Anyone who suggested that Obama/Holder were going to come after citizens' guns were called paranoid/loony right-wingers?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750#!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750#!
Remember When...
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
Well he isn't really after your guns it is you bullets he is after now and last I checked those aren't protected under the 2nd amendment. This is a very slippery slope he is going down and I hope the big money of NRA gets on this and shuts that POS down. These 2 years can't get over with fast enough. Only clowndown is still on this donks nuts and that should tell you something.
The term "arms" is not limited to just the gun itself, it also includes bullets and anything else the common soldier would carry in battle.
'ARMS, nounplural [Latin arma.]
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
- To be in arms to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.
- To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.
- To take arms is to arm for attack or defense.
- Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.
Sire arms are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, etc.
A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.
Basically, arms are whatever weapons are used at the time by common soldiers and the Federal Government may not infringe upon the states right to form a militia or the individuals right to keep and bear arms.
'ARMS, nounplural [Latin arma.]
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
- To be in arms to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.
- To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.
- To take arms is to arm for attack or defense.
- Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.
Sire arms are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, etc.
A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.
Basically, arms are whatever weapons are used at the time by common soldiers and the Federal Government may not infringe upon the states right to form a militia or the individuals right to keep and bear arms.
Well, the first issue is that they are calling green tip armor peircing. This is dishonest at best as armor peircing 5.56 rounds are marked with a black tip, not a green tip and have a different core than a true armor peircing round. Green tips have a steel core and the round was designed not to fragment upon entering the body. This feature does make the round more dangerous (which was the goal) when shot with it due to the fact that it will richochet off of bones thereby causing much more damage. The reason the round can penetrate certain armors is because of the velocity at 3,600 feet per second, which a non-green tip would also have. I do suppose there would be a difference at longer distances though.
This whole thing is stupid and unconstitutional.
Thor, is there a possibility that they could use this and send it to the Supreme Court and try to change the 2nd amendment to fit their agenda? I haven't looked how many on the SC have been appointed by liberals or are liberals.
Well, only a proponent of original intent is going to agree with the above argument. That the term arms would also include the bullets required for the actual use of said arm would seem to be common sense. It is much more advantageous for government to use more modern defintions as it allows them to take more power. It is really the whole entire basis for the "living breathing document" hooey they cram down our kids throats in school. Basically, the constitution means what ever they want it to mean at the time that they want it to mean precisely what is most beneficial for them. And what is most beneficial for them? The securement of power and wealth.
An armed populace is not something those in power cherish. Now, we could say "well, it is only the green tips." But we all know how slippery that slope can be and the populace has now accepted a power grab that will only increase over time. Look at the power of the executive as an example. It grows with every POTUS regardless of political affiliation.
That is what scares me. If we give an inch here they will take a mile later. I really hope people aren't buying this just the green tip crap.
I personally wish that in order for any definition change of the constitution that it would have to be sent to a vote by the people. I am so tired of all these political leaders telling me how I need to live. Anytime a liberty is being taken away then they should have to have a majority vote of the people. Then again they would just use fear to have people submit to their wishes I suppose.
I personally wish that in order for any definition change of the constitution that it would have to be sent to a vote by the people. I am so tired of all these political leaders telling me how I need to live. Anytime a liberty is being taken away then they should have to have a majority vote of the people. Then again they would just use fear to have people submit to their wishes I suppose.
All of that said, under original intent if a state were to try to regulate green tip 5.56 rounds they could consitutionally do so as long as it did not violate thier own constitution or laws currently in place. That is unless you want to accept a liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment which incorporated 2nd amendment protections of the individual right from the states as well. Which begs the question, do you really believe in founders intent, states rights, republicanism, and federalism if you support such an interpretation? Can one who supports such rullings really consider themselves conservative?
I understand where you are coming from. However, I'm not a fan of democracy, especially a true democracy which we moved much closer to with the 17th amendment. So I'm not real wild about your proposed solution.
This is just my opinion but our biggest problem is scale. We are way out of scale. True representation cannot happen in our current climate. Hell, it's not even possible on just the state level. My solution would be a complete reorginization of the American Union. It would consist of an extremely limiting document for common defense, unlimited commerce, etc and be made up smaller federations which are made up of 1,000's of nation states, it is the only way you can really ever have a scale that would allow for actual self-government instead of just the myth of self-government.
Ya letting the people vote on stuff more then likely would be worse after I have thought about it. Most people are uneducated on stuff and just go by what they hear.
That is an interesting theory on how to fix things but I would think that would be hard to pull off I this day and age.
Marshal that is good to hear.
That is an interesting theory on how to fix things but I would think that would be hard to pull off I this day and age.
Marshal that is good to hear.
The joke of this is that there are quite a few legal rifles that are more powerful than an AR 15. It's all politics.
Then I guess I don't understand what the big deal is then. This was a law passed in 1986 and enforced many times (it won't be Obama/Holder being laughed out of the SCOTUS). The only thing the ATF is doing is not renewing an exemption for a certain caliber round. This in no way will prevent anyone from owning or using an AR-15.
I mean I understand that you as a Libertarian/Constitutionalist don't believe in this type of thing, but this isn't establishing a law it is just interpreting and enforcing the law. The real transgression was in 1986.
And yes if you still think Obama is coming for your guns you are still a paranoid/loony right-winger.
This post was edited on 2/27 4:59 PM by 07pilt
Aren't they using the second part of the armor piercing round definition to get this in? That it is big and used in handguns now? It was fine for so long due to being exclusive to rifles.
I'm not sure if it meets all of the criteria for that definition either, but that is what I gathered from the articles I've read.
I'm not sure if it meets all of the criteria for that definition either, but that is what I gathered from the articles I've read.
Pilt, this argument that you can get other ammo to shoot your AR, while 100% factual, is completely irrelevant.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The entire core is not steel. It is partly lead. This means it does not meet the definition as to be armor piercing the core must be made up entirely of or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium (copy and pasted from the ATF definition). And to address what I'm sure will come up is the AP at the end of the NATO 5.56 AP. The AP does not stand for armor piercing as is being reported. That is a common misnomer. It stands for anti-personnel.
If you consider a gun 38" long a "concealable handgun", then yes the ammo absolutely fits the definition of the statute to which you refer.
If ISIS hits a few shopping malls as promised, the whole gun control fantasy will be set back 100 years.
Right now it's a statist directive, fueled by the illusion of "civilization." As soon as it becomes apparent to the average American that we have no border security and ISIS agents can easily pass as undocumented immigrants from Mexico, the public's desire to protect themselves will outpace their lazy, delusional belief that humanity has evolved to the point that giving up ones ability to protect himself is somehow enlightened.
I don't hope for that by any means. It'll be awful. I just believe it's inevitable. And it's ironic. An administration so rooted in agendas to expand gun control, open borders and pacify Islamic extremism, is creating an explosive situation.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Right now it's a statist directive, fueled by the illusion of "civilization." As soon as it becomes apparent to the average American that we have no border security and ISIS agents can easily pass as undocumented immigrants from Mexico, the public's desire to protect themselves will outpace their lazy, delusional belief that humanity has evolved to the point that giving up ones ability to protect himself is somehow enlightened.
I don't hope for that by any means. It'll be awful. I just believe it's inevitable. And it's ironic. An administration so rooted in agendas to expand gun control, open borders and pacify Islamic extremism, is creating an explosive situation.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The core of the cartridge in question includes a substantial amount of lead Liberals have spoken openly of "end running" gun control through increased regulation or banning of ammoThe new restrictions will greatly discourage or make more difficult the development of new non-lead cartridges at a time when federal agencies and some states are making noise about banning or restricting lead ammunition under the guise of environmental concerns. Any "ordinary" rifle cartridge of the same caliber will pierce most or all bullet proof vests worn by police. Millions of the cartridge in question have been purchased and fired. Not one has ever been documented to have been fired at law enforcement officer from an AR-15 " handgun "
It won't be ISIS.
It'll be a radicalized home-grown psychopath (or group of psychopaths) like the guy in Moore who was fired - and then came back to work to behead a co-worker.
What the f else could it be. My god man. They have tried numerous times to ban the gun and failed and surprise surprise now they are going after the bullet. Wake up the government (reps and libs) want you to depend on them for everything. They can control the population if you rely on them for all your protection. Try having a revolt with shotguns.
Well looks like enough attention got shed on this issue and looks like the ATF if now pulling back.
BTW not one law enforcement officer has been killed with these bullets in a hand gun. We better protect ourselves though and give all our liberties to the government.
Thank God for that Fox News associate catching this and getting out there in the news.
BTW not one law enforcement officer has been killed with these bullets in a hand gun. We better protect ourselves though and give all our liberties to the government.
Thank God for that Fox News associate catching this and getting out there in the news.
Similar threads
