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.
Stay safe, stay armed.
;-/
Yikes!
The last gunshow that I attended had some of Remington's Accelerator rounds in 30-30...SP .223(55 gr.)in sabots stuffed in standard 30-30 brass. Not sure as to the advisability of stacking 'em in a tubular magazine, though. The dealer told me that Remington is discontinuing them...I don't know for sure. In my experience, what that means is "You should buy my entire inventory, right now." :)
To include all components.?
One can only hope that it has them is an absolute cold sweat. That is the exact point. There a L - O - T of cases and cases and cases of sealed, well preserved ammo in private hands, there is more every day and it will be there for a LONG time.
AMEN
T L I
A mortally wounded raccoon will make that sound, or one similar to it. I've shot many with CB rounds and had them crawl off and start in with that Gawd-awful wailing.
What the f*&%...? Steel is used simply because it doesn't flatten like a bug on impact. In point of fact it is less dense than lead.
Some was available as recently as last Saturday at a gun show...in 30-06 and 30-30. I'd hate to start thinking in terms of "pre-ban" ammo.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/involved?group=152
Yep.
I guessed the source of this article just from the first couple of lines.
Same old same old.
What's their motto? Bash the NRA/Republican Party - Vote for kerry?
you wrote "What's their motto? Bash the NRA/Republican Party - Vote for kerry?"
naah, they're more subtle than that - they want to Bash the NRA and the GOP so gullible people will vote for fringe candidates, thus insuring kerry's election...or at least it sure looks that way from here.
About the only thing you need armor piercing ammunition for is killing cops.
>>"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.
NO, actually, steel (or tungsten, or whatever) is lighter (or not significantly heavier) than lead. The point is that it remains sharp and skinny, and carried through metal armor plate.
>>"Armor Piercing" bullets are already outlawed.
NO, they are generally legal, except that sales by licensed firearm dealers is restricted, as is importation. Perfectly legal for you and me to own, under federal law.
>>"Cop killer" or bullets that will penetrate protective vests are different and subjective to a lot of things.
NO, "cop-killer bullets" is a fictional term. It refers to hard bullets that have no advantage on bullet proof vests, but are designed for cops to shoot through vehicle glass and sheet metal. They are coated with plastic (teflon) to avoid wearing out cop gun barrels, not to have any effect on penetrating kevlar vests. I suppose they would better be termed "cop killer-bullets."
>>A large pistol bullet at close range can penetrate a protective vest.
Not necessarily. Depends much more on the vest and on the bullet and load than on the range.
As someone trying to become a LEO, I'm not worried about AP rounds. I'm more worried about three guys jumping me, or someone I locked up before recognizing me and my family out on the town and trying something stupid, or my agency hierarchy selling me out for politically expedient reasons.
Please see my post 337
Amen.
What do you make of the claims being made here? I can't sort it out between the hyperbole and what this legislation actually says/what it would actually do. Do you have a take on it?
Again, good to see you back on FR.
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.