OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO BAN AR-15 AMMO

You're quite the idiot you know. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes, I know

Should the private citizen be able to purchase ammo that can pierce a law enforcement officer's vest? I would say no. The courts have said no. There's still plenty of ammo that will shred a deer and/or target, your choice. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

The law you mention banning AP ammunition applies to rounds fired by pistols, and pistols only. The M855 round was developed to be fired from a rifle. As stated before, virtually all rifle ammo will penetrate the vests of patrol officers. That's why the law was worded as it was. To simply ban any round that would penetrate those vests would effectively ban all rifle ammo.
What this proposed ban is doing is to reclassify the 5.56x45 caliber as a pistol round because people are now manufacturing ARs with extremely short barrels and no stock. They are referred to as pistols. If I'm not mistaken (and I well might be), those weapons were outlawed as part of the '94 weapons ban, not that they existed in any great numbers. Once that expired, people began making the short barrels and producing those AR "pistols". I would not classify those as a pistol myself as they are clearly firing a rifle round. I think carbine would be a more appropriate term. In WWII there was a removable stock you could add to a Luger but that didn't make it a rifle as it still fired a 9mm round.
As I asked before, has there been a large increase in the # of police being shot with this round out of those "pistol" style ARs? Have there been any? The follow up to that question is "Why now?" The round has been in existence for a long time. The article I posted previously (written by a former ATF agent) gives us a clue:

"During a career with ATF, it was obvious that it is not the ATF itself that takes the initiative to rule on many of the anti-gun issues that arise, rather they receive directives from anti-gun administrations in Washington, and are directed to write whatever needs to be said in order to make the intended action occur."

You've read too many conspiracy books. Let's play out your little wacky theory to its logical conclusion. You have a gun, maybe you take out a couple, maybe a dozen. Then you and your family get killed. What good has the gun done you? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I don't waste my time with conspiracy books. I've never read a one. I also don't waste my time believing every thing the Government tells me. For instance in reference to this thread about banning .223 Ammo. The pitch is that the .223 can be fired from a handgun at a Police Officer wearing a Ballistics vest thus penetrating the vest possible causing death. The video below shows how a 223 round can be chambered in a hand gun and fired. The 223 won't be extracted and it's velocity and penetrating is greatly reduced rendering it incapable of penetrating a ballistics vest. So the Governments claim of this round penetrating a vest under abnormal conditions is pure fallacy.

Jim



http://youtu.be/lkJuu7rwNEc

I don't waste my time with conspiracy books. I've never read a one.



http://youtu.be/lkJuu7rwNEc Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I believe you. Everything you say and believe seems to have come out of the divergent storyline. I think fantasy novels are more your genre.

Here is an AR "pistol".

I believe you. Everything you say and believe seems to have come out of the divergent storyline. I think fantasy novels are more your genre. Originally Posted by shanm

Ok, well whatever. I hope you never have to endure any surprises.

Jim

making it safe for me to go to and from work, to and from play, and resting at night in my home in between those activities. Originally Posted by LexusLover

So tell me LexusLover, what is so bad in your neighborhood that you consider the right to bear arms a basic right essential to your survival?
Originally Posted by shanm

Answer: The 2nd amendment applies to my neighborhood. The legal presumption is that I have a right to have firearms .... I don't need to justify it to your ass or anyone else's. That is why it was put in the amendments to the Constitution. You have not met your burden.

And it's your burden. Not mine. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not following your "logic" here.

You claimed that your everyday life isn't "safe".

I asked why you believe that. Note: I didn't question your right to bear arms, I questioned why you believe that right is essential to your survival.

You deflected, calling me a dumb ass for questioning your right to have firearms.
Turns out, you still haven't answered my question.

Protecting yourself from a tyrannical government is by far the lamest excuse against gun control.

It might have been valid when both sides were carrying muskets, but in today's world, if the army and the government decided to take over, sorry buddy, you are SOL. They have drones and missiles that could level a city block in less than a second. What makes you think your AR 15 would be of even the slightest help in that situation?
The way our government is set up, the bi-partisanship especially, makes it literally next to impossible the idea of a tyrannical government. There are many valid arguments for and against gun control. Protecting yourself from the government is not one of them.

Originally Posted by shanm

ShamWow, you ignorant slut. This is the most stupid post ever, and the bar for stupidity has been set very high by AssupLiar, BigAssSux and LittleEva. But you have surpassed them all.


We are all now a little dumber having read your ridiculous post.


May God have mercy on your soul.

Here is an AR "pistol".

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I am going to assume your point is that a .223 round fired out of that particular firearm will penetrate a ballistics vest. If so, I am afraid there is no guarantee.


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

Your not exactly being truthful, the M885 ammo does have a mild steel penetrator but it was not previously designated as armor piercing ammo. It is in fact a cheap surplus ammo that was recently made available to the general public by the military. The Obama administration is seeking the BATF to designate the ammo as Armor piercing where it had previously not been designated as being armor piercing. They are doing this under the guise that it will penetrate a bullet proof vest as used by the police. The potential problem with this move is that most hunting caliber rifle ammo will in fact penetrate a bullet proof vest. Which therefore would leave the door open for the administration to seek the reclassification of commercial hunting ammo under the same precedent. As a shooter who routinely fires 1500 to 2000 rounds a week. Cheap surplus ammo is a godsend for the wallet. Selling this ammo to the public is a win win for both the military and the civilian market.. It provides a cheaper ammo purchase option for the civilian market and it allows the military to get rid of ammo that it no longer wishes to use for whatever reason, but most commonly the age of the ammo.

You STILL didn't answer my question. Are you for or against private citizens being able to buy rounds that can penetrate a vest? Yes or no. I don't care if it's legal or illegal now or whether it's been that way for 30 years. Yes or no. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Every commercial round sold for hunting will penetrate a bullet proof vest. So to answer your question yes I do, as the round in question does nothing more or less than a 30/06 or .308 fired at a patrol vest. So when your banning ammo under that reasoning, your leaving the door open for the banning of all rifle ammo.

I'm not following your "logic" here. Originally Posted by shanm

I know. And apparently you never will. Let me try another approach to "solving the problem" .... Can I safely assume that you want to get rid of poverty in this Country (the U.S.A.)? Or at least reduce the amount of people who are living in poverty? (To put it another way) .....

If the answer is "yes" , then go to the next part of "the solution" ...

Can i also safely assume that you believe most crime is the result of poverty?

(Like YOUR MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE ... wants to give ISIS jobs ... )

So when your banning ammo under that reasoning, your leaving the door open for the banning of all rifle ammo. Originally Posted by dirty dog

That's his point! He wants to regulate ALL RIFLES.... not just "assault rifles."

Mexico has done such a splendid job of reducing death by firearms!

Per capita Mexico with "gun control" has double the firearm death rate as the U.S.

The next thing the Liberals will want to do is license printing paper and the internet feeds.

I am going to assume your point is that a .223 round fired out of that particular firearm will penetrate a ballistics vest. If so, I am afraid there is no guarantee.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I believe all of them up to a Level III, and probably a Level IV by a 2nd round.

I know. And apparently you never will. Let me try another approach to "solving the problem" .... Can I safely assume that you want to get rid of poverty in this Country (the U.S.A.)? Or at least reduce the amount of people who are living in poverty? (To put it another way) .....

If the answer is "yes" , then go to the next part of "the solution" ...

Can i also safely assume that you believe most crime is the result of poverty?

(Like YOUR MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE ... wants to give ISIS jobs ... ) Originally Posted by LexusLover

By God ....I am not even going to argue this. Read and laugh at how stupid your own argument is.

That's his point! He wants to regulate ALL RIFLES.... not just "assault rifles."

Mexico has done such a splendid job of reducing death by firearms!

Per capita Mexico with "gun control" has double the firearm death rate as the U.S.

The next thing the Liberals will want to do is license printing paper and the internet feeds. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Again, you show your massive tendency to compare apples with oranges in order to prove your point.
Mexico is an underdeveloped country. One which you can't trust to have proper gun control laws and/or stop the black market from fueling the gun trade.
If you want a proper example, why don't you compare the U.S with the UK and/or Australia. Firearm related deaths per 100,000 in the UK and Australia COMBINED are about 10% of firearm related deaths in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

Yes, it will take a while before illegal guns start disappearing from the streets, but its a start. Only those affected by the death of someone from a firearm would understand the gravity of the situation.