The Redhunter

2 Questions:

1. Do you believe that armor piercing bullets should be available to the general public?

2. Do you believe there should be restrictions on the size of clips or magazines?

TLGK

I hope you realize that just about all bullets above .380 auto are "armor piercing" depending on the grade of personal armor being shot at. More to it, this business of "armor piercing bullets is about as big of a non-issue in crime as can be imagined.

As to the second issue, I can swap out magazines in one of my Glocks or 1911 in just over 2 seconds, and I know guys who are faster. So the idea that this will somehow slow down shooters is quite silly.

And what is a "high capacity" magazine, anyway? Who the heck sets the number and how is it arrived at? Because some liberal in Congress arbitrarily decides one number is "high capacity" but another not?

Basically, the people who push these things haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about and are just repeating MSNBC talking points. The idea that either "armor piercing bullets" or "high capacity magazines" are some big threat is breathtakingly stupid. Hope that's not you.

Tom,

The armor to which I refer is the Kevlar vests commonly worn by law enforcement personnel. You may be able to change a 17 round magazine in a Glock in 2 seconds. For those of us who have spent time on a field or time on a court, 2 seconds is a lot of time.

The removal of semi automatic refiles--like the Bushmaster--is impossible. To render illegal a drum carrying 100 rounds, which I recall was carried by the Aurora Theater shooter (I have not thought much about the fact that I live within 20 miles of two of worst mass shootings in recent history, Columbine and Aurora, and grew up and was married within 25 and 15 miles of another, Newtown.) is not.

The 2nd Amendment has limits. I recognize that that for people like Wayne Lapierre, there is no limit on acceptable gun deaths. For him, they are all acceptable.

A civilized nation will at least limit the potential for carnage. For 100 round drums fall into the category of shoulder fired missiles and fully automatic weapons. No private citizen has the right to own one and they are prohibited by the 2nd Amendment.

I do not watch MSNBC but I would rather take my talking points from it than the NRA.

Regards.

TLGK

TLGK

Of course there are limits to the Second Amendment. Automatic firearms are not available to the general public, nor are rocket launchers, and an extensive background check must be performed on each individual every time they wish to purchase a firearm. And there are limits to where you may carry a firearm, and you have to get a permit to carry concealed. Those restrictions are reasonable and are quite enough.

There is no single type of body armor that police wear, that was my point. Take a look here and you'll start to see what I'm talking about. The whole issue of personal protection and what bullet will go through what is horribly complicated and since you brought it up, if you want to ban "armor piercing bullets' you have the obligation to tell me exactly what bullets you want banned.

Bad guys don't run around shooting people with hundred round drums. The number of shootings with those things is nil in the big scheme of things. You are talking about banning things that are irrelevant to the crime problem in this country.

The whole thing - banning bullets or magazines - is at best a giant waste of time. So sorry if I seem so angry over this, but given that crime has been going nowhere but down including gun homicides (and here, note that more twice as many people were murdered by bare hands than with rifles last year) the idea that we need more laws regarding guns is silly at best. This whole thing is is a political attempt to go after something liberals just don't like, not a serious attempt to fight crime.

What really gets me is this; every few years some nut commits a horrific crime, and the millions upon millions of law-abiding gun owners are told we have to give up what we have (or give up what we can buy, which in the long run is the same thing)? No thank you.

Let's be honest; Obama and those who are pushing this entire sudden gun/magazine/bullet ban primarily to get even with people they don't like. It's part of the Revenge Obama was talking about in that speech he gave in the days before the election.

And you just know that Feinstein, Schumer, and that whole crowd have been planning this for years. They've been plotting "the next time there's a shooting we're going to jump on this!" It's all part of that Rahm Emanuel " never let a serious crisis go to waste" philosophy.

Meantime, for a serious proposal that might actually have an effect, read this.

Here's an excerpt from a column by Emily Miller in the Washington Times
with these supposed "armor piercing bullets:"

The military uses the term “armor piercing” to refer to rounds capable of penetrating armored vehicles. The gun grabbers picked up on this terminology to describe a bullet made of hardened metals that can penetrate a soft body armor vest made of kevlar. The manufacture, import and sale of handgun bullets made of hardened brass, steel or any other alloy has been prohibited since 1986.

This legislation was never intended to ban rifle ammunition, because stolen handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals. Rifles are used less often in crimes because they are bulky and hard to conceal. Cops simply aren’t being killed by crooks using exotic, hardened projectiles, but it sounds like a scary possibility.

What anti-gun politicians really have on their mind is replacing the existing statute with a performance test to determine whether a bullet can penetrate soft body armor. For example, the District considers a “restricted bullet” to be one that can penetrate 18 layers of Kevlar from a pistol (though in December, the D.C. Council reversed itself and adopted the federal definition of a prohibited bullet).

Such a test is a sneaky way to outlaw common rifles. Many ordinary rifle rounds can penetrate a soft armor vest because rifles are significantly more powerful than handguns. Law enforcement and the military use ceramic plates for vests meant to protect against such powerful rounds.

"Let's be honest; Obama and those who are pushing this entire sudden gun/magazine/bullet ban primarily to get even with people they don't like. It's part of the Revenge Obama was talking about in that speech he gave in the days before the election. "

It is absolutely political. There is NO QUESTION about it. For proof, just look at this constant focus on the gun, not the shooter. You won't stop mass murder by passing a law which primarily impacts lawful gun owners. Where is the seriousness to deal with the mental health or cultural issues? Almost non-existent.

So, what happens if the gun grabbers get their way and their law is passed then another mass shooting occurs with lawful weapons as happened in Newtown, CT? The grabbers will only go for another even more restrictive law that STILL leaves the underlying mental health and cultural issues ignored.

It's ALL POLITICS! And that is very sad!