OK, I guess I'm not done.
No, Lendsringer, respectfully, it's because neither you nor anyone else would be able to stand in front of those folks and make an argument that body-armor piercing ammunition should be available to the general public knowing that criminals could obtain such ammo with no regulation whatsoever and pose a grave danger to officers. I won't allow you to use the old "emotional argument" saw I've seen so many times herein, because I know you are very knowledgeable about guns and ammo generally and because I know that you are fully aware of the single use of this ammo and that it has no other purpose.
In one sense, you are correct-there is a paucity of data involving the use of this ammunition against law enforcement officers, because it is not readily available or legal in this country. That is perfectly acceptable to me. I think it's more important to have live cops with intact body armor than dead ones supplying data.
Contrary to your assertion, I do understand the basic tenet of gun bans by incrementalism. I live in California, Lendsringer, where incrementalism occurs every day in the Legislature and I am directly affected because I cannot buy handguns here which you and others can buy in most other parts of the country. I have a very clear understanding of incrementalism in handgun banning, I am directly affected by it and I am opposed to it and have worked politically to prevent it here by contacting legislators regarding bills to which I am opposed and by voting, IN EVERY ELECTION, for pro-gun candidates.
Do you have any understanding, other than a rhetorical one, of why I am opposed to such ammunition? I don't think that banning this ammunition constitutes movement towards incremental gun bans, but I do think that by keeping it unavailable, officers, including me personally, are safer. I reiterate that the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean that body-armor defeating ammunition should be available to criminals so they can use it to kill cops.
Incidentally, I happen to agree with you on your "Goose and Gander" theory. I am not comfortable with the idea that cops have access to 15-round mags while law-abiding citizens do not or that they can carry concealed while law-abiding citizens cannot. I don't view an armed law-abiding population as my problem-my problem is the criminal element.
May I suggest that you go back and read my other posts? My concern is NOT that law-abiding citizens will turn into cop killers if they get the Soviet .22 round (although George leads me to believe that, at least in his case, it could happen). Listen carefully: I will AGAIN state that my concern is that if such ammunition was generally available to the public, then anyone, including criminals, could buy it essentially without regulation. I DON'T WANT CRIMINALS TO HAVE THIS AMMUNITION. Clear enough? I'm not saying you or anyone else here is a criminal. I'm also not being ambiguous, so kindly don't put words in my mouth.
George, I sense that you are not confortable with the idea that law enforcement officers might be safer in our body armor if the Soviet .22 was not available to the public. Sorry, I'm a little confused...do you think all cops are JBTs and that we all were responsible for Waco? If that's what you think, you're very wrong, my friend, and I am a little appalled that you think we are expendable-or did I miss some more sarcasm?
OK-anything else? I'm getting ready to go out of town again to do some more crime-fighting. Anyone else want to express some more jack-booted thug, anti-cop sentiment before I leave as a going away present, or are we ready to move on?
I know-don't go away mad, just go away.....beat you to it.