Armor piercing bullets and high clip magazines can be banned without delay.

[Samrob]

Start somewhere. Rescind NRA tax exemption and other write-offs related to guns.

[634-5789]

1. AMEN!

Hit them hard in the wallet.

[True Blue American]

2. Let our Elected cowards know!

[The Jungle 1]

8. Very important and easy to do.

[Mister Ed]

3. And there's certainly nothing in the 2nd Amendment that prohibits liability lawsuits.

Why are gun manufacturers shielded from liability lawsuits when every other industry is subject to them? It's simply because they've successfully bribed politicians to prohibit such lawsuits. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Hit them in the wallet. Start somewhere.

[Jedi Guy]

48. Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm not a lawyer so that's entirely possible)...

Liability lawsuits against manufacturers come into play if/when their product malfunctions in some way that causes injury or death. So for instance, if I get into a car accident because the brakes failed due to a design defect, I (or my next of kin) and anyone else injured in the accident can sue the manufacturer. On the other hand, if I decide to use my car to plow through a farmer's market and run a bunch of people down, that has nothing to do with a design defect. The product was misused, which is the key consideration.

I recognize that guns are designed to kill people while cars are not. But a manufacturer will argue that their product was not intended to be used to commit mass murder, it was intended for target shooting or hunting or home defense or whatever. That being the case, they can't be held liable because someone misused their product to commit a crime. The product didn't malfunction, the operator did, as in my example above with the farmer's market.

In the same vein, I don't agree with the calls to prosecute the gun dealers who sell weapons that end up being used to commit crimes, provided they followed all relevant laws regarding the sale. If that's the case, then the seller did their job.

I can see exceptions for cases where the buyer was obviously deranged in some way or clearly had mental health issues, but in many cases that may not be apparent to someone without education in mental health. Think of how many times someone goes on a rampage, and everyone who knew them says, "I don't understand, he seemed so normal!" I guess we can fall back on the old legal idea of a "reasonable person" but it's still very subjective.

[Mister Ed]

49. You're likely right, and they'd likely win. Still, no need for a law against filing suit. n/t

[Botany]

4. H.R. 127 was passed in April of 2021 by the House the Senate could vote it out in an hour.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127

[James48]

5. Nope. Waaaay to much in one go.

That will never pass the Senate.

You have to break it into smaller pieces. MAYBE you might get a piece or two to fly.

[Lurker Deluxe]

31. Court would strike that down immediately.

No way the US can mandate a license for a right defined in the constitution.

[mitch96]

6. what is a high clip magazine? nt

[twodogsbarking]

7. I was waiting for it and you delivered.

[MineralMan]

14. I'm positive that you know the answer to that.

Please don't use nomenclature to attack people. Not everyone knows the nomenclature of firearms-related things.

High capacity magazine. (Just in case you really didn't know.)

[Mosby]

26. Thank you.

[LiberatedUSA]

46. Can that be used for other issues?

“ Please don't use nomenclature to attack people. Not everyone knows the nomenclature of firearms-related things.”

In a discussion on say transgender, would you be fine, if when correcting someone on using the wrong or incorrect terminology, with them saying “Please don't use nomenclature to attack people. Not everyone knows the nomenclature of LGBTQ-related things”?

Or this little argument of “our knowledge of the proper terminology of this is subject while debating it doesn’t matter” an argument that only works when you decide subject knowledge in a debate isn’t needed?

Rhetorical. I already know your answer here. I just think it is interesting that some people get feel when debating certain subjects, absolute correct terms and debate knowledge are a must or shut up; but decide other subjects not only is knowledge not needed, but anyone that shows it must be wrong or derailing the conversation.

I bet you would not put up with anyone in a debate on any other topic telling you your knowledge and desire to use proper terms is simply a distraction and therefore can be ignored.

[RaDaR63]

45. A cross between High Times and American Salon magazines

It's like a box of chocolates...

[Generic Brad]

9. Sensible solutions

Yet the wackadoodles will still whine that they are being punished for being responsible gun owners.

[sir pball]

10. Define "armor piercing bullet", please.

If you mean a bullet that's specially constructed (usually with a dense metal slug inside, but I won't get into technical stuff) to penetrate body armor that's intended to stop it, like the steel-cored pistol ammo out of the former Soviet Bloc, that's fine. No problem, cool cool, go for it.

If you mean "any round that can penetrate body armor", that's one of the most perennially uninformed and foolish propositions that I see - body armor is not designed nor intended to stop a rifle round. Your grandpappy's old lever action 30-30 or your cousin's bolt-action 270, both utterly innocuous deer rifles, will blow through the best body armor like it doesn't exist. Are you seriously proposing banning all rifles?

[twodogsbarking]

15. I was waiting for it and you delivered.

[SYFROYH]

16. It takes a while for good info to emerge

[sir pball]

17. It's a legitimate question

Banning any and all ammunition that will penetrate NIJ Level IIIA armor, regardless of whether the armor is actually intended to stop it, would necessarily entail banning all hunting rifles.

If you're in favor of that it's fine, but don't be disingenuous about it. Are you in favor of that? Toughsky-shitsky to the millions with one deer rifle safely locked up?

[twodogsbarking]

18. Thanks for delivering even more.

[sir pball]

19. Lol, what?

not sure what I'm "delivering"; I'm just clearing up your logic for the class. Correct me if any of my following assertions are wrong:

You think armor piercing ammunition must be banned.

You are defining "armor piercing" as any round that will penetrate a vest.

*All* rifle rounds will penetrate a (soft) vest.

Ergo, in your opinion, *all* rifle rounds must be banned.

Am I correct? Just a yes or no answer, please. I don't get why it's so difficult I'm.just asking you to own your position.

FTR, I own one hunting rifle, no ARs or tactical shotguns - and no I am not OK with you wanting to take it.

[twodogsbarking]

20. And yet even more.

[Emile]

23. Bwhaha +1

[twodogsbarking]

30. I'm smiling.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

24. Do you realize just how.............oh never mind

not worth it.
Have a good weekend.

[twodogsbarking]

29. Thanks.

[sir pball]

27. Hahaha, I get it, you think I'm "flooding the zone with shit"

Drowning out your Perfectly Sensible And Reasonable Policy with Gunnerz Teknikalities, it's how you guys always react whenever anyone with knowledge points out your plan might have a flaw.

I am on your side, ya know. I'm fine with an AWB, registration, universal FFL sales/background checks, carry restrictions, 21+ age limits, red flag laws - it's a vast majority of control proposals I support over what I don't.

All I'm asking is intellectual honesty on your part - You. Want. All Rifles. Banned. I don't agree with that position but I can respect it, so long as you can openly and honestly admit that's what you're proposing.

Just say it. Say "If hunting is lost to my idea of Right And Proper Gun Control, I'm fine with that", and I'll cheerfully shut up.

[twodogsbarking]

28. I made no comments either for or against any kind of weapon.

[sir pball]

34. Of course not dear, you merely remarked against certain "bullets".

Of course, you likely weren't referring to the projectiles themselves, which already have a surprisingly good definition of "armor piercing" per the ATF (it's a rather dry "technical" description so I won't say any more).

Rather, I'm assuming you were referring to any cartridge, bullet+casing+powder, that when fired has the capability to penetrate a "bulletproof" vest, and suggesting they be banned. That definition encompasses all cartridges that are considered adequately powerful to reliably and humanely kill deer+ sized game; I retract any statements that you're actively wishing for a ban of hunting rifles, but I stand by my assertion that the virtual elimination of hunting rifles would be an unintended but acceptable "toughski shitski, guys" side effect to you.

Let's try this approach — the 270 Winchester is one of America's oldest and most beloved hunting cartridges. It has never been used by the military, has never been chambered in an assault weapon or used in a mass shooting. Just about as innocuous as a gun bullet can be, grandpa's old bolt-action.

At 200 yards, it will go through soft body armor like its paper. Should this "bullet" be available to civilians?

[twodogsbarking]

36. I mentioned nothing that you stated.

You are wrong. Read my comments. You need not apologize.

[sir pball]

37. You are correct, I was assuming you were OP.

I'm sneaking off at work to follow this on my phone; I'll freely admit I lost track of who's who.

So do tell — what is the "it" I came in with? "Gunner gibberish"?

[twodogsbarking]

39. Yep. Stay well.

[sir pball]

42. Mmm, I figured as such. Humor me one last time

Is any criticism, no matter how mild, of any gun control plan, no matter how inadvisable, considered "gunner gibberish"?

I will say opening with a question was foolish, it's certainly evocative of the "do you know the difference between a clip and a mag?" BS that predictably appeared here. But, not to repeat myself too much, while I support the vast majority of gun control I absolutely will critique bad proposals. I suppose I should have simply said "You mean well with your idea but that would result in banning virtually all hunting guns - if you're OK with that, that's cool, but be aware the backlash would be epic." Course, y'all would probably still have accused me of gibberish, or being an NRA shill, or something. Eh well, I got the response I expected at least.

Cheers, have a good evening.

[twodogsbarking]

47. I am not the OP.

[sir pball]

51. I am not speaking to you as if you are the OP. I'm addressing your intial reply to me.

"I was waiting for it and you delivered", which you most recently confirmed was referring to "gunner gibberish". I'm attempting constructive engagement over our 95% common ground, so I'm looking to avoid your silly little taunts and start a useful conversation - but it's increasingly clear to me y'all are just as rabid as they are.

Ta, dearie.

[twodogsbarking]

52. Give it up.

[NickB79]

35. A ban on HUNTING ammunition would turn the entire Midwest red

From Minnesota to Michigan to Pennsylvania to Maine.

Deer hunting is almost a religion up here, and a LOT of Democrats hunt as well as Republicans.

[mcar]

38. Nice straw man

[sir pball]

40. ELI5 how it's a "straw man", please?

There's two definitions of AP. One is the term of art referring to a bullet that is specifically designed to defeat armor that is rated to otherwise stop it; restricting that is a perfectly fine idea (and which the ATF already does, incidentally).

The second, emotionally based one — which I suspect you and OP are both using — is "anything that can penetrate a vest even if it's completely outside the design parameters of the armor! DEER DON'T WEAR KEVLAR!" I do understand it, but it's akin to remming a highway barrier at 80 and claiming the car's unsafe; it's simply not what the equipment is designed for.

Restricting the former isn't an issue at all, but restricting the latter will involve taking on a lot more than the Tactical Teddys and Gary Gunners. You're going to have to tell every Joe six-pack who has Pop's old 270 locked away, that he takes out a few times a year to hunt deer (and me, who owns one rifle, that was designed in 1895)…you're going to have to tell us that you're not just coming for the ARs but you're coming for our guns, too. If you think that's a winning idea, well…you do you.

Look, I support a lot more gun control than I oppose. AWBs, UBCs, licensing, registration, carry restrictions, ending the NRA's tax breaks, magazine limits, increased age limits, red flag laws, and more are all just peachy with me. I'm just not afraid to call out stupid, counterproductive proposals when I see them, and the "ban AP ammo" one is one of the worst

[cab67]

11. a high-capacity magazine ban would probably not survive a court challenge.

California passed such a ban a couple of years ago. A court overturned it as unconstitutional. An appellate court last year reinstated it, but if it ends up in the Supreme Court, it's dead.

Not saying I oppose such a ban - in fact, I think it's a no-brainer - but given that the majority of Supreme Court justices appear to have noxious material where their brains should be, it's most likely doomed.

[Snarkoleptic]

12. Get the NRA under scrupulous review.

Who are their donors and are there any American-hating donors?

Here's a pic of Wayne LaPierre w/ convicted Russian spy Maria Butina.

[Gymbo]

13. Adopt California Gun Law

The United States should adopt California gun law. A 10 round limit to magazines, elimination of dangerous add ons, no shortened barrels, no assault weapons, safe storage of weapons, no armor piercing bullets. California has co-opted Texas abortion law to go after illegal guns.
This is how you destroy the gun lobbies and keep people safe.

[Zeitghost]

21. Lol

You can buy an AR-15 in every gun shop in California. As for magazines, it's an unenforceable law after "Freedom Week".

[hack89]

33. Google California compliant rifles before you get too excited. Nt

[librechik]

22. We certainly must do that. And then we will have to deal

With the millions and.millions of clips and bullets and so on that already exist and will continue to be manufactured by other countries ...one way or another. To infinity. And yes, we do live in hell.

[Emile]

25. Hell if TFG can get bump stocks outlawed, this shouldn't be a problem!

[sarisataka]

41. I have to ask a clarification question

In a casual conversation you can call an object anything you want, as long as I can understand what you are referring to.

By armor piercing do you mean bullets that are designed to penetrate armor or bullets capable of penetrating armor?

[sir pball]

43. Stop with the gibberish, gunner! /s nt

[sarisataka]

44. So I guess there is nothing to discuss

And status quo will remain.

I at least can say, I am trying. Not every can truly say the same

It seems we are all wasting time on a divisive hit and run anyway

[tritsofme]

50. What do you mean by "banned without delay"? Do you think there are 60 votes in the Senate?

[moondust]

53. Here's an idea.