Summations Only

Sure we can be armed you just have to get evaluated by a psychiatrist and demonstrate gun proficiency. We are actually full of guns because just about every other person is a hunter, you know the real kind where they actually feed the animals so there is an over flow that can be shot off. Well tell that to the partizan's that where kicking Hitlers ass trough the war. Its funny how you worship guns and guns You do know that you would be bringing a gun to a drone fight if you went up against your government.

What the hell is an armor piercing bullet and why would it be a concern anyway?

The number of governments that have been abusive to their people is far greater than the number of governments that have been benevolent.As a simple matter of statistics it is nave to presume any government an exception to this trend.

Provide the statistics and define "abusive to their people". Without that info you are just pissing in the wind.

Many more people have died than are living. As a matter of statistics, it's naive to presume that any person is alive.The main difference between your statement and mine is that I'm aware how ridiculous mine is.

The main difference is tense; but I have fixed that for you now, so you can see how my comment actually applies to the real world instead of to your silly fantasy world where it's somehow impossible for governments to ever become bad.

Since you're so eager to put words in my mouth, I'll just let you continue on your own.

It's a bullet that can pierce body armor, and given that it's the AFT that wants to ban it, I'd further guess that it can pierce the type of body armor that ATF agents wear.--Percy

Are you saying that the ATF framework in question was designed for public safety? Because they say that it is to protect the lives of law enforcement. You know, the public doesn't wear body armor...The framework, itself, was pretty retarded to begin with. At the end of section V they conclude:

quote:

---

Some ammunition that was previously exempted as primarily intended to be used for
sporting purposes, specifically 5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges,
will again be regulated as armor piercing ammunition.

---

But the way they define armor piercing bullets:

quote:

---

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and
which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron,
brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium;

---

doesn't include the M855 round. The M855 round: is made of both lead and steel so it doesn't even fit within their definition to begin with!

That comment was part of reply to Petro's over-the-top response about Nazis, camps and ovens. It was an attempt to return the focus to a core issue of the gun debate, public safety. So no, that's not what I was saying. Obviously if this is point "(i)" then there must be an "(ii)", so there was no point in carefully chopping off the "or" that followed this clause if you weren't going to chop off the "(i)" too. There are evidently a couple ways they define armor piercing bullets. I of course lack the knowledge to assess how well M855 fits within this definition:

quote:

---

(B) The term armor piercing ammunition means---

​

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and
which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron,
brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or

​

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended
for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25
percent of the total weight of the projectile.

---

But these details are not why I posted that article, which was to highlight the power of the gun lobby.--Percy

Alrighty then. The M855 wasn't designed or intended for use in a handgun so it doesn't meet that definition from the get-go, which is why it wasn't even worth bringing up, but that copper jacket isn't going to be 25% of the weight of the lead core anyways. Its a good thing they have that power, otherwise the ATF would be trying to pass framework that doesn't even do what they think it does.Somebody's got to make sure that they're even making sense.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

I lack your familiarity with guns and ammunition, but according to the original article I cited (ATF director steps down after bullet ban controversy) it was about ammunition for handguns: And this is from the same document we've been quoting from, the ATF Framework in Question:

quote:

---

Applying the sporting purposes framework set-forth above, the 5.56mm projectile that
ATF exempted in 1986 does not qualify for an exemption because that projectile when loaded
into SS109 and M855 cartridges may be used in a handgun other than a single-shot handgun.
Specifically, 5.56mm projectiles loaded into the SS109 and M855 cartridges are commonly used
in both AR-type rifles and AR-type handguns.

---

So I guess it does meet the ATF definition of an armor piercing bullet. Apparently they were making sense, but the gun lobby forced the ATF director to step down anyway.--Percy

It really doesn't.Part (ii) is about bullets that are designed and intended to be used in a handgun, which the M855 is not.The ATF didn't like limiting their ban based on the intentions of the manufacturer, but would rather base it on how the criminal intends to use the bullet. So that's why part (i) is about bullets that may be used in a handgun.The problem is that (i) defines it as having a core that is entirely made of one or more of the listed alloys. The M855 consists mostly of lead, which is not listed in definition (i).The part you are quoting is them saying that definition (i) is applicable because the bullet may be used in handguns. But it misses the point that the bullet isn't made of only the metals that they listed.So while that definition is the right one to use, the bullet they're trying to ban doesn't actually meet that definition. They really weren't, they fucked it up.This shows either a gross level of incompetence, or as I suspect, calls into question their actual motivation for this framework.

The paragraphs at the top of page 4 immediately after the definition address this, mentioning a specific bill and describing Congressional intent. I hear your metal content concerns, but the article expends a lot of space discussing it. They're making an argument that given other factors that the metal content definition shouldn't be an obstacle to banning this ammunition category.If to you this makes the ATF incompetent then I have no problem living with that. I've never had any particular views of my own concerning the competence of the ATF, and my original point was about something completely different, the power of the gun lobby.--Percy

So you're advocating armed resistance against your own government?