Posted on 02/26/2004 11:15:11 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
While National Rifle Association officials have been denying that they've been orchestrating a sellout in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) -- an NRA Director -- has been working on an ammunition ban. On the Senate floor today, he introduced, discussed, defended and tried to justify the "Craig/Frist" amendment. This amendment, said Craig, is needed "to strengthen current armor piercing ammunition law." NRA's point-man in the U.S. Senate says that this is "what the law enforcement community needs."
"We don't want to wipe out the hunting and sporting ammunition," said Craig. The "sporting purpose" test was used before -- as justification for firearm rights infringements via the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law and later copied nearly verbatim in the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968.
"Let's send a message that armor piercing ammunition is flat off limits," said Sen. Craig.
The NRA Director went on to support strong enforcement of his proposed ammunition ban, using phrases like "prison for life."
The Second Amendment does not enumerate the right of the people to keep and bear "sporting" arms. Banning any arms, or their ammunition, is clearly off limits to Congress. A longtime Director of the National Rifle Association ought to know that. Instead, he's supporting an ammo ban -- based on the infamous Nazi "sporting purpose" text -- on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Some might suggest that it doesn't matter what gets said on the Senate floor -- that what matters is what gets signed into law. People who believe that ought to consider the dangers here. Once a "pro gun" congressman publicly expresses support for gun control -- ammunition control is indeed gun control -- he empowers the enemy and emboldens future attempts to whittle away our rights.
The truth about civilian possession of "armor piercing ammunition" is immutable, immovable, unchanging. If government employees can deploy AP ammo against the people, denying that same ammunition to the people is directly contradictory to the meaning, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment: a balance of power.
The excuse for banning AP ammo -- "to protect law enforcement employees" -- is a dangerous road to travel. It's the same justification used to ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds. It's the same reason given to deny The People free access to machineguns. It was the same foundation upon which the Clinton/Feinstein semi-auto rifle ban was built and signed into law.
When does that excuse stop working? When the legal magazine capacity is reduced to five rounds? When all semi-auto rifles are banned? When owning a bullet-resistant vest means life imprisonment -- unless the government signs your paycheck? When all handguns are banned?
If you use "protecting law enforcement" as justification to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- if you accept that unacceptable excuse for chipping away at the Second Amendment -- then lay down your arms and go tend your garden, catch up on your reading and forget about restoring the Second Amendment. There's no end to that excuse other than total disarmament -- because even a mere single shot .22 caliber rifle manufactured before World War One can be used to injure a law enforcement officer.
Bear in mind that Sen. Craig's ammo ban amendment is being offered today, by him -- to his own bill. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S1805) is written to protect gun manufacturers from the frivolous lawsuits being waged by those whose ultimate goal is to ban all firearms. The bill is being used as a rider for many other gun controls today and leading up to the final vote on Tuesday. Sen. Craig wants to amend his own bill -- with an ammunition ban -- under the guise of abiding his oath of office. He said so on C-SPAN, in plain English.
We've requested text of the Amendment (SA2625) from Senator Craig's office and through another Senator's office, as well. As soon as we have it, we will publish it.
Be that as it may, don't miss the golden opportunity this travesty provides. It's a genuine vehicle for waking up the "they'll never come for my deer rifle" crowd, because they are coming for their deer rifle's ammunition.
I think that one's a no-brainer. They'll spec it for the body armor commonly used by LEOs, i.e., soft armor, designed to stop most pistol bullets.
IOW, all centerfire rifle ammunition will be prohibited. The USA will become a shotgun-only zone for big game hunting. That ought to scare the crap out of the complancent "they'll never come for my deer rifle" folks. No, they're not coming for your rifles, they're coming for your ammunition.
Good luck filling the freezer with venison when you're only allowed to load blanks into your Winchester.
Regardless, there are millions of people who see it that way, and you're not going to change their minds.
However, a law that prohibits them from using their rifles anymore for hunting or target shooting -- which is precisely what this law will accomplish -- might very well wake them up.
And that's IMO exactly why they're soft-peddling it, rather than shouting it from the rooftops as they usually do. This time it's not about creating a boogeyman to scare the soccermoms. Nope, this time it's for real. It's about unloading the deer rifles. Gotta do that job quietly, lest they wake up millions of traditionally complacent hunters and target shooters.
Well, I say wake 'em up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086621/posts
Senate amendment 2619 (To S1805) - TED KENNEDY'S AMMO BAN - AG can ban ANY centerfire ammo
Thomas | 2-27-04 | Ted Kennedy
Well, at least we now know who's minding the minder. :)
It's the "Set 'em up and knock 'em down" gambit. First, define "armor piercing ammunition" to describe all commercial hunting rounds, then, prohibit "armor piercing ammunition."
Bingo. End of story. Welcome to the "shotgun-only" zone. They won't have to outlaw the guns, because they'll have succeeded in the "backdoor" prohiition, via outlawing ammunition.
This should come as no surprise, because they've been pretty open about that plan over the years.
It's only a matter of time.
I was once a meat inspector in a sausage factory.
Figuratively speaking, that is.
Literally speaking, I was a commissioner who, along with six others, oversaw the production of laws in the State of Michigan.
When the "sausage makers" wanted to include an "inferior ingredient", they'd first try to simply put it in with the list of ingredients, and we'd of course say no, you can't do that. After a few tries -- and failures -- they'd wait a while, and then quietly slip it in without telling anyone.
That's not "literally" factual, because they did "disclose" it, after a fashion. They'd bury it in a stack of nonsense regs a half-inch thick, that they knew would receive "block approval" (i.e., the length of the gooseneck faucet in the janitor's closet. That's an actual reg, by the way).
Then, a few months later, when they'd casually mention how they'd implemented it, we'd perk up and say huh? We vetoed that request several times! They'd say yeah, you did, but then you approved it. See? Here it is, buried in this block of gobbledegook.
That's how the game is played, sadly.
They'll "only" approve a "study" now, and then perhaps they'll "only" prohibit "bad" ammunition. Then, a year or so later, buried in a six-inch thick bill that no one will read before voting for, they'll slip in a single line.
Gotcha!
It's really amazing the kind of mileage you can get out of a mere 900 FBI Files.
I'll pawn you my watch
And I'll pawn you my chain;
Pawn you my gold diamond ring.
If this train runs me right
I'll be home tomorrow night.
I'm nine hundred files from my home.
And I hate to hear that lonesome whistle blow.
Apologies to Woodie Guthrie.
And for bonus points, apologies to Peter, Paul, and Mary:
Lord I’m one, lord I’m two, lord I’m three, lord I’m four, Lord I’m 900 files from my home. 900 files, 900 files, 900 files, 900 files Lord I’m nine hundred files from my home.
Sadly, there are millions form whom it (wrongly) is about hunting and target shooting.
This absurd proposal, pretty much for the first time, targets their hobby. That's why they're going about it so quietly, as contrasted to earlier efforts which were trumpeted with great fanfare. They don't want to wake the sleeping giant, i.e. the millions of hunters and target shooters.
I think there's a golden opportunity to wake these people up.
Things like "self defense" simply are not going to be issues for the gated community and limosine crowd. But, this, though...
So you missed the video from LA where the robbers were covered in body armor?
go hunting,
My friend, my 300 WinMag WILL go through body armor easily. It is the SPEED of the bullet that does it, and NOT some special bullet design
or form the citizen's militia that defends against government oppression.
ROFL! You don't think an oppressive government force would be wearing armor?!? NOW you're just being ludicrous!
We've all noticed that there really isn't much difference between the Republicrats and the Democans. Is it possible that there's some... higher?... power that's directing all this? Maybe those who worry about the NWO and the Bilderbergers and Tri-Lateral Commission are really onto something. Maybe bush is supposed to lose the next election, leaving all this gun control stuff hanging around for his successor to play with.
What would Kerry do with some sort of ammo ban? How about an Assault Weapons Ban or a smart gun law?
I don't know. I might be FOS, but I don't trust any politician, regardless of his party affiliation. If Craig submits an amendment to his own bill there has to be something in it for him. If nothing else, a bill to "study" armor piercing ammo has to define the subject of the study. Once AP ammo is defined it will never be un-defined-- see 'assault weapon' for an example of this. We'll be feeling the effects of this "study" for years.
Now, while you've still got those tinfoil beanies on, start thinking about how to stock up on surplus ammo. It might pay to stockpile a few cases of stuff you don't shoot... yet. In other words, BLOAT!
Craig is one my senators. I already wrote him on the subject. In plain words, I told him that if his legislation passes with all these anti-gun amendments, he should polish his resume. Idaho needs a conservative Republican Senator who won't compromise on 2nd amendment issues.
So you want the government to decide what you need? Would you like them to decide what you need to attend services at your synagogue? How about what you need for a front door. We can't have front doors that would keep a law enforcment officer from entering. You don't need that big car either. A bicycle will suffice. You don't need more than 1200 calories per day. Eat more and you're under arrest.
No, I don't buy that stuff. I think there's a much simpler explanation -- and it's IMO much more ominous in its implications.
From my post here:
To: ArrogantBustardThat Republican President, while still a candidate, promised to sign a renewal of the 1994 Ugly Gun ban. He was, so they tell me, triangulating; trying to win the votes of the whining leftists but also telling the Republican controlled Congress not to put an UG ban on his desk in the first place. If that's the case, that Republican controlled Congress had bloody well better not pass an UG ban. Here's the kicker: we're not asking the Congress to actually repeal anything. If the Congress does precisely nothing, in September 2004 the Ugly Gun ban ends. Poof. Gone. In 1994, the Congress put a 10 year poison pill in the Ugly Gun ban, and even so it just barely passed a Democrat controlled House. Asking the Congress to do nothing is not asking them to display any particular courage.Maybe this has been addressed already (I confess to not having read this entire thread, having just found it a few minutes ago), but I have a question.
Does anyone seriously believe that even if the AWB "sunsets", it will not be "resurrected" within a few months, perhaps shortly after the election is behind us?
They could reinstate it anew, or, simply declare it "renewed", and I have no doubt that they'd have the chutzpah to go so far as to make it retroactive to the date it "expired", so that any "violators" could be handily prosecuted, should it become expedient to do so.
If there's one thing I've learned, it's that politicians can be remarkably creative when it comes to doing what they want. And if there's another thing I've learned :) it's that politicians do not like letting go of something once they've got their mitts on it.
I think the last time I succombed to the cry to "Call, now,, and make your voice heard!" was when they passed the AWB. I called Dole's office. I was told that the calls were coming in hot and heavy, pretty much all against passage. Dole himself said that the calls and letters came in at a staggering rate, and were running something like two thousand to one -- against passage.
Yet, he voted for it.
There's a lesson in that for anyone who really thinks that these guys give a rat's ass about what the constituency wants. At least, that's my opinion.
It's also my opinion that the consensus among these guys is that the AWB is a good piece of legislation -- a modest piece of legislation -- and no one but a bona fide nutcase could possibly disagree. So, they may stall -- for a while -- and they may humor the "nutcases", but ultimately, NWIH will they give up a "hard fought-for piece of basic common-sense legislation."
And for those few who might even consider bucking "the will of the Congress", there's two immutable laws of nature to keep them in line, namely, Karl Rove, and "The 900 FBI Files". In other words, they're boxed in on both sides.
And if all else fails (not that I think it will), there's something genuinely ugly waiting in the wings.
Stop for a moment, and consider that there are currently three Constitutional amendments proposed by mainstream legislators. I don't think this has ever happened before. Besides the homosexual "marriage" amendment, there's another one to allow Granholm and Schwarznegger to run for President (hey, you don't think they just came up with the idea for no reason at all, do you?), and another to allow the government to select replacements for our elected representatives in an "emergency".
My point in mentioning this?
I think there's a good chance we're in the lead-up to a "bipartisan" call for a Constitutional Convention. We may see a few more "urgently needed" amendments proposed, and then, we'll be informed that there is no possible way to see them passed in time unless done so via a con-con.
Of course, once they go that route, all bets are off. The Constitution is gone. *poof* That's it, it had a nice run, let's keep it in the history books, but as far as any "Constitutional protections", it is history.
So when looking at this stuff being thrown at us now, let's not get so preoccupied that we don't notice that there may be bigger fish to fry. Far bigger.
I will be surprised if there isn't a call for a con-con -- soon -- from "mainstream leaders", with, "broad bipartisan support", pitched as little more than a way to get these "vitally needed amendments" implemented "in a reasonable timeframe." There'll likely be an amendment bandied about for pretty much every significant faction of the populace, with perhaps a couple of "national security" measures tossed in for good measure.
So don't expect very many of "the voters" to be very up in arms about the idea. In fact, don't expect them to be up in arms about it at all. And don't expect the media to report on it as if it were anything to get bent out of shape over. "In other news, both houses of Congress agreed to hold a 'Constitutional Convention' next month to iron out the details of a few items that would otherwise take years to handle. The Dow was up 25 points, and the Celtics are expected to win their next game. Stay tuned for an important in-depth report on Brittany Spears latest love interest."
Me, cynical?
Time will tell, I guess.
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.