Judging from your comments you are confused.
Its not about a specific gun or type of ammo and it has nothing to do with Ft Hood.
Its part of an agenda to ban firearms and ammunition. They can’t gain ground with an outright ban so they seek to do it one piece at a time.
By agreeing and ‘compromising’ with them you help them in their efforts to eliminate private ownership of firearms.
Please show me in my post where I used the word "agree" or anything like "compromise".
I merely discussed the three themes I took from the article.
Its not about a specific gun or type of ammo and it has nothing to do with Ft Hood. No, not specifically about Ft. Hood, but the article did make this delineation: Because handguns have been made in certain rifle calibers, many bullets that were designed originally for rifles also "may be used in a handgun." and it later specifically discussed "armor piercing" ammo.
I discussed this point in my post based on actual weapons I own and other types that I am familiar with. My example of Ft. Hood was in relation to FNs weapons and ammo which are available (even though another poster here claims there was no AP in the pistol).
I read the article, carefully. Probably more carefully than you read my response, based on your confused use of calling me 'confused' and claiming things you know nothing about whether I agree or disagree or not (I do not) - to the contrary, I called their ubiquitous "LEO and general public safety" claim a canard, and their "sporting-use" criteria absurd. How is this compromising or agreeing with them?