I don't like the NRA's Section 6 "why" statement!

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I don't like the NRA's Section 6 "why" statement!

Posted: 8/8/2005 7:38:23 PM EDT

Here's the official statement on "why" they put Section 6 in.

www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1696

The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

So they are telling us, that in a PRO-GUN REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in the HOUSE, SENATE and with the President, they wouldn't have enough votes to stomp Kennedy's "AMMUNITION BAN" into the stone age?

I find this waaaaaaay out there.

SO they didn't have enough votes to kill Kennedy's ammunition ban????? What the ???

Sorry, "I" don't buy it. I don't even propose to even think I'll "ever" be able to understand why they would make a statement like that...when the PRO-GUN has the majority and Kennedy's "amendment" is so OBVIOUSLY UnConstitutional and "should" NEVER be signed but the "W".

I know....go drink my Koolaid now.

This statement is BS to me.

Posted: 8/8/2005 7:45:04 PM EDT

[#1]

They're making excuses for why they're the new "happier, nicer, more well-adjusted NRA of the 21st Century"

Posted: 8/8/2005 7:49:07 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Sorry, "I" don't buy it. I don't even propose to even think I'll "ever" be able to understand why they would make a statement like that...when the PRO-GUN has the majority and Kennedy's "amendment" is so OBVIOUSLY UnConstitutional and "should" NEVER be signed but the "W".

I know....go drink my Koolaid now. This statement is BS to me.

That's because you don't understand how the Senate works. It takes 60 votes to pass anything which has opposition. There aren't 60 Republicans, and not all of the current 55 are conservative. Having a majority in the House is everything, but is only half of the battle in the Senate--you have to have 60 in order to "own" the place. This isn't about any "Koolaid" drinking--it's Civics 101.

Posted: 8/8/2005 7:51:22 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry, "I" don't buy it. I don't even propose to even think I'll "ever" be able to understand why they would make a statement like that...when the PRO-GUN has the majority and Kennedy's "amendment" is so OBVIOUSLY UnConstitutional and "should" NEVER be signed but the "W".

I know....go drink my Koolaid now. This statement is BS to me.

That's because you don't understand how the Senate works. It takes 60 votes to pass anything which has opposition. There aren't 60 Republicans, and not all of the current 55 are conservative. Having a majority in the House is everything, but is only half of the battle in the Senate--you have to have 60 in order to "own" the place. This isn't about any "Koolaid" drinking--it's Civics 101.

Nix that.

Ok, even the way you stated it. I'd think Kennedy wouldn't have a chance in hades to get his Amendment passed. So "why" did they think he was such a threat?

Posted: 8/8/2005 7:51:56 PM EDT

[#4]

To be fair Lippo, this is also included in the NRA's statement...

Here's what this amendment does not do:

* The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition.

* The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

* The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.

I have to believe that the NRA's legal dept. went over this amendment with a fine tooth comb & came to the conclusion that it is essentially harmless to gun owners.

At least that's my hope....

Posted: 8/8/2005 7:54:00 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
To be fair Lippo, this is also included in the NRA's statement... (that's why I posted the link)

Here's what this amendment does not do:

* The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition.

* The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

* The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.

Sorry, but this doesn't have anything to do with the "WHY" it was introduced. That's what I'm looking for.

Posted: 8/8/2005 7:56:31 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
To be fair Lippo, this is also included in the NRA's statement...

Here's what this amendment does not do:

* The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition.

* The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

* The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.

I have to believe that the NRA's legal dept. went over this amendment with a fine tooth comb & came to the conclusion that it is essentially harmless to gun owners.

At least that's my hope....

I'd hope so too, but I'm still not buying that there is "no" way it'll ever come back to haunt us.

Posted: 8/8/2005 7:57:21 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Ok, even the way you stated it. I'd think Kennedy wouldn't have a chance in hades to get his Amendment passed. So "why" did they think he was such a threat?

Because the Lawsuit-Protection bill would not have gained over 60 votes without SOME sort of bone thrown to the RINOs and Moderate Dems who needed it so they can go back to their soccer-mom constituents and say they're "protecting police officers against 'cop-killing' ammo".

Posted: 8/8/2005 7:57:46 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

So they are telling us, that in a PRO-GUN REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in the HOUSE, SENATE and with the President, they wouldn't have enough votes to stomp Kennedy's "AMMUNITION BAN" into the stone age?

]

Uh, YEAH. We've got a lot of CongressCritters that are basically Republican in name only.

Posted: 8/8/2005 8:05:48 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, even the way you stated it. I'd think Kennedy wouldn't have a chance in hades to get his Amendment passed. So "why" did they think he was such a threat?
Because the Lawsuit-Protection bill would not have gained over 60 votes without SOME sort of bone thrown to the RINOs and Moderate Dems who needed it so they can go back to their soccer-mom constituents and say they're "protecting police officers against 'cop-killing' ammo".

Uh, YEAH. We've got a lot of CongressCritters that are basically Republican in name only.

So there you have it. A "bone" to satisfy the sheep. This makes about as much sense as anything I have heard so far. I wonder how far these people would go to totally destroy our Consitution if they thought they needed too, to get re-elected?

Oops, sorry...that's already happened.

Posted: 8/8/2005 8:08:11 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

. I wonder how far these people would go to totally destroy our Consitution if they thought they needed too, to get re-elected?

Posted: 8/8/2005 8:09:23 PM EDT

[#11]

Lippo, I also shared in your concerns about this amendment, but now that the NRA has finally released their analysis of what the bill's language does & dosen't authorize, I'm satisfied that this was just a symbolic bone thrown to the Democrats & moderate Republicans in the Senate.

Listen to Mac & Beekeeper... they are spot on as to the "why" of this amendment.

Now I think I'll exhale & celebrate the passage of The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act!

Posted: 8/8/2005 8:11:42 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
... Sorry, "I" don't buy it. ...

Do you “buy” the fact that last year the same Senate amended the underlying bill (ultimately killing it) by including an AWB in it?

Posted: 8/8/2005 8:14:59 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, even the way you stated it. I'd think Kennedy wouldn't have a chance in hades to get his Amendment passed. So "why" did they think he was such a threat?
Because the Lawsuit-Protection bill would not have gained over 60 votes without SOME sort of bone thrown to the RINOs and Moderate Dems who needed it so they can go back to their soccer-mom constituents and say they're "protecting police officers against 'cop-killing' ammo".

So there you have it. A "bone" to satisfy the sheep.

That's what I meant - it's a "bone", meaning THERE'S NO MEAT TO IT!

There's nothing there that changes or CAN change anything about anything you already own or will own. The "ammo bill" is all about "appearing" to get tough on cop-killers when in reality it does NOTHING to you. It toughens laws already on the books - big whoop.

But it DID let us get what we wanted and we gave up NOTHING in return for it.

Posted: 8/8/2005 8:18:28 PM EDT

[#14]

Who said--"The less people know about the making of laws and sausage the better"?

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:03:10 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Who said--"The less people know about the making of laws and sausage the better"?

So what are you saying? That people shouldn't be allowed to learn or be involved in their governmental process because they think the way things are being done, is not the way it was intended to be? Or that our government has gotten out of hand?

Ever hear of the word "Inalienable"? I don't care "why" they do things, they can pass a ban on people with the nickname "beekeeper", it STILL doesn't make it right. And if you tell me that "oh, that's just civics", I'll tell you that our "civics" is WRONG! And should be held to the "Contract". Any court of law is SUPPOSE TOO hold contracts as valid and unfortunately this doesn't hold true to OUR Contract anymore.

Man, our country is going downhill fast.

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:15:01 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
... Sorry, "I" don't buy it. ...

Do you “buy” the fact that last year the same Senate amended the underlying bill (ultimately killing it) by including an AWB in it?

I buy the fact that these same people that say, studying ammunition, wanted to include the AWB into the Act. And I also "buy" the fact that these same people "wanted" to kill the same law that they just passed. I DO NOT trust these people who are so ready to throw away our Rights, to vote "for" something they were against, WITHOUT bartering for something to satisfy their own agenda. Meaning, "certain" elected officials will vote "for" something as long as they get their own way. And that way is to detroy our 2nd Amendment Rights.

I also believe, "now", that Craig a the rest of them, threw these same "elected officals" a enticement to get "protection" for the businesses that have money and will supply them with the necessary tools to control a population. Notice how it's always..."these laws do not regulate the military, law enforcement or any government entity"?

Either way, "this" study may have been thrown in to the bill to get enough votes to get it passed, however, we all know the end result of this study....most ammunition "IS" armor piercing. And if "certain" people get their way, the only bullets you'll be able to shoot are projectiles that are under 400 feet per second. And "this" study is just one more "compromise" that will infringe on something that is suppose to be a INALIENABLE RIGHT".

The way our government works is NOT the way it was intended. END OF STORY.

Ok, I'm off it now.

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:18:25 AM EDT

[#17]

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
Otto von Bismarck

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:20:11 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Who said--"The less people know about the making of laws and sausage the better"?

So what are you saying? That people shouldn't be allowed to learn or be involved in their governmental process because they think the way things are being done, is wrong?

Ever hear of the word "Inalienable"? I don't care "why" they do things, they can pass a ban on people with the nickname "beekeeper", it STILL doesn't make it right. And if you tell me that "oh, that's just civics", I'll tell you that our "civics" is WRONG! And should be held to the "Contract". Any court of law is SUPPOSE TOO hold contracts as valid and unfortunately this doesn't hold true to OUR Contract anymore.

Man, our country is going downhill fast.

Not at all. What I meant was simply what the guy I quoted meant--the vast majority of people don't understand how laws are made, and should, in the absence of actually becoming knowledgeable, STFU about it and live in blissful ignorance. The process is convoluted and NOT straightforward. Your initial rant is far off-base because of your ignorance of the process, and then deleterious to the NRA and Republicans as a result--and wrongly so.

To the contrary to your post I quoted here, I think you (and all of us) SHOULD become active, involved, and <mostly> educated of the legislative process. Gun owners are the ONLY group who lobbies congresscritters who aren't looking for a handout--we just want to be left alone. If we had just one-third of gun owners willing to become active we would have anything we wanted--BUT, we have to be knowledgeable and not go off half-cocked, as you did with this thead. Our energies need to be directed toward worthwhile activities, with definite, attainable goals--not flailing about, throwing insults where they are not deserved.

ETA: Your incorrect use of quote marks makes your posts difficult to read. (I'm referring specifically to your post made AFTER the one I quoted in this post.) Not to seem as though I'm nitpicking, but damn.

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:24:26 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
Otto von Bismarck

Thank you.

I think I will spend a bit of time studying the context of that quote. I appreciate the help.

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:25:54 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
To be fair Lippo, this is also included in the NRA's statement...

Here's what this amendment does not do:

* The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition.

* The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

* The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.

I have to believe that the NRA's legal dept. went over this amendment with a fine tooth comb & came to the conclusion that it is essentially harmless to gun owners.

At least that's my hope....

One thing that they forget to include in that is 18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(c)

(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

So some day the AG can decide hey this bullet fired out of this length barrel, using this powder charge can blow through a cops vest. Hmm well they say it's for hunting deer and stuff, but it looks like a cop killer bullet to me, hmm I think I'll say it no longer suited to sporting purposes and ban it.

Seems far fetched sure but imagine Billary in office with some crazy ass fuck gungrabber as AG. Does it seem so far out then? Not really. And all because they have their little study that says X bullet with X powder charge out of X length barrel will pnetrate a bullet proof vest. Remember the genral definition of body armor in most legislation refers to what the AG determines is suitable for use by LE.

And besides that, we already know it's feesable to study this shit becuase the NIJ already does.

So the AG can at any time determine and add ammo to the AP ammo list on a whim basily by saying it's non-sporting.

Thats also the reason we need to get the sporting puposes clauses removed from the laws. So support that legislation as well, and get on yer congress critters to support it too.

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:29:27 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
So some day the AG can decide hey this bullet fired out of this length barrel, using this powder charge can blow through a cops vest. Hmm well they say it's for hunting deer and stuff, but it looks like a cop killer bullet to me, hmm I think I'll say it no longer suited to sporting purposes and ban it.

Seems far fetched sure but imagine Billary in office with some crazy ass fuck gungrabber as AG. Does it seem so far out then? Not really. And all because they have their little study that says X bullet with X powder charge out of X length barrel will pnetrate a bullet proof vest. Remember the genral definition of body armor in most legislation refers to what the AG determines is suitable for use by LE.

And besides that, we already know it's feesable to study this shit becuase the NIJ already does.

That was already tried about ten years ago--and got no traction with a DemocRAT majority in the House/Senate and Clintoon as President. They tried to redefine "armor piercing ammunition" as anything which will penetrate the vests commonly worn by LEOs--which would be virtually all centerfire rifle ammunition. BTDT--it didn't fly.

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:30:39 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
<snip>

And besides that, we already know it's feesable to study this shit becuase the NIJ already does.

BINGO. The amendment instructed the AG to do what is already being done. IT IS MEANINGLESS WINDOW DRESSING FOR THE SOCCER MOMS.

"A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin." H. L. Mencken

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:32:09 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who said--"The less people know about the making of laws and sausage the better"?

So what are you saying? That people shouldn't be allowed to learn or be involved in their governmental process because they think the way things are being done, is wrong?

Ever hear of the word "Inalienable"? I don't care "why" they do things, they can pass a ban on people with the nickname "beekeeper", it STILL doesn't make it right. And if you tell me that "oh, that's just civics", I'll tell you that our "civics" is WRONG! And should be held to the "Contract". Any court of law is SUPPOSE TOO hold contracts as valid and unfortunately this doesn't hold true to OUR Contract anymore.

Man, our country is going downhill fast.

Not at all. What I meant was simply what the guy I quoted meant--the vast majority of people don't understand how laws are made, and should, in the absence of actually becoming knowledgeable, STFU about it and live in blissful ignorance. The process is convoluted and NOT straightforward. Your initial rant is far off-base because of your ignorance of the process, and then deleterious to the NRA and Republicans as a result--and wrongly so.

To the contrary to your post I quoted here, I think you (and all of us) SHOULD become active, involved, and <mostly> educated of the legislative process. Gun owners are the ONLY group who lobbies congresscritters who aren't looking for a handout--we just want to be left alone. If we had just one-third of gun owners willing to become active we would have anything we wanted--BUT, we have to be knowledgeable and not go off half-cocked, as you did with this thead. Our energies need to be directed toward worthwhile activities, with definite, attainable goals--not flailing about, throwing insults where they are not deserved.

There's where we differ. And I doubt either of us will change our minds. Just because someone "says" they are doing something good for you, doesn't me it will be so. Same as lying about Santa Clause, some kids will be crusted for the rest of their lifes, not wanting to trust people because the very people that were suppose to "never" lie to them did. Experience is a bitch. And this "Santa" example is not about me. Just an example. I don't trust politicians, because I HAVE seen ones that were suppose to be on OUR side, stab us in the back. People are people and if you give ANY person authority over your life, you'd better make sure to keep your eye on them. For, they WILL make mistakes or "compromises" that will come back to stab you in the back. And I still think this AP study WILL do that.

Bee...you want to live in the real world and want to play in it, just as it is. I want to HOLD them to their words and to a Contract, which they have SWORN to uphold. Or at least, that's what I am gathering from your posts. The way our government works is NOT right and they have OVERSTEPPED their bounds, WAY too many times. And this is just another example of that. We don't live in a "Representative Republic" anymore, we live in a socialistic democracy, which the loudest get their way, even if that way is WRONG. From your reply, you are ok with that, just as long as "we" get our way. I, personally, am not. I have a "Contract" and I want it upheld. Period. I don't care "how" the government works these days, I just know they are not doing what they are suppose too. I don't work on capital hill and from what I am learning more and more, capital hill is working more like an opinion factory than anything else. I know that's part of their, "being" elected, but it should NOT supersiede the Constitution.

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:42:47 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Bee...you want to live in the real world and want to play in it, just as it is.

Yes, thank you for noticing. I live in the real world and deal with whatever realities exist. I spit in the face of Mr. Reality and do not tilt at windmills. YMMV

Posted: 8/9/2005 10:50:58 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Bee...you want to live in the real world and want to play in it, just as it is.

Yes, thank you for noticing. I live in the real world and deal with whatever realities exist. I spit in the face of Mr. Reality and do not tilt at windmills. YMMV

Experience is a bitch isn't it? You live in IL and you are stomped into submission by your neighbors and elected legislature way more than we are. Not being sarcastic..."Tryanny doesn't feel very good does it?" Just because you live it, still doesn't make it right and doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for what's ultimately right. And there's the difference, I WANT what's ultimately Right. And I'm willing to speak up for it.

You may except the cards you have been dealt, because you live in more tyranny everday, than the rest of us, but that doesn't mean we have to except the same tyranny.

A lot of people say, "move to a free state". My reality is, I KNOW what my Rights are, and I just want them UPHELD. I like my State and don't want to move. And I WILL make a stink to make sure my Rights are upheld. I've already done it before and I will do it again and again. I will do everything in my power to live in a Country where my Contract is upheld. And my threads will ultimately prove that. No windmills, just what is Right or not?

Posted: 8/9/2005 11:55:07 AM EDT

[#26]

Okay.

(You don't know nearly as much about me as you think you do, but don't let that stop you.)

Posted: 8/9/2005 11:56:42 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Here's the official statement on "why" they put Section 6 in.

www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1696

The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

So they are telling us, that in a PRO-GUN REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in the HOUSE, SENATE and with the President, they wouldn't have enough votes to stomp Kennedy's "AMMUNITION BAN" into the stone age? I find this waaaaaaay out there.

SO they didn't have enough votes to kill Kennedy's ammunition ban????? What the ???

Sorry, "I" don't buy it. I don't even propose to even think I'll "ever" be able to understand why they would make a statement like that...when the PRO-GUN has the majority and Kennedy's "amendment" is so OBVIOUSLY UnConstitutional and "should" NEVER be signed but the "W".

I know....go drink my Koolaid now. This statement is BS to me.

Are you an NRA member?

Posted: 8/9/2005 11:57:06 AM EDT

[#28]

Posted: 8/9/2005 12:05:46 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
www.upalliance.org/comprom.jpg

Please answer this:

What firearms did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What ammo did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What anonymity did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What right, freedom or ability did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What EXACTLY did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed (besides the right to blame Bushmaster and put them out of business for acts committed by criminals)?

Be specific.

Posted: 8/9/2005 12:07:17 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Okay.

(You don't know nearly as much about me as you think you do, but don't let that stop you.)

You know what I am saying. Just because you are a member of the NRA doesn't mean they can't do something stupid. I like Wayne and after his debate in England, I am VERY happy I am a member if people like him are aboard. But Wayne and Senator Craig are not the end all, be all of the NRA or OUR Rights. Even THEY have to be watched over. sharky30 made an excellent point to this. And yes, I DO NOT know you, but from your posts, you'd fall right in line with sharky30's picture. I on the other hand, do not want to "compromise" with my Rights. I KNOW what is Constitutional and what is NOT. I do NOT want to work in an "opinion" factory, which is our government. And I'll say that over and over. Too bad there are too many here that are willing to compromise with the opinion factory.

Posted: 8/9/2005 12:07:48 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
www.upalliance.org/comprom.jpg

Please answer this:

What firearms did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What ammo did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What anonymity did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What right, freedom or ability did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What EXACTLY did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

Be specific.

There you go again. Asking someone to back up their argument with pesky facts.

Posted: 8/9/2005 12:13:48 PM EDT

[#32]

Actually, I *welcome* a scientific study to determine an airtight definition of "armor piercing" ammunition. And make that definition national and universal.

Then, in the future, when some lawmaker somewhere tries to enter another anti-cop-killer-bullet bill, it can be summarily dismissed as not applicable...

—Dan

Posted: 8/9/2005 12:18:24 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
And I'll say that over and over.

I noticed that. It's annoying as hell, as you're not making a cogent point. Do you actually READ the stuff you hit "submit" on when you post?

(Please note my correct use of quote marks.)

Posted: 8/9/2005 12:24:32 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Actually, I *welcome* a scientific study to determine an airtight definition of "armor piercing" ammunition. And make that definition national and universal.

Then, in the future, when some lawmaker somewhere tries to enter another anti-cop-killer-bullet bill, it can be summarily dismissed as not applicable...

—Dan

Then in the future, when some lawmaker somewhere tries to enter another "cop-killer-bullet" bill with a definition of what "is" armor piercing, they can ban just about any ammunition they want, because they WILL have a correct definition of what can pierce armor, and THEN the soccermoms will be happy.

Posted: 8/9/2005 12:32:37 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
And I'll say that over and over.

I noticed that. It's annoying as hell, as you're not making a cogent point. Do you actually READ the stuff you hit "submit" on when you post?

(Please note my correct use of quote marks.)

See, there you go. All you can do is criticize. Attack, attack, attack. And my use of quotation marks is to highlight what I am talking about. Just like you'd make a gesture to make a point stick out. Otherwise, people will look over the sentence.

You know what they say, when you know you're wrong, attack, attack attack....just like the liberals do.

Posted: 8/9/2005 1:52:23 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
www.upalliance.org/comprom.jpg

Please answer this:

What firearms did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What ammo did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What anonymity did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What right, freedom or ability did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What EXACTLY did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed (besides the right to blame Bushmaster and put them out of business for acts committed by criminals)?

Be specific.

The point is, they compromised

The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

Instead of standing up and using the majority to defeat kennedy's BS without giving anything, even a token something, in return

Posted: 8/9/2005 3:09:29 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
www.upalliance.org/comprom.jpg
Please answer this:

What firearms did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What ammo did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What anonymity did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What right, freedom or ability did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed?

What EXACTLY did we lose in that bill that we had before that bill was passed (besides the right to blame Bushmaster and put them out of business for acts committed by criminals)?

Be specific.
The point is, they compromised

{Sigh}

Look, when you "compromise", you give up something.

Soooo...

one more time....

In light of my unanswered questions above - WHAT exactly did we give up???

Posted: 8/9/2005 3:10:41 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry, "I" don't buy it. I don't even propose to even think I'll "ever" be able to understand why they would make a statement like that...when the PRO-GUN has the majority and Kennedy's "amendment" is so OBVIOUSLY UnConstitutional and "should" NEVER be signed but the "W".

I know....go drink my Koolaid now. This statement is BS to me.

That's because you don't understand how the Senate works. It takes 60 votes to pass anything which has opposition. There aren't 60 Republicans, and not all of the current 55 are conservative. Having a majority in the House is everything, but is only half of the battle in the Senate--you have to have 60 in order to "own" the place. This isn't about any "Koolaid" drinking--it's Civics 101.

Yes! Someone gets it!

Posted: 8/9/2005 3:14:45 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

Instead of standing up and using the majority to defeat kennedy's BS without giving anything, even a token something, in return

Nothing was lost and nothing was given up.

We gave up no firearms.
We gave up no ammo.
We gave up no ability to engage in private firearm sales.
We gave up no anonymity.
We gave up no rights, freedom or ability to keep and bear arms.

There was no "compromise" because we "gave up" NOTHING.

Posted: 8/9/2005 5:52:53 PM EDT

[#40]

what we wanted: no amendments
what they wanted: draconian amendment
what was come up with: token amendment
What was lost: the republican's ability to tell the dems to FOAD because the have the majority and will not even consider democrap amendments to pro gun bills. The repubs should have told drunken ed to take his amendment and shove it and voted it down if it came up. Instead they offer something to passify him. Now the dims know that the repubs won't stand up to their BS. Just like how they won't force a true filibuster

Posted: 8/9/2005 6:31:38 PM EDT

[#41]

<sigh>

Posted: 8/10/2005 4:51:21 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

Instead of standing up and using the majority to defeat kennedy's BS without giving anything, even a token something, in return
Nothing was lost and nothing was given up.

We gave up no firearms.
We gave up no ammo.
We gave up no ability to engage in private firearm sales.
We gave up no anonymity.
We gave up no rights, freedom or ability to keep and bear arms.

There was no "compromise" because we "gave up" NOTHING.

We don't lose anything right now, but we stand to lose it in the future. So yes it is a compramise.
This isn't about how thick of a steel plate that a round can go through, this is about if it can penetrate an police officers vest. What happens if we get a rather anti-gun administration? The AG gets to determine what bullets are for sporting puposes and what is not. The study they want, while stupid since the NIJ already studies this shit, is going to give som gun grabbing AG the ability to say this round can punch though a police officers vest, therefor it's a none sporting round, and it's banned. The problem is that they want to study not only pistol bullets, but rifle bullets, and damn near EVERY rifle bullet will punch through a cops vest. We know that, I'm damn sure the gun brabbers know that.

Though the real problem isn't this little amendment to the bill, it's the sporting purposes clause and we need to get rid of that, so folks need to get on their congressfolks asses and get them to support HR1703 if that gets passed, then this little amendment doesn't mean shit because then an anti-gun AG couldn't do shit about deciding what is a sporting bullet and what is a "super cop killing bullet capable of penetrating a cops vest". Which right now any AG can decide, it doesn't matter the make up of the bullet, the simple fact that it can penetrate a vest is enough.

Posted: 8/10/2005 5:21:27 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
What was lost: the republican's ability to tell the dems to FOAD because the have the majority and will not even consider democrap amendments to pro gun bills.

The Republicans have never had that ability.
There are maybe 45 conservatives in the
Senate. Last I checked, 45 is less than 60,
therefore, Frist, et al, do not have the luxury of
telling the Democrats to FOAD. Win a couple
of more elections and then we'll talk.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I don't like the NRA's Section 6 "why" statement!

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us