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.
I remember a con-con was being pushed about 15 years ago, but they backed off for some reason.
Perhaps they hadn't bought off enough legislators yet, or perhaps they were afraid of the response from Patriots, or perhaps there were enough Patriots still at high enough levels to kill the idea.
There mere suggestion of a con-con by the elites demonstrates their contempt for the Constitution.
They have attempted to subvert the Constitution through legislation. They have attempted to redefine it through the courts. They have tried to make it irrelevant by ignoring it. Only a fool would not expect them to destroy through the means of writing a new one.
I would expect that the new Constitution would be drawn from some combination of the old Soviet and German constitutions, with enough American 'catch phrases' from our existing Constitution to fool the sheeple into thinking there isn't much difference.
A new constitution will probably have a "bill of rights", but in the following form: "the people will have the right to (fill in the blank) unless the gov't says otherwise".
Having spent a decaede as a prisoner, he's acxcostomed to doing what the guards tell him to do. Accordingly, he was an excellent choice to head the company, from the guards' point of view.
NIJ Standard-0101.04 establishes six formal armor classification types, as well as a seventh special type, as follows:
Type I (.22 LR; .380 ACP). This armor protects against .22 long rifle lead round nose (LR LRN) bullets, with nominal masses of 2.6 g (40 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 320 m/s (1050 ft/s) or less and against .380 ACP full metal jacketed round nose (FMJ RN), with nominal masses of 6.2 g (95 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 312 m/s (1025 ft/s) or less.
Type II-A (9mm; .40 S&W). This armor protects against 9mm full metal jacketed round nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 332 m/s (1090 ft/s) or less and .40 S&W caliber full metal jacketed (FMJ) bullets, with nominal masses of 11.7 g (180 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 312 m/s (1025 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against Type I threats.
Type II (9mm; .357 Magnum). This armor protects against 9mm full metal jacketed round nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 358 m/s (1175 ft/s) or less and .357 Magnum jacketed soft point (JSP) bullets, with nominal masses of 10.2 g (158 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 427 m/s (1400 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against Type I and Type IIA threats.
Type III-A (High Velocity 9mm; .44 Magnum). This armor protects against 9mm full metal jacketed round nose (FJM RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 427 m/s (1400 ft/s) or less and .44 Magnum jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullets, with nominal masses of 15.6 g (240 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 427 m/s (1400 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against most handgun threats, as well as the Type I, II-A and II threats.
Type III (Rifles). This armor protects against 7.62mm full metal jacketed (FMJ) bullets (U.S. military designation M80), with nominal masses of 9.6 g (148 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 838 m/s (2750 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against Type I through III-A threats.
Type IV (Armor Piercing Rifle). This armor protects against .30 caliber armor piercing (AP) bullets (US military designation M2 AP), with nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr), impacting at a minimum velocity of 869 m/s (2850 ft/s) or less. It also provides at least single-hit protection against the Type I through III threats.
Here's an interesting tidbit for you:
A couple of years ago I was reading a book written by William Cooper. He talked about a lot of conspiracy theories and got into some really "far-out" stuff like UFOs.
Most of the book was based simply on his personal observations/experiences, so I simply dismissed those claims since there was no hard evidence.
However, at the end of the book, he had a very interesting chart. It was a chart of CFR members, organized by category. One category was "executive branch", another was "legislative", another was "industry leaders", another was "media", and so on....
There was also a category for "judicial". This list was brief compared to the others. There were only 3 names listed as being members of the CFR.
Steven Breyer
Ruth Ginsburg
Lawrence Silberman
Do two of those names sound familiar? Keep in mind this book was written in 1991....
You are not in a position to bargain away the rights of others. That's been tried before in this country, by those who wished to remain loyal to the King of England. They were called Tories.
They were not treated well or with fondness by their fellows afterward; many were simply hanged, others found it necessary to flee the country to go live with their Britsh lords and allies. Colonel Ben Cleveland of the Carolinas was particularly noted for his successes in that respect, and is named by historians as the probable recordholder of those who dealt with such contemptable creatures who had tried to barter away the rights of others. Take care you do not also end up in the history books as one who was so contemptable; if you will not support the rights of other free Ameriucans, get out with your life while you can.
Thanks.
Oh yes. That's known as the .223 Timbs, though the standard .308-.311 bore diameter barrel of the 7,63mm Mauser *Broomhandle*, the Czech Vz52 rollerlocked pistol, or the Soviet 7,62x25mm TT-30 or TT-33 Tokarev pistols are most commonly used, though I've also seen a .38 Super Colt Commander so reworked. And it can also be done with 7,62x25 machinepistols with longer barrels, raising velocities even higher. The Soviet PPSh-41 with 71-round drum magazine is particularly sporty in this respect.
Depending on the strength of the particular pistol used, velocities can range in the 1750-2000 fps range, using a 50 or 55-grain bullet. It's also possible to use the heavier .224 jacketed bullets of the SS109 5,56mm ammunition, or that of the 5,45mm Soviet AK74 cartridge.
One minor downside has been the inavailability of tracer ammunition, since the plastic sabot fitted around the base of the cartridge precludes ignition from the burning powder charge. But a couple of possible alternatives are under consideration and may work out.
And perhaps most importantly: they still remember what it was like to live in a Free country.
The enemies of the Constitution are looking forward to the day when all those guys are too old to do anything.
WAG: lock the sabot to the bullet via grooves in the bullet (and mating ridges in the sabot halves), rather than surrounding the base with plastic.
Somehow I got misattributed as saying what you replied to. I think you may have copied whoever it was that I was replying to?
I had a Tokareve once. Creepy gun, I always wondered if it had hung on an NKVD officer's belt, if it had been used to put a bullet in any prisoners' necks. And no safety! Just "half cock."
AKA the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
What's "SSAD"?
My novel (if I can ever get it taken care of) is a thinking man's science fiction/love story/greek tragedy. I'm hoping I can 1) get it published, and 2) use the money to stay alive. I'm costing Blue Cross probably in the neighborhood of fifty grand a year to keep alive, and I figure it's just a question of time before they pull the plug on me, so to speak. That's presuming society stays suffiently intact for it to even be an issue, and I try not to think about that too much.
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.