Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is more than just a "study": It bans the manufacture and sale to civilians. for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless-- `(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; `(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or `(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General; `(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery-- `(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; `(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or `(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'. And that's the part that says box up your Dillon loading press, you can't use it any more to load what "they" have decided are AP rounds. The interesting thing about legal jargon is the way it's interpreted, for example the AWB was not a ban on assault rifles it was a ban on cosmetic features and hi cap mags and that's the way the law read in layman's terms. However the anti's twisted things around to suit their agenda and mislead people. It's a case of saying one thing and meaning another, on the surface the wording looks benign, but it could carry consequences down the road. The anti's will use such a study to mislead people who are ignorant to the truth. The fact is if you go to the web site of a manufacturer of body armor they will have what level of protection and the calibers that each class of armor will protect against, but dose any think the anti's will tell the general public when the results of the study are in? No they will say that XYZ rounds defeat body amour (not what rounds will defeat what class body amour) thus XYZ rounds need to be banned. Unfortunately there are idiots out there that will buy it , just like they bought that the ban was a ban on assault rifles. Yes it's just an authorization to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible. No it dose not authorize the ATF to make it's own  judgments and determinations or any thing else for that matter, dose it need to? The then president can give the ATF any authorization the need to ban XYZ calibers in the form of an executive order, 89" ban anyone? You misunderstand, it is amending the penalties for the 1980s AP ban law, not expanding the defintion of AP.  That law applied to handgun projectiles with steel, tungsten, etc, there is no way it can be applied to a standard lead core projectile.  Note that there is no amendment to the definition of "armor piercing ammunition", it still uses the 1980s definition that is already in the US Code. Did you read it? The increase in penalty for using AP isn't what the problem is. It's the study! You can stick up for this all you want, you can do your own spin, just like the rest of the here. This study is NOT a good thing. Because of people like you and the others, I hope it does pass, because it WILL come back to bite us in the ass. You can count on that.  So go spin this in your head anyway you want.

The poster above me seemed to think that it immediately expanded the defintion of AP, that was what I was addressing, not the study.  I agree that the study is a bad thing, but there is no ban of something that isn't already banned (your title implies something new is banned).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is more than just a "study": It bans the manufacture and sale to civilians. for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless-- `(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; `(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or `(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General; `(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery-- `(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; `(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or `(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'. And that's the part that says box up your Dillon loading press, you can't use it any more to load what "they" have decided are AP rounds. The interesting thing about legal jargon is the way it's interpreted, for example the AWB was not a ban on assault rifles it was a ban on cosmetic features and hi cap mags and that's the way the law read in layman's terms. However the anti's twisted things around to suit their agenda and mislead people. It's a case of saying one thing and meaning another, on the surface the wording looks benign, but it could carry consequences down the road. The anti's will use such a study to mislead people who are ignorant to the truth. The fact is if you go to the web site of a manufacturer of body armor they will have what level of protection and the calibers that each class of armor will protect against, but dose any think the anti's will tell the general public when the results of the study are in? No they will say that XYZ rounds defeat body amour (not what rounds will defeat what class body amour) thus XYZ rounds need to be banned. Unfortunately there are idiots out there that will buy it , just like they bought that the ban was a ban on assault rifles. Yes it's just an authorization to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible. No it dose not authorize the ATF to make it's own  judgments and determinations or any thing else for that matter, dose it need to? The then president can give the ATF any authorization the need to ban XYZ calibers in the form of an executive order, 89" ban anyone? You misunderstand, it is amending the penalties for the 1980s AP ban law, not expanding the defintion of AP.  That law applied to handgun projectiles with steel, tungsten, etc, there is no way it can be applied to a standard lead core projectile.  Note that there is no amendment to the definition of "armor piercing ammunition", it still uses the 1980s definition that is already in the US Code. Did you read it? The increase in penalty for using AP isn't what the problem is. It's the study! You can stick up for this all you want, you can do your own spin, just like the rest of the here. This study is NOT a good thing. Because of people like you and the others, I hope it does pass, because it WILL come back to bite us in the ass. You can count on that.  So go spin this in your head anyway you want. The poster above me seemed to think that it immediately expanded the defintion of AP, that was what I was addressing, not the study.  I agree that the study is a bad thing, but there is no ban of something that isn't already banned (your title implies something new is banned).

Ok, sorry. That's why I changed the title of the thread. With all the flaming I am getting and the spin people are trying to put on this, it looked like you were just spinning it like some of the others. And I'm getting sick of the spin. These people should work for CNN. Sorry I misunderstood you.

Quoted: Uh, from the way I read it, with the right Attorney General in office, this could provide the legal justification for him to instruct the ATF to designate any centerfire rifle round with over x number of grains of powder an AP round.

No that is not what the bill says at all. Once more for the people in the back of the room who didn't hear it the first time:

THIS BILL DOES NOT GIVE THE ATF ANY AUTHORITY TO REDEFINE ARMOR-PIERCING AMMUNITION.

I'm not certain I understand the jumping all over lippo...

Quoted: It is more than just a "study": It bans the manufacture and sale to civilians.

No, it does not do that Flechette. The part you quoted IS ALREADY LAW and has been since the 1980s. The amendment is just quoting existing law, it isn't adding any new law except for:

1) Forming a study
2) Adding enhanced penalties for using AP ammo in a crime

Quoted: And that's the part that says box up your Dillon loading press, you can't use it any more to load what "they" have decided are AP rounds.

No, it doesn't say that. There is nothing anywhere in that bill that allows the ATF to change the definition of armor-piercing ammo. That requires an act of Congress.


Call me crazy here; but maybe some of you should loosen the tinfoil skullcaps enough to allow blood to the brain before you start considering the beyond paranoid possibility that every single pro-gun Senator in the United States Senate just engaged in some elaborate conspiracy with the GOA and NRA to deprive you of your gun rights.

Quoted: Ok, sorry. That's why I changed the title of the thread. With all the flaming I am getting and the spin people are trying to put on this, it looked like you were just spinning it like some of the others. And I'm getting sick of the spin.

Speaking of spin, I notice you haven't answered any of the questions I've posed to you Lippo. Specifically I've noticed you avoided the following questions entirely:

1. OK, in this hypothetical future what do the antis do if there is no study and they get back in power?

2. If this study is the powerful polticial medicine you seem to think it is, then what would stop the antis from commissioning their own study if they get back in power?

3. If this study is such a threat then isn't it going to be much worse to let the antis pick the people who will conduct the study? Wouldn't we be better off having those people picked by someone on the NRA Board of Directors?

4. So guys like Chris Cox, Larry Craig, Chris Knox, Wayne LaPierre, and even Tom Coburn are on the side of the antis? Does that make any sense to you?

5. Do you mind if I ask what your background is in law or legislation that I should weigh your opinion on this issue more heavily than guys like Tom Coburn who are 100% with both GOA and NRA?'

6. How is it that not one of the pro-gun Senators in the Congress, including the 30 guys who voted against even the Kohl gun lock amendment because they were such strong supporters of the Second Amendment, agreed with your interpretation? Are all 30 sell-outs or are all 30 too stupid to see what you see?

7. Congressional studies are a violation of the Bill of Rights? That's a novel statement. Care to elaborate on it?

Quoted: Call me crazy here; but maybe some of you should loosen the tinfoil skullcaps enough to allow blood to the brain before you start considering the beyond paranoid possibility that every single pro-gun Senator in the United States Senate just engaged in some elaborate conspiracy with the GOA and NRA to deprive you of your gun rights.

See, the first question of the day is, "why" the study and what could result from it? Oh, that's two questions. The third question is, "WHY" did so called PRO-gun people "want" this study. There could be two reasons, first, they want to show that all ammuntion is armor piercing so no one can say, there is only certain calibers that should be banned (which is not very smart because almost any caliber can defeat a vest or armor given the right powder charge, distance to target and so on), or it's an other power pay by government officals to "limit" your Rights if they feel they need to under certain circumstances. I believe it's the second one. Just like, under martial law, you won't be allowed to walk outside with a weapon, this will become a control issue.

But either way, if they're trying to do a "good" thing, or it's another power play by the government, this study in the way it's worded, could effectively give an Anti in power with the right power base within congress enough ammuntion to do what Kerry and Kennedy want...ban all ammo except for cowboy action shooting. It's the "effect" it could have which is the problem.

That's WHAT I have been trying to get acrossed since I first put it up on the board.

Quoted: Quoted: Ok, sorry. That's why I changed the title of the thread. With all the flaming I am getting and the spin people are trying to put on this, it looked like you were just spinning it like some of the others. And I'm getting sick of the spin. Speaking of spin, I notice you haven't answered any of the questions I've posed to you Lippo. Specifically I've noticed you avoided the following questions entirely: 1. OK, in this hypothetical future what do the antis do if there is no study and they get back in power? At least they won't have "evidence" from "conservative" people to quote from. You know what this study will say..."In certain conditions, most ammuntion is armor piercing" Crap, even FMJ .223 55 grain can punch through steel plate if it's close enough. If they have conservative 2nd Amendment people to back them up...we'll be screwed for sure! 2. If this study is the powerful polticial medicine you seem to think it is, then what would stop the antis from commissioning their own study if they get back in power? They probably will, but at least the conservatives will be able to dispute them. If the conservatives make up a study showing what reality is, the conservatives will be stammering to "explain" themselves. Effectly, making it impossible to refute anything the Anti's can come up with, "why ammuntion should be banned". If the average soccer mom has the Antis tell her that ALL ammo is AP and the conservatives prove it, it'll only take "ONE" incident for the Anti's to get a "limit" of how many rounds you can have or what powder charge ammunition manufactures can use for "civilian" use. This "may" not happen, but it could and I'd rather not get the snowball rolling on this. And that's what it does. 3. If this study is such a threat then isn't it going to be much worse to let the antis pick the people who will conduct the study? Wouldn't we be better off having those people picked by someone on the NRA Board of Directors? No, read above 4. So guys like Chris Cox, Larry Craig, Chris Knox, Wayne LaPierre, and even Tom Coburn are on the side of the antis? Does that make any sense to you? Yes and no. I don't they they are on the side of the Anti's, but they are not being very smart. I think the politicans have duped the NRA on this section. Worse case...is government elected officials want to make sure they have the "law" on the "governments" side if we are under martial law because of a major terrorist attack and things get out of hand. No matter what you want to believe, elected people in the government like the power they have and in just about all ways, will do what they can get away with to "cement" that power, even if they never use it. The Patriot Act is an example of this. That thing breaks the 4th Amendment apart, but the conservatives say, "We'll make sure we don't do anything wrong" and so far, only a few cases of abuse have been shown, but that doesn't make it right. This ammo ban could be the same type of thing. They have the power and backing to do what they "think" is in the best interest of the country, when it may or could have horrible consequences to the most important of our Rights. 5. Do you mind if I ask what your background is in law or legislation that I should weigh your opinion on this issue more heavily than guys like Tom Coburn who are 100% with both GOA and NRA?' I've tried to get 2nd Amendment legislation passed myself, THROUGH republicans. But the conservatives don't want to do what is right, they want to do what will keep them elected. I proposed a ccw law, where employers could not infringe on your rights as long as your firearm was kept in your car. If you pulled it out of your vehicle, they had every right to fire you, but if you have a ccw and want to exercise your right of self defense, you can't do it off property if you have to go to work that day, because you can't carry your pistol on company property, even in the parking lot, locked up in your car. People have been fired over this and it's wrong. This, what I proposed DID NOT "realistically" have anything to do with property owners rights, because the property owner could fire you or ask you to leave if you carried into the building or out on the property, but others see it another way. I can see their "opinion", but that opinion is hypocritical. If I have a GOD given Right to self defense and I have a LAW that is the Bill of Rights stating that, "who" has the right to tell me what I can do while I am in my vechile. The CCW law in Michigan tells me I can carry into almost anywhere, but "individuals" can infringe on that right if they want. "Shall not be infringed" MEANS shall not be infringed and even the current CCW law does that. If property rights over step our God given Right to self defense, that's a delemia which should error on the side of the Constitution. I don't think these "politicians" that work with the NRA are totally Anti's but they will only sitick up for the 2nd Amendment to the extent to which it will "make" them "look" like they are ok with very pro 2nd Amendment people and with the scared sheep. And I think this study does some of that. The conservatives can tell the sheeple, that S. 397 is a good thing because they are going to have a study to find out how they can ban or regulate "AP" ammuntion. 6. How is it that not one of the pro-gun Senators in the Congress, including the 30 guys who voted against even the Kohl gun lock amendment because they were such strong supporters of the Second Amendment, agreed with your interpretation? Are all 30 sell-outs or are all 30 too stupid to see what you see? Do you really think politicans vote for their "own" personal feelings or totally with the Constitution? Opinion is opinion, but a contract is a contract. If my contract says, "Shall not be infringed" and I have prove of what it is meant by the original writer, there shouldn't be any "opinion" involved, but within America, people don't care about reality, they just want "their" opinion to count the most. Most of the time, politicans vote party line to give a perception to their voting base. Look at the votes, it's always the Democrats verse the Republicans. A lot of times, it's nothing more than a neighborhood fight. A lot of votes are to give a "perception" to people that keep them in power. Politics is a BIG game and if it wasn't, the Democrats and the Republicans wouldn't be able to stop a 3rd party from coming in and taking over. Most people like the party they support, but still have reservations about it, but they vote based on what's "most" important to them personally. The Democrats and Republicans know this, so they pick issues to promote so they can make sure their voting base doesn't totally go away from them. Example, I don't like the fact that Republicans are for Unfair trade, which, they describe as "Free Trade" because it IS affecting my ability to keep my job. However, I do like the fact that they are more pro-gun and are against abortion. But they haven't done a thing to get rid of abortion. But if I vote the way I really feel, I'd be throwing away my vote, because I know that if the Democrats win, my firearm rights will be wiped off the face of the planet. These 2 parties keep us scared into thinking and sometimes "actually" knowing that if we vote our conscience or don't vote because we don't like how things are going, the other "evil" party will come into power and screw "our" values. They have effectively screwed us into this 2 party system and they know it. We live in a 2 party system which keeps one of these 2 parties in power. If you don't see that, please look at the political system from the outside with your eyes open. Within this big game, they don't like each other, but they make sure that the people don't get so mad at them, that they tell both parties to take a hike. Ever since I was little, my parents were VERY politically active, I worked for Republican State Representatives in their campaigns, even though I was pretty young. I was even invited to the house floor during the votes. I thought I might like to be a politician some day, until I REALLY started looking into how things really work. I am a VERY strong Constitutionalist and absolutely despise the communistic way the democrats go, but I also have great reservations about the republicans and I have NOT found another party that will "honestly" stick to the constitution as it is written and how our Founding Fathers intended this country. If I did, I'd vote that way. I don't think those people you are talking about are stupid or against us, I think they play us for the most part. And I have learned from experience that you do NOT trust ANY politicians. Not matter how much they look like they are on my side. Let's just say I have a healthy respect for keeping my eyes and mind open to what may be going on around me. Most political powers that take over a country count on people thinking exactly what people here and over at DU think..."these poltical officals in our party can do no wrong" 7. Congressional studies are a violation of the Bill of Rights? That's a novel statement. Care to elaborate on it? Sure. If this leads to an infringement of AP ammo, it's an infringement on our 2nd Amendment Rights, thus making the study UnConstitutional. End of story. You either go by the Constitution or you don't. Just telling me that I can't own AP ammo is an illegal infringment on my 2nd Amendment Right. And asking for a study that "could" infringe on that right is UnConstitutional. Because at it's core, it could infringe. It may be a hard liner point, but I believe in the Bill of Rights. Period!

I just answered some of this in my last post. But so you know I'm not trying to spin read above. And thank you for turning your comments into constructive dialogue. This is all I ask.

Take a look at some of these Senators you are accusing of playing politics. Look at Tom Coburn for example. Here is a guy who said he would serve for a set term in the House of Representatives and then did exactly what he said and quit and went back to work as a doctor in Oklahoma. Take a look at his legislative record - this isn't a guy who is mealy mouthed to appease anybody. This is the guy that GOA wanted in the Senate worse than anybody else. He voted for this amendment. Why do you think that is, assuming political games is not the issue?

I also think its worth noting that if it was simply about politics, then the vast majority of the American public and even gun owners support gun locks. That was an overwhelmingly popular amendment - it had a veto proof majority of 70 votes in the Senate which pretty much is a big indicator of which way the political winds blow. Yet despite that, 30 Senators either had strong enough principles or enough fear of their constituents to vote against this bill.

Yet when it comes down to the amendment you oppose, not one of those pro-gun Senators opposed it. In fact, the only Senators who opposed it are remarkable for their dislike of guns and their support of incredibly strict gun control legislation. Did they suddenly become less fearful of their constituents or did their principles suddenly get weak? Or maybe this really is better for us and they knew it?

At least they won't have "evidence" from "conservative" people to quote from. You know what this study will say..."In certain conditions, most ammuntion is armor piercing" Crap, even FMJ .223 55 grain can punch through steel plate if it's close enough. If they have conservative 2nd Amendment people to back them up...we'll be screwed for sure!

Yes, I know what the study will say because it is a fact of physics. I don't think that pretending that these facts don't exist is going to help us much in our cause. I would rather see a study commissioned by a gun-friendly Congress that explains the whole story than the type of thing we would see if Kennedy had his way...just in case you have forgotten, here is a little snippet of past Kennedy rants in the Congressional Record:

"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. "

This is the type of fact-finding you can expect to see from a non-gun friendly Congress. Those are the types of studies we have been dealing with for the eight years of the Clinton Administration.

If the conservatives make up a study showing what reality is, the conservatives will be stammering to "explain" themselves.

You say that like showing what reality is would be bad for us. I don't think that is the case. Do you?

Near as I can tell Lippo, your fears seem to be based on the belief that the study can't possibly show anything that supports our cause and that having the study will cause the antis to suddenly become aware of things they didn't know (like that most rifle ammo will pierce vests with ease). I would suggest that the antis already know this and simply do not tell the whole story because it doesn't suit their purposes. I also don't think we are doing ourselves any favors by allowing the antis to define the terms of the debate. A Congressional Study redefining what the terms of the debate are is a nice way to change that.

Quoted: Is there an agreed upon definion of "armor piercing" like there is for "assault rifle"?

No, which is probably the reason for conducting a study...to determine what actually is "armor piercing," so that the hoplophobes can't willy-nilly label hollow-point ammunition as such.

If someone had actually bothered to study "cop-killer" bullets, they would have found that no such thing exists, and Black Talons would still be on the market...

—Dan

Jesus Christ on a broken Harley...the paranoia in here is so thick you could cut it with a chain saw.

"It COULD be abused in the future..."
What the FUCK?  ANYTHING can be abused.  ANY law can be misused.  That's like saying "We shouldn't outlaw murder because some liberal could come along and apply that to self defense killings."
Sometimes, some of you guys make me ill.

Quoted: Take a look at some of these Senators you are accusing of playing politics. Look at Tom Coburn for example. Here is a guy who said he would serve for a set term in the House of Representatives and then did exactly what he said and quit and went back to work as a doctor in Oklahoma. Take a look at his legislative record - this isn't a guy who is mealy mouthed to appease anybody. This is the guy that GOA wanted in the Senate worse than anybody else. He voted for this amendment. Why do you think that is, assuming political games is not the issue? I also think its worth noting that if it was simply about politics, then the vast majority of the American public and even gun owners support gun locks. That was an overwhelmingly popular amendment - it had a veto proof majority of 70 votes in the Senate which pretty much is a big indicator of which way the political winds blow. Yet despite that, 30 Senators either had strong enough principles or enough fear of their constituents to vote against this bill. Yet when it comes down to the amendment you oppose, not one of those pro-gun Senators opposed it. In fact, the only Senators who opposed it are remarkable for their dislike of guns and their support of incredibly strict gun control legislation. Did they suddenly become less fearful of their constituents or did their principles suddenly get weak? Or maybe this really is better for us and they knew it? At least they won't have "evidence" from "conservative" people to quote from. You know what this study will say..."In certain conditions, most ammuntion is armor piercing" Crap, even FMJ .223 55 grain can punch through steel plate if it's close enough. If they have conservative 2nd Amendment people to back them up...we'll be screwed for sure! Yes, I know what the study will say because it is a fact of physics. I don't think that pretending that these facts don't exist is going to help us much in our cause. I would rather see a study commissioned by a gun-friendly Congress that explains the whole story than the type of thing we would see if Kennedy had his way...just in case you have forgotten, here is a little snippet of past Kennedy rants in the Congressional Record: "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. " This is the type of fact-finding you can expect to see from a non-gun friendly Congress. Those are the types of studies we have been dealing with for the eight years of the Clinton Administration. If the conservatives make up a study showing what reality is, the conservatives will be stammering to "explain" themselves. You say that like showing what reality is would be bad for us. I don't think that is the case. Do you? Near as I can tell Lippo, your fears seem to be based on the belief that the study can't possibly show anything that supports our cause and that having the study will cause the antis to suddenly become aware of things they didn't know (like that most rifle ammo will pierce vests with ease). I would suggest that the antis already know this and simply do not tell the whole story because it doesn't suit their purposes. I also don't think we are doing ourselves any favors by allowing the antis to define the terms of the debate. A Congressional Study redefining what the terms of the debate are is a nice way to change that.

I understand what you are saying about the Senators not playing politics. This "may" or "may not" be the case here. You don't know, and I don't know. But I do know this, I CALLED Senator Craigs office to get come clarification on WHY he put that in, and after having them tell me someone would get back with me, they won't return my call. I'm going to call again, but I doubt I'll get an answer. I sent them the fax I posted and talked to one of their staff. They said they didn't have a clue about the section he put in there or why he did it.

I ALSO called the NRA-ILA department and talked to them. The staff person I talked to didn't know about section 6 and they said they hadn't read it. So you tell me. Are people really UP on things? Even the people at the NRA don't seem to know what's going on, but they sure will put the Kennedy Amendment up on the site on how it was defeated, but NOT A WORD about section 6 or that Craig put it in there. Conspiracy? I don't know, I don't care, I just know, I am not getting answers and they OWE it to us to answer our questions. The difference between your opinion and mine is, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) to "want" to believe that they are looking out for our own good and I "want" answers to "why" they'd put something like this in there.

I also know what you are saying about having the study come from a "so called" pro-gun party, but the AG is NOT pro-gun. Otherwise, Gonzales would have gotten on the ATF and told them to stand down on their recent letter about form 6 imports. I'm not worried about the truth coming out, but I AM worried that this COULD result in an infringement of our Rights. This shouldn't even be an issue. I'm sure there is enough evidence out there, to publish a study on this, without having to go through the DOJ. And Anti's DON'T know how damaging ALL rifle rounds can be. They think "Body Armor" and think it's a protective shield. After seeing what Fineswine, Kennedy, Kerry and Schumer say and the fact they don't actually shoot, I think they are completely ignorant about firearms and ammuntion. They just think guns are bad and I'd bet if you asked any of them what the difference between a rifle primer and a case is, they'd look at you like this...

If this study was to "enlighten" and to be used as ammunition against any ammuntion ban law...very nice, I wish and hope it would do some good. It "might" be intended that way, but I see it getting WAY out of hand. And backfiring against gun owners. Like I said before, Congress has NO right in commissioning a study like this...because it could will lead to infringement. The democrats have NO right in even introducing laws infringing on our 2nd Amendment and before those even hit the floor, no matter which party is in power, they should be struck down upon review. The ATF imposing a $200 tax on full autos is not UnConstitutional, because in the Constitution, the congress as the power to levy such a tax. However, for the ATF to deny an application for a person like me, who does not commit crime or to slow up that process where it takes 6 months, when I can get a mortgage in 60 seconds is UnConstitutional. And I know this, MY state has infringed on my Constitutional Right by banning any full auto that is not a C&R. It pisses me off. And I don't want any more infringements from the Federal governement either.

Quoted: Jesus Christ on a broken Harley...the paranoia in here is so thick you could cut it with a chain saw. "It COULD be abused in the future..." What the FUCK?  ANYTHING can be abused.  ANY law can be misused.  That's like saying "We shouldn't outlaw murder because some liberal could come along and apply that to self defense killings." Sometimes, some of you guys make me ill.

Then don't click on this thread. Just like the TV, you can turn it off. If you don't want to have an honest discussion, then don't post here. You have that right.

Quoted: Quoted: Jesus Christ on a broken Harley...the paranoia in here is so thick you could cut it with a chain saw. "It COULD be abused in the future..." What the FUCK?  ANYTHING can be abused.  ANY law can be misused.  That's like saying "We shouldn't outlaw murder because some liberal could come along and apply that to self defense killings." Sometimes, some of you guys make me ill. Then don't click on this thread.

Don't presume to tell me what to do.

I am not getting answers and they OWE it to us to answer our questions. The difference between your opinion and mine is, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) to "want" to believe that they are looking out for our own good and I "want" answers to "why" they'd put something like this in there.

You know, if it was only one pro-gun Senator and other pro-gun Senators had voted against it, I might be a little more paranoid. However, when every single pro-gun Senator in the Senate votes for it, even the 30 guys who wouldn't support the gun lock amendment, well then I have to either believe that the Senate is so far gone that there is not even one single Senator in it who will stand for principle and it is all an X-Files conspiracy of the highest order or I have to believe they know what they are doing.

Those are really the only two explanations for what happened. Which one do you think is more likely?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Jesus Christ on a broken Harley...the paranoia in here is so thick you could cut it with a chain saw. "It COULD be abused in the future..." What the FUCK?  ANYTHING can be abused.  ANY law can be misused.  That's like saying "We shouldn't outlaw murder because some liberal could come along and apply that to self defense killings." Sometimes, some of you guys make me ill. Then don't click on this thread. Don't presume to tell me what to do.

Hey lippo, if you're so scared and frightened of the POTENTIAL of this new study to be abused, why aren't you crapping your pants and lying in the fetal position about the ALREADY EXISTING restrictions of the RKBA. You should just about be having a stroke over backdoor gun registration via 4473s, true registration via the NFA, and an outright ban on MGs.

Or am I just drinking the kool-aid too much to see you throwing a hissy fit over the potential for something to be abused and at the same time are ignoring the already-existing problems.

Quoted: I am not getting answers and they OWE it to us to answer our questions. The difference between your opinion and mine is, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) to "want" to believe that they are looking out for our own good and I "want" answers to "why" they'd put something like this in there. You know, if it was only one pro-gun Senator and other pro-gun Senators had voted against it, I might be a little more paranoid. However, when every single pro-gun Senator in the Senate votes for it, even the 30 guys who wouldn't support the gun lock amendment, well then I have to either believe that the Senate is so far gone that there is not even one single Senator in it who will stand for principle and it is all an X-Files conspiracy of the highest order or I have to believe they know what they are doing. Those are really the only two explanations for what happened. Which one do you think is more likely?

I don't want to speculate, I want to know from the horses mouth.

There is something that you said about Tom Coburn and this case. You quoted an individual and I am talking as a whole. That would be like me saying, "the democrats are not up to something, because Zell Miller is a stand up guy."

This part of the legislation, I believe, is about making more infringement law for their perception of control. "JUST" like the Patriot Act. Notice, they said, "`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;" This part was amending the current code. But some of the wording isn't right...."poltical Subdivision". Conspiracy? I don't know, but what the hell is a "political subdivision?" The wording political subdivision is NOT something you want as law.

I don't like any of this wording this section has and I don't like where they can go with it. I'm not looking at party, I'm looking at the wording. Once you get passed, the republican or democrat label and read the wording as it is written and think about how it could be used against you, you won't feel really good about it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Jesus Christ on a broken Harley...the paranoia in here is so thick you could cut it with a chain saw. "It COULD be abused in the future..." What the FUCK?  ANYTHING can be abused.  ANY law can be misused.  That's like saying "We shouldn't outlaw murder because some liberal could come along and apply that to self defense killings." Sometimes, some of you guys make me ill. Then don't click on this thread. Don't presume to tell me what to do. He's too busy defending his paranoia as "honest discussion".

So someone that doesn't have the same opinion as you, isn't being honest? I'm not defending anything, if I was defending like you, I'd just be bashing and not contributing like you dicks are doing. All you are doing is being a

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Jesus Christ on a broken Harley...the paranoia in here is so thick you could cut it with a chain saw. "It COULD be abused in the future..." What the FUCK?  ANYTHING can be abused.  ANY law can be misused.  That's like saying "We shouldn't outlaw murder because some liberal could come along and apply that to self defense killings." Sometimes, some of you guys make me ill. Then don't click on this thread. Don't presume to tell me what to do. He's too busy defending his paranoia as "honest discussion". So someone that doesn't have the same opinion as you, isn't being honest? I'm not defending anything, if I was defending like you, I'd just be bashing and not contributing like you dicks are doing. All you are doing is being a

Edited my above post with genuine questions. Try answering them.

Still waiting, here's my above post.

Hey lippo, if you're so scared and frightened of the POTENTIAL of this new study to be abused, why aren't you crapping your pants and lying in the fetal position about the ALREADY EXISTING restrictions of the RKBA. You should just about be having a stroke over backdoor gun registration via 4473s, true registration via the NFA, and an outright ban on MGs. Or am I just drinking the kool-aid too much to see you throwing a hissy fit over the potential for something to be abused and at the same time are ignoring the already-existing problems.

Quoted: Quoted: I am not getting answers and they OWE it to us to answer our questions. The difference between your opinion and mine is, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) to "want" to believe that they are looking out for our own good and I "want" answers to "why" they'd put something like this in there. You know, if it was only one pro-gun Senator and other pro-gun Senators had voted against it, I might be a little more paranoid. However, when every single pro-gun Senator in the Senate votes for it, even the 30 guys who wouldn't support the gun lock amendment, well then I have to either believe that the Senate is so far gone that there is not even one single Senator in it who will stand for principle and it is all an X-Files conspiracy of the highest order or I have to believe they know what they are doing. Those are really the only two explanations for what happened. Which one do you think is more likely? I don't want to speculate

And yet you spend so much time doing just that.

Quoted: There is something that you said about Tom Coburn and this case. You quoted an individual and I am talking as a whole. That would be like me saying, "the democrats are not up to something, because Zell Miller is a stand up guy."

I don't consider that a valid analogy. In this case, we had not just Tom Coburn; but 30 Senators who wouldn't sign on to the gun lock legislation (politically popular mild gun control legislation) but signed on to this legislation. A better analogy might be saying "I don't think the Democrats are up to something in this case; because Zell Miller and 29 other guys who think like him all agree with what they are doing".

Tell you what, rather than take my word for it. Let's just look at the historical trends. Can you find one piece of legislation that you consider to be gun control that didn't have a single pro-gun Senator in opposition to it?

Perhaps I was not clear, I was not saying that the amendment would allow an expansion of the definition of AP ammo in and of it's self, only that the findings of the "study" could eventually be used to that end. The part I quoted if you read the wording and if the definition of AP is expanded later on down the line would mean that you could not load (manufacture) AP ammo. If they expand the definition of what AP ammo is to just about evey rifle cartridge, then say goodbye to loading your own ammo as well as not being able to purchase it.

Still waiting for a response lippo.

Quoted: Still waiting for a response lippo.

Some of us have a job. I guess all you do is sit at a computer waiting to show how much of a jackass you are.

Hey lippo, if you're so scared and frightened of the POTENTIAL of this new study to be abused, why aren't you crapping your pants and lying in the fetal position about the ALREADY EXISTING restrictions of the RKBA. You should just about be having a stroke over backdoor gun registration via 4473s, true registration via the NFA, and an outright ban on MGs. Or am I just drinking the kool-aid too much to see you throwing a hissy fit over the potential for something to be abused and at the same time are ignoring the already-existing problems.

How do you know how I feel? Sure I don't like anything you mention and I HAVE called my representation to see if there is anyway to recind it. Have you? The reason I want to fight this now, it to stop it before it makes a pain and we CAN'T do anything about it. Guess you don't know anything about being proactive do you? If you feel otherwise, you can always call your Rep and tell them to pass it as is. Have you done that either? Probably not, all you can do is bash on a computer.

I haven't heard you talking about anything you are doing in trying to help the stupid situtation that we live in...other than sitting at a computer and showing everyone that you have extremely low self-esteem.

So what have YOU DONE? HUH? Thought so...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Jesus Christ on a broken Harley...the paranoia in here is so thick you could cut it with a chain saw. "It COULD be abused in the future..." What the FUCK?  ANYTHING can be abused.  ANY law can be misused.  That's like saying "We shouldn't outlaw murder because some liberal could come along and apply that to self defense killings." Sometimes, some of you guys make me ill. Then don't click on this thread. Don't presume to tell me what to do.

Don't presume that you can tell me what to say or how to think. If you don't like the discussion, there is always the door. Not a demand, a suggest of a way to end your pain.

An update for all that actually want to be constructive

I went to my US House of Representatives office. They were aware of my fax and one of the staff that deals with these issues had just taken off with my fax to discuss it with the Rep. They didn't like section 6 any better than I did. And the one staffer said they they had all agreed that this was not a wise thing. So the ball is rolling.

And to you "unbelievers"... At least I am "trying" to do what I believe is right instead of drinking the koolaid given too us. If it still passes, at least I tried and all you could do is be part of the problem instead of the solution. And if I was wrong about the intentions given this section, I would have at least liked to have heard that the NRA was aware of it and that the staff of Senator Craigs office at least knew "why" he had put it in there. By the way, they still haven't gotten back to me yet.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Jesus Christ on a broken Harley...the paranoia in here is so thick you could cut it with a chain saw. "It COULD be abused in the future..." What the FUCK?  ANYTHING can be abused.  ANY law can be misused.  That's like saying "We shouldn't outlaw murder because some liberal could come along and apply that to self defense killings." Sometimes, some of you guys make me ill. Then don't click on this thread. Don't presume to tell me what to do. Don't presume that you can tell me what to say or how to think.

Please provide ANY example of me telling you what to say or how to think.  You can't, because I haven't.  I merely criticized your alarmist hand-waving.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Jesus Christ on a broken Harley...the paranoia in here is so thick you could cut it with a chain saw. "It COULD be abused in the future..." What the FUCK?  ANYTHING can be abused.  ANY law can be misused.  That's like saying "We shouldn't outlaw murder because some liberal could come along and apply that to self defense killings." Sometimes, some of you guys make me ill. Then don't click on this thread. Don't presume to tell me what to do. Don't presume that you can tell me what to say or how to think. Please provide ANY example of me telling you what to say or how to think.  You can't, because I haven't.  I merely criticized your alarmist hand-waving.

You can show how much of a egotistical bastard you are, all you want, but all you were doing is this...




Because someone didn't believe the same as you and you felt like someone was saying your feelings were wrong over what you "want" to believe. Otherwise you'd have contributed with questions instead of trying to how much of a jerk you are.

You don't like what I just said? Then I'd suggest that you don't look at my threads anymore. You "may" have to face some truth about yourself and you "may" not like it.

Quoted: Quoted: Please provide ANY example of me telling you what to say or how to think.  You can't, because I haven't.  I merely criticized your alarmist hand-waving. You can show how much of a egotistical bastard you are, all you want, but all you were doing is this...

Ah, so you admit you were lying when you said I had told you what to say or how to think?
And how does disagreeing with you make me egotistical?  I guess my ego must be HUGE if I don't agree with lippo's rantings...    
You just dig yourself deeper with every post, man.

Quoted: Quoted: Still waiting for a response lippo. Some of us have a job. I guess all you do is sit at a computer waiting to show how much of a jackass you are. Hey lippo, if you're so scared and frightened of the POTENTIAL of this new study to be abused, why aren't you crapping your pants and lying in the fetal position about the ALREADY EXISTING restrictions of the RKBA. You should just about be having a stroke over backdoor gun registration via 4473s, true registration via the NFA, and an outright ban on MGs. Or am I just drinking the kool-aid too much to see you throwing a hissy fit over the potential for something to be abused and at the same time are ignoring the already-existing problems. How do you know how I feel? Sure I don't like anything you mention and I HAVE called my representation to see if there is anyway to recind it. Have you? The reason I want to fight this now, it to stop it before it makes a pain and we CAN'T do anything about it. Guess you don't know anything about being proactive do you? If you feel otherwise, you can always call your Rep and tell them to pass it as is. Have you done that either? Probably not, all you can do is bash on a computer. I haven't heard you talking about anything you are doing in trying to help the stupid situtation that we live in...other than sitting at a computer and showing everyone that you have extremely low self-esteem. So what have YOU DONE? HUH? Thought so...

My days off are Monday and Tuesday.

Anyway however, as to my actions of defending the RKBA. I've called my Reps numerous times about repealing a number of gun-control measures. I fought tooth and nail to call and mail every one of the members on Maine's Criminal Justice Committee to get a 10-day waiting period bill killed as well as an AWB defeated. I've called the Ways And Means Committee about Hr1703 and on a number of other topics, I've donated to the NRA-ILA to fight anti-RKBA measures.

Have I made paranoid posts about the a study added to a piece of legislation that is primarily pro-gun? Even you seem to have got it through your thick skull that you were being alarmist and as a result changed your thread title from "CALL YOUR HOUSE REPS TODAY! AP ban in S. 397" to "CALL YOUR HOUSE REPS TODAY! AP study in S. 397".