Gun Control & RKBA

benEzra

(12,148 posts)

78. Ironically, jumping the shark by trying to ban non-AP M855 ball

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 10:16 AM

Feb 2015

may end up doing exactly that. If BATFE goes ahead with this, then they are undermining the entire ban on AP handgun ammunition.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

136 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A call in another forum to ban rifle ammo that can penetrate a typical police vest [View all] hack89 Feb 2015 OP

how could they have a clue about that - they're only trying to save police lives samsingh Feb 2015 #1

Is this your idea of reasonable gun control? hack89 Feb 2015 #2

pro gun supporters don't support reasonable gun control so why bother samsingh Feb 2015 #34

You and I see eye to eye on most gun control issues. hack89 Feb 2015 #36

i may be wrong here samsingh Feb 2015 #37

This is my experience. The gun fanatics around me randys1 Feb 2015 #126

automatic weapons gejohnston Feb 2015 #127

The feds really do the automatic weapon regulation Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #130

A few states ban civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out. benEzra Feb 2015 #134

Probably 98% of ALL rifle calibers invented since 1894 Lurks Often Feb 2015 #4

"they're only trying to save police lives" - sure they are DonP Feb 2015 #5

nothing like ignorance indeed samsingh Feb 2015 #6

Are you aware ... Straw Man Feb 2015 #7

In my limited career on the road blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #8

yes samsingh Feb 2015 #29

Cognitive dissonance. Straw Man Feb 2015 #66

they will not answer that Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #72

i would like to have a discussion samsingh Feb 2015 #82

Really? Straw Man Feb 2015 #86

ironically that's what gun lovers do - here are some facts for you samsingh Feb 2015 #89

Using "interesting study" and "Violence Policy Center" in the same sentence is an oxymoron DonP Feb 2015 #95

i'm not hearing any comments on the actual study from you samsingh Feb 2015 #98

We used to have an agreement here DonP Feb 2015 #100

again, without looking at the methodology and data that may save lives samsingh Feb 2015 #105

because it is dishonest gejohnston Feb 2015 #111

"clamoring for facts" duh! They're not "facts" they're crappy spin N/T DonP Feb 2015 #114

Refuse to discuss? I have never done that. Straw Man Feb 2015 #102

typical example of VPC's dishonesty gejohnston Feb 2015 #107

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2015 #135

OK, let's discuss the actual numbers. benEzra Feb 2015 #121

good facts. banning those types of bullets would have had no impact on police officer deaths. samsingh Feb 2015 #122

Thanks for conceding that point. Straw Man Feb 2015 #123

thank you. so are you. samsingh Feb 2015 #124

Watch yourself, they read this forum. oneshooter Feb 2015 #128

A little knowledge goes a long ways. GGJohn Feb 2015 #10

yup samsingh Feb 2015 #30

And you seem darn proud of it too. Congratulations! DonP Feb 2015 #14

So is banning most rifle ammunition reasonable? Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #40

all they know is gun bullets fired from extra capacity clipazines kill people... ileus Feb 2015 #3

"Do they have a clue that they are calling for the banning of nearly all centerfire rifle ammo?" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #9

Link? eom. GGJohn Feb 2015 #11

Here's the link and the full text of the post Electric Monk Feb 2015 #18

Thanks for the link. GGJohn Feb 2015 #19

"the only salient question is,"Will this ammunition pierce body armor commonly used by police today" beevul Feb 2015 #20

Right, one person's views speak for everyone, just like Ted Nugent speaks for all you guys. Electric Monk Feb 2015 #21

Ted Nugent is an extremist. Straw Man Feb 2015 #22

Of course not Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #41

I don't see any of you in the "busy" forum objecting. beevul Feb 2015 #23

I am sure they will correct the poster Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #43

So why are you guys always trying to tar us with Nugent? hack89 Feb 2015 #26

ted nugent is the right wing hero samsingh Feb 2015 #32

and he is not ours Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #42

absolutely agree samsingh Feb 2015 #83

So its a day later, and no retractions. beevul Feb 2015 #85

Sometimes I Rec a thread for visibility, not necessarily because I like it or endorse it's message Electric Monk Feb 2015 #94

Which totally explains... beevul Feb 2015 #116

I call bullpucky Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #117

Post removed Post removed Feb 2015 #136

rights that are argued by thoses selling guns and those who are always afraid samsingh Feb 2015 #31

You would be incorrect with that statement. blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #49

oh, do not add facts Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #51

the Constitution does not mention anything about ammunition samsingh Feb 2015 #81

I never said it did. blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #84

so bad those other items then samsingh Feb 2015 #90

"so bad those other items then" blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #91

sorry - spelling - 'so ban those other items then' samsingh Feb 2015 #92

So, your position is blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #93

i'm saying that ammunition is not guaranteed in the constitution samsingh Feb 2015 #96

Your argument is specious. blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #99

actually you can google the NRA history - it became activist in the 80s and many people samsingh Feb 2015 #109

The NRA became "activist" ... Straw Man Feb 2015 #118

"Activist Court" blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #119

Check out Minneapolis Star Tribune vs. Commisioner case law DonP Feb 2015 #101

Seriously??? discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2015 #110

Sure it does - it is right next to "privacy" and "abortion". hack89 Feb 2015 #112

"there is no right to ammo" -- link to a previous discussion on this topic: petronius Feb 2015 #57

Kind of like a write to publish newspapers but no right to purchase printers ink? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #75

neither of these are allowed on shooting ranges gejohnston Feb 2015 #28

So wrong you are Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #45

Reading comprehension old chum, that wasn't my claim, it was a copy-paste. nt Electric Monk Feb 2015 #58

I should have said he or she, correct Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #59

Looks like the poster is indeed trying to ban all Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #54

on a side note, 44 and counting Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #56

M855 is regular ball, NON-AP, and is allowed on every shooting range I am aware of benEzra Feb 2015 #77

well if the 2a is absolute, why ban any of this stuff? nt msongs Feb 2015 #12

Who ever said the 2nd Amenment was absolute? blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #13

Shhh, it's a "grabber" meme that they treasure DonP Feb 2015 #15

I agree. blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #16

It's a stupid, poorly thought out incrementalist approach that's proven ineffective at best DonP Feb 2015 #24

only them Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #46

I was merely pointing out the ignorance of the post hack89 Feb 2015 #17

They embrace their ignorance and claim it as a virtue Lurks Often Feb 2015 #25

agreed. all rifle rounds should be banned until they design one that doesn't penetrate samsingh Feb 2015 #33

Why not make cops wear the appropriately rated vests if they are that scared. Nt hack89 Feb 2015 #35

that will be costly. i don't want to bad all rifle rounds samsingh Feb 2015 #38

Typical police vests only protect from handgun rounds hack89 Feb 2015 #44

20 years as an LEO blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #50

Thank you sir Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #52

Well, with all due respect to Master Yoda; blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #55

He knows that. Straw Man Feb 2015 #67

bad rifle rounds Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #47

If cost is a genuine concern why the constant advocation for costly prohibitions that don't work? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #74

If you want to ban all rifle rounds that penetrate armor not designed to stop them, benEzra Feb 2015 #79

I expect that you want to ban hunting as well. Straw Man Feb 2015 #68

i think the gun loving culture has been hoisted onto the public samsingh Feb 2015 #80

That's not an answer. Straw Man Feb 2015 #87

gun culture like the smoking culture of previous years samsingh Feb 2015 #88

Sorry, but self-protection is a basic human right. Straw Man Feb 2015 #103

no i don't despise my ancestors samsingh Feb 2015 #104

Everyone I know who hunts eats the meat. Straw Man Feb 2015 #106

when you hunt an animal what happens to their children? samsingh Feb 2015 #108

the children are grown by fall gejohnston Feb 2015 #113

Game laws are structured to protect the species. Straw Man Feb 2015 #115

you realize that an arrow gejohnston Feb 2015 #69

What would be done with the millions of rifle rounds currently in private possession? Marengo Feb 2015 #70

Ironically, jumping the shark by trying to ban non-AP M855 ball benEzra Feb 2015 #78

Armor DustyJoe Feb 2015 #27

we used the same vest in the 80's and 90's Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #48

probably not Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #39

Again, I am not flamin lib, and flamin lib is not me. Try and follow along. Thanks. nt Electric Monk Feb 2015 #60

I never refered to you Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #61

I posted a link to here from there so anyone interesting in reading rebuttals could find some. Electric Monk Feb 2015 #63

At least our host allows rebuttals Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #64

Or one side just bans the other to maintain a reality free echo chamber. kcci Feb 2015 #65

You chose to ignore, or didn't read, that Group's SOP. That's why you got blocked from it. Electric Monk Feb 2015 #71

116 and 62 respectively Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #73

My viewpoints are irrelevant. The discussion was "does gun control cost voters?". kcci Feb 2015 #76

I think billh said it pretty well in his reply to you in that other Group. You can still read there. Electric Monk Feb 2015 #97

He mistakenly said that the three recalls in the Colorado Senate was a temporary setback. kcci Feb 2015 #120

why was i blocked? what rule did i break? clffrdjk Feb 2015 #125

You were not sufficiently emotional. You used facts and that bothers them. Nt hack89 Feb 2015 #129

Like most of us Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #131

Meh. blueridge3210 Feb 2015 #132

a handy guide to body armor Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #53

quote from the other group Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #62

Email I recieved from Brownells today Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #133