Well, then we can be thankful that the AG, and not the media, will be the decider of what is armor piercing. (Actually the amendment was defeated, so it’s hypothetical anyway.)
I agree that there is very little ammo out there that is actually “armor piercing.” I’ve only come across it once. It was actually pretty disconcerting, considering that I was searching a house and wearing body armor at the time.
HAH!
Obama is making it seem like our streets are being terrorized by CC permit holders. Allowing people to legally own guns is the best way of letting the “crime-ravaged communities” protect themselves. I mean, hell, these communities have had handgun bans, and they’ve still been ravaged with crime.
The worst kind of “anti” is the kind who has never fired a gun before and really has absolutely no idea how they work, and has never grown up with any kind of gun culture at all, and yet feels the need to make rules about guns for other people. I’m firmly convinced that Barack is one of those guys. I doubt he has ever fired a gun in his entire life.
The “or” is irrelevant to what you’re saying here. Section iii deals with handgun ammo. Your original contention was that the amendment sought to ban all rifle ammo. Rifle ammo is dealt with in section iv, which only applies to ammo designed or marketed as armor piercing.
That would suck for handgun owners then, because section iii applies to all handgun ammo, not just that designed and marketed as armor piercing. But your original contention was that he sought to ban rifle ammo, and that is just not so. There’s a whole lot of “what ifs” in between what he voted for and the actual banning of ammo, so your assertion was misleading at best.
Well said SenorBeef
I’m a gun owner and sort of middle of the road politically. I will be very glad to vote for Obama.
I’m very happy about the decision. We face much bigger problems though.
Some one else said it. SCOTUS made a decision that other Justices appointed by a new President are unlikely to try to overturn soon. Hell, it took what, 74 years to look at the Second since Miller?
What many people in the US and the rest of the world may not understand is that personal protection and defense is often a side benefit. The vast majority own guns for hunting or sport.
I own guns that have been handed down to me. I enjoy shooting them.
For myself when I target shoot, the ability to leave everything else behind and concentrate on safety, and the target, and your next move. Just even picking up the gun, or where you set it down. It’s a focus that clears your mind. You don’t think about work. You don’t think about what to make for dinner.
It’s a bit like going off the side of a dive boat. Focus. Everything else in your life is secondary now. But, you must watch the other divers. Make sure everyone is safe. Everything else is secondary.
I also like the sometimes simple but intricate and delicate actions of these machines. They’ve been around for a long time. And they aren’t going away soon. As a person that likes to stay on top of things, I think it’s important for me to understand at least the basics of firearms so I could handle any safely.
Regardless of whether or not I use a gun for self defense, my knowledge of how they work and how to use them makes me safer.
I imagine it would be. I assume you are a police officer in some capacity, or were at one time?
Probation Officer.
I agree 100%. However, today is a day to rejoice. 100+ years we’ve been waiting for this. This is better than the Red Sox finally winning the world series.
That being the case, what is your opinion on the decision today in that capacity? I’ve found that people in the law-enforcement profession are pretty fragmented in their opinions regarding the subject.
My prediction: now that the SC has affirmed Heller, over the next week scores of political cartoons will depict drooling, pinheaded cretins shooting everything in sight like drunken cowboys.
This is an interesting point. Actually now that you bring it up, I’m going to look through all the political cartoons I can find and try to see if there’s even one of them that’s not somehow anti-gun. I’ll post links to all the cartoons I do find. Maybe I’ll start another thread once I find enough cartoons.
The problem is that it’s hard to define what handgun and rifle ammo is.
They have the codicil that ammo marketed as ‘armor piercing’ or (a big one) ‘designed’ to be armor piercing. One thing I have gathered from anti-gun or more gun control folks is they know nothing about guns or ballistics.
Nothing at all.
And the folks in Washington that only care about their next vote are the same. This concerns me.
As SenorBeef pointed out, there are pistols made to chamber the .223.
And while the .357 or .44 is a typical handgun round, there are plenty of rifles that will chamber it and it might be considered ‘armor piercing’ in a rifle. Until the anti-gun (I hate that term because I don’t consider myself pro-gun any more than I am pro light bulbs) get an education about guns, I will call them to the carpet.
Like these. 8-10 years ago I bought a 1894CB357. It’s a thing of beauty. Legally, I could use it to hunt deer here in Minnesota. But I have yet to see a round that might equal a high power rifle cartridge.
(I’m amazed at the prices they quote for those things! I bought mine on consignment for $380, in mint condition.)
You are a liar, and your post has been reported. I never claimed Obama voted to ban all rifle ammo; the bill I cited [The “or” is irrelevant to what you’re saying here. Section iii deals with handgun ammo. Your original contention was that the amendment sought to ban all rifle ammo. Rifle ammo is dealt with in section iv, which only applies to ammo designed or marketed as armor piercing.
That would suck for handgun owners then, because section iii applies to all handgun ammo, not just that designed and marketed as armor piercing. But your original contention was that he sought to ban rifle ammo, and that is just not so. There’s a whole lot of “what ifs” in between what he voted for and the actual banning of ammo, so your assertion was misleading at best.
[/QUOTE]
You are a liar, and your post has been reported. I never claimed Obama voted to ban all rifle ammo; I claimed [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9943693&postcount=163]here]([QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley) that he voted for a proposed amendment to a Senate bill which, had it passed, would’ve allowed the banning of nearly all centerfire rifle ammo as “armor piercing.”
I await your apology. But I ain’t holding my breath.
Hah?
Tortured syntax, that is syntax tortured to confess a crime not even contemplated, much less commited. If that were his intent, wouldn’t he have at least mentioned “CC permit holders”? From whence your telepathic interpretive skills?
If we were to put that quote before him, and your, ah, “interpretation”, have you any doubt he would flatly deny your intepretation? And I should believe you, who didn’t say it, rather than him, who did?
Please submit your Certificate of Telepathic Powers for our perusal, if you would be so kind.
Never had smallpox. Still opposed. Lots of things one need not experience to form a fair judgement.
Dad bought two 336er Marlins chambered for .356win about 20 years ago. He gave me one.
It’s fun to shoot. But with all that power behind a carbine weight, and the cost of rounds (if you can find them) I don’t shoot it too much. It is the first thing I grab when bears are about though. (or just the .357, we just scare them off).
There are those who will say that. If you go look at the death penalty thread, there are those saying that about five justices.
His implication is that on one side, is the right to bear arms, and then on the other side, is the crime that “ravages communities.” As if they are two sides of the same coin or something…like, “I support the second amendment, BUT…” That’s the message his statement gives off to me. Maybe that’s not how he intended it, I don’t know, you’re right, I’m not telepathic. But that’s how I’m going to interpret it.
Also, I think that the people who make laws about guns ought to know what the fuck they’re talking about. Remember Carolyn McCarthy and “the shoulder thing that goes up?” The assault weapon ban was founded upon ignorance, and fueled by ignorance.
You’re out of line, here.
Your options were to give the Mods enough time to respond to your report and/or to simply post the relevant passages of your post and his, demonstrating that his paraphrase of your statement is in error.
Calling someone a liar has been deemed too inflammatory by the Teeming Millions and it has been proscribed in this Forum as noted pretty clearly in the very first thread stickied at the top of the Forum.
[ /Moderating ]
Ah, that would be “no”, actually. Pretty sure I don’t give the attention to this issue that you do. Yeah. Pretty sure.
Carolyn McCarthy is a member of the House of Representatives (4-NY) and an extremely vocal anti-gunner, who was last year trying to reintroduce an “assault weapons” ban. The provisions of her bill included restrictions on firearms with barrel shrouds. When asked by a pundit if she even knew what a barrel shroud was, she replied with the immortal words: “I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.”
It’s seen as a prime example of the people trying hardest to ban guns knowing the least about them. It also serves as an example of an attempt to regulate firearms based on completely irrelevant characteristics.