Summations Only

Really expensive too. Like, as much as a new car.I think a civilian might be able to acquire newly made machine guns if you set yourself up as a dealer - but then you'd really only be able to sell them to police departments. But I'm not sure.

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!

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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

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: 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.

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.

I don't think what you'd actually do changes what the NRA thinks you would do.

Just FYI, that is still vacuous.

Thanks for admitting that you'd prefer to just deny me one of my rights.I reject your offer.

Think about why practically every cop on duty carries a handgun.They're the best weapon you can have.

Ah, so you've completely misunderstood the mentality.Its not that The People are going to get into a toe-to-toe fight with the Army.Its that having The People armed means that it would be too big of a pain in the ass for the Army to even begin to think about starting the battle.From Message 626:

quote:

---

The Second Amendment did provide protection against government tyranny in the 18th century.

​

Today, it does not. Not even a little. An armed populace still has no defense against tanks. If our government and military institute martial law, there is nothing in terms of violent resistance that you could do with your guns to effectively win. Nothing at all. The age of the armed revolution died when the age of the tank began. If you want to perform or resist tyranny, today we do so through words and political action, not with bullets.

​

The Second Amendment is worthless today for its original stated purpose. It might make you feel better...but your handgun doesn't do any good when an unmanned drone fires a Hellfire missile into your house, effectively ending your resistance.

​

I don't agree with this. The government has a vested interest in its people being alive. Without the people there's nothing to govern. There's no situation where the government would go to war with its own people, which is what it would take if the people are armed.

​

If the people are not armed, then there's no need for any military-like 'invasion' in the first place. The people are already defenseless and could be pushed around in much more subtle ways.

​

So in the sense that the 2nd amendment provides arms to the people and the people being armed would require government tyranny to be a military-like invasion like you describe, since the government would not do something like that, then the 2nd amendment does provide protection against government tyranny.

​

ABE:

​

Maybe a more consice way to say it:

​

An armed populous ups the ante to the point where the government doesn't want to play the game of tyranny.

---

Still, guns have a useful purpose.