A call in another forum to ban rifle ammo that can penetrate a typical police vest

[hack89]

Such discussion is beside the point, the only salient question is,"Will this ammunition pierce body armor commonly used by police today?" If that answer is yes, then it is, by performance, armor piercing regardless of arcane arguments over a definition.

Do they have a clue that they are calling for the banning of nearly all centerfire rifle ammo?

[samsingh]

1. how could they have a clue about that - they're only trying to save police lives

[hack89]

2. Is this your idea of reasonable gun control?

make all rifle ammunition illegal?

[samsingh]

34. pro gun supporters don't support reasonable gun control so why bother

the argument always begins with what's in it for me and never 'how do we save lives?'

[hack89]

36. You and I see eye to eye on most gun control issues.

so you are very wrong.

[samsingh]

37. i may be wrong here

[randys1]

126. This is my experience. The gun fanatics around me

like to talk about the guns they want to own, that they cant (Not sure what the rules are but something about automatic weapons varies by state, not sure of the details) and this makes them especially angry because someone can own that gun in another state and they cant own it in their state.

So it is only about what is in it for them; the proof of that is the obvious fact that gun negatives outweigh gun positives, yet they will fight to their last breath to keep their recreational choice for no other reason than they want to.

[gejohnston]

127. automatic weapons

states come in only to flavors, legal or not. On the federal level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/national-firearms-act
then there is the Hughs Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns

The market is limited only to those registered before that date in 1986, causing price increases into the stratosphere.

[Duckhunter935]

130. The feds really do the automatic weapon regulation

They are very tightly controlled and very expensive.

[benEzra]

134. A few states ban civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out.

Yours may be one of them?

FWIW, automatic weapons are very tightly controlled; possession without Federal authorization is a 10-year Federal felony, and only pre-1986 collectibles are allowed (a restricted pre-1986 AK-47 or M-16 will typically go for $15,000 and up, with some rare automatics exceeding the $100K mark). They are actually more tightly restricted than 105mm howitzers, tanks, and rocket launchers are.

[Lurks Often]

4. Probably 98% of ALL rifle calibers invented since 1894

will penetrate the standard Level IIA vests worn by police officers.

Where are all the street level police officers clamoring for these changes?

[DonP]

5. "they're only trying to save police lives" - sure they are

That's why they have so many police organizations agreeing with them, wait, never mind.

We went through this back in the '90's with Ted Kennedy demanding the same type of bans that included the venerable 1894 "Cop Killer" 30-30 lever action.

Nothing like ignorance to lead your thinking on proposed regulation, coupled with the applause of equally clueless apologists.

[samsingh]

6. nothing like ignorance indeed

[Straw Man]

7. Are you aware ...

... that police wear vests that are designed to stop handgun rounds and nothing more?

There is body armor that will stop rifle rounds. It is not worn by police because it is too bulky and would interfere with the officers' routine movements. The vests that police do wear will not stop rifle rounds because they were not designed for that purpose.

Given this knowledge, do you still wish to ban rifle ammunition that will penetrate police vests -- in other words, virtually all rifle ammo except .22 rimfire?

[blueridge3210]

8. In my limited career on the road

I was taught that my vest should be capable of stopping a round from the only weapon that was at every call to which I responded: My service weapon. Yes, almost every centerfire rifle round would go though the Kevlar and could even penetrate the shock plate; realistically I was much more likely to run into handguns and the vest was designed for the most likely threat.

[samsingh]

29. yes

[Straw Man]

66. Cognitive dissonance.

You want to ban rifle ammo because it will penetrate a vest that was designed to stop pistol ammo. Do you consider that a "reasonable" regulation?

No one-word answers please. I'd like to see you try to justify that.

[Duckhunter935]

72. they will not answer that

as they can not.

[samsingh]

82. i would like to have a discussion

that looks at pros and cons in these situations.

banning rifle ammunition is not at the top of my list for sure. I never actually thought about it until this thread.

But there is no discussion around what lives could be saved or not saved.

[Straw Man]

86. Really?

But there is no discussion around what lives could be saved or not saved

Oh, but you're wrong. You don't get to just say "X will save lives" and thereby end any discussion.

[samsingh]

89. ironically that's what gun lovers do - here are some facts for you

An interesting study coming out of The Violence Policy Center demonstrates that statistics and data back common sense and logic.

This week, Cenk Uygur goes over new research study information that correlates states with the strictest gun control laws, have fewer gun related deaths. Watch this TYT episode to find out more.

"States with the lowest gun death rates - the top three were Hawaii, Massachusetts and New York -- were found to have strong gun laws as well as low rates of gun ownership. A separate 2013 analysis from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence similarly found these three states were among those with the strongest gun restrictions in place." - The Huffington Post -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

https://www.vpc.org/


any rebuttal to them?

[DonP]

95. Using "interesting study" and "Violence Policy Center" in the same sentence is an oxymoron

We give it all the credibility you might give any "study" that comes from the NRA or Smith & Wesson. The only difference is at least S&W knows which end of the gun the bullet comes out.

Find a neutral source with some credibility and you might get a conversation. This is a freakin punch line.

[samsingh]

98. i'm not hearing any comments on the actual study from you

and the game about a neutral source is clever. Where is the methodology in this study wrong?

i don't expect gun lovers to actually respond to facts once they are offered - only to do what you are doing which is to ridicule the source. wow.

[DonP]

100. We used to have an agreement here

Neither side of the discussion brings in "studies" from obviously slanted sources; e.g. Brady, VPC, NRA, SAF, NSSF, Everytown or anything by David Hemenway & Co. that was paid for by the VPC, Brady or the Joyce Foundation.

We accepted sources like the DoJ, FBI and CDC reports as fairly neutral and worth discussion. But their study results haven't been too kind to gun control lately. (and spare us the myth of the NRA blocking all research, OK?)

Why did we handle it that way? Because you waste time and brain cells arguing again and again over the source and it's lack of credibility and achieve nothing.

I may be wrong, but I'm guessing nobody here gives a s* what the VPC did or Cenk Yugur says about a VPC "study" because they aren't a credible source to anyone but you and your safe haven buddies.

The VPC has just been caught in too many lies over the years to treat anything they say as valid.

[samsingh]

105. again, without looking at the methodology and data that may save lives

I don't understand how those clamoring for facts can dismiss them without this analysis.

[gejohnston]

111. because it is dishonest

and simplistic. The methodology is obvious: they added suicides and homicides by firearm and adjusted it to a per capita basis. Claiming that there is a cause and effect, which they are implying, is a logical fallacy.
There has never been an example of strict gun laws lowering suicide or murder rates. Nowhere. Gun suicide rate maybe, but not suicide rate. The often touted example of Australia, where the states already had strict laws (Tasmania being the "laxest" had licencing and registration) the murder rate continued to drop at the same rate as before the National Firearms Agreement (it was already dropping). Yes, the use of guns in suicides did drop 65 percent, even though the gun ownership rate remained the same as did the suicide rate. Researchers have no idea why that happened.

[DonP]

114. "clamoring for facts" duh! They're not "facts" they're crappy spin N/T

[Straw Man]

102. Refuse to discuss? I have never done that.

An interesting study coming out of The Violence Policy Center demonstrates that statistics and data back common sense and logic.

This week, Cenk Uygur goes over new research study information that correlates states with the strictest gun control laws, have fewer gun related deaths. Watch this TYT episode to find out more.

"States with the lowest gun death rates - the top three were Hawaii, Massachusetts and New York -- were found to have strong gun laws as well as low rates of gun ownership. A separate 2013 analysis from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence similarly found these three states were among those with the strongest gun restrictions in place." - The Huffington Post -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

https://www.vpc.org/


any rebuttal to them?

Yes. How do you/they explain Washington DC?

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/

How do you/they explain the fact that New Hampshire, with a D-minus rating from the Brady Campaign, has a lower gun death rate than California, with its A-minus rating?

How about the concept of controlling for poverty rates? That might be interesting.

[gejohnston]

107. typical example of VPC's dishonesty

They say "gun deaths" to imply homicides are higher in those states than in New York. Rural states like Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho have high suicide rates and is the majority of their gun deaths, since a firearm is likely used only because of the gun is there. If the gun wasn't there, a rope would be used. That is why you see the claim "gun suicide" rate dropped, but never "suicide" rate. There are a number of reasons rural areas have higher suicide rates, even in places like UK, South Korea, and Japan.
I don't know about the other states, but nobody seems to have a clue why our rate is as high as it is.
Let's move on to murders.
Although outdated, in 2010 Vermont's gun murder rate is 0.3, Hawaii's is 0.5, Wyoming's 0.9. Out of the bottom ten, Hawaii is the only one with strict gun laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6345a10.htm

[benEzra]

121. OK, let's discuss the actual numbers.

I was going to reply at length here, but decided to start a separate thread in answer to your question:

A discussion of rifle ammunition bans and .223/M855 murders, by the numbers. (DU thread)

[samsingh]

122. good facts. banning those types of bullets would have had no impact on police officer deaths.

[Straw Man]

123. Thanks for conceding that point.

Despite our frequent disagreements, I must say that you are an honorable man.

[samsingh]

124. thank you. so are you.

[oneshooter]

128. Watch yourself, they read this forum.

And if you stray, so shall you be banned.

[GGJohn]

10. A little knowledge goes a long ways.

Try it some day.

[samsingh]

30. yup

[DonP]

14. And you seem darn proud of it too. Congratulations!

[Duckhunter935]

40. So is banning most rifle ammunition reasonable?

[ileus]

3. all they know is gun bullets fired from extra capacity clipazines kill people...

and that's bad.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. "Do they have a clue that they are calling for the banning of nearly all centerfire rifle ammo?"

Perhaps they do and that's the point.

[GGJohn]

11. Link? eom.

[Electric Monk]

18. Here's the link and the full text of the post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628210

Regarding the BATF&E banning the M855 .223 ammunition as "armor piercing"

My response to the BATF&E AP ammo comment request.


There is much discussion on whether the M855 ammunition meets the definition of "armor piercing" due to it's construction. Such discussion is beside the point, the only salient question is,"Will this ammunition pierce body armor commonly used by police today?" If that answer is yes, then it is, by performance, armor piercing regardless of arcane arguments over a definition. As a holder of a Curio and Relic FFL I see no value in having this ammunition available to the general public for either pistol or rifle use.

While on the topic of armor piercing, the Romanian Tokorov TT33 fires a 7.62x25mm round that is available as military surplus and does meet the definition of armor piercing. This round will penetrate a 5 inch oak tree at 20 meters and judging from the exit splintering it is still traveling at near 800fps. No soft body armor I know of can withstand a hit from this round. Please look into banning the import and sale of this ammunition as well.

Neither of these rounds are allowed at any of the shooting ranges that I know of. It seems that the issue of armor piercing or not armor piercing is a settled question for the owners of these shooting ranges.

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx
Arlington, TX

edited to add: and here's an earlier gungeon thread about eliminating the M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172160812

[GGJohn]

19. Thanks for the link.

Interesting, but as has been pointed out, just about any rifle round will penetrate the body armor police wear today.
Now if the ammo manufacturers could design a rifle round that wouldn't penetrate body armor and still be effective for hunting, self defense, then I would entertain the idea of making these unavailable to the civilian population.

[beevul]

20. "the only salient question is,"Will this ammunition pierce body armor commonly used by police today"

"the only salient question is,"Will this ammunition pierce body armor commonly used by police today"


Rumor has it that even the lowly 17hmr (thats 17 caliber, similar to a bb in size, smaller than a 22, for those not familiar) will penetrate a vest designed to stop handgun rounds.

So much for just wanting to go after so called "assault weapons" or "megaclips". The poster of the OP in your group has just made it clear that even rimfire rifles are not safe.

And yet you guys have the unmitigated gall to point the finger at us and call us "extremists" and "absolutists".

Its you guys, who would see the right we value watered down to less than a privilege, that are the real "extremists" and absolutists".

And thanks to your buddy there, theres no hiding it or denying it, now.

[Electric Monk]

21. Right, one person's views speak for everyone, just like Ted Nugent speaks for all you guys.

Same "logic".

Bye.

[Straw Man]

22. Ted Nugent is an extremist.

Just for the record, do you consider the originator of that quote to be an extremist too?

[Duckhunter935]

41. Of course not

they can not call out anyone like we can

[beevul]

23. I don't see any of you in the "busy" forum objecting.

Put your money where your "Glib sociopath" is, and object to it, by all means.

I'm sure you wont have to wait in line too long.

[Duckhunter935]

43. I am sure they will correct the poster

any minute now

[hack89]

26. So why are you guys always trying to tar us with Nugent?

when you just admitted it is not right.

[samsingh]

32. ted nugent is the right wing hero

who sleeps with under aged girls

[Duckhunter935]

42. and he is not ours

I think all here will agree with me

[samsingh]

83. absolutely agree

[beevul]

85. So its a day later, and no retractions.

"Right, one person's views speak for everyone, just like Ted Nugent speaks for all you guys."

Is ted nugent reccing threads here on DU?

I noticed, there are three recs on the thread in question, one of which belongs to...*gasp* you.


So apparently that "one persons view" represents yours, and two others, not including the OP.


Alternatively, I'm willing to sit here and read a long winded logic twisting reply from you, about why you recced a thread containing a suggestion which you completely disagree with.

How do you like that logic, eh?

[Electric Monk]

94. Sometimes I Rec a thread for visibility, not necessarily because I like it or endorse it's message

For example, I remember I gave a Rec to the LBN thread when the reactor blew up at Fukushima, but that wasn't because I thought it was a good thing.

It's nice to know I have a creepy online stalker here, though. Thanks for sharing.

[beevul]

116. Which totally explains...

Which totally explains you stating your position of unequivocal disagreement with that proposal, here in this thread.


Oh wait, you didn't.


Yeah, we all believe you recced a thread which proposed something you don't agree with.

You do it to pro-gun threads all the time, right?

I stand by what I said:

So much for just wanting to go after so called "assault weapons" or "megaclips". The poster of the OP in your group has just made it clear that even rimfire rifles are not safe. And you recced that thread because um...visibility...or something. And yet you guys have the unmitigated gall to point the finger at us and call us "extremists" and "absolutists".

Its you guys, who would see the right we value watered down to less than a privilege, that are the real "extremists" and "absolutists".

[Duckhunter935]

117. I call bullpucky

Link to that one you are talking about. You have not and will not say here and now you are against that OP's ban on almost if not all rifle ammunition. As you have seen in this thread, we are right and the controller side is either wrong or that is the plan. You and a couple of others recommend that post and you know it. I guess your group would need the visibility but as far as I know a REC does not bump it any more than a regular post, so why the REC?

[samsingh]

31. rights that are argued by thoses selling guns and those who are always afraid

there is no right to ammo.

[blueridge3210]

49. You would be incorrect with that statement.

A right to keep and bear arms includes the right to ammunition for said firearm. One of the reasons for the decision in D.C v Heller was that the requirement that a firearm be stored unloaded made possession of the firearm pointless for self-defense; therefore possession of a vital component for the effective use of the firearm is just as protected as the right to possess the firearm itself.

In addition, there are other court cases that cover this issue, including one regarding an attempt to charge and excessive tax on printers ink in an attempt to shut down a troublesome newspaper. Again, the right to possess ink was regarded as an essential component of the right to a free press.

[Duckhunter935]

51. oh, do not add facts

that just gets them all sad and then they start with the name calling and penis jokes

[samsingh]

81. the Constitution does not mention anything about ammunition

[blueridge3210]

84. I never said it did.

My reference was to numerous court rulings that say that if a component is essential to the exercise of a particular right then access to that component is a right.

The Constitution does not mention access to printer's ink WRT freedom of the press.

The Constitution does not mention burning the U.S. flag as a form of expression.

The Constitution does not mention abortion WRT a right to privacy.

The courts have ruled that each of these is a fundamental right or essential in order to exercise that right.

[samsingh]

90. so bad those other items then

[blueridge3210]

91. "so bad those other items then"

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here?

[samsingh]

92. sorry - spelling - 'so ban those other items then'

[blueridge3210]

93. So, your position is

that abortion on demand; burning the American flag as a form of expression and freedom of the press should all be banned? Just trying to be clear on this.

[samsingh]

96. i'm saying that ammunition is not guaranteed in the constitution

neither is having dozens of guns, but that's a different story.

if you think those other items need to be discussed or banned (neither of us have the power to do that anyway) then that can be proposed - i doubt that would fly.

my main point is that the gun manufacturers have convinced people to ignore the first part of a 2 clause statement and pushed it to extremes where people are massacred and nothing substantive is done about it. Despite all their lobbying and games they cannot put the word ammunition into the Constitution, so by the same literal meaning to acribe to 2B, ammunition is not a right.

[blueridge3210]

99. Your argument is specious.

While ammunition is not mentioned in the Constitution the courts have recognized that access to ammunition is essential to the right to keep and bear arms. Regarding the number of guns a person owns; that is a pointless issue. A person is no more or less deadly with 1 firearm or a dozen.

I'm not the one proposing banning virtually all center-fire ammunition based on it's ability to penetrate a Kevlar vest; that would be you. I'm not proposing banning anything. The point was that the courts have recognized a number of things as rights that are never mentioned in the Constitution.

The gun manufacturers didn't "convince" anyone to ignore the subordinate clause in the 2nd Amendment; the courts did that when they recognized that is established ONE purpose for the people to own firearms but did not limit it to that singular purpose. The only people trying to engage in a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment are the proponents of increased gun control who keep jumping on the "Well Regulated Militia" subordinate clause as if it defines the full scope of the right.

[samsingh]

109. actually you can google the NRA history - it became activist in the 80s and many people

left it because it actively lobbied for proliferation of guns.

the courts in this country are activist and based on who did the appointing. I remember reading Sandra O'Conner saying that she wanted to retire under a repug president. she cast the one of the votes that stole the election from Gore. is this the type of court I'm supposed to believe is interpreting based on objectivity. Or the current scotus decisions around corporations being people, pacs, and scalia/Thomas attacks on any type of affirmative action.

[Straw Man]

118. The NRA became "activist" ...

... in response to increased efforts by gun control proponents to restrict gun ownership. Simply put, gun rights advocates got tired of backing up and decided to dig in. They did not move forward, nor have they made any significant gains since, unless you call the 2004 sunsetting of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban a gain for gun rights advocates. That would be a stretch, since it merely restored the status quo of ten years earlier.

Lobbying for proliferation? Hardly. I don't see the NRA asking for tax credits for gun purchases.

[blueridge3210]

119. "Activist Court"

is a meaningless phrase used to describe a court that issues a ruling that one does not like. Just as meaningless as "reasonable gun law"; I do not find a proposal to make virtually all center-fire rifle ammunition illegal to own to be "reasonable".

The SC did not say "corporations are people"; the court did rule that a law that made it illegal for a corporation to participate in the political process unconstitutional. This ruling protects the rights of unions to be active politically as well. I think allowing people to participate in public discourse to be a good thing. YMMV.

[DonP]

101. Check out Minneapolis Star Tribune vs. Commisioner case law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

Short Form: The court found that the unreasonable taxing of ink and paper restricted the right of freedom of the press, which included all the necessary components to practice that freedom.

Trying to overtax or ban ammunition has been tried a few times and this case has been cited to have it thrown out.

But feel free to get your checkbook out and try to prove your point.

Or were you assuming somebody else would pay for the lawyers?

You do know that in these civil rights cases (including 2nd amendment issues) the loser pays the winners fees.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. Seriously???

The term "arms" doesn't include ammo?

Another more relevant question: Are you expecting anyone to take you seriously?

[hack89]

112. Sure it does - it is right next to "privacy" and "abortion".

those are Constitutional rights, aren't they?

[petronius]

57. "there is no right to ammo" -- link to a previous discussion on this topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=156685

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. Kind of like a write to publish newspapers but no right to purchase printers ink?

[gejohnston]

28. neither of these are allowed on shooting ranges

Really? The M885 is one of the most common and often used on shooting ranges. My son has vintage CZ 52 that uses that round and takes it to the range. I don't know about Texas, but that certainly not the case in Wyoming or Florida. I doubt that is true in Canada, since Norinco makes a pistol that uses that round specifically for the Canadian civilian market. I doubt that is true anywhere in the world.
What Flaming Lib is suggesting is not in the ATF's purview under the Gun Control Act. The act specific handgun bullet design, not the cartridge.
Although armor piercing ammo does exist for the 7.62x25, and can probably buy it in gun shops in other countries, it is banned here.

The Gun Control Act defines AP as:
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile."

The M885 does not meet the definition in i, since it is made of lead and steel, not just steel. None of the other metals are used. It doesn't meet the definition in paragraph ii either since it is a .22 caliber and isn't intended for use in a handgun. The fact that "pistols" are made for it, it doesn't really meet the qualification. Also, the jacket is less than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

[Duckhunter935]

45. So wrong you are

Neither of these rounds are allowed at any of the shooting ranges that I know of. It seems that the issue of armor piercing or not armor piercing is a settled question for the owners of these shooting ranges.

I use them at all of the ranges I have been to, hours of fun shooting at paper plates.

[Electric Monk]

58. Reading comprehension old chum, that wasn't my claim, it was a copy-paste. nt

[Duckhunter935]

59. I should have said he or she, correct

but still does not change the fact that those rounds are indeed used on many ranges.

[Duckhunter935]

54. Looks like the poster is indeed trying to ban all

or most rifle ammunition.

notice only the highest levels are the only ones rated to any rifle ammo. All of the rest are rated only for hand gun ammo.

A 'bulletproof' vest or other armor will protect you from the vast majority of pistol ballistic threats you are ever likely to face. But there is always a tradeoff between more protection and more wearability (and the constraint to stay within your budget). Please know that:

NO Armor is 100% Bullet-PROOF

rifle rounds
unusual high velocity pistol ammunition
pistol ammo fired from a rifle barrel
armor piercing ammunition
sharp-edged or pointed instruments (e.g., knives, icepicks, etc.), and/or
other unusual ammunition or situations...

CAN defeat body armor.

http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml

[Duckhunter935]

56. on a side note, 44 and counting

great work on keeping any view you do not like out of your required "safe haven"

Soon you will be at the big 50, I wonder how many this group has blocked?

Looks like 1

back to our normal programming .................

[benEzra]

77. M855 is regular ball, NON-AP, and is allowed on every shooting range I am aware of

that allows centerfire rifles.

Armor piercing M995 ammo (like .30-06 M2 AP) is not allowed on most ranges, but 5.56x45mm AP is already restricted from civilian use.

What this new proposal does is attempt to bring non-AP M855, which at close to moderate range penetrates just like any other .223 FMJ you can buy at Walmart, under the same restrictions as M995 AP, and that is ridiculous. M855 is stopped by properly constructed NIJ Level III (rated to stop 7.62x51mm FMJ) but will penetrate NIJ Level IIIA, which is not designed to stop ANY centerfire rifle rounds.

And the construction of the bullet *is* salient, since the ban specifically exempts mostly-lead-core ammunition like M855. Senators Moynihan and Biaggi were adamant that their bills *not* be interpreted to ban anything that could penetrate soft armor, since that would ban all rifle ammunition.

[msongs]

12. well if the 2a is absolute, why ban any of this stuff? nt

[blueridge3210]

13. Who ever said the 2nd Amenment was absolute?

[DonP]

15. Shhh, it's a "grabber" meme that they treasure

In fact they love it so much they are the only ones that ever seem to use it.

Haven't seen much in the way of "Absolutism" in this forum, has anybody else?

Everybody here seems to agree that some limitations can be placed on any constitutional right. The question is always which limitations are reasonable and constitutional and which aren't.

But it's much easier to demonize and berate people if you pretend they believe in something they never actually said or supported.

[blueridge3210]

16. I agree.

It's also an issue of efficacy. Banning 30+ round magazines would not fall afoul of the 2nd Amendment as 20 rounders would still allow effective use of a semi-auto rifle. It would also do little to nothing to address criminal misuse or negligent use of firearms

And, creating silly straw man positions for ones opponents appears to offer the chance to make a "sensible" rebuttal to an argument that was never made in the first place. Good for cheering up the "true believers" but totally ineffective in actually changing the mind of anyone who is not already in lockstep with ones opinion.

[DonP]

24. It's a stupid, poorly thought out incrementalist approach that's proven ineffective at best

First, ban those "military style" 30 round magazines "for the children".

Then, when crime continues and the new gun laws don't impact criminals (well duh), claim you now need to ban those evil 20 round magazines ... and so on.

As long as "gun control" gives them a nice warm fuzzy feeling and an unearned moral superiority, it doesn't ever have to show actual results. If it ever did they'd be trumpeting it in every newspaper in the country.

It says something about their side when you have record high gun sales and a dropping crime rate for a decade or more, and it's treated as nothing to applaud or celebrate, but something to make excuses for and rationalize away; "Well, ummm, it would be even lower if we had gun law x, y and z", with no supporting rationale of course.

After gun owners got caught flat footed, with the 1994 so called Assault Weapons Ban, the gun control people will never be able to pass another broad brush law like that again.

Too many interested and politically active people are watching every move or threatened move now.

[Duckhunter935]

46. only them

all of us here know it is not.

[hack89]

17. I was merely pointing out the ignorance of the post

the notion that there is a special class of rifle bullets that are the only ones able to penetrate typical police vests displays an incredible ignorance of not only guns but also police vests.

Ignorance in defense of a good cause is still ignorance.

[Lurks Often]

25. They embrace their ignorance and claim it as a virtue

[samsingh]

33. agreed. all rifle rounds should be banned until they design one that doesn't penetrate

vests worn by police.

[hack89]

35. Why not make cops wear the appropriately rated vests if they are that scared. Nt

[samsingh]

38. that will be costly. i don't want to bad all rifle rounds

[hack89]

44. Typical police vests only protect from handgun rounds

it is very straight forward. The difference between rifle and hand gun rounds is significant.

[blueridge3210]

50. 20 years as an LEO

and I don't know of any "general-issue" vest/body armor worn by regular (non-SWAT) police that will stop any center-fire rifle round. I was always told the purpose of the vest was to stop a round from the only weapon present at every call I responded to; my service weapon. YMMV.

[Duckhunter935]

52. Thank you sir

I am sure you are one of the good ones

[blueridge3210]

55. Well, with all due respect to Master Yoda;

I do try, even if I sometime do or do not.

[Straw Man]

67. He knows that.

Typical police vests only protect from handgun rounds

it is very straight forward. The difference between rifle and hand gun rounds is significant.

He's been told. He's just pretending it isn't true.

[Duckhunter935]

47. bad rifle rounds

bad, bad rifle round

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. If cost is a genuine concern why the constant advocation for costly prohibitions that don't work?

[benEzra]

79. If you want to ban all rifle rounds that penetrate armor not designed to stop them,

Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

then yes, you do want to ban all rifle rounds (or at least 98% of them).

[Straw Man]

68. I expect that you want to ban hunting as well.

A rifle round that won't penetrate handgun-rated soft armor won't quickly and painlessly kill a deer.

Any other social engineering you would like to foist on the American public?

[samsingh]

80. i think the gun loving culture has been hoisted onto the public

[Straw Man]

87. That's not an answer.

And I think you mean "foisted."

[samsingh]

88. gun culture like the smoking culture of previous years

makes something cool to do.

i don't want to ban hunting, but i despise it. Animals are killed so people can have fun, feel powerful, kill another living being.

gun culture makes people want guns more (like cigarette producers did with their product).

[Straw Man]

103. Sorry, but self-protection is a basic human right.

Where is the constitutional protection for smoking?

i don't want to ban hunting, but i despise it. Animals are killed so people can have fun, feel powerful, kill another living being.

Do you despise your ancestors, whose hunting enabled the survival of the species to which you belong? Or do you feel that you are somehow morally superior to them? More "advanced" somehow, as we slowly strangle our planet with overpopulation and unsustainable lifestyles?

[samsingh]

104. no i don't despise my ancestors

there is a difference in hunting for food and hunting for sport. it's the hunting for sport I despise.

[Straw Man]

106. Everyone I know who hunts eats the meat.

Would they be morally superior in your eyes if they ate the meat from factory farms? Or are vegetarians the only ethical people in your estimation?

[samsingh]

108. when you hunt an animal what happens to their children?

meat on farms is raised for that purpose. I don't like eating meat, but I understand that others do.

hunting is going into an animal's habitat with our guns and killing. hunting is not even an adequate term. it's more like slaughtering - the animal has no chance of survival. the only threat to a hunter is being killed by another hunter or being stupid.

[gejohnston]

113. the children are grown by fall

assuming a coyote, wolf, puma, feral pig (actually a problem in Florida) or wolverine didn't have them for dinner.

[Straw Man]

115. Game laws are structured to protect the species.

when you hunt an animal what happens to their children?

That's why deer hunting season, for example, is generally in the fall, when the previous spring's fawns are viable to survive on their own.

meat on farms is raised for that purpose. I don't like eating meat, but I understand that others do.

Animals on factory farms live miserable lives in hellish conditions from the moment of their births until the moment of their deaths. Animals in the wild generally live much better. Of all the possible deaths of an animal in the wild -- disease, starvation, falling prey to non-human predators -- death by a hunter's bullet is by far the swiftest and least painful/traumatic. Please remember that animals in the wild do not die in bed surrounded by their loved ones.

hunting is going into an animal's habitat with our guns and killing. hunting is not even an adequate term. it's more like slaughtering - the animal has no chance of survival. the only threat to a hunter is being killed by another hunter or being stupid.

You seem to have several misconceptions, not the least of which is seeing wilderness as the animal's habitat exclusively. The entire world is man's habitat -- there is no part of it that does not host human life in some form. Also, you seem to have a bizarre conception that the hunter must be under some kind of threat or his skill is not being tested. Most of the game that humans have ever hunted has not been particularly dangerous. The Neolithic hunter with his bow had perhaps a more difficult challenge ahead of him than the modern hunter with his firearm, but he was under no particular threat from the rabbits, foxes, monkeys, and badgers that made up his staple diet.

[gejohnston]

69. you realize that an arrow

or crossbow bolt will also penetrate the same vest that will stop a .45? Isn't it ironic that the ammo that the ATF is proposing banning, can be purchased by a 12 year old at Canada Tire?
That is why I ignore pleas for "sensible" and "reasonable" because they are meaningless weasel words parroted by the ignorant and unthinking, put out by the dishonest.

BTW, there is a reason why the military never uses "bullet proof", because nothing is. The proper term is "bullet resistant". 30 years ago, I thought the DI was making a distinction without a difference, I now know better. So far, your definition of reasonable is akin to New York classifying target pistols used in the Olympics and International Shooting Sports Federation as "assault weapons" because the magazine is outside of the grip.
http://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/archive/assets/documents/Pistolsbannedfeatures.pdf

See slide seven. I find it amusing that slides five and six show features that are tightly regulated on pistols under the National Firearms Act, even if they are semi automatic. Under federal law, the first would be a short barreled rifle (even with a regular shoulder stock. The photo is actually and Ingram sub machine gun) the foregrip on what looks like a STEN SMG puts it in the "any other firearm" category under the NFA, requiring the same application and registration process as the machine gun. The only difference is the price of the tax stamp.

Under the N.Y Safe Act the Walther GSP is now classified as an assault weapon under N.Y state law. It is also classified as an assault weapon under Chicago and Cook County laws due to the magazine being outside of the pistol grip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_GSP

[Marengo]

70. What would be done with the millions of rifle rounds currently in private possession?

If your "ban" were to become law?

[benEzra]

78. Ironically, jumping the shark by trying to ban non-AP M855 ball

may end up doing exactly that. If BATFE goes ahead with this, then they are undermining the entire ban on AP handgun ammunition.

[DustyJoe]

27. Armor

There needs to be a better definition of Armor. The vests PD's use are not armor to deflect a bullet away from the body, but complex layers to make the bullet mushroom and not allow the kinetic energy to be absorbed in a small area. The armor is in blocks with gaps to allow movement where even a .22 can penetrate causing a fatal wound.

Now if they want to call a rifle bullet that can penetrate an AMRAPs glass or door as armor piercing, that's a different story. That would be an armor piercing round.

Obviously the intent is to outlaw an entire series of ammunition as it has the possibilty of penetrating body armor, and only one small group of people use body armor outside the military and they shoot an alarming number of citizens with no armor other than a thin cotton shirt with alarming regularity.

Ask any old vet what they thought of the 60's flak jackets as for weight, comfort and stopping power.

[Duckhunter935]

48. we used the same vest in the 80's and 90's

very heavy, hot and they would not come close to stopping a bullet

[Duckhunter935]

39. probably not

but that person linked back to this to try and make us look crazy. Almost any rifle ammunition will pierce a vest unless you are using a SAPI plate. Maybe those people will come over and learn some facts, I bet not they are scared to leave the "safe haven" they require.

[Electric Monk]

60. Again, I am not flamin lib, and flamin lib is not me. Try and follow along. Thanks. nt

[Duckhunter935]

61. I never refered to you

the link goes back to the original OP in your "safe haven". You are the one that invited them over here but is seems they are scared. We are not allowed to post over there as I assume you are afraid to have any differing opinions posted. Kind of ironic.

[Electric Monk]

63. I posted a link to here from there so anyone interesting in reading rebuttals could find some.

It's not so much a matter of "being scared of having a discussion with you", it's that both sides often simply end up talking past each other, instead of to each other.

[Duckhunter935]

64. At least our host allows rebuttals

unlike in your group which you do not

[kcci]

65. Or one side just bans the other to maintain a reality free echo chamber.

[Electric Monk]

71. You chose to ignore, or didn't read, that Group's SOP. That's why you got blocked from it.

It is far from the only Safe Haven Group on DU. Do you have a problem with the Barack Obama Group existing here as well? How about the History Of Feminism Group? They both have block lists longer (116 and 62 respectively) than GCRA's.

Oh, right, you're another "one issue Democrat" like only seems to exist here in the gungeon. And that's why you're not welcome in GCRA.

[Duckhunter935]

73. 116 and 62 respectively

Keep working, you can pass them.

I do not think those hosts called for preventive blocking even before a post was made, did they? You did and if you could, I am sure you would.

[kcci]

76. My viewpoints are irrelevant. The discussion was "does gun control cost voters?".

The answer to that question, without a doubt, is "Yes".

Again, your pet issue cost three recalls in a state that had never had a recall, with 33% of registered Democrats supporting the recalls in districts that voted for Obama by 20 points less than a year earlier.

This is simple, verifiable fact.
Thanks to you, the Democratic Party is in control of fewer state legislatures than at any time since before the Civil War.

Your echo-chamber is powerless in the face of reality.
What purpose does your group serve other than allowing dead-enders & political dinosaurs to try and hide from reality?

[Electric Monk]

97. I think billh said it pretty well in his reply to you in that other Group. You can still read there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628197#post12

also, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628197#post11 for my reply to your assertion.

[kcci]

120. He mistakenly said that the three recalls in the Colorado Senate was a temporary setback.

The Colorado Senate is now in GOP control.

The Colorado Senate turning GOP was his 'success' story.

It would be funny if you weren't crushing the party with your clueless political ineptitude.

It's almost as if you authoritarian political dinosaurs were so completely crushed & lacking of answers that you need to have echo-chambers.

[clffrdjk]

125. why was i blocked? what rule did i break?

Could you link to the post that was so awful that I needed to be silenced.

[hack89]

129. You were not sufficiently emotional. You used facts and that bothers them. Nt

[Duckhunter935]

131. Like most of us

you did not break any SOP or rules but the host decides to block on a whim. I am glad this group is not run like that one.

[blueridge3210]

132. Meh.

Haters gonna hate. Frog and the Scorpion redux.

[Duckhunter935]

53. a handy guide to body armor

notice only the highest levels are the only ones rated to any rifle ammo. All of the rest are rated only for hand gun ammo.

A 'bulletproof' vest or other armor will protect you from the vast majority of pistol ballistic threats you are ever likely to face. But there is always a tradeoff between more protection and more wearability (and the constraint to stay within your budget). Please know that:

NO Armor is 100% Bullet-PROOF

rifle rounds
unusual high velocity pistol ammunition
pistol ammo fired from a rifle barrel
armor piercing ammunition
sharp-edged or pointed instruments (e.g., knives, icepicks, etc.), and/or
other unusual ammunition or situations...

CAN defeat body armor.

http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml

[Duckhunter935]

62. quote from the other group

Electric Monk

"They've cross-posted this in the gungeon, and are claiming that would ban nearly all centerfire ammo"

and that claim would be true, care to comment?

notice only the highest levels are the only ones rated to any rifle ammo. All of the rest are rated only for hand gun ammo.

A 'bulletproof' vest or other armor will protect you from the vast majority of pistol ballistic threats you are ever likely to face. But there is always a tradeoff between more protection and more wearability (and the constraint to stay within your budget). Please know that:

NO Armor is 100% Bullet-PROOF

rifle rounds
unusual high velocity pistol ammunition
pistol ammo fired from a rifle barrel
armor piercing ammunition
sharp-edged or pointed instruments (e.g., knives, icepicks, etc.), and/or
other unusual ammunition or situations...

CAN defeat body armor.

http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml

[Duckhunter935]

133. Email I recieved from Brownells today

Valued Brownells Customer,

We want you to be aware of an issue that may severely impact the availability and legality of economical and commonly-used .223/5.56 ammunition.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has recently suggested it intends to revoke the "sporting purposes" exemption for M855 ammunition, which would likely make it unlawful to possess. Of course, M855 is widely used in AR-15 rifles for recreational and competitive shooting activities.

Brownells, the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment organizations are concerned about this action as the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S., and this threatens to diminish the availability of popular ammunition. To learn about the BATFE's position, CLICK HERE.

The BATFE will take public comments on this action until March 13, 2015. We encourage you to contact the BATFE and tell them about your usage of this popular ammunition. You may leave comments at the following email address: [e-mail].

*Please note, the BATFE will automatically disregard any comments containing abusive or vulgar language, so state your opinion plainly and clearly.

Additionally, we invite you to contact your Federal legislators. Find your legislator by CLICKING HERE.

Thank you for helping to keep our Second Amendment strong!

Sincerely,

Frank & Pete Brownell

I wonder how many other retailers are also doing this?