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've long believed that the leftist/statist agenda was to use the "inner city" residents for a multi-pronged purpose. First, they use them as a constituency. Keep them down, and then pitch yourself as "the answer" - in the form of "entitlements". At the same time, use them as bogeymen, to scare "Middle America" into accepting increasingly draconian laws, in the name of "security" and "crime control."
Then, after they've served their purpose, i.e., when the leftist/statist "machine" has achieved sufficent traction to get its way without needing the "useless eaters" to stay in office or to scare the Joe Sixers, let 'em die.
How to "let 'em die"?
Chaos.
Three days without power or food deliveries, and there won't be too many survivors in "the inner cities". No need to "cleanse" them either. They'll "self-cleanse". A "society" comprised of people who have no life skills other than to fill out forms (for the dole) and hustle (dope, women, stolen goods, etc.) will not fare well when the rules have changed. And if you turn off the lights, and block the bridges and roads, the rules will change dramatically. It won't take more than a few days to let them finish themselves off.
Anyway, that's what I've always figured the "caring" leftist/statist crowd has in mind for their "constituency" once they no longer need them. Of course, "the rest of us" (for the most part) will be in utter confusion and stark raving terror watching this happen. Voila! Instant "readily governable populace". A statist's dream come true. Tidy up the loose ends with a "New Constitution" for a "post-crisis America", and it's an Orwellian dream come true.
But...
I really think the islamist lunatics have thrown this agenda for a loop. I suspect that they're (the leftist/statist crowd) scrambling now, trying to figure out how to integrate the terror into the agenda, and speed it (the agenda) up, too. Sort of a sick, twisted "if you've got lemons, make lemonade" kinda thing.
I do wax cynical at times...
***** *****
It had an "Israeli Safety" AKA "Condition Three". :)
Or a New Zealand one [AKA *Condition Zero*- chamber loaded, hammer back, and thumb safety, if present [not usually on the Tok, though some have been so retrofitted] in the *fire* position.] Fairly common with some users with pistols like the Tok without a thumb safets, or like the L9A1 Browning GP/ *Hi-Power,* with a tiny one.
Don't need to, like to. At least, I did like to, before my health headed south. And I like venison, too. Good, healthy food, at a good price, if you're a decent hunter.
Then there are the shotgun hunters. "Why do you need a rifle to hunt?"
My answers to that are generally too rude for publication. :)
Or even the rifle hunters... "Why do you need a handgun?
My answer is summed up in two words: "Rural crime." I've experienced enough of it firsthand (I've had beaucoup stolen property, with zero recovery), and, the news is replete with reports of increasing serious crime, i.e., a farmer maybe two miles away steps out of his house to walk to his barn, and he's jumped by two migrants and beaten to within an inch of his life. And it seems like once a month or so, there's a BOLO for a violent scumbag who's busted out of jail, or on the lam after murdering some people after pulling a home invasion, and so forth.
So, I don't walk around outside my house without a .45 in my pocket or on my belt. (Even with a phone, it takes the police about 20-30 minutes to get here. I'm on my own until then, if something should happen.)
There are other risks, like dogs running loose, bobcats, bears, and whatever it is that sets my Rottie off at night. So far, his growls and barks have driven them off, but they've got the most spooky sound I've ever heard. First time I heard it, I was with my brother inlaw -- former Army Captain, West Point Grad, who grew up three miles away from here. We were out in the garden, behind the barn, pulling up some onions, after dark.
He'd never heard anything like it either. It was a chilling, haunting "siren-like" wailing. He turned to me and said he was glad I had that .45 in my pocket.
Maybe some "gentrified" folks had an "exotic pet" that got too big for their comfort, so they set it loose. Whatever it is, I don't want to meet it (or them) other than on my terms.
So there's my answers for your nosey friends. Now ask them what they're going to do when pretty much all their toys are rendered useless pieces of expensive metal due to the outlawing of all serious hunting ammunition.
Then, ask your non-hunting friends how they'll like having their car insurance rates go up due to the dramatic increase in car-deer collisions, after the deer population skyrockets due to effective harvest being curtailed by outlawing hunting ammunition. And, ask them how they'll like the deer encroaching on their suburban environments. And ask them how they'll feel if they, or one of their children is killed by a deer that comes crashing through the windshield at 65MPH.
So many questions, so few official answers -- and all of them wrong. Weird, isn't it.
No prob, I'm kinda exhausted too, I should be sleeping now. Hard to tear myself away from a decent conversation though. :)
I'm expecting some potential Big Ugliness arising from this Hatian revolution. The fact that the media seems to be downplaying it convinces me that it's likely something to not ignore. The one exception was the Fox war correspondant, I forget his name, he's the gung-ho guy they stole from CNN in Afghanistan. He's down there, he's trapped, and he's visibly scared. First time I've seen him like that in any report. It is chaos there, here's what I emailed my brother inlaw (he spent time there with the Army some time ago), I typed it in as he was saying it. I remember the name now, Steve Carrigan. Or was it Harrigan? (like I said, I'm tired, argh).
"Young guys with guns on narcotics with nothing they're standing for," and, "this hotel is the last refuge...you've got to have a lot of pull to get out of here today." (all flights were cancelled)
Not necessarily or pre-ordained as *Big Ugliness* but certainla there's that possibility. See following FReeppost from another thread for some additional info for you to factor in: Haiti rebels 'surround' capital
I managed to offer one full-bird colonel a couple of possibilities that had him spewing coffee over his keyboard.
Ever seen one of these?
All the best. Your discussion of the pain you are living with really got to me. FReepmail to follow..
BTW, I've gotta get your book(s?) for my very own. I still recall and appreciate your counsel last year about electronic publishing and bought and read the books you recommended. Thanks, and rock on......
I showed a published report about this to a G-Man friend of mine and he was surprised and chagrined that he had heard nothing through official channels. He had recoomended Second-Chance to me last year and related that their vests are standard issue in his outfit (ICE)........
All my 7.62x39 rifles have just about the same power as my 30-30s.Nothing close to the 30-06s.
A brief education: "Armor Piercing" is a military term about a bullet designed to penetrate light armor. Typically these have steel cores so they are heavier thus more kinetic energy and will borrow through more armor. "Armor Piercing" bullets are already outlawed.
"Cop killer" or bullets that will penetrate protective vests are different and subjective to a lot of things. A large pistol bullet at close range can penetrate a protective vest. A rifle bullet designed to bring down a heavy animal (deer, elk) will penetrate all vests at short range. Vests also "age". Older vests don't stop bullets as well. Vests are also made in grades or stopping power. Some will stop more, others less and that is the way they are designed.
So we allow a law to be passed that is vague like this one. Then antigunners have an easy way to ban all centerfire ammo. Take an old lightweight vest, shoot it with a centerfire rifle at close range (with any kind of hunting or taget ammo), and claim that the bulets are "cop killers" because they penetrate the vest.
Surprised several oldtimers with what "my" 30-30 would do. ;)
It was handy for the extra range for coyotes and wasn't as likely to do as much damage to a pelt as a typical 30-30 load.FWIW.
The 30-30 cannot be loaded really hot due to the lever rifles having rear locking plus the fact that for some reason, 30-30 brass is always very thin.
That doesn't mean you can't improve the ballistics tho. Factory loads are kept even tamer than necessary since there are still a lot of late 19th and early 20th century rifles out there.
I used to have an old Speer (I think it was Speer) manual which listed some pretty powerful loads for the 30-30, giving well over 2000 ft lbs. of energy. I noticed my newer ones have reduced that somewhat but still a couple of loads are over that 2000 figure.
I first used it as a kid when the 30-30 was all I had except magnum pistols for coyotes and really needed a gun with better range,at times.
Also,those M1 bullets were cheap for factory made and dollars were few in grade school.
I did use some "pointy" bullets for reloads at times but only to be used in a tube feed as a single shot.Too much of a pain to feed singles for the little I'd gain,though.
Those were the days,brings back some good memories. :)
Hey, c'mon now!! 8~)
My mistake. I shouldn't try to post anything before 7 AM (EST)!!
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.