BANG!
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.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin; Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Molon Labe!
I believe he stole that line from Chuckie Schumer.
we ARE the frog being boiled.
Don't know, but KABA requested the a copy of the text from Craig's office and will publish it as soon as they get it.
Depending on how this is written now, and more importantly, how it is INTERPRETED BY ACTIVIST JUDGES later, almost all centerfire rifle ammo could be banned.
Very well could be. The Shoguns must be getting disturbed by all of the cases and cases of surplus ball ammo in 556, 762X39 and 308 getting shipped to mere peasants across the land. Must disturb them greatly.
Then some DA will sue somebody for having some standard surplus ball ammo. He'll test fire some through a kevlar vest. "A-HA! GOTCHA!"
Compliant judges and gullible juries will agree: the "armor piercing" ammo falls under the law. Off to jail! Ban the "cop killer" rifle bullets!
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" ~~Chuck Schumer
Or, to turn the entire country into a "shotgun-only" zone for deer hunting, as is the bigger half (I did NOT say "better"!) of Michigan. Been that way for years. If you want to hunt South of a certain arbitrary line across the state, it's shotguns-only. That basically means getting up-close and personal with Mr. Bambi. A shotgun doesn't give you all that much more range than a bow, in the grand scheme of things.
This will of course cause the deer take to nosedive, because the closer you are to the deer, the more wary he is, and the harder he is to take. (A bit of a Catch-22 paradox inherent in the deal.)
It might be a good idea to point out the massive costs that will be incurred by the increased deer population that will be inevitable if they outlaw centerfire hunting ammunition.
Insurance rates will go up -- as will medical expenses, and time away from work, and, there will be a tragic loss of life. Deer are notorious for going over the hood, through the windshield, and into the car -- and then killing the occupants. No joke.
My wife hit a deer. Nicked it with the left headlight. It swung around into the driver-side door. Killed the deer. Wrecked the grille, fender, door, and warped the side of the car. Cost the insurance company a lot to repair (and there's been problems since, that ain't covered, of course). The damage looked minimal, since it was just a glancing blow, but the looks were deceptive.
That was a good car-deer accident. My wife was not injured, just shook up a lot, and the car wasn't totalled, although the ins. company did consider it for a while.
Bad car-deer wrecks happen all the time, and many lives are lost. Human lives.
It shouldn't be hard to cast this inevitable increase in deer population in a "for the children" light -- and what's more, it won't even be "spinning" it. It's the truth!
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.