United States & Gun Control discussion.

[The Accountant]

I can't add any more to this subject that wasn't already said. I do think some of you would enjoy this however.

 

[Brill]

If you support owning M855 rounds, you support killing cops?

White House says ammo ban will save cops’ lives

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/2/white-house-says-ammo-ban-will-save-cops-lives/

Mr. Earnest added, “This seems to be an area where everyone should agree that if there are armor-piercing bullets available that can fit into easily concealed weapons, that it puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk.”

In their letter to Mr. Jones, lawmakers disputed the administration’s claim that a ban would provide added protection for police.

“Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet the ATF has not even alleged, much less offered evidence, that even one such round has been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” they wrote.

A top official with the firearms industry’s trade association called the White House’s argument “bogus.”

“All rifle ammo made with lead ammo is able to penetrate a soft body ‘vest’ because of the high velocity of rifle rounds,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “So banning M855 does not advance law officer safety. No police officer has ever been shot and killed with a so-called ‘armor piercing’ bullet fired from a handgun that penetrated a vest.”

 

[policemedic]

Ummmm......AR pistols are easily concealable?

 

[AWP]

“All rifle ammo made with lead ammo is able to penetrate a soft body ‘vest’ because of the high velocity of rifle rounds,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “So banning M855 does not advance law officer safety.”

The ammo ban came up in our shop the other day. The resident gun "experts" were railing against..well, everything, and totally missed the point above. I had to point it out and remind them that most LEO's had soft vests. They went back to railing against The Man and everything else.

We need to remind people, particularly those in the middle, of this ban's "factual shortcomings."

 

[Brill]

We need to remind people, particularly those in the middle, of this ban's "factual shortcomings."

Like the Admins claims how Keystone won't carry US oil and the Canadian oil will be refined OCONUS?

"You lie!"

 

[Brill]

Isn't it already illegal to shot AT a cop regardless of ammo used?:-/

 

[policemedic]

We'd like to think so but the actions of some jurists are often contrary to that premise.

There also seems to be a growing segment of society that believes violence against police officers is socially acceptable.

I don't know any cops who are concerned about M855. We're all well aware of the limitations of our armor systems, so one type of rifle ammo doesn't generate a greater reaction than any other.

 

[Brill]

There also seems to be a growing segment of society that believes violence against police officers is socially acceptable.

Perhaps there needs to be more internal "Hey fuckface, knock it off." instead of the apparent cops do no wrong. Stories like below where "The city police union defended Pulley's action as reasonable use of force, saying Diamond was resisting arrest." do not help.

http://m.wbaltv.com/news/School-police-officer-charged-with-assault-of-3-students/31567264

 

[Grunt]

We'd like to think so but the actions of some jurists are often contrary to that premise.

There also seems to be a growing segment of society that believes violence against police officers is socially acceptable.

I don't know any cops who are concerned about M855. We're all well aware of the limitations of our armor systems, so one type of rifle ammo doesn't generate a greater reaction than any other.

To be honest, I haven't thought one time about it in 26 years. My objective is to not get shot by anything. I have never put any thought into the rounds specifically.

Maybe some have, but I have not.

 

[Brill]

Here's another fine example how gun control works in the very blue state of Maryland.

http://m.wbaltv.com/national/report-shots-fired-near-nsa-in-maryland/31596696

 

[Salt USMC]

The ATF is backing down...for now

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/atf...bullet-ban-in-big-win-for-nra/article/2561312

ATF waves white flag, kills AR-15 bullet ban in big win for NRA

 

[Blizzard]

We the people need to to do more.

We the people did...
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2...-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework.html

Well done.

 

[pardus]

The ATF is backing down...for now

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/atf...bullet-ban-in-big-win-for-nra/article/2561312

I'm stunned! I really didn't think that they'd drop this.

 

[8654Maine]

The ATF and the anti-2A's are like crocs in the river crossing. Just biding their time for the next strike.

 

[Marine0311]

We the people did...
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2...-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework.html

Well done.

Good! I signed the petition.

I wish I could do more.

 

[Salt USMC]

Well, we're almost three months into the 114th Congress and I'm happy to say that everyone's favorite swamp monster, Dianne Feinstein, has yet to introduce a new Assault Weapons Ban! Hurray!

HOWEVER - check this shady business out https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s551
S.551, or the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015" or "DFEDTA2k15" (as it is referred to in more-hip circles), is an initially innocuous-sounding piece of legislation. "Hell yeah, I don't want terrorists getting explosives. Especially not DANGEROUS terrorists!!" you might say. You might even think that maybe ol' Feinstein isn't so bad after all. But then you read the text of the bill:

SEC 922A.

Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer of a firearm

The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General—

(1)

determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism; and

(2)has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.

HMMMMMMM.....looks a bit suspicious! That's an awfully open-ended interpretation, don't you think? But then she goes and inserts a little rider explaining just what "terrorism" is. Let's take a look.

(36) The term terrorism includes international terrorism and domestic terrorism, as defined in section 2331 of this title.

GODDAMNIT DIANNE STOP MAKING ME DO OUTSIDE RESEARCH!!! YOU KNOW I HATE THAT!!

Anyway, go ahead and look up "18 US code CH113B" and head over to "definitions" (section 2331): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113B

Ah, here we go!

(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Damnit Dianne you're being really vague again!! I don't wanna be alarmist but this KINDA sounds a stealthy way to grant the AG more leeway in restricting guns!

 

[8654Maine]

Aren't veterans considered "terrorists" or "risks" by DHS and Napolitano?

 

[Ranger Psych]

Yep.

 

[Totentanz]

Posts pertaining to the recent attack on the "Draw Mohammed" event in Texas have been moved to the thread that @Kraut783 started (due to chronology, it shows @Deathy McDeath as the author of the first post). Please continue discussion of that topic in that thread, and keep this thread for topics pertaining to Gun Control and Second Amendment issues.

"Draw Mohammed" thread link: https://shadowspear.com/vb/threads/bad-guys-come-to-texas-got-more-than-they-bargained-for.23007/

 

[Marauder06]

Well, we're almost three months into the 114th Congress and I'm happy to say that everyone's favorite swamp monster, Dianne Feinstein, has yet to introduce a new Assault Weapons Ban! Hurray!

HOWEVER - check this shady business out https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s551
S.551, or the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015" or "DFEDTA2k15" (as it is referred to in more-hip circles), is an initially innocuous-sounding piece of legislation. "Hell yeah, I don't want terrorists getting explosives. Especially not DANGEROUS terrorists!!" you might say. You might even think that maybe ol' Feinstein isn't so bad after all. But then you read the text of the bill:


HMMMMMMM.....looks a bit suspicious! That's an awfully open-ended interpretation, don't you think? But then she goes and inserts a little rider explaining just what "terrorism" is. Let's take a look.



GODDAMNIT DIANNE STOP MAKING ME DO OUTSIDE RESEARCH!!! YOU KNOW I HATE THAT!!

Anyway, go ahead and look up "18 US code CH113B" and head over to "definitions" (section 2331): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113B

Ah, here we go!



Damnit Dianne you're being really vague again!! I don't wanna be alarmist but this KINDA sounds a stealthy way to grant the AG more leeway in restricting guns!

This would make a great article.