Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumJerry Miculek goes over the facts about M855 Ammunition
Very interesting.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Step 1 -- Declare non-lead ammunition unsafe
Step 2 -- Declare lead ammunition an environmental hazard
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)So now there's this ammo, 5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges, which had been exempt from the law because they weren't used in handguns. This was the "sporting purposes" exception to the law. But now there are handguns that can fire these steel-tipped, armor-piercing bullets. The ATF is proposing banning the manufacture, sale and import of them. You can keep all the ones you have or will buy in your hording frenzy. But after that, the law says, the safety of police officers comes before your desire to hunt deer wearing bulletproof vests.
Of course, the gun-fellating right has lost its mind over this proposal because the ATF is part of the executive branch and that means the Negro communist Muslim president who hates America must want to kill all the white people and take their guns in order to burn the Constitution and install a Sharia law caliphate in the country. Or something like that.
more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026287888
ileus
(15,396 posts)Bunch of hateful racist bastards can't make a point without insulting our president then fuck em'
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)to your friends on your side of this issue.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I would ask you to agree or disagree but you have a serious problem answering simple questions.
You do realize that this ammo and the AR-15 are not used in most shootings and not even in most mass shootings.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to converse with a "Glib, Sociopathic Gun Controller".
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Well played, sir. Well played.
DonP
(6,185 posts)We should check and see, but I bet he posts more here than in his own forum.
After all talking to the same three true believers day after day, week after week has to get a little dull with all the frothing at the mouth down yonder. Even when 90% of the population agrees with you.
Plus, digging around for cartoons that express whatever your gun control POV is supposed to be, has to be exhausting and mentally taxing.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Member since: Sat Sep 12, 2009, 11:24 PM
Number of posts: 11,400
Number of posts, last 90 days: 656
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 367 posts in the last 90 days (56% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 200 posts in the last 90 days (30% of total posts)
Last post: Fri Feb 27, 2015, 06:27 PM
and he is the host of the other group.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)so he has to come here for a challenging debate.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and it ain't his hat.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Have you heard the one about the sadist and the masochist? The masochist asked the sadist to hurt him, to which the sadist replied "No".
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I, like, totally believe you.
BTW, you never did explain what that picture of the late Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen was or meant.
Care to enlighten me?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)if a law having empty shell casings was reasonable?
So much for great honest discussion.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)So, instead of waiting for an explanation from him on the pic, I googled it and found it's a pic from some movie called Red Dawn, never seen it, don't plan to, but I get the feeling that he thought I believed that the US was going to be invaded by the Russians and partisan Americans would fight a guerilla war.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You just posted word salad.
So yes or no,
Do you think a law against having expended or empty shell casings is reasonable?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Here / Hear
No / Know
As to your question... again... My original inclination was leaning towards no, but seeing just how nuts it makes you and your ilk at FAUX News and the Moonie Times, I'm starting to lean yes on it instead. If you can't not (intentional double negative) have gun paraphernalia in your home, it could be a sign that you're an obsessive gun nut and potentially volatile.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Just shows how reasonable your side is on gun control legislation. You would like for the RKBA side to cave in on everything and your side does not give up a thing.
So what are you willing to give up to compromise an any gun control legislation?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)seem to think everything is about themselves. And that their contribution to a debate is limited to insults, slander and dumb-ass cartoons.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Why don't you go post how much the RP hurt your guns feelings in the GD thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026287888
beevul
(12,194 posts)Your peeps just posted yet another thread supporting his astroturf groups over there, and suggest supporting it to others.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)You said " I love how you think I have to stand behind anything ever written or said about gunthusiasts."
You seem only too happy to stand behind anything ever written or said against gunthusiasts, since they're "deserving of nothing more than our scorn".
That being said...
There are alternatives to standing behind anything ever written or said about gunthusiasts.
A. One could do nothing.
B. One could denounce him (Bloomberg) as a racist, and support groups ran and funded by reasonable people.
C. One could embrace the astroturf groups of the racist control freak.
Which one are you guys doing in that other forum again?
You know, I couldn't help but notice you recced a thread for "everytown".
Just for "visibility" right?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)he is not willing to answer a simple yes or no question. Multiple choice is worse, might be too many choices.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Why do pro-gun control types always make tiny penis references?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Anyone who has been in the Army is familiar with the refrain, "This is my weapon, this is my gun. One is for killing, one is for fun." Even the military understands the relationship between firearms and genitalia.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I guess I must have missed that part. The line is familiar to me from "Full Metal Jacket," but I usually don't base my opinions on movies.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The correct line from the movie Full Metal Jacket, which by the way is about the U.S. Marine Corps, is "this is my rifle and this is my gun" and depending on who you believe wasn't about guns and sex, but teaching recruits to use the term rifle when referring to their service weapon, as the word gun is a more generic term that can include artillery, for example when referring to the "gun laying" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laying
And yes, I've been a soldier and we never used that refrain or made any connection between firearms and sex or genitalia.
Seriously, what is it with the gun control extremists always associating firearms with sex or are they projecting their own impulses on gun owners?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)here are the relevant paragraphs:
(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; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile."
Neither the projectile nor its core are "constructed entirely" of any of those metals. The M855 core is lead and steel, not just steel. Also, the M855 isn't designed or intended for use in a handgun, its jacket is less than 25% of the weight of the projectile, and the round is a .22 caliber, not greater than .22 caliber.
The name "Rude Pundit" tells me two things about him. Rude means uncivil at best and an asshole at worst. Pundit means someone who authoritatively pontificates on subjects they know nothing about.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Have to get the sexual reference in there, how childish.
ileus
(15,396 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)- No ends the survey for the respondent not fitting the, ahem, targeted group.
- Yes or maybe continues to...
"Can you tell me if your penis could be described as 'tiny'?"
- No continues to... "Are you sure?"
- Yes continues to...
"Please describe your emotional and physical feelings about amour piercing ammunition."
Without a similar type of endeavor to collect data, I'm left thinking RP has all the veracity of...
...wait for it...
...Bellesiles.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I think the gun ban crowd has a copyright on that particular tactic.
ileus
(15,396 posts)just trying to please bloomy and his paranoid mommys.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)That's why I never read his stuff. Even if I agree with him, I don't feel the need to wade through his bullshit.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Of course, if one watches the video, one can see that the um...characterizations of the round itself...are not as simple or cut and dried as you and your chums would like everyone to believe.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)of rifle-resistant armor (NIJ Level III, which is rated to stop steel-jacketed 7.62x51mm NATO).
Armor piercing 5.56mm is M995 (tungsten core) and has been banned for years. This is just an excuse to ban ordinary ball ammo, even though it is primarily *lead* core and therefore exempt from the ban on steel-core bullets.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Gun controllers, and ATF apparently, have problems correctly understanding the definitions of the words "partially" and "entirely":
(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; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
In order to be lawfully banned under the law as "AP", the "projectile or projectile core" MUST be constructed entirely from one of a combination of the things listed above, and the ammo in question does not meet that qualification. In fact, it doesn't even come close.
Most people don't seem to be catching that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I have already written my comments on this and will keep submitting more.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The first 2:30 are hilarious!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)sir pball
(4,742 posts)The specific details of this fiasco don't bug me; currently my only .223 is a lovely little Savage bolt-action tackdriver so until they put 69gr MatchKings on the table I'm indifferent. I did run some SS109 against Wolf 62 back when I also had a mini-14 and the Wolf was consistently about 1.5MOA better...I could have had a bad lot, but I'd still cheerfully give the Russians my money if I had to feed a semi.
What does worry me is the possibility of classing all 30-cal monometals as "AP" since they do technically meet the criteria (XP-100 in 308 made .30 bullets "usable in handguns" ; I'd have some serious problems with losing my Barnes and GS Customs.
beevul
(12,194 posts)ATF ignoring the law as it is written, is not at all a good thing, nor is it something that should be allowed or tolerated.