BANG!
Posted on 02/26/2004 11:15:11 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
While National Rifle Association officials have been denying that they've been orchestrating a sellout in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) -- an NRA Director -- has been working on an ammunition ban. On the Senate floor today, he introduced, discussed, defended and tried to justify the "Craig/Frist" amendment. This amendment, said Craig, is needed "to strengthen current armor piercing ammunition law." NRA's point-man in the U.S. Senate says that this is "what the law enforcement community needs."
"We don't want to wipe out the hunting and sporting ammunition," said Craig. The "sporting purpose" test was used before -- as justification for firearm rights infringements via the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law and later copied nearly verbatim in the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968.
"Let's send a message that armor piercing ammunition is flat off limits," said Sen. Craig.
The NRA Director went on to support strong enforcement of his proposed ammunition ban, using phrases like "prison for life."
The Second Amendment does not enumerate the right of the people to keep and bear "sporting" arms. Banning any arms, or their ammunition, is clearly off limits to Congress. A longtime Director of the National Rifle Association ought to know that. Instead, he's supporting an ammo ban -- based on the infamous Nazi "sporting purpose" text -- on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Some might suggest that it doesn't matter what gets said on the Senate floor -- that what matters is what gets signed into law. People who believe that ought to consider the dangers here. Once a "pro gun" congressman publicly expresses support for gun control -- ammunition control is indeed gun control -- he empowers the enemy and emboldens future attempts to whittle away our rights.
The truth about civilian possession of "armor piercing ammunition" is immutable, immovable, unchanging. If government employees can deploy AP ammo against the people, denying that same ammunition to the people is directly contradictory to the meaning, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment: a balance of power.
The excuse for banning AP ammo -- "to protect law enforcement employees" -- is a dangerous road to travel. It's the same justification used to ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds. It's the same reason given to deny The People free access to machineguns. It was the same foundation upon which the Clinton/Feinstein semi-auto rifle ban was built and signed into law.
When does that excuse stop working? When the legal magazine capacity is reduced to five rounds? When all semi-auto rifles are banned? When owning a bullet-resistant vest means life imprisonment -- unless the government signs your paycheck? When all handguns are banned?
If you use "protecting law enforcement" as justification to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- if you accept that unacceptable excuse for chipping away at the Second Amendment -- then lay down your arms and go tend your garden, catch up on your reading and forget about restoring the Second Amendment. There's no end to that excuse other than total disarmament -- because even a mere single shot .22 caliber rifle manufactured before World War One can be used to injure a law enforcement officer.
Bear in mind that Sen. Craig's ammo ban amendment is being offered today, by him -- to his own bill. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S1805) is written to protect gun manufacturers from the frivolous lawsuits being waged by those whose ultimate goal is to ban all firearms. The bill is being used as a rider for many other gun controls today and leading up to the final vote on Tuesday. Sen. Craig wants to amend his own bill -- with an ammunition ban -- under the guise of abiding his oath of office. He said so on C-SPAN, in plain English.
We've requested text of the Amendment (SA2625) from Senator Craig's office and through another Senator's office, as well. As soon as we have it, we will publish it.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin; Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Molon Labe!
I believe he stole that line from Chuckie Schumer.
we ARE the frog being boiled.
Don't know, but KABA requested the a copy of the text from Craig's office and will publish it as soon as they get it.
Depending on how this is written now, and more importantly, how it is INTERPRETED BY ACTIVIST JUDGES later, almost all centerfire rifle ammo could be banned.
Very well could be. The Shoguns must be getting disturbed by all of the cases and cases of surplus ball ammo in 556, 762X39 and 308 getting shipped to mere peasants across the land. Must disturb them greatly.
Then some DA will sue somebody for having some standard surplus ball ammo. He'll test fire some through a kevlar vest. "A-HA! GOTCHA!"
Compliant judges and gullible juries will agree: the "armor piercing" ammo falls under the law. Off to jail! Ban the "cop killer" rifle bullets!
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" ~~Chuck Schumer
Or, to turn the entire country into a "shotgun-only" zone for deer hunting, as is the bigger half (I did NOT say "better"!) of Michigan. Been that way for years. If you want to hunt South of a certain arbitrary line across the state, it's shotguns-only. That basically means getting up-close and personal with Mr. Bambi. A shotgun doesn't give you all that much more range than a bow, in the grand scheme of things.
This will of course cause the deer take to nosedive, because the closer you are to the deer, the more wary he is, and the harder he is to take. (A bit of a Catch-22 paradox inherent in the deal.)
It might be a good idea to point out the massive costs that will be incurred by the increased deer population that will be inevitable if they outlaw centerfire hunting ammunition.
Insurance rates will go up -- as will medical expenses, and time away from work, and, there will be a tragic loss of life. Deer are notorious for going over the hood, through the windshield, and into the car -- and then killing the occupants. No joke.
My wife hit a deer. Nicked it with the left headlight. It swung around into the driver-side door. Killed the deer. Wrecked the grille, fender, door, and warped the side of the car. Cost the insurance company a lot to repair (and there's been problems since, that ain't covered, of course). The damage looked minimal, since it was just a glancing blow, but the looks were deceptive.
That was a good car-deer accident. My wife was not injured, just shook up a lot, and the car wasn't totalled, although the ins. company did consider it for a while.
Bad car-deer wrecks happen all the time, and many lives are lost. Human lives.
It shouldn't be hard to cast this inevitable increase in deer population in a "for the children" light -- and what's more, it won't even be "spinning" it. It's the truth!
I don't want to sound like Rosie O'Donnell (I strongly believe that "For every Jew, a 22"-- and fervently support gun rights), but you don't need an armor piercing bullet to defend your home, go hunting, or form the citizen's militia that defends against government oppression. About the only thing you need armor piercing ammunition for is killing cops.
From the article: "If government employees can deploy AP ammo against the people, denying that same ammunition to the people is directly contradictory to the meaning, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment: a balance of power."
The Craig amendment authorizes a two year study of so-called armor piercing ammuntion. It is NOT a ban on anything. This looks like an alternative to the Mikulski/Kennedy bans.
It just requires a study and the enhanced penalties for AP ammo possession or use in violent crime. It doesn't say anything about additional legislation after the study - just that there should be a study.
Quit jumping the gun until you have all the facts!!
I need you to tell me again why the NRA is OUR savior.
Earlier today you wrote, " Oh, Bullsh!t. The NRA is blocking those amendments."
You have been in this pro NRA mode since I can recall, now I'm asking you to take off your blinders and realize that when an amendment restricting the 2nd Amendment comes from an NRA Director that you do not have the FULL picture of what has been happening!
These people are becoming afraid that a patriot will start shooting at them in their bullet proofed limousines. That can be the ONLY reason for their fear of civilians having armor piercing ammunition!
"Let's send a message that armor piercing ammunition is flat off limits," said Sen. Craig.
Sir, I am asking you to sit down and start thinking about how YOU have been taken to the cleaners by their smooth talk. You are the one who swallowed it "hook, line and sinker"
Wayne LaPierre isn't afraid for his life, it is the elected governmental officials attempting to defeat the 2nd, who have reason to fear young angry, rash thinking civilian patriots. NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig is the NRA Director who is pushing this amendment, not the NRA membership!
I'm simply asking you to take the time to do a serious reconsideration of your views.
Riight. They supported the '68 gun control act, the 1934 National Firearms Act, and others. Their "compromise" on the NFA was that the original bill would have put handguns under the same controls as machine guns. No bill that infringes upons the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a "good bill" by Constitutional definition.
The NRA's strategy has almost always been to limit the damage, rather than trying to prevent it entirely, or should the worst happen, hope the people press the "reset button". They've contributed greatly, if inadvertently, to the "boiling of the frog".
Those blinder are getting uncomforatble, aren't they. Who promoted the seat belt study?
Who's the government to decide what I need, especially in light of the Constitutional prohibition on doing just that with regard to arms. Besides, real AP, not just regular ammo that can penetrate a vest designed to stop pistol bullets, could come in mighty handy should the need to defend against government oppression ever become acute, which is undoubtedly what bothers the policritters. Secondly the performance standards for legally defined AP would likely sweep up virtually all center fire rifle ammunition, and that you do need to hunt, defend your home, etc, etc.
Winchester SSP12 Supreme Partition Gold Slugs Second generation sabot slugs,in a 2 3/4 inch shell, and 385 grain (7/8 oz) hollowpoint slug. The slug is a copper jacketed 4-petal (notched hollowpoint) bullet of ~.50 caliber. It gives good expansion from the notched hollowpoint. The advertised velocity is 1900 fps at 3 ft. This is a "magic bullet", although at a high price. It performs admirably with less than 2 inch groups at 100 yards and 3-4 inch groups at 200 yards. This was in my Remington Wingmaster 12 gauge pump with Hastings 24" rifled barrel and 4-12x by 42 scope. I zeroed it at 150 yards, and the ballistics tables showed a 6.8 inch drop at 200 yards. Actual performance was a 7.1 inch drop at 200 yards. If one wants to shoot a tight group, then use all the shells from the same box, because I noticed slight differences between boxes even though they were from the same manufacturing lot (bought from different places). There is no shotgun slug that equals the performance of this Winchester SSP12 shell. In fact, the SSP12 gives a far smaller group at 200 yards than the premium Federal shells can do at 100 yards.
Whoa there tiger. Don't be callin' the .303 'obsolete'. My dad's 60 year old British .303 is one of the sweetest guns I have ever seen ... approx. 2moa, action smooth as butter, and with just the stock alone you could win 90% of the bar fights in the country.
As to the ammendment, I'll wait and read it before freaking out. It there is any momentum to start banning center-fire jacketed ammunition of any type, we have crossed the Rubicon.
First off, unless I'm mistaken, that quote ("For every Jew, a 22") originated with Kahane, who is by most accounting a somewhat less than stable hothead. Or was, that is. The point being that quoting it will not gain you much traction, and will only serve to paint you into a rhetorical corner.
Secondly, it's absurd at face value. It rhymes, yeah. That's the entire extent of its merit. The only things a .22 are good for are a) learning to shoot (on the cheap)/plinking; b) hunting squirrels and similar non-kosher small game; c) mafia-style executions (try persuading your legislator of that as a valid reason!); and d) pissing off a violent attacker.
Now, that out of the way, we're faced with the agitprop du jour.
The term "armor-piercing bullet", as defined by the legislators, outlaws all centerfire hunting ammunition, as well as the sabbotted shotgun slugs the poster above me mentioned. Most likely it'll also outlaw "traditional" shotgun slugs too, since they'll probably kill the wearer even if they don't "pierce" the vest. They pack a hell of a wallop at close range, even though they're useless at anything approaching "rifle distance".
Please don't buy into the propaganda -- either Kahane's or Feinstein's. Use your head, and see past the definitions game.
Did you know that in Feinstein's early "assault weapon" drafts, she had all "repeating arms" defined as "semi-automatic weapons"?
Do you see how the game is played?
First, you demonize a term -- and then, you apply it willy nilly, regardless of any rational application. If it applies legally, then it is moot whether or not the "legal definition" is absurd.
In case you're wondering what's the difference between "repeating arms" and "semi-automatic weapons", it's simple. If you're discussing anything other than a single-shot firearm, it's a "repeating arm".
The old single-action cowboy revolver? "Repeating arm."
Grampaw's old Winchester 30-30 lever-action? "Repeating arm."
That pump or bolt-action deer rifle? "Repeating arm."
I'll shut up now. Hopefully you've had an "ah-hah!" moment. Drop that Kahane tripe, don't try to sound cool using silly stuff, go to the range, meet some people who know what they're talking about, learn to shoot largebore handguns and centerfire rifles, and above all, don't get snowed by the antis with their ever-present word games. They'd redefine the ground out from under you if they ever figured out a way to pull it off.
OK, I read the ad copy.
From what I read, it is a Sabbotted slug in a shotgun shell, which will send a relatively inaccurate (in rifle terms) bullet down a rifled shotgun barrel with sufficient force to penetrate a ballistic vest.
So explain to me again why this won't be banned along with centerfire rifle ammunition? For that matter, explain to me why they won't define a shotgun with a rifled barrel as "a rifle" if the fancy strikes them.
It depends upon what you are hunting.
Let's understand something about the terms "AP" and "armor piercing" ammo. In the military lexicon I believe the term means specially hardened or explosive projectiles designed to pierce hardened armor found on tanks and the like. Am I wrong, Travis? You would know better than I.
When used by a politician or a media talking-head it is simply a weasel-word synonymous with "cop-killer bullet." That loosly means any projectile capable of piercing body-armor like a kevlar vest aka "soft-armor." Any high power rifle cartridge is capable of pushing its projectile, be it full-metal-jacket, soft-nose or hollow-point, through the toughest body-armor available with lethal power. That would include virtually every hunting round in existence. Don't get hung up on the word 'rifle' either; their are numerous pistols chambered in these cartridges as well.
The point being; any 'ammo' capable of efficiently killing any game animal bigger than a fallow deer is capable of piercing soft-armor.
I haven't read the article or fully read the thread but if the issue at hand comes down to only a study of AP ammo then one needs to ask themselves a couple of questions. Such as: "Who will actually conduct the study?" "What will be the guiding focus of the study?" "What will the gov. do with the results of the study?" Does anyone really think the Gov. is going to fund a study merely to find out the penetration power of various chamberings and bullet combinations? Gun writers, not to mention the firearms industry itself, have done the subject to death.
spodefly, if the intention of the study is to identify ammunition that can kill through body-armor then you can bet the farm the purpose of doing that is to lend credence to legislative efforts to restricting said ammunition. Once the study is done and the results have been handed to the media regarding "cop-killer" bullets the momentum will have already carried us across the Rubicon and the bridge will be ready to torch.
Please read my post #49.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.