Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 3361 of 5179 (753951)
03-23-2015 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3359 by Percy
03-23-2015 1:26 PM


Re: Slovene Home Guard
They're making an argument that given other factors that the metal content definition shouldn't be an obstacle to banning this ammunition category.
I don't see where they even acknowledge that the M855 ammo doesn't meet the metals content definition.
They do say:
quote:
It is important to note that only projectiles that meet the statutory definition of armor piercing — i.e., those made out of the specific listed materials that may be used in a handgun — are subject to the statutory restrictions. As a result, manufacturers are, and will continue to be, free to manufacture projectiles from non-restricted materials, completely independent of the application of this framework or any exemptions.
And that contradicts their conclusion that the M855 would be no longer exempted.
If to you this makes the ATF incompetent then I have no problem living with that.
Actually, I think they're being shady. They don't like people having AR-15's, so they're going after the bullets that they use.
They disguised their intentions behind a framework for no longer exempting the ammo from the armor-piercing category because a handgun was invented that can use these bullets. So they say that they're trying to protect the cops.
What they failed to realize was that the bullet still didn't meet the definition even though it may be used in an handgun.
They could have responded to the realization by going: "Oh, well I guess that bullet will still be exempt."
But instead, the director stepped down. Presumably because this exposed their intent to disguise their real motivation behind fraudulent reasoning.
If they really just wanted that bullet banned, and they concocted this long winded explanation about how they were trying to protect cops because a handgun can use the bullet, then that would make them liars.
my original point was about something completely different, the power of the gun lobby.
Its a good thing they have that power to keep the ATF in check.
Especially if the ATF is willing to lie to us in order to put limitations on our rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3359 by Percy, posted 03-23-2015 1:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3362 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 3362 of 5179 (753955)
03-23-2015 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3361 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2015 3:13 PM


Re: Slovene Home Guard
Cat Si writes:
Actually, I think they're being shady. They don't like people having AR-15's, so they're going after the bullets that they use.
BINGO!!
The .223/5.56 round was never intended (nor is widely used) as a handgun round. The armor piercing policy was intended for handgun rounds. The ATF attempted (and has now failed) to annex a well known and widely used rifle round into handgun regulations because it's possible (and it has been done) to build a handgun around a rifle cartridge.
The reason that the policy was aimed at handgun rounds only, is that any standard high velocity rifle round will penetrate the overwhelming percentage (all?) of LEO body armor - there's no need whatsoever for an armor piercing round in a rifle to shoot a cop through his/her vest.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3361 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2015 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3363 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2015 3:38 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3363 of 5179 (753956)
03-23-2015 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3362 by ThinAirDesigns
03-23-2015 3:24 PM


Re: Slovene Home Guard
The .223/5.56 round was never intended (nor is widely used) as a handgun round. The armor piercing policy was intended for handgun rounds. The ATF attempted (and has now failed) to annex a well known and widely used rifle round into handgun regulations because it's possible (and it has been done) to build a handgun around a rifle cartridge.
I haven't even gotten around to arguing that their logic was shitty to begin with.
They go on and on about how the intention behind the Congressional bill was for ammo that was intended to be used in a hand gun, but how they also allowed for ammo that "could be" used in a hand gun.
So then someone makes a handgun that can fire a rifle bullet and voil, OMG THOSE BULLETS COUNT AS ARMOR PIERCING NOW, WE NEED TO PROTECT THE POLICE.
Really? How many of these guns are out there and how big of a threat are they really to the police?
And so, they're going to stop exempting very common bullets that they acknowledge that hunters prefer to use because of concerns with putting lead into the environment and animals, all because someone built a handgun around a rifle bullet? That's retarded.
The funny thing is, the M855 has lead in it anyways. It reads to me like they thought it was all steel. So, they don't even know much about what they're trying to ban? Tsk tsk.
Edited by Cat Sci, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3362 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 3:24 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3364 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2015 4:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 3366 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2015 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3367 by Theodoric, posted 03-23-2015 5:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3364 of 5179 (753967)
03-23-2015 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3363 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2015 3:38 PM


Re: Slovene Home Guard
So then someone makes a handgun that can fire a rifle bullet and viola ...
If someone's made a handgun that can fire a rifle bulllet and a viola, I am impressed by his ingenuity.
This is a viola.
Perhaps you meant to say voil.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3363 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2015 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3365 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2015 4:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 3365 of 5179 (753970)
03-23-2015 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3364 by Dr Adequate
03-23-2015 4:26 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 3364 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2015 4:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3369 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2015 7:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3366 of 5179 (753971)
03-23-2015 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3363 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2015 3:38 PM


Re: Slovene Home Guard
Y'know, it's cheating to change your post after someone's pointed out the error in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3363 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2015 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 3367 of 5179 (754003)
03-23-2015 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3363 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2015 3:38 PM


Re: Slovene Home Guard
Really? How many of these guns are out there and how big of a threat are they really to the police?
One is a threat, but we know there are more than one.
http://www.sigsauer.com/...ogProductDetails/p556-pistol.aspx
EXP-556 Pistol - Mk 1-The Lightest 5.56 pistol in the world
Rock River Arms
Just a moment...+
Guns For Sale | Tombstone Tactical
They are quite popular with the ammosexual set. A 5.56 round out of these pistols is quite devastating. More powerful than a 357 mag and a lot more distance. You put a steel core on the bullet and it is going to shred police vests. There is no need for this round to be in general circulation.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3363 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2015 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3368 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 6:31 PM Theodoric has not replied

ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 3368 of 5179 (754012)
03-23-2015 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3367 by Theodoric
03-23-2015 5:40 PM


Re: Slovene Home Guard
Theodoric writes:
You put a steel core on the bullet and it is going to shred police vests.
A standard ball 5.56 shreds police vests, that's why it's so ridiculous to pretend that eliminating the 'green tip' round accomplishes anything.
The idea of limiting 'armor piercing' rounds to protect vested police is only effective in the lower velocity, higher caliber rounds. These rounds (typical handgun rounds) need special design to penetrate armor and thus the controls on those designs. Any jacketed rifle round traveling 2-3,000fps will pierce ANY soft armor, kevlar, etc. Getting rid of green tips won't make any difference - vest is shredded anyway.
It's like saying "We are going to save lives by banning 14" knives. 12" are OK." Well, either one kills just as readily.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3367 by Theodoric, posted 03-23-2015 5:40 PM Theodoric has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3369 of 5179 (754014)
03-23-2015 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3365 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2015 4:32 PM


When I originally posted that image, what did you think the type of gun they used was? Despite the violin part, I mean.
Honestly, I thought it was a rifle without a stock. I didn't realize that people might considered it a handgun, as per the legal term.
Then I see this pistol:
click to enlarge
which is basically an AR-15 without a stock on it. I thought those were "assault rifles"? Does chopping the stock make it a handgun?
When I was thinking of a pistol that could shoot AR-15 rounds, I actually pictured something like this:
that could take a longer bullet.
No longer exempting the M855 because someone made that gun is a terrible argument.
But calling stock-chopped-AR15's a "handgun", as a justification for calling the M855 round an "armor piercing bullet" is just ridiculous.
With or without the stock, M855's through an AR-15-like receiver and barrel will pierce a lot of armor. The stock of the gun has no effect on the how the bullet should be classified.
People chopping stocks and using rifles like pistols in not a reason to ban ammunition.
The AFT even mentioned the reasons that they knowingly exempted rounds that can pierce armor, like the M855 can. Like, why they are "needed": a lot of hunters use them (not only because they are great bullets, but) because all-steel bullets avoid the environmental problems that lead rounds have. Which not only poison the earth, but the scavengers too.
So why would you mention all the benefits of an all-steel projectile, and not only fail to exclude the M855 (because its mostly lead), but also imply that it is included in the group? Is that just pure ignorance? Are these people even competent enough to be proposing frameworks?
This was a really pathetic attempt by the ATF, and the director should have stepped down.
If this is an display of the power of the gun lobby, then we should be rejoicing it.
And the ATF should be shamed for the dirty tactics that they resorted to if they wrote a long-winded report to obfuscate their true motives for going after a particular bullet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3365 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2015 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(3)
Message 3370 of 5179 (755518)
04-09-2015 2:01 AM


Even the NRA Thinks Guns Are Too Dangerous for an NRA Convention
Even the NRA Thinks Guns Are Too Dangerous for an NRA Convention
quote:
The Tennessean reports that all firearms on display at the NRA event this weekend will be required to be "nonoperational," with the "firing pins removed." Gun owners will also be unable to take their weapons into Bridgestone Arena for the convention's speaking and musical slots.
Apparently, the event's organizers don't feel that the event would be safe with a bunch of working guns, despite the fact that the NRA regularly argues that "an armed society is a polite society" and "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Instead of Average Joe-style good guys with guns, the NRA is paying $200,000 extra for professional security.
It's almost as though the NRA thinks a bunch of live guns in one place could be extremely dangerous.
The gun-rights crowd has some screwed-up priorities: Funnily enough, the NRA that doesn't want its convention to have live firearms is the same NRA that believes guns should be legal to carry in churches, parks, schools and hospitals.
I guess it would be too embarrassing to have a shooting at a NRA convention, to take any chances.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 3371 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2015 12:39 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3372 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2015 12:44 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3371 of 5179 (755653)
04-10-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3370 by Minnemooseus
04-09-2015 2:01 AM


Re: Even the NRA Thinks Guns Are Too Dangerous for an NRA Convention
I was kind of hoping we could lock the doors until they were all dead.
Hypocrites

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3370 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-09-2015 2:01 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3372 of 5179 (755654)
04-10-2015 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3370 by Minnemooseus
04-09-2015 2:01 AM


Re: Even the NRA Thinks Guns Are Too Dangerous for an NRA Convention
I guess it would be too embarrassing to have a shooting at a NRA convention, to take any chances.
They're probably worried about some crazy left-wing commie grabbing a gun and shooting up the place just to make them look bad.
Kinda like how they do when they make those retarded signs and act like they're a part of conservative protests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3370 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-09-2015 2:01 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3373 by Theodoric, posted 04-10-2015 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 3374 by ringo, posted 04-10-2015 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 3378 by NoNukes, posted 04-10-2015 1:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 3379 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2015 1:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 3373 of 5179 (755656)
04-10-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3372 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2015 12:44 PM


Re: Even the NRA Thinks Guns Are Too Dangerous for an NRA Convention
You really are going to go with the false flag argument? Well I guess when you got nothing. But prob best when ya got nothing to say nothing.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3372 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2015 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 3374 of 5179 (755657)
04-10-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3372 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2015 12:44 PM


Re: Even the NRA Thinks Guns Are Too Dangerous for an NRA Convention
Cat's Eye writes:
They're probably worried about some crazy left-wing commie grabbing a gun and shooting up the place just to make them look bad.
Nah, we'd probably just poke them with a flower.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3372 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2015 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3375 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2015 12:50 PM ringo has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 3375 of 5179 (755658)
04-10-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3374 by ringo
04-10-2015 12:48 PM


Re: Even the NRA Thinks Guns Are Too Dangerous for an NRA Convention
Cat's Eye writes:
They're probably worried about some crazy left-wing commie grabbing a gun and shooting up the place just to make them look bad.
Nah, we'd probably just poke them with a flower.
I don't think what you'd actually do changes what the NRA thinks you would do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3374 by ringo, posted 04-10-2015 12:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3376 by NoNukes, posted 04-10-2015 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 3377 by ringo, posted 04-10-2015 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024