Skip to comments.
NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig's Ammunition Ban Amendment
KeepAndBearArms.com ^
| February 26, 2004
| Angel Shamaya
Posted on 02/26/2004 11:15:11 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 341-347 next last
To: Dan from Michigan; All
101
posted on
02/27/2004 8:07:11 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
To: Paleo Conservative; ChicagoHebrew
Paleo said: "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting."
Rights are not about "need." Do you "need" to read a book, go to Church or Synogogue, etc.? And who, exactly, defines "need?" The entire Bill of Rights - including the Second Amendment - is about basic rights (rights which PRE-DATE the Constitution and which are immutable) that the government may specifically NOT legislate against or infringe. When you speak of "need," you are using the language of those who would turn rights into privileges (for a fee, naturally, and revocable at the stroke of a pen when they become "inconvenient" for the grantor), and thereby giving them a substantial edge in any debate.
As for hunting, I am sick to death of that term when it is used in the context of the debate over the RKBA. Hunting has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, which is solely concerned with the structure of our government, limitations upon its power and its relationship to the People. EFF hunting - the 2nd Amendment is about POWER, pure and simple. The Founding Fathers wanted the People to have the power, and to tell the government how to exercise it - OR ELSE. Check out The Federalist Papers, #46, by James Madison if you don't believe that. The use of the "hunting" argument in a 2nd Amendment debate only allows those that wish to limit or eliminate our RKBA (pursuant to the "sporting use" standard of the '68 Gun Control Act) set the terms of the debate. Oh, BTW, the concept of limiting firearms rights via the "sporting use" standard didn't originate here. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has proven - beyond all reasonable doubt - that Senator Thomas Dodd (father of today's rabidly anti-gun, frothing-at-the-mouth Sen. Chris Dodd) had the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law translated, and he inserted that language, nearly word-for-word, into the '68 GCA. See
http://www.jpfo.org/gateway.htm for the book that details these facts.
ChicagoHebrew said: "I don't want to sound like Rosie O'Donnell...but you don't need an armor piercing bullet to defend your home, go hunting, or form the citizen's militia that defends against government oppression. About the only thing you need armor piercing ammunition for is killing cops."
I think that the several tens of millions of people who were murdered by governments during the 20th century could have found a good use for AP ammo - had they been allowed to own either guns or ammo. This includes 6 million of our co-religionists. Oh, and the murderous regimes that committed 9 large genocides during the Century of Government had no restrictions on what they could use to commit the worst atrocities the world has ever seen. Look at this site to see the link between gun control and genocide:
http://www.jpfo.org/genocide.htm Those who are "lukewarm" supporters of the RKBA need to understand - at the core of their being - what George Washington understood: "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire; a dangerous servant and a terrible master." Washington had reason to know, having fought for a government (England in the French & Indian Wars), against a government (the Revolution), and having helped to form and run a government (the Constitutional Convention and his Presidency). Learn from history and the people who have tried to pass to us their knowledge and experience, which was often gained the hard way.
MOLON LABE!!!!
To: Dan from Michigan
SA 2625. Mr. CRAIG (for Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. CRAIG)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1805, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others; as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.
(a) UNLAWFUL ACTS.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following:
``(7) 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) PENALTIES.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section--
This will restrict you from ,uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, unless-- you are a Fed.
103
posted on
02/27/2004 8:12:10 AM PST
by
B4Ranch
(Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.--Eleanor Roosevelt)
To: B4Ranch
I read that too, and oppose the amendment, but those bullets are 'already banned'. (Black talons)
The 'definition' of those bullets aren't changed.
104
posted on
02/27/2004 8:19:27 AM PST
by
Dan from Michigan
("You know it don't come easy, the road of the gypsy" - Iron Eagle)
To: ChicagoHebrew
About the only thing you need armor piercing ammunition for is killing cops.
Actually, the AP capability has almost nothing to do with lethalithy to someone wearing a kevlar vest.
It has everything to do with tyrants and their agents who arrived in armored vehicles (including their limosines.)
Ask yourself, (knowing that AP is common and cheap because it is surplus cast-offs from militaries around the world) why it is so popular for militaries? And if it is so useful for militaries githting wars, why wouldn't it be useful for citizen militia members defending freedom?
105
posted on
02/27/2004 8:20:42 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
To: tracer
However, more LEOs would have been killed by "AP" rounds if they had loaded them into their own duty weapons......
L:ike the panicky goons who killed each other at Waco with "Cyclone" 9mm rounds in their MP5s, which their vests weren't rated for.
106
posted on
02/27/2004 8:24:46 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
To: Dan from Michigan
Black Talons are not AP bullets they are just the opposite.
Are you intentionally ignoring the connection between banning AP ammunition and starting a study to determine what "AP" ammunition is?
107
posted on
02/27/2004 8:27:09 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
To: TigersEye
Are you intentionally ignoring the connection between banning AP ammunition and starting a study to determine what "AP" ammunition is? Right now, yes. Later on, no.
Because there has to be a seperate bill to ban them.
108
posted on
02/27/2004 8:30:35 AM PST
by
Dan from Michigan
("You know it don't come easy, the road of the gypsy" - Iron Eagle)
To: TERMINATTOR; philetus; claudiustg; tpaine; Paleo Conservative; ahadams2; Richard-SIA; GeronL; ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1086587/posts?page=26#26 Read and compare the current law and the proposed changes. There is NO provision in Craig's amendment that redefines AP ammunition. He is proposing legislation to STUDY the feasibility of coming up with a AP standard.
Angel Shamaya has gone off half cocked with little information on this one.
109
posted on
02/27/2004 8:31:46 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Dan from Michigan
Right now, yes. Later on, no. Because there has to be a seperate bill to ban them.No. That is exactly wrong. The law is being made now to ban "armor piercing" ammo. The study creates new parameters to define ammo as "armor piercing." No new law is then necessary to ban additional types of ammunition. A bureaucrat simply adds new types of ammunition to the list of banned "armor piercing" ammo as defined by Congressional study and that's it.
Who will even say how heavy the body-armor used in the study has to be? No one will vote on a law about that.
110
posted on
02/27/2004 8:40:14 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
To: Dan from Michigan
I saw some for sale at a recent gun show. They were .50 cal and $3 a piece.
111
posted on
02/27/2004 8:47:55 AM PST
by
B4Ranch
(Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.--Eleanor Roosevelt)
To: Ancesthntr; ChicagoHebrew; Oberon; TigersEye; Lion Den Dan; tpaine; TERMINATTOR
Paleo said: "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting." No, I said, "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting. On the other hand, the second amendment is not about the rights of hunters and target shooters."
The second sentence is so important to my meaning that to only quote the first is to distort what I said.
112
posted on
02/27/2004 9:20:12 AM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Paleo Conservative
Kinda like the lefties only quoting the first part of the 2nd Amendment.
To: Paleo Conservative
"On the other hand, the second amendment is not about the rights of hunters and target shooters."
Damn straight. All of this stuff about hunting is just a smokescreen. the 2nd amendment is about arming ourselves against the government.
114
posted on
02/27/2004 9:23:18 AM PST
by
Sofa King
(MY rights are not subject to YOUR approval http://www.angelfire.com/art2/sofaking/index.html)
To: TigersEye; Dan from Michigan
Dan wrote: "but those bullets are 'already banned'. (Black talons)"
Just for handguns, you can still get them for rifles.
Tiger wrote: "Black Talons are not AP bullets they are just the opposite."
Winchester Silvertips, Nosler Ballistic tips, etc. fall in the same category.
115
posted on
02/27/2004 9:30:41 AM PST
by
looscnnn
(Tell me something, it's still "We the people", right? -- Megadeth (Peace Sells))
To: looscnnn
That category being expanding bullets which is just the opposite of AP bullets.
116
posted on
02/27/2004 9:34:04 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
To: Paleo Conservative
"To: TERMINATTOR
Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting. On the other hand, the second amendment is not about the rights of hunters and target shooters.
10 posted on 02/26/2004 11:27:02 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
When I saw the "Paleo said: "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting."" I had to go and see if you had actually said it. Thank goodness for what you did say. I was about to rush some strong coffee over to you because you've never been that far out of whack before, late at night or early in the morning.
Glad to see you made your own coffee this morning. LOL
117
posted on
02/27/2004 9:35:20 AM PST
by
B4Ranch
(Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.--Eleanor Roosevelt)
To: TigersEye
"That category being expanding bullets which is just the opposite of AP bullets."
Exactly, but they are "armor piercing bullets" because they can go through a vest. They are not true armor piercing bullets because they will not penitrate metal armor. We need to start clarifying whether bullets are "AP" or AP in the posts.
118
posted on
02/27/2004 9:38:13 AM PST
by
looscnnn
(Tell me something, it's still "We the people", right? -- Megadeth (Peace Sells))
To: Paleo Conservative
The second sentence is so important to my meaning that to only quote the first is to distort what I said.You are right. You were absolutely hammered on that first sentence and I was one of them. I saw the second but when you open up with "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting." which is such a classic kneejerk gun-control type phrase it needs to be shot down. Sorry you were flying the plane.
Apparently you want to disenfranchise people who want to hunt rock chucks in boulder fields. /sarcasm
119
posted on
02/27/2004 9:42:42 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
To: looscnnn
... but they are "armor piercing bullets" because they can go through a vest.Don't even say that!!! ; )
120
posted on
02/27/2004 9:44:25 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 341-347 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson