 and the 7.62 caliber rifles, as the ones most frequently encountered by police officers. ......Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating. It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America." - Ted Kennedy introducing a bill Obama voted for
http://obamagun.blogspot.com/2008/08/ban-rifle-ammunition-commonly-used-for.html
Post by: TexasRifleman on September 25, 2008, 07:00:38 PM
Post by: wacki on September 25, 2008, 07:12:02 PM
Wow. Little ol' APS must be moving up in the world. We now merit the attention of the Obama gun control misinformation campaign.
yup. I'm a firm believer that the reason politics forums get shut down on THR and TFL is that the moderators there don't have what it takes to deal with the morons for hire from the Brady Bunch that are causing the massive degradation in their precious "signal to noise ratio". The number of so called "gun owners" defending Obama in some of those threads is staggering. You might as well be a Jew defending Hitler.
This is the last place gun owners can talk politics. I hope moderators finally get into gear and realize that this is a private forum (exempt from the 1st amendment) and certain levels of stupidity should not be tolerated. Whether this noise is caused by hired AstroTurf from the Brady Bunch & Axelrod's Astroturf or your run of the mill internet drama queen it does not matter. This forum is a good thing but it's fragile and it's our last safe haven. One Brady Bunch employee posting away for 20 hours a week under multiple aliases is all it would take to make this forum unbearable. One person is all it would take to cripple one of the best tools we have to fight oppression. It's really sad in a way.
I have no problem debating a hard core far left liberal. I do it all the time with some of my co-workers. Heck I even respect some of them. But even these people can admit that Obama is anti-gun when shown the evidence.
Post by: freakazoid on September 25, 2008, 07:36:11 PM
Quote
But being as this is a .50 BMG, the most powerful rifle round in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?
I think the real question is does the shooter feel lucky shooting that thing,
That has to kick like a beast.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 25, 2008, 07:45:04 PM
Gun nuts older than both of us will recognize that line.
Post by: ArmedBear on September 25, 2008, 07:56:58 PM
Most of us are pretty well-informed about politics. We have known Obama's positions regarding firearms and self-defense for a long time. He's adding new stuff to his website, even now, and none of it is good, for those of us who care about RKBA. Some is Orwellian newspeak. I wonder if it was written by someone at VPC or the Brady Bunch, but no matter.
The fact that DaveBeal intends to vote for Obama indicates that RKBA is not something that he cares about. That's his prerogative.
However, it would be a waste of time to try to convince anyone here who is pro-RKBA to vote for Obama. The exact wording of an NRA website or an Obama website would have NO impact on that.
That doesn't even account for the fact that Obama holds no appeal for me, and for many other informed voters, RKBA notwithstanding. Furthermore, he is a liar, and that can be documented quite well. Will I document that? Not here. Not worth my time. Look around the 'net -- if you're interested.
Dave doesn't seem interested in any of this. Perhaps the rest of us shouldn't piss into the wind.
Post by: gunsmith on September 25, 2008, 10:11:16 PM
Quote
Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
H.A.L 2001 A Space Odyessy
Post by: DaveBeal on September 26, 2008, 05:03:47 AM
I admit that Obama doesn't like guns. But I think his views on them have moderated significantly since he began campaigning on a national level. And any new gun law has to be passed by Congress. There's no way that Congress will pass a law banning all handguns or all semi-automatic weapons.
Why do I plan to vote for a guy who doesn't like guns? Like I said before, there are a lot more important issues facing us. I'll vote for Obama because I think my view of the world overall is more similar to his than to McCain's. And the thought of Sarah Palin in the White House scares the heck out of me.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2008, 05:05:23 AM
OK, I get it. The amendment that Obama voted for could have been applied to rifle ammo, because a handgun could be built to fire it. I think it's a stretch, but I see your point.
No, it's not a stretch. It's an open loophole for the Dems to twist words and ban everything. Which they have done, which they will do, which they always have done when it comes to guns.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 26, 2008, 05:13:41 AM
OK, I get it. The amendment that Obama voted for could have been applied to rifle ammo, because a handgun could be built to fire it. I think it's a stretch, but I see your point.
It's not that a handgun *could* be built, but that they already have. Check out the Contender, Encore, and various other "handguns".
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2008, 05:16:35 AM
OK, I get it. The amendment that Obama voted for could have been applied to rifle ammo, because a handgun could be built to fire it. I think it's a stretch, but I see your point.
It's not that a handgun *could* be built, but that they already have. Check out the Contender, Encore, and various other "handguns".
Chris
Yup. There's barrels for nearly everything for those.
Also, historical perspective on what the Dems coupled with BATFE did. Steelcore 7.62x39 was banned after Olympic released a pistol to shoot it.
Quote
Quoting ATF Director, John W. Magaw, as stating "...(t)hese bullets are designed, when used in handguns, to pose a life-threatening risk to all law enforcement officers," the notification stated:
"Recent production of handguns that are designed to fire 7.62 X 39mm steel core ammunition has resulted in the reclassification of that ammunition as armor piercing (which) can only be sold to law enforcement or governmental agencies. Prior to introduction of these handguns in the marketplace, 7.62 X 39mm ammunition was not considered armor piercing, because it was only used in rifles -- primarily SKS/AK rifles."
"Recent production of handguns that are designed to fire 7.62 X 39mm steel core ammunition has resulted in the reclassification of that ammunition as armor piercing (which) can only be sold to law enforcement or governmental agencies. Prior to introduction of these handguns in the marketplace, 7.62 X 39mm ammunition was not considered armor piercing, because it was only used in rifles -- primarily SKS/AK rifles."
See, now?
Post by: DaveBeal on September 26, 2008, 05:24:16 AM
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.
Post by: Nitrogen on September 26, 2008, 05:27:13 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 26, 2008, 05:27:27 AM
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.
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.
Can you not read. It already is out there. But the answer would be yes.
Post by: DaveBeal on September 26, 2008, 05:41:49 AM
Quote
Can you not read.
Yes, I can. But thanks for asking.
Quote
It already is out there. But the answer would be yes.
Given that armor piercing ammo would likely be used against law enforcement, why shouldn't it be banned?
Post by: mtnbkr on September 26, 2008, 05:44:47 AM
Given that armor piercing ammo would likely be used against law enforcement, why shouldn't it be banned?
Any rifle ammo can pierce the armor worn by law enforcement. That is the root problem of the bill.
Besides, who cares if it pierces armor? Once again, why limit law abiding citizens? The criminals will still get this via the black market, the only ones who won't be able to get it are the ones who wouldn't use it illegally in the first place. Where have I heard that before...
Chris
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 26, 2008, 05:46:54 AM
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.
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.
Yes, I see no reason to punish the people in advance for actions that may or may not happen with an inanimate object. Just like I beliieve Chicago's ban on handguns is unconstitutional, I also believe the 1986 ban on title 2 weapons is just as unconstitutional as DC's handgun ban. Which part of "shall not be infringed is too complicated" for you?
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on September 26, 2008, 05:50:07 AM
Or maybe because I like to shoot those same targets with an AR-style rifle, and a ban on "armor-piercing" ammunition would ban the ammunition for that rifle.
Because basically ANY rifle ammunition could be classified as "armor-piercing".
That means the .30-06 ammo for your hunting rifle, or the .308, or the .30-30, could all be banned.
And no, I don't trust the politicians to NOT ban something just because "we don't think they really would ban all those."
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 26, 2008, 05:58:34 AM
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.
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.
Yes, it should.
And the word you're looking for is CITIZENS, not civilians.
I should be able to buy tungsten-carbide core, teflon-coated .22 rimfire ammo made specially for snubnose revolvers if I want to. No matter how wonderful a system of government is, they all commit abuses and fail eventually... even this one. The 2A is there to prolong that day, and equip us the People when that day does sadly come.
Post by: Firethorn on September 26, 2008, 06:02:07 AM
Do you think that ammo capable of being fired out of a handgun and piercing armor should be available to civilians?
Short answer - Yes.
Long answer - Much like recent advances in genetic science has blurred the lines between species, the line between a 'handgun' round and a 'rifle' round is a blurred one.
Just look at the .22LR round. The LR stands for "Long Rifle", but I'd guess half the ammo is used in handguns today. Why not? You get a light cheap plinker, and can have 8 or even more shots in a revolver that still fits your hand.
Moving up in power, take the .45ACP round. "Automatic Colt Pistol", so it's a handgun round, right? Except that last time I went deer hunting I did so with a gent who had a semi-automatic rifle chambered in that round. Called a "Carbine", it's a shorter rifle. While he wouldn't be able to make long range shots with it, the .45 ACP ammo does gain a substantial amount of velocity with the extra length of barrel, and becomes a substantial deer rifle in wooded, mountainous terrain where the shots are relatively close. The lower recoil allows him to make fast, accurate follow up shots.
Now let's look at the opposite end. The .50BMG has had a handgun made that fires it. There are AR pistols chambered in .223/5.56. Lever action guns in .22, .357, and .44. Revolvers that chamber the .30-30. Etc...
This very fact has been used to ban ammunition normally chambered in rifles in other legislation, because the act has no wording to exempt the occasional wierd handgun.
Another problem is that it talks about ammunition capable of penetrating body armor without specifying the class of armor. As others have noted, Level 1 bodyarmor doesn't stop much as is.
Last, it says 'ammunition capable'. What happens if a future Attorney General that's markedly anti-gun, proceeds to load 9mm(plenty of handguns in this caliber!) into a carbine and shoot it at a level 1 vest? The extra 150 fps can make quite a difference. Ump, almost all 9mm is banned, much less all the rifle cartridges out there. Might even manage to get a penetration with a .22LR out of a rifle.
It was a very bad piece of legislation and I'm glad it died. Still, I look at whole records - and Obama has managed to get a reputation for having never seen a gun control bill he didn't like.
Finally - Do the Police really NEED this protection? At the cost of stomping on all of our rights? I'd tend to say no - a career as a police officer doesn't even make the top 10 list for most dangerous professions. Pilots, Loggers, Fishermen, all have a drastically higher chance of dying on the job than a police officer. More officers are killed with their own weapons than are killed through their body armor - whether that be by defective vest or facing a weapon that it's not rated to handle, such as a rifle.
Post by: K Frame on September 26, 2008, 06:04:51 AM
Why shouldn't it be available to law-abiding people?
Using the political logic being espoused here, wouldn't it be just as effective to pass a law banning criminals from possessing this kind of ammo, and more importantly, SHOOTING someone with it?
According to most Democrats/liberals in general, all problems can be solved with the simple passage of a law. They still haven't figured out that passing new laws isn't effective when you're not willing to enforce laws that are already on the books, laws like:
1. It's already illegal to shoot someone.
2. It's already illegal for felons to possess ammunition and/or firearms.
The problem isn't that this ammunition is available. FEW police officers are ever shot with ammunition that can be actually termed "armored piercing."
It's that Democrats want to enact gun control legislation by any means that they can, and they don't care how much truth is against them, or how many lies they have to craft to get their pet project accomplished.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2008, 06:06:28 AM
Quote
It already is out there. But the answer would be yes.
Given that armor piercing ammo would likely be used against law enforcement, why shouldn't it be banned?
Oh, so you're automatically assuming that all law-abiding citizens will misuse said ammo? Funny, I have some. It's never hurt anyone.
Why not just BAN ALL GUNS then?
Oh, that's right. That's what you want.
Post by: El Tejon on September 26, 2008, 06:19:52 AM
Why I am presumed to be a criminal just because I possess some inert piece of metal?
Are all men rapists?
Post by: K Frame on September 26, 2008, 06:25:59 AM
Holy hell, Manedwolf. How WRONG you are!
Your having that ammo is making liberals everywhere cringe! And cringing HURTS!
Post by: Ben on September 26, 2008, 06:26:48 AM
Quote
Given that armor piercing ammo would likely be used against law enforcement, why shouldn't it be banned?
This question has been asked and answered already multiple times, with multiple clear explanations, including the obvious fact that it doesn't have to be labeled "armor piercing" to be capable of defeating many types of armor. The fact that you continue to alternate between asking this question and saying it isn't so only leads one to believe that you're trolling, or that you simply can't grasp physics.
Post by: nico on September 26, 2008, 06:27:52 AM
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.
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.
Quote
Given that armor piercing ammo would likely be used against law enforcement, why shouldn't it be banned?
Who says it's a given? You? You've already demonstrated your utter lack of knowledge regarding guns and gun laws, so I'm going to need some proof of this "given" before I buy it. Besides, to paraphrase Don Kates, in a free country it's up to the people who want to restrict freedoms to prove that the benefits of those restrictions outweigh the costs. So, where's your proof?
Post by: DaveBeal on September 26, 2008, 06:32:02 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 26, 2008, 06:33:17 AM
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.
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.
Quote
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.
If I shoot a police officer with that ammunition, THEN I've broken a law.
Possession is not intent to kill.
Post by: K Frame on September 26, 2008, 06:33:55 AM
Yep, that's it.
That's a CRUCIAL difference between how liberals view guns and how conservatives view guns, not to mention most other things.
Liberals have the firm belief that anyone who has access to, or wants, a gun is a predicate criminal. Doesn't matter if they're a physician with a spotless record of helping heal the poor, give 90% of their salary to good causes, volunteer on the weekends, etc.
If they have, or want, something like this, they're criminals and must be stopped in their tracks.
The liberal elements have learned nothing from the great social experiment that was Prohibition. You don't resolve a problem by attacking the object, you solve a problem by attacking the actor. Liberals never will learn that.
Post by: DaveBeal on September 26, 2008, 06:36:05 AM
Quote
If I shoot a police officer with that ammunition, THEN I've broken a law.
Possession is not intent to kill.
Possession is not intent to kill.
Good point, AZR. I can go with that.
Post by: K Frame on September 26, 2008, 06:44:15 AM
How would prohibitions on speech approach proposed prohibitions on ammunition?
From now on, you are allowed to communicate orally and in writing using ONLY pronouns and indefinite articles. The use of verbs and nouns is now prohibited by law because the use of nouns and verbs allows construction of sentences that have the potential to mischaracterize or defame an individual, a group of individuals, or the government. Such reckless and callous speech cannot, in a modern society, be allowed. Violations of this law are punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Repeat offenders will have their vocal cords surgically removed and their hands amputated so that they can't offend again.
Concept is kind of stupid and silly, no?
But that's exactly what people like Teddy Kennedy, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton want to do.
Oh, and how's that penis? How many women you rape today?
What? You mean you're NOT a rapist? Why, you're certainly (I hope) equipped to be one, and if you possess the tool, you MUST be the perpetrator...
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 26, 2008, 06:48:41 AM
Quote
From now on, you are allowed to communicate orally and in writing using ONLY pronouns and indefinite articles.
a him at that to there! a him at that to there!
He was bad!
Oops... off to prison I go.
Post by: Tallpine on September 26, 2008, 06:50:07 AM
Quote
I'll vote for Obama because I think my view of the world overall is more similar to his than to McCain's. And the thought of Sarah Palin in the White House scares the heck out of me.
I think I see the problem ...
Post by: Intune on September 26, 2008, 07:21:30 AM
Quote
Good point, AZR. I can go with that.
Great! In all seriousness, no sarcasm. Which is unusual for me. That's a start. None on this board intend to "dog" you so please don't be offended. Stay & learn. We just get tired of correcting all of the misinformation that is spewed by gun grabbers.
I took a coworker from NY shooting last year and the mere sight of my SAR-1 actually scared him. It was strange, almost Pavlovian. He looked around & said, "whoa, aren't those illegal? Dang, you have a machine gun. Is it safe to pick up?"
He jumped when I racked it to check the chamber! This is after shooting 30-06 & 6.5x55 rifles with no weirdness. After he inspected the SAR-1 I handed him a 7.62x39 cartridge & then gave him a 30-06. He could not believe the difference. "Then what makes them so dangerous?" He asked. I smiled, shook my head sadly and said, "have a seat, we gotta straighten you out on a few things..." And no, I didn't dog the .223 misguided folks even though I did mention how tiny it was.
(See,DB, THAT's how you get things riled up 'round here.) Psst, mention the puny 9mm...
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2008, 07:25:33 AM
"Funny, I have some. It's never hurt anyone."
Holy hell, Manedwolf. How WRONG you are!
Your having that ammo is making liberals everywhere cringe! And cringing HURTS!
Holy hell, Manedwolf. How WRONG you are!
Your having that ammo is making liberals everywhere cringe! And cringing HURTS!
This is true. If told the capabilities of old 30-06 tungsten core AP, which you can get at any flea market around here, they might soil themselves.
Oddly, nobody has ever been hurt with any, nor has any been used against any police.
Post by: K Frame on September 26, 2008, 07:28:31 AM
I don't think anyone has ever made .30-06 ammo with a tungsten penetrator...
During WW II the stuff was WAY too dear to use in anything other than anti-tank artillery shells.
WW II era black tip has a hardened steel penetrator.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2008, 07:32:37 AM
The stuff in the blue, yellow and white boxes. It does go through old appliances nicely.
Ooh, scary.
Post by: roo_ster on September 26, 2008, 07:51:54 AM
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.
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).
Post by: richyoung on September 26, 2008, 08:30:40 AM
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.
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.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 26, 2008, 08:33:58 AM
Quote
sometimes the good guys are the bad guys - like at Waco.
Uh-oh... controversy alert!
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2008, 08:37:50 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 26, 2008, 08:51:51 AM
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.
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.
Post by: 280plus on September 26, 2008, 09:07:13 AM
Quote
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! Post by: MechAg94 on September 26, 2008, 09:41:51 AM
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.
Post by: Sawdust on September 26, 2008, 10:37:59 AM
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.
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
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 26, 2008, 10:46:38 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: K Frame on September 26, 2008, 10:56:41 AM
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...
Post by: 280plus on September 26, 2008, 11:02:57 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on September 26, 2008, 11:11:26 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: ArfinGreebly on September 26, 2008, 11:15:03 AM
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.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 26, 2008, 11:21:05 AM
Post by: Firethorn on September 26, 2008, 11:28:30 AM
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.
Post by: ArfinGreebly on September 26, 2008, 11:30:42 AM
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2008, 11:32:17 AM
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.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 26, 2008, 11:41:28 AM
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2008, 11:43:03 AM
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...
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 26, 2008, 12:01:29 PM
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.
Post by: K Frame on September 26, 2008, 01:58:40 PM
Post by: ArmedBear on September 26, 2008, 02:21:24 PM
Post by: Firethorn on September 26, 2008, 04:44:39 PM
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.
Post by: BReilley on September 26, 2008, 08:24:12 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote
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?
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 26, 2008, 09:18:39 PM
Quote
OK, I get it. The amendment that Obama voted for could have been applied to rifle ammo, because a handgun could be built to fire it. I think it's a stretch, but I see your point.
Nope. Sorry Dave, it's not a stretch - not even close.
This is one of my handguns, and it's chambered for a variant of the venerable .30-30 Winchester RIFLE cartridge. It was produced in the late 1980s as a commercially-available handgun for the silhouette target sport. The 139gr Hornady hunting bullets it accelerates to 2000fps from the 10" barrel will easily defeat body armor.
Wichita Arms is still in business to this day, and currently makes a bolt-action pistol that chambers even more powerful rifle cartridges. There are many other handgun manufacturers offering similar firearms, and they've been on the market for decades.
Instead of hopping into this forum and insulting the intelligence of folks who've been there and done that, how about you kick back, ask a few non-offensive questions, and learn something? That will give you insight into why we cherish our 2nd Amendment rights, and make you appear less as a troll and more as somebody with a learning curve ahead of him.
Post by: Regolith on September 26, 2008, 10:09:55 PM
which is favored by both hunters and target shooters due to its light weight and the fact that it's chambered in full sized rifle cartridges.
The Contender is chambered in all of these rifle cartridges:
204 Ruger
22 Hornet
223 Rem
6.8 Rem
7-30 Waters
30/30 Win
45/70 Gov't
All of these cartridges, except maybe the .22 Hornet and possibly the .204 Ruger (I don't know the ballistics for these catridges well enough to say for sure), can cut through Type I and II armor like a hot knife through butter.
Some of them might even be able to penetrate low-level Type III armor.
The bill would have banned ALL of these cartridges, despite their wide use by civilians, because they are chambered in a handgun and can penetrate armor.
To say that almost every single rifle cartridge ever made, except for perhaps some obscure wildcat (custom) or obsolete cartridges, has been chambered in a pistol is not hyperbole. It is cold hard fact. This bill would have banned almost all of them because of this.
Post by: KD5NRH on September 27, 2008, 03:15:27 AM
I never claimed that Obama is against an AWB. And thank you for confirming that the amendment he voted for targeted rifle ammunition only if it was intended to be armor-piercing.
Read the whole thing:
Code:
(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor;
"may be used in a handgun" covers pretty much anything on the market. The Thompson Encore is available in pretty much everything up to .416 Rigby, including the supposedly not covered .30-30 and .30-06.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 27, 2008, 05:34:39 AM
KD5NRH, welcome. There are several other hams here as well.
Chris/KI4POT
Post by: agricola on September 27, 2008, 06:22:34 AM
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.
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
Can I just register my opposition to the invasion of trolls to this thread? I dont mind the mindless Obamadrones but Gooners are a bridge too far, IMHO.
Post by: Ben on September 27, 2008, 06:50:22 AM
Quote
Gooners
Had to look that one up in the Urban Dictionary.
Post by: K Frame on September 27, 2008, 07:06:22 AM
Eagle Arms?
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 27, 2008, 08:46:57 AM
I've shot the .30-06 version.
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Single-Shot-Pistols/Magnum_Lone_Eagle.htm
Post by: K Frame on September 27, 2008, 08:48:02 AM
IIRC the one we got at Rifleman was .270.
Post by: DaveBeal on September 27, 2008, 03:16:46 PM
I didn't know that there were handguns designed to fire traditional rifle ammo.
And more importantly, I'm convinced by the argument that you shouldn't outlaw the tool when the act is already illegal. That makes a lot of sense to me.
But I still think that some of the points on the NRA website are intentionally misleading.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 27, 2008, 05:38:41 PM
Post by: nico on September 27, 2008, 06:04:39 PM
But I still think that some of the points on the NRA website are intentionally misleading.
I don't think anyone here will argue with the notion that the inferred more than the typical non-gun owner about obama's statements. That said, the NRA's assumptions are a hell of a lot less extreme than the gun grabbers who say that advocates of concealed carry want everyone to carry a gun, or that castle doctrine laws allow anyone to justify murder by saying "i felt threatened."
Post by: Regolith on September 27, 2008, 06:50:57 PM
Regolith, the list of rifle cartridges available in the Contender is MUCH longer if you include the aftermarket barrels.
Ah, didn't know that. I don't know a whole lot about them, and I was just going off what Thompson's website said their factory loadings were.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 27, 2008, 06:56:10 PM
I'm a little late returning to this party, but I admit that you guys have educated me. Really. I'm not being sarcastic.
I didn't know that there were handguns designed to fire traditional rifle ammo.
And more importantly, I'm convinced by the argument that you shouldn't outlaw the tool when the act is already illegal. That makes a lot of sense to me.
But I still think that some of the points on the NRA website are intentionally misleading.
I didn't know that there were handguns designed to fire traditional rifle ammo.
And more importantly, I'm convinced by the argument that you shouldn't outlaw the tool when the act is already illegal. That makes a lot of sense to me.
But I still think that some of the points on the NRA website are intentionally misleading.
You just scored some points with that admittance. If you stay here, keep an open mind and you might learn a few more things.
Post by: KD5NRH on September 27, 2008, 08:50:52 PM
Magnum Research Lone Eagle.
I've shot the .30-06 version.
I've shot the .30-06 version.
I can't imagine that being fun with hot 185gr loads...at least not for very long.
.243 OTOH seems like it would be a blast (literally) from a handgun with a muzzle brake.
Post by: yesitsloaded on September 28, 2008, 12:03:47 AM
It is illegal to have guns on campus (only law I list that I disagree with)
It is illegal to commit murder
It is illegal to discharge weapons in crowded buildings
It is illegal to assault people with a deadly weapon
It is illegal to block a fire exit (Cho chained he doors shut)
It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit in Virginia
It is illegal to make a bomb threat (he left a note indicating there was a bomb)
Cho wasn't too worried about breaking laws. However law abiding citizens that follow laws were denied a right to defend themselves. Think about this and think about it hard:
Quote
In April 2005, a student licensed by the state to carry concealed weapons was discovered possessing a concealed firearm in class. While no criminal charges were filed, a university spokesman said the University had "the right to adhere to and enforce that policy as a common-sense protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors".[110]
In January 2006, prior to the shootings, legislator Todd Gilbert had introduced a related bill into the Virginia House of Delegates. The bill, HB 1572, was intended to forbid public universities in Virginia from preventing students from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun on campus.[111] The university opposed the bill, which quickly died in subcommittee. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the defeat of the bill, stating, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."[112]
It isn't about feeling safe, it is about being able to defend yourself.
In January 2006, prior to the shootings, legislator Todd Gilbert had introduced a related bill into the Virginia House of Delegates. The bill, HB 1572, was intended to forbid public universities in Virginia from preventing students from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun on campus.[111] The university opposed the bill, which quickly died in subcommittee. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the defeat of the bill, stating, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."[112]
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 28, 2008, 12:12:32 AM
Why the hell are we assuming it's not legitimate for civilians to have 'armor-piercing' ammunition in the first place?
Post by: yesitsloaded on September 28, 2008, 12:14:11 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 28, 2008, 05:34:06 AM
I have a question.
Why the hell are we assuming it's not legitimate for civilians to have 'armor-piercing' ammunition in the first place?
Why the hell are we assuming it's not legitimate for civilians to have 'armor-piercing' ammunition in the first place?
It is actually still legal to own, sell, and shoot true AP. You just can't import or manufacture any more for sale.
There's still a number of boxes of the aforementioned 30-06 AP, as well as 9mm AP around at shows, steadily going up in price due to attrition. I'm not sure how M855 has managed to be a loophole, but I'm sure the dems would ban it, despite no incidents of it ever being used illegally to defeat someone's armor. It could, you see.
Post by: BReilley on September 28, 2008, 05:56:53 AM
And more importantly, I'm convinced by the argument that you shouldn't outlaw the tool when the act is already illegal. That makes a lot of sense to me.
But I still think that some of the points on the NRA website are intentionally misleading.
But I still think that some of the points on the NRA website are intentionally misleading.
Oh, they are. Generally, users here are "informed" enough not to take the NRA's statistics for granted(similarly, we cringe at Brady Campaign "research"), so you won't find many here to disagree on that point.
Are the NRA's statements any more misleading than Obama's denials of responsibility for previous statements(the survey, etc) and backpedaling("above my pay grade")?
I have a question.
Why the hell are we assuming it's not legitimate for civilians to have 'armor-piercing' ammunition in the first place?
Why the hell are we assuming it's not legitimate for civilians to have 'armor-piercing' ammunition in the first place?
The issue here is the quotation marks around "armor-piercing", not the ammunition itself. As has been mentioned many times, most rifle rounds "can" penetrate basic body armor, but aren't marketed as such. It just seems to be one of those "if only one life is saved..." justifications meant to make all gun owners seem like gangers or "crazies"("why on earth would you ever need that?").
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2008, 09:06:22 PM
No, forget it, who wants to live in a crazy world like that, right?
Post by: Green Lantern on September 29, 2008, 09:15:17 AM
I'm a little late returning to this party, but I admit that you guys have educated me. Really. I'm not being sarcastic.
I didn't know that there were handguns designed to fire traditional rifle ammo.
And more importantly, I'm convinced by the argument that you shouldn't outlaw the tool when the act is already illegal. That makes a lot of sense to me.
But I still think that some of the points on the NRA website are intentionally misleading.
I didn't know that there were handguns designed to fire traditional rifle ammo.
And more importantly, I'm convinced by the argument that you shouldn't outlaw the tool when the act is already illegal. That makes a lot of sense to me.
But I still think that some of the points on the NRA website are intentionally misleading.
MmmmMMMmmmmmMMMMmmm...
When I was giving out the cards NRA sent, or even copies from the magazine I made myself...
I pointed out that while all were things that Obama HAS supported in the past - it's been several years on some of them. Though I also pointed out he hasn't come out in OPPOSITION to them that I was aware of either...
Post by: yesitsloaded on September 29, 2008, 09:22:49 AM
President Teddy Roosevelt
Quote
While Roosevelt was campaigning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 14, 1912, a saloonkeeper named John Schrank shot him, but the bullet lodged in his chest only after penetrating both his steel eyeglass case and passing through a thick (50 pages) single-folded copy of the speech he was carrying in his jacket.[68] Roosevelt, as an experienced hunter and anatomist, correctly concluded that since he wasn't coughing blood the bullet had not completely penetrated the chest wall to his lung, and so declined suggestions he go to the hospital immediately. Instead, he delivered his scheduled speech with blood seeping into his shirt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Teddy_Roosevelt_video_montage.ogg video of him "pressing the flesh"There are others, but those two jumped out at me.