Store? No. But if it’s my carry/defense gun, there’s always one in the pipe.
And if it’s your carry/defense gun you don’t have a trigger lock on it, either, so my “any idiot” comment wouldn’t apply, though I would question the wisdom of carrying with a round in the chamber. That’s how a guy gets a Darwin Award.
But that continues the hijack I hoped to end.
I’d rather not give a person the extra second it takes to rack the slide if I absolutely positively need that gun in a hurry.
Anyway, the AWB was a bunch of foolish nonsense based on ‘scary looking features’ promoted by people who know nothing about firearms and it was pushed across as if these auto-loading but not automatic rifles were machine guns or submachine guns.
It has proven to be a dismal failure, and as such should die and be gone for good.
Yes, Diogenes- my dad, who fought in WWII, and was a decorated disabled veteran- HE was of course- a “coward” becuase he thought it might be better to shoot back rather than kill “the Japs” with his bare hands. :rolleyes:
The police officer there to protect us- a “coward”. Especially those who died on 9-11. :rolleyes: :dubious:
The tiny woman who resorts to a gun to protect herself from a rapist twice her size- a “coward”. :rolleyes: :dubious:
That Olympic Gold medalist who has never used a gun in anger- “coward” :rolleyes: :dubious: .
The trap-shooter- “coward”. :rolleyes:
The duck-hunter…“coward” :rolleyes:
I could go on, but this hijack is too long as it is.
I would think weapons banned by the Geneva Convention should be banned by the presently unconstitutional ‘assault weapons ban’ (let’s be honest enough to call a spade a spade)
So because it’s not legal to shoot someone in a war with a certain type of bullet, it shouldn’t be legal to shoot a deer with one, or shoot a sheet of paper with one?
Ridiculous.
But why would you want to shoot a deer or a sheet of paper with an armour-piercing bullet, for example?
Or to rephrase my question, what are the legitimate purposes of the bullets that gun-control advocates want to ban / have banned?
The term ‘armor piercing’ is meaningless.
It covers standard, regular, plain old hunting rounds like the .30-30 Winchester, the .280 Winchester, the .308 Winchester, the .30-06, and pretty much every other type of long rifle ammuntion above .22 LR.
Hollowpoint ammunition, which I believe is banned by the Geneva Convention, is used in hunting because it causes a maximum amount of blood loss extremely quickly and thus is ideal for taking down prey animals in an expeditious manner.
The ban they want to enact bans every single round of higher caliber than .22 LR, whether hollowpoint or not.
That’s the objection.
You can change the terminology if you like, but their purpose is to pierce armour and kill people. Just be honest about it. I don’t even care if they’re legal or not, I just think it’s absurd the lengths the pro-gun crowd will go to to argue that every conceivable weapon or round of ammunition is intended for deer hunting, or that stuff like cop-killer bullets are required for hunting.
It’s like those grow shops that have to pretend everything is for growing tomato plants.
Just out of curiosity, though, is there any line at all for you people? How about bazookas? Tanks? ICBMs? Seriously, is there anything you think should be banned, and if so, why? What’s the line?
I have not fired a high powered rifle since I left active duty in 1972 and I live in a state where deer hunting is limited to shotguns (unlike those homicidal and to a great extent drunken nut cases in Wisconsin and Minnesota – it’s like a war zone over there in deer season), but it is pretty apparent to me that :
-
The objective of the so called assault weapons ban is to keep selected really scarey looking semi-automatic weapons off the marked. I can after all do about as much damage with my Remington 1100 12 gage as I need to and no body that I know of is talking about taking that off the market. It seems to me that the bill is pretty much window dressing. That said, it does strike me as good policy to discourage people from waiving around guns that look like military, big magazine automatic assault rifles on the view that a guy who owns one of those is possibly more interested in scaring the BeJesus out of people and just maybe in shooting up his local Walmart that in getting a little meat for the table. But, yea, more form than substance.
-
Armor piercing ammo is a different problem. Clearly I can go groundhog hunting with a tungsten core, full steel jacket, Teflon coated round. It may possibly not be the best ammo to use on groundhogs but it will work. Better, I would think, would be incendiary ammo. Then I could follow the trajectory of the bullet and adjust fire just like a real machine gunner. Who is likely to want so-called armor piercing ammo? The guy that wants to take his deer by shooting through a car door, or a half inch plate of cold steel? Maybe, just maybe, the market is people who want a bullet that will punch through body armor, like the stuff that is universally worn by cops. Is it a good idea to be openly marketing ammo as capable of piercing a kevlar vest? Is the danger to police officers increased by having that stuff on the market? That answer, whether or not there is other stuff on the market that will do as good a job of making holes in body armor, is pretty obvious. If you sell ammo that is as good as marked as “cop killer” then it is likely that someone with an interest in shooting policemen will get some and actually see if it works.
The point is that the way things are advertised is important. Does any body remember Alan Ginsberg’s slick erotic magazine (I can’t think of its name)? There was an attempt to censor it out of existence and the whole thing ended up in front of the US Supreme Court. The Court in its wisdom said that it did not matter that nothing that had been published was any racier than Playboy – the mag had been held out to be obscene and that was enough to justify the ban. The same with armor piercing ammo – if you hold the stuff out to be black tip then it may be prohibited even though there is stuff legitimately on the market that is just as armor piercing.
It’s all hype, public relations and creating the perception that something significant has been done even though nothing of importance has happened.
Sorry, I don’t know that much about specific guns. Is that a semi-auto shotgun?
If so, then it is targeted for being banned under Senator Feinstein’s latest legislation, (H.R. 2038/S. 1431) (about halfway down the page), that she first introduced in April of this year. As far as I know, it’s still alive, cause she tried to attach it to some other legislation to hide it, and that legislation did not go through. I could be wrong, though.
If you want to keep that shotgun, be aware.
Oh, and Diogenes may likely come in here screaming that the cite is crap, that it refers to a ten-year-old 60 minutes show and will question the size of your anatomy if you don’t believe him. At least that’s what he’s done in the past. Just ignore him and do your own research. Look up the actual text of the bills, if you don’t trust the interpretation of others.
If I were a gun owner, I’d be very afraid.
As a freedom-lover, I’m just p’ed off at my government!
Did you know that so-called ‘cop killer’ bullets have never been available for public sale and have never been used to slay a police officer?
Did you also know that police were in fact quite angry with the media for disclosing something that up until that point was not widely known by the criminal element: that they were wearing kevlar vests?
Don’t let facts get in your way.
RPGs, ICBMs, tanks and missiles are in no way conisdered ‘arms.’ It is not generally accepted by firearms rights advocates that the public at large be able to own ordnance.
The danger came from publicizing the fact that police officers were wearing Kevlar.
It caused more and more of the ‘bad guys’ to start taking head shots.
I’d be a lot more impressed with your link, Snakespirit, if it were to the bill and not to a possibly hysterical NRA interpretation of it that claims that ALL semi-auto shotguns will be banned because they have a “receiver” and something that can function as a grip. Any thing but a muzzle loader has a receiver (a place to put the cartridges) and all have a “grip”, other wise how could you hold them. If you want me to buy this one, show me the statutory language. Without it the bullshit alarm goes off pretty quickly.
There are NO “cop killer bullets”- there never have been any “cop killer bullets”- the term (and the scare) was entirely made up by ONE Congressman.
He found a company that made special Teflon coated bullets (just the bullets, not a complete round) that were, indeed- designed to penetrate Kevlar vest. he used this to attack normal run of the mill ammo. He attempted to use the scare to ban any bullet that COULD penetrate a BPV- which was just about every round legally used to hunt deer, etc. (High powered rifles- using normal ammo- will penetrate a BPV- especially the ones used at that time).
He did forget to mention one teeny fact- that bullet was made by a speciality police supply company. It was made to be sold ONLY to Police Armourers- to be used in certain special circumstances (like that shoot out in LA by the two dudes who were fully armoured)- and was available ONLY to such on verified letterhead order ONLY. It wasn’t a “cop killer”- it was a "cop-saver".
No ammo has been made to be sold to the public with the purpose to penetrate Kevlar.
That (“purpose is to pierce armour and kill people…cop-killer bullets”) is a LIE.
Got you.
The 2nd amendment does not draw a distinction between “arms” and “ordnance,” does it? Militias had cannons? Can modern militias have ordnance?
It sounds like a specious distinction to me.
You say tomato I say cop killer bullets. I’m not even looking to ban them, I’m just saying call a spade a spade.
Well it specifically mentions arms. Where does it mention ordnance?
The don’t exist. They never did. There is no such thing. Teflon jacketed bullets were never available to the public to begin with, and not one single police officer has ever been slain with such things.
In fact, up until that one Congressman made up the term and the media started publicizing that police were wearing Kevlar, the criminal element was largely unaware of the vests.
You’ve been presented with the facts. So-called ‘cop killer’ teflon jacketed bullets were never available for public sale. ‘Cop killer’ bullet was a name invented by a Congressman despite the fact that no cop had ever been killed with a teflon jacketed bullet. It was used as the basis for proposals to ban all rounds that could penetrate Kevlar, which means virtually every round used for hunting deer, such as FMJ non-hollowpoint .30-30, .308, .280 and .30-06.
Everything of higher caliber than .22 LR would be covered by legislation that bans all rounds capable of piercing kevlar.
When will you stop ignoring these facts?
Why aren’t they considered arms under the meaning of the Constitution?
However you read the reference to militias in the 2nd Amendment, it seems likely that one of the chief aims of describing the right to bear arms was for the purpose of collective defence in a militia. (Many do argue that it gives rights to bear arms even if not for the purposes of a militia, but that’s not the issue here.)
Since it was written with militias in mind, even if that was not the only purpose, why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment give the right to bear military-grade weapons, such as RPGs, automatic weapons like the M-16, or two-person belt-fed machine guns (unsure of the terminology)?
I don’t see any reason to protect the individual right of citizens to own ordnance, either then or now.
In fact, that’d negate the idea of the ‘minuteman’, who could grab his rifle and be ready at a moment’s notice. Can’t hardly grab your cannon from by the door that quickly.
As far as ‘weapons like the M-16’, well, I think that it does cover that. The M-16 is a rifle, albiet automatic, and therefore qualifies as ‘arms.’
Put me down as someone who does think that “arms” should include heavier weapons like grenades, RPGs and automatic weapons - basically, I think the average law abiding citizen should be able to equip him/herself as well as the average infantryman in the rest of the world, much like the Minute Men of old could arm themselves as well as any infantry in the world. I wouldn’t mind things like a background check, or mandated training with these weapons, as long as the provisions were reasonable, so as to produce a large citizen militia that is well trained and regulated to produce a wide scale, distributed fighting force.