Brady Campaign calls for ban on HUNTING ammunition.

[NG VI]

sickening and frightening, i'm trying to correct my girl's way of thinking, which is that guns should only be possessed by .gov employees for official buysiness, it's tough cause i can't figure out what's wrong with her... course she does just about worship the clintons...

i'm going to go be violently ill

 

[OhioPaints]

sickening and frightening, i'm trying to correct my girl's way of thinking, which is that guns should only be possessed by .gov employees for official buysiness, it's tough cause i can't figure out what's wrong with her... course she does just about worship the clintons...

I think most people like this believe that all guns could be removed from society and therefore gun violence would end. That makes sense to a lot of people (tyranical governments not withstanding). The problem with the line of thought is that guns will only be removed from the law abiding (soon to become victims) while the criminals will continue to possess and use them. Have you pointed out to her what has happened in Brittan and Austrialia where they banned guns and the crime rates went up, especially gun violence?

 

[22-rimfire]

While I have no doubt that HandgunControl Inc and the Brady folks want to make body armor penetrating ammunition illegal, the Brady article does not say that at all.

Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons."

It said "... access to military-style assault weapons." Not ammunition.

All folks that own firearms should work to preserve our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Armoredman, I'm sure Mr. Zumbo knows all about the effort to restrict 2A rights and his interest is not only "hunting rifles" as you hint. I doubt Mr. Zumbo has many "bolt action only" buddies. They probably own an assortment of firearms in different action types just like most of the rest of us.

As mentioned, the talk needs to shift from the tool to the person using the tool for criminal purposes. There are many ways to harm large numbers of people and it does not take a gun to do it. It takes a NUT intent on committing a major crime with knowledge to pull it off.

 

[TAB]

I don't think there is a modern centerfire rifle cartridge that won't pentrait level 1 body armor.

 

[Axctal]

Guys, there is a Trojan Horse in this kind of argument.
Let's see ... there is an opponent in a debate and he is strongly against you. Naturally you want to refute their arguments, especially if it seems like they are promoting their agenda. But it is a bait in a game and refuting it would later put you in position contradictorary to your own bigger goal/claim.

Let me explain:
They say: "Cop-Killer-Bullets"
You are trying to refute this.
They go into "we thought you were saying 2A is for the purpose of potential resistance of your own tyrannical government" kind of gambit.
Now you in position where your refutal of "cop-killer-bullets" contradicts your own statement of 2A ("it is not about hunting") and they call you a liar.

Interesting, right?
Defending from miriads of whatewer catch-words / phrases they have or might invent is a chimera-hunting. They will send more your way. You need to strike a source instead of fighting the "tentacles".

They say "cop-killer-bullet"
You say "I am glad our guys DID have a COP-KILLER-BULLETS in 17xx. The very purpose of 2A is to have COP-KILLER-WEAPONS and COP-KILLER-BULLETS, so you can have tools to resist tyrannical government should such time come"

 

[mekender]

sickening and frightening, i'm trying to correct my girl's way of thinking, which is that guns should only be possessed by .gov employees for official buysiness, it's tough cause i can't figure out what's wrong with her... course she does just about worship the clintons...

sounds like 2 reasons to find a new girl...

 

[akodo]

Let me explain:
They say: "Cop-Killer-Bullets"
You are trying to refute this.
They go into "we thought you were saying 2A is for the purpose of potential resistance of your own tyrannical government" kind of gambit.
Now you in position where your refutal of "cop-killer-bullets" contradicts your own statement of 2A ("it is not about hunting") and they call you a liar.

here's how you run it.

Say "Cop killer bullets! what kind of made up term is that! How do you define it, aside from bullets that have actually killed cops?"

They will of course say assualt rifle stuff, guns made to peirce armor, etc.

this can lead to "Oh, okay, if the INTENT OF THE BULLET DESIGNER is to punch through armor, that is bad but if IF IT CAN PUNCH THROUGH ARMOR ANYWAYS, that is okay?" then roll into

"Some folk say the 2nd amendment is about muskets. Hell, a musket ball can rip through some of the 'bullet proof vests' our cops are issued. Did you know that the ammo used in an M-16 by our troops over in Iraq is considered too weak to reliably kill whitetail deer in many states, and it is illegal to use it, you have to use something more powerful...like say the 30-06, which is 100 years old, and can blast through the best military or police armor right now, so you plan on eliminating ALL hunting guns too?

Put them on the defensive by spelling out exactly what they are trying to do. Don't say "This will cause X (hunting guns to be outlawed)" say "Hey, what do you have against hunting, why are you outlawing hunting guns?"

 

[ROMAK IV]

Again, it is too late to take back the words, you have to educate the public. Guns Kill! Of course they do! What use is a gun that doesn't kill? Those evil assault Weapons! They're not evil, no inanimate object is evil. We want the guys in the white hats to have the guns, not the guys with the black hats. Actual assault weapons and those firearms called Assault weapons have characteristics that make them especially useful as defensive weapon, hopefully the only use, besides fun that they have. It is important in a defensive firearm, to have one that is semiautomatic, or self reloading. In a defensive firearm, it is important to have sufficient ammunition capacity for every or nearly every situation. In a defensive firearm, it is important to have a pistol grip to have secure control and retention of the fire arm. In a defensive firearm, it is important to have a muzze brake or a flash suppressor to reduce recoil and maintain better control of the weaopn and to reduce muzzle flash so the defender isn't temporarily blinded by use of the firearm. I could go on, a supressor can would help in defensive use as potentially having a select fire capability. Snipers are usually a good thing to have on your side. Police snipers save countless lives each year. Military snipers help reduce casualties among friendly troops. Snipers that are good far outnumber snipers that are bad, and criminal"sniping" is extremely rare in the United States. As defined by Major Plaster, USA, a sniper rifle is a rifle capable of at least 1 MOA accuracy. What is wrong with an accurate rifle? Do we want hunters missing or just wounding animals? Do we want police snipers missing perps? Cop killer bullets? A bullet just sits there, it is useless without a cartridge powder and a suitable rifle. To ban cartridges capable of pentrating vests would effctively ban hunting. Would you want to use guns with ammunition incapable of taking the particular game animal you are trying to hunt? Would you want a gun that wouldn't stop an attacker?

Not all of the Brady code words catch on. for the ones that do, we need to make them "nice".

 

[UnknownSailor]

Call magazines made during the 10 years the magazine restrictions of the 1994 Crime Bill were in effect exactly what they are: Clinton magazines.

 

[Eric F]

this whole thread has made me think on my day off. and I have decided that when confronted with this "terminology war" I will say this..........you want to ban guns and ammunition right? Well Drunk drivers kill more folks than guns and I dont see a big political campeign to out law alcohol.

just as a note I do not agree with most of the terms by the anti crowd ie assault weapons cop killer-anything ect
however in the shooting community just for pistols it is easier to say "10 rounder" and /or "high-cap" verses "insert words" and/or "insert words"

 

[IA_farmboy]

Well Drunk drivers kill more folks than guns and I dont see a big political campeign to out law alcohol.

That's because it was tried and failed. Alcohol was outlawed and we had crime grow out of control. I still have hope that people will wake up and make the same realization with firearms and certain "controlled substances".

Firearms are only a danger when in the hands of a criminal. Criminals have no respect for law. Law abiding citizens lose respect for law when it lacks logic and puts them at risk, therefore turning law abiding citizens into criminals. Gun control, alcohol prohibition, and drug control all create a disdain for law.

If you want to ban ammunition that pierces armor it helps if you define what is meant by "armor". Some people start to define armor as something that rolls on tracks. If you want to ban 120 mm smoothbore weapons then I'm fine with that, just so long as I get to have an 88 mm.

 

[Eric F]

That's because it was tried and failed

AH HA!the same arguement that an anti would bring up. Gun bans didnt work either that is why there is not one anymore(out side of the nfa anyway). Every hicap mag and so called assault weapon I ever purchased was during that silly ban that ran out because it did not work!