User Panel
|
|||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
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...
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
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. |
|||
|
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? |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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?
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.
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. |
||
|
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. |
|
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. |
|||
|
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. |
|
|
Don't presume to tell me what to do. |
||
|
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? |
|
|
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. |
|||
|
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. |
||
|
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.
|
|
|
And yet you spend so much time doing just that. |
|||
|
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.
|
|
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.
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... |
||
|
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. |
|
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. |
||||
|
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. |
||
|
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". |
|||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.