OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO BAN AR-15 AMMO

They weren't asked, they were paid. Not like they did it for nothing Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Almost next to nothing. I bought a Sig Sauer 40 cal a few years ago at a pawn shop. When that gun was brand new it retailed for almost 1200 dollars. I can't see the logic of giving that gun up at a buy back program for fifty bucks which is what they were giving people for Revolvers and Pistols. That's why I stated people were giving up junk that they didn't want any. But it wouldn't matter they weren't giving fair market value.

Jim

Almost next to nothing. I bought a Sig Sauer 40 cal a few years ago at a pawn shop. When that gun was brand new it retailed for almost 1200 dollars. I can't see the logic of giving that gun up at a buy back program for fifty bucks which is what they were giving people for Revolvers and Pistols.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You said they were mostly old, crappy guns though...

I am saying just what I stated. People will turn in firearms voluntarily if asked by the government. I believe it happened in Connecticut a few years ago. They called it a Firearm buy back program. They actually paid people for turning in a legal firearm. If I am not mistaken they paid anywhere from 25.00 to 150.00 depending on the type and cal of the firearm. There is no reason to turn in a legal firearm just because the Government be it Fed, State or otherwise says you should. I am sure most of the firearms that were turned in were probably junk anyway or even inoperable but the point is the request was made with the idea of reducing firearm possession without infringing upon 2nd amendment rights.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

No they won't. What you said, basically, is that people will take $50-$150 for inoperable or old, crappy guns. Who wouldn't? They aren't going to turn in a gun like you mentioned in your above post. If they do, they're stupid and shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

You said they were mostly old, crappy guns though... Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I would assume. Cause I can't imagine giving up something of value. But the whole point is they weren't turning their guns in for the money, you can go to a pawn shop and do that. They were turning them in because they were under the false pretense that if they did they would contribute to reducing gun violence.

Jim

I would assume. Cause I can't imagine giving up something of value. But the whole point is they weren't turning their guns in for the money, you can go to a pawn shop and do that. They were turning them in because they were under the false pretense that if they did they would contribute to reducing gun violence.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

A pawn shop won't give you $150 for a broke ass gun. And you said you were SURE and that doesn't sound like an assumption. If they were old and crappy, sometimes even inoperable, how did they think that getting a non-working and/or crappy old gun off the street would somehow reduce gun violence?

I am in great company in that belief, Cornholio!

Don't forget ignorant asshole, hate monger and mindless minion. Your posts indicate you are all of those things and even less.

You are easy meat not only for me, but for the neocon (Koch) machine who has used your innate ignorance and xenophobia to create an entire class of American serfs.

Who yo massa, dipshit?

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Trod on idiot !

Xenophobia is quite rampant among low-information voters. Coincidence? I don't think so. Without information and context, you naturally fear difference. That's why he goes on about homos and Muslims. He doesn't understand them. He doesn't want to take the time to understand then. But he wants everyone to understand him? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

To each his own I always say. If you choose to surround yourself with muslims who don't give a damn about our nation, good for you. Most of these people are dirtbags and cowards. Some refuse to stand and others even support ISIS, Al Qaeda or whoever the flavor of the month terror org. is from right here in our country and inside their protected mosque. So yes I do understand these miserable drains upon society. They have been considered and are not worthy of my acceptance.

As for the gays, it's just not my ticket but if you find greater comfort in the arms of a guy as AssPup does, then more power to you.
Great talking to you and not about you, if you noticed.

A pawn shop won't give you $150 for a broke ass gun. And you said you were SURE and that doesn't sound like an assumption. If they were old and crappy, sometimes even inoperable, how did they think that getting a non-working and/or crappy old gun off the street would somehow reduce gun violence? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I don't know. But here's a project for ya ,go scout out a Gun Buy Back Program and interview those standing in line and see what kind of responses you get. Whether I am right or wrong about the condition of the guns or the reasons people have in participating in such a program. The Government's intentions are to remove guns from citizens ,that's the bottom line.

Jim


Jim

Yes, the tyranny of a government that denies its citizens the god given right of armor piercing ammunition. Horrible. We'll have to rely on soft-points, hollowpoints, tracer and FMJ.

How will we manage? Originally Posted by timpage

Firstly, that M855 round is not designed to be armor piercing. It only has a steel core to achieve some specific ballistic characteristics. Both heavier and lighter rounds of 5.56 ammo do not have steel cores.
Be that as it may, the type of armor that round will penetrate is only the "soft" type. Unfortunately that is the type worn by most police officers. The question about that I have is, "Has there been some recent spate of police shootings using that round to penetrate their vests?" I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I've certainly heard nothing of the sort.
The truth is those vests that patrol officers wear can be penetrated by most any rifle round. At least anything larger than .22 . And the definition of "armor piercing" bullets, refers to pistol ammunition for that very reason. The administration is reclassifying the round as a pistol round because of the somewhat recent manufacture of AR "pistols".
It seems pretty evident that this is little more than a backdoor attempt at gun control.

Here's a good short article that explains the particulars much better than I can.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...e-real-answer/

Firstly, that M855 round is not designed to be armor piercing. It only has a steel core to achieve some specific ballistic characteristics. Both heavier and lighter rounds of 5.56 ammo do not have steel cores.
Be that as it may, the type of armor that round will penetrate is only the "soft" type. Unfortunately that is the type worn by most police officers. The question about that I have is, "Has there been some recent spate of police shootings using that round to penetrate their vests?" I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I've certainly heard nothing of the sort.
The truth is those vests that patrol officers wear can be penetrated by most any rifle round. At least anything larger than .22 . And the definition of "armor piercing" bullets, refers to pistol ammunition for that very reason. The administration is reclassifying the round as a pistol round because of the somewhat recent manufacture of AR "pistols".
It seems pretty evident that this is little more than a backdoor attempt at gun control.

Here's a good short article that explains the particulars much better than I can.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...e-real-answer/ Originally Posted by Ducbutter

+1

Yes, the tyranny of a government that denies its citizens the god given right of armor piercing ammunition. Horrible. We'll have to rely on soft-points, hollowpoints, tracer and FMJ.

How will we manage? Originally Posted by timpage

Tim,
Being young and naive only last a short while. After several decades of age they call it something less flattering. Do not believe that the feds stop at one type of projectile. They have never stopped. Look at it from the NFA OF 1934 to what your First Half-White Full Time Commie POTUS plans for the 5.56mm today. It never ends, they always come back for more, and each time another chunk of liberty is lost. Maybe it doesn't effect you so you don't care. Tomorrow it could be something different, maybe something important to you. What if no one else gives a damn ?

LINK :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law..._United_States

Firstly, that M855 round is not designed to be armor piercing. It only has a steel core to achieve some specific ballistic characteristics. Both heavier and lighter rounds of 5.56 ammo do not have steel cores.
Be that as it may, the type of armor that round will penetrate is only the "soft" type. Unfortunately that is the type worn by most police officers. The question about that I have is, "Has there been some recent spate of police shootings using that round to penetrate their vests?" I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I've certainly heard nothing of the sort.
The truth is those vests that patrol officers wear can be penetrated by most any rifle round. At least anything larger than .22 . And the definition of "armor piercing" bullets, refers to pistol ammunition for that very reason. The administration is reclassifying the round as a pistol round because of the somewhat recent manufacture of AR "pistols".
It seems pretty evident that this is little more than a backdoor attempt at gun control.

Here's a good short article that explains the particulars much better than I can.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...e-real-answer/ Originally Posted by Ducbutter

One slight correction. one of my shooting buddies says that steel cored round was designed to pierce armor. I'll try to verify that.

The new red was of the recent gun mfg of pistols to chamber the round, but lets all panic and claim it is another gun grab.

One slight correction. one of my shooting buddies says that steel cored round was designed to pierce armor. I'll try to verify that. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I found a good video that tests the M855 Round in terms of it's penetration characteristics.

Jim



http://youtu.be/e1tAtW2JKRE

I don't know. But here's a project for ya ,go scout out a Gun Buy Back Program and interview those standing in line and see what kind of responses you get. Whether I am right or wrong about the condition of the guns or the reasons people have in participating in such a program. The Government's intentions are to remove guns from citizens ,that's the bottom line.

Jim


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

If that's the case, which I don't believe it is, is a terrible way to go about it. Do you honestly believe the govt wants your guns?