General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Rude Pundit - Gun Nuts Losing Their Goddamned Minds Over Proposed Bullet Ban
It all starts with bureaucracy, of course. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which has "Firearms" right there in its name, regulates ammunition based on laws passed by Congress. One of those laws, the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986, which passed 400-21 in the House and 97-1 in the Senate and was signed by God Reagan, says that any ammunition that "may be used in a handgun," is made of certain materials, like steel, and can pierce body armor can be banned. That's in the actual law. In fact, if the ATF didn't seek to ban those kinds of bullets, it would be violating the law. Pretty simple, no? Pretty cut and dried, no? If Congress doesn't like it, it can change the law.
So now there's this ammo, 5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges, which had been exempt from the law because they weren't used in handguns. This was the "sporting purposes" exception to the law. But now there are handguns that can fire these steel-tipped, armor-piercing bullets. The ATF is proposing banning the manufacture, sale and import of them. You can keep all the ones you have or will buy in your hording frenzy. But after that, the law says, the safety of police officers comes before your desire to hunt deer wearing bulletproof vests.
Of course, the gun-fellating right has lost its mind over this proposal because the ATF is part of the executive branch and that means the Negro communist Muslim president who hates America must want to kill all the white people and take their guns in order to burn the Constitution and install a Sharia law caliphate in the country. Or something like that.
"Obama to ban bullets by executive action," says the headline at the Washington Examiner (motto: "If you think the Washington Times is batshit crazy, you haven't met us" . "It's starting," the paper warns, "As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters." Which would be true except for the part where President Obama is not involved at all in this decision and has signed no executive action on it.
Yes, the ammo is used by the AR-15 rifle, the one beloved by mass shooters and men with tiny penises (sometimes one and the same). The NRA gets all folksy about the threat: "If they cant ban the pie, so the thinking apparently goes, they might at least get the apples." That metaphor would work if there were only one kind of bullet or apple. If it turns out Macouns were poisonous when baked in a pie, you'd probably just say, "Well, screw it. Time to use Cortlands." You wouldn't gripe, "I'll never be able to make pie again."
The attitude of the gun-huffers is best exemplified by obvious sportsman Rush Limbaugh, who said on his show, Flabby the Deaf Clown's Masturbatorium of Hate, "It's the first. It's the beginning. You don't think all bullets except those held by the military and the cops are the objective? This is how we end up losing these...(Obama) wants to take guns out of everybody's hands, and if he can't do that, he's gonna take the bullets that go in the guns out of everybody's hands, and he's just begun that process today." Anyone who believes that deserves to be a shut-in with only one station available on his tiny radio.
The Rude Pundit's favorite comments came from a lackadaisical gun store owner in Springfield, Missouri, who is a former cop. He doesn't think the ban will happen; however, "Gun people tend to create their own drama," he said. "If we freaked out every time BATF discusses something we'd be freaking out on this all the time. Sometimes gun owners are their own worst enemy."
As for the usefulness of the ammo? While you'll hear a bunch about how popular the bullets are, this Springfield store owner said that "most of the target ranges his customers use have steel targets that can be damaged by the steel-tipped rounds so they don't buy that kind of ammunition."
They do like using it for "plinking," which is shooting bottles and crap, although unless those bottles have vests on, you could probably use something else. Also, they like it for home defense. What's more likely? Your home being invaded by murderers wearing body armor? Or some criminal using the bullets in an AR pistol to take out a cop?
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/02/gun-nuts-losing-their-goddamned-minds.html
Wounded Bear
(58,706 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Although a $100 a bullet would be even better. I'd settle for the 5-10 a bullet.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)"Negro communist Muslim president who hates America must want to kill all the white people and take their guns in order to burn the Constitution and install a Sharia law caliphate in the country. Or something like that."
Response to marym625 (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
arcane1
(38,613 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)First post.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)wonder what other legal activities he wants to jail people over?
marym625
(17,997 posts)And going to guess, liberals, people of color, anyone in the LGBT community, teachers, atheists, Muslims, buhud
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that poster is gone!
marym625
(17,997 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)dhill926
(16,355 posts)as the Rude One nails it again. Especially the description of Rush's show "Flabby the Deaf Clown's Masturbatorium of Hate"
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)If the 'logic' used by the ATF holds, this policy would ban all .308, 7.62x39, 45-70, etc.
Rifle-caliber 'handguns' (despite their legal classification as pistols, they all pretty much require two hands to operate) are a novelty more than a common item. Gun owners are right to oppose the ATF using this small class fo firearms to ban whole categories of very common and economical ammunition options.
One thing that the Rude One omits is that NATO countries are switching from m855 to m855A1. This means that a lot of cheap, surplus ammunition was about to become available. The gun grabbers hate shooting sports being affordable, it seems.
The 1986 law is clearly unconstitutional. Ronald Reagan liked those kinds of laws as a rule...
-app
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)How does it infringe on the right to keep and bear arms not to have a particular bullet?
If it's unconstitutional, the NRA or some other group should bring a case. But they haven't in nearly 30 years. I wonder why? Perhaps because they'd lose? Is that why instead of getting a court ruling, they're going to just use their bought-and-paid-for stooges in Congress to repeal the law?
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Strict interpretation. Strict interpretation.
hack89
(39,171 posts)ammunition is included in the definition of arms.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)arms
ärmz/
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel
"the illegal export of arms"
2.
distinctive emblems or devices, originally borne on shields in battle and now forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
synonyms: crest, emblem, coat of arms, heraldic device, insignia, escutcheon, shield
"the family arms"
hack89
(39,171 posts)My comments were directed to the mistake belief that the 2A does not cover ammunition.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)The 2nd was written when we had muskets not the guns we have now, it needs to be updated. IMO.
And yes, some ammunition should not be in the hands of american citizens, no matter how many knots they twist themselves into trying to convince everyone they should be able to own them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Is this OK?
Or this one?
Or this one?
Or this one?
Or these?
Jurors, have to show the pictures to make a point.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and not based on the typical gun controller mix of enthusiastic ignorance.
So what ammo should be banned and why?
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)"On Feb. 13, 2015, ATF released for public comment a proposed framework to guide its determination on what ammunition is "primarily intended for sporting purposes" for purposes of granting exemptions to the Gun Control Acts prohibition on armor piecing ammunition. The posted framework is only a proposal, posted for the purpose of receiving public comment, and no final determinations have been made.
Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing of the exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, and conclude that the absence of this listing indicates these exemptions have been rescinded. This is not the case.
Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any armor piercing ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations was an error which has no legal impact on the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the U.S .30-06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.
The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide on page 166, which is posted here.
The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of armor piercing ammunition exemptions and posted shortly. The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be corrected in the near future. ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error. "
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Publications/notice_of_publishing_error.pdf
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
They love to ignore or even outright omit that very important word.
They're the ones ignoring what the law actually says, up to and including the ATF.
Can not take credit for this but here is the link to the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6289833
Since you are into definitions, this round does not meet the definition of armor piercing either. It has lead in its construction and it has not been designed for use in a pistol but for a rifle and may be used in a pistol.
http://www.combatsimulations.com/ar15/cartridges.html
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)but does it pierce bullet proof vests?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)ammo will penetrate the soft vests worn by police officers. Those vests are not rated for any rifle caliber.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)Thanks for clarifying.
metalbot
(1,058 posts)Almost ALL centerfire rifle ammunition (the type of ammunition generally used for hunting mammals larger than squirrels) is "armor piercing". Trying to ban rifle ammunition for its "armor piercing" capabilities in insane (and it's also an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't really exist - how many police officers were killed in the last decade by centerfire rifles piercing their body armor? Hint: it's a very low number).
There are reasonable gun control measures (including simple enforcement of existing law) that we could implement that would have NO resistance from either party. Why not try those before we go down the route of more restrictive laws?
hack89
(39,171 posts)It does nothing for public safety and hands the NRA another fundraising opportunity.
frylock
(34,825 posts)surely they knew the current laws prior to releasing these models.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Over at the AK Forum (theakforum.net), even discussion of the possibility of 5.45x39 (i.e.- AK-74) pistols was forbidden for a number of years. Then, from what I hear, one manufacturer imported a 5.45 prototype pistol, and the ATF used that pretext as part of why they banned the very affordable Russian 7n6 surplus ammunition. Absolute nonsense on the part of the ATF, but the AK community was being as cautious as they could.
The greed of one or two firearms manufacturers shuld not be used as a reason to infringe upon the rights of all citizens. Nor should this law, which was passed to prevent the sale of tungsten 9mm rounds, and has been perverted into a ban on 7n6 and now possibly m855.
-app
Skittles
(153,193 posts)seriously, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THEM
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)Skittles
(153,193 posts)I tell them there are a lot of cowards in the "home of the brave"
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)they live in upside down and backwardsville..
Skittles
(153,193 posts)is what it means to be in love with an INSTRUMENT OF DEATH - it's disgusting and pathetic
sir pball
(4,758 posts)The Remington XP-100 is a pistol, in 308, therefore 308 ammo "can be" used in a pistol and therefore "armor piercing" (steel/WC/DU cored) projectiles are illegal to manufacture or import (but not buy, sell, own or use).
Of course, a perfectly innocuous 165-grain Partition softpoint won't even be slowed down by a IIIA vest, but the actual capabilities of body armor seem to be pretty universally misunderstood.
hack89
(39,171 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The ammosexuals are pitiful, laughable examples of humanity.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Banning the most popular ammo is going to cost us votes and do almost nothing to stop crime.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)They will get to patronizingly lambast the electorate for 'voting against their own interests' AND the 1%-er policies that Hillary would have implemented with hand-wringing, sturm and drang will just sail through a Repub Congress and White House.
Pardon my cynicism, but certain Democrats seem to love using the highest-power ammo possible, but only when aiming at their own feet and/or organizing circular firing squads.
-app
frylock
(34,825 posts)did you overlook this part?
...the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986, which passed 400-21 in the House and 97-1 in the Senate and was signed by God Reagan, says that any ammunition that "may be used in a handgun," is made of certain materials, like steel, and can pierce body armor can be banned. That's in the actual law. In fact, if the ATF didn't seek to ban those kinds of bullets, it would be violating the law.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)This law, which was passed to prevent the sale of tungsten or steel 9mm rounds, has been perverted into a ban on 7n6 and now possibly m855. But, it's still a bad law, passed in hyped-up hysteria, and signed by a Republican President who never let the Constitution get in the way of his agenda. Why ostensible Democrats celebrate this fact is beyond me.
The fact remains that a sensiible reading of the 2nd Amendment's text does not (and should not) allow this sort of government over reach and infringement. Were I a lawyer, I'd be taking-on this case.
-app
Skittles
(153,193 posts)OMG
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Or are you so busy rofl'ing that parsing ''shall not be infringed" is beyond your capabilities?
-app
Skittles
(153,193 posts)really hard to empathize with your "issues"
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Skittles
(153,193 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Was it:
"actually, you are brilliant, appaljack"
(why, thank you)
"actually, you are in line with all Democrats prior to the 1980's, appaljack - we need to return to these roots of freedom"
(why, yes, indeed)
???
-app
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I'm not a condescending asshole..."
You're half right.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Skittles
(153,193 posts)my English brother asked me why so many Americans needed so many guns - I told him there are lots of cowards in the "home of the brave"
done here, GUN HUMPERS BORE ME
beevul
(12,194 posts)(B) The term armor piercing ammunition means
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
The ammo in question meets neither of those threshholds.
So the question becomes this:
Should the current law simply be ignored to appease people that likely hate guns?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)This is mostly about what the pro-control folk want after carefully considering the facts with their glands rather than their brains. It won't really do squat about crime, children being shot, domestic violence or global warming.
: <CanWeGetASmileyOfSomeoneShootingHimselfInTheFoot> :
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Close enough?
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)People around where I live are flipping out about it because other ammo for their beloved assault rifles isn't exactly cheap or easy to find. It's hilarious.
Ammo bans are a great idea, by the way. The Second Amendment says nothing about specific types of ammunition.
hack89
(39,171 posts)sweeping bans are not.
frylock
(34,825 posts)..the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986, which passed 400-21 in the House and 97-1 in the Senate and was signed by God Reagan, says that any ammunition that "may be used in a handgun," is made of certain materials, like steel, and can pierce body armor can be banned. That's in the actual law. In fact, if the ATF didn't seek to ban those kinds of bullets, it would be violating the law.
hack89
(39,171 posts)politically stupid and ineffective but legal.
There are many here that think that ammunition in general is not covered by the 2A and can be limited by sweeping bans or extremely high taxes. I just like to point out that that is not the case.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)As Savannahmann & I have already pointed out in this thread, the ATF's current interpretation of this law could ban all .223, all .308, and any other rifle caliber for which a hand gun model exists.
I'd prefer to stay far from the edge of this slippery slope. And more and more, I am thinking that the whole NFA and GCA are incompatible with the Second Amendment.
-app
beevul
(12,194 posts)(B) The term armor piercing ammunition means
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
They love to ignore or even outright omit that very important word.
They're the ones ignoring what the law actually says, up to and including the ATF.
sir pball
(4,758 posts)I, and many other hunters, quite appreciate X-Bullets and their ilk; not only are they entirely enviro-friendly but they're also some of the most accurate and reliable bullets I've ever used.
But, in a strict reading of the law, all of the 30-caliber varieties I buy would clearly be banned as "AP" even though the design would probably just splatter off of a steel plate, not to mention there's no body armor in the world that could tell the difference between an X and a lead Accubond coming out of a 300Mag.
Of course this all could be a subtle test balloon to look at potentially changing some details of the law, like the "can be" instead of "commonly is", and the exact scope of the "sporting exemption".
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The vests are Class IIIA vests which are rated for pistol ammunition. They won't stop any rifle round.
Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)Sweeping declarations are not.
NickB79
(19,258 posts)Are you sure you aren't confusing all the 5.56mm ammos in general with this one particular type of 5.56mm ammo?
Hell, here in Minnesota all the gun stores have PALLETS of M193 (the cheaper, non-armor-piercing stuff, made here in the Twin Cities). Prices are $350/1000 rounds, which is cheaper than it was a few years ago.
If the ban does go forward, the Federal/ATK plant that makes both types of ammo will simply convert it's M855 line to another M193 line with conventional lead bullets, and since it's cheaper to make and sell, the gun nuts will likely end up saving money to buy more ammo with.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)Rude, you're brilliant!
NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)Flabby the Deaf Clown's Masturbatorium of Hate.
47of74
(18,470 posts)Flabby the Deaf Clown's Masturbatorium of Hate
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Is there any ammunition that is 5.56 or .223 that does not penetrate a Class IIIA vest? If your answer is no, because all of the aforementioned ammunition can penetrate a vest designed to stop pistol ammunition, then you see what the gun nuts are upset about.
billh58
(6,635 posts)NickB79
(19,258 posts)Just as smoothly as the steel-cored M855 would. Police body armor is designed to stop HANDGUN bullets, ie large-diameter and low velocity. A vest that will stop a .45 slug at 900 fps will be needled through and through by a 5.56mm bullet at 3000 fps, regardless of whether the 5.56mm bullet has a steel core or just plain jacketed lead.
So, while the ATF's enforcement is perfectly legal (frankly, I'm amazed it took as long as it did), it's effect on public safety is frankly nothing.
Wait, no, it doesn't do nothing. What it does do is give the NRA a massive donation payday.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)It's why they need their guns.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And the pro-controller side with their "safe haven" that allows insults like above is fine.
Foe the record to juror #5, the RKBA group is not a "safe haven" and allows all viewpoints. The other gun group is a "safe haven" and censors any discussion that does not agree with their viewpoint. Just for kicks, see how many are blocked in each group.
Calling other DU members gun humpers and pathetic should not be tolerated here. Lets just be civil in our posts please.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Feb 27, 2015, 09:01 PM, and voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What do we call gunhumpers now? Gun romancers? I wish somebody would decide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Guns are against the GD SOP.
This is why.
Either enforce the SOP or this is what one gets.
Leave it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: But DU does have gun humpers, and they are pathetic.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DU gun humpers have their own protected forum. They should complain amongst themselves.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Over the line.
Can we not have a civil discussion without the name calling and insults please?
MH1
(17,600 posts)Many firearms owners WANT reasonable gun controls, for several reasons, including that reasonable laws cutting down on the abuse of freedom by the irresponsible and incompetent will help prevent a backlash of irrational laws that really do inhibit the freedom of the responsible and competent.
But hey, if the shoe fits ...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I just think we should be above the name calling, insults and childish penis references.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)you censor any discussion you do not like and allow open insults to DU members who are unable to respond. You say it is for SOP violations but you allow your few regular posters to violate the same SOP and continue to post. Why is that? I see you are almost up to 50. It is painful for most to enter and if they try and contribute some factual information you block them. You only have a couple of regular posters and RKBA is your favorite group, not the group you host. The group you host is a "safe haven" that you block any dissenting views. The RKBA group is not and I say it again, it is your favorite group. All viewpoints are allowed in the RKBA group.
Now compare the number of blocks of your group to the RKBA group.
Gun Control Reform Activism
1 hack89
2 Eleanors38
3 Crepuscular
4 Bay Boy
5 ManiacJoe
6 bossy22
7 Straw Man
8 oneshooter
9 Duckhunter935
10 friendly_iconoclast
11 rrneck
12 customerserviceguy
13 ProgressiveProfessor
14 sarisataka
15 appal_jack
16 Travis_0004
17 geckosfeet
18 Hangingon
19 NYC_SKP
20 Jenoch
21 spin
22 shedevil69taz
23 SoutherDem
24 Lurks Often
25 ileus
26 Recursion
27 SQUEE
28 MO_Moderate
29 S_B_Jackson
30 HALO141
31 Jgarrick
32 Valakut
33 arst1
34 Nuclear Unicorn
35 TupperHappy
36 pipoman
37 yeoman6987
38 Laelth
39 IronGate
40 VScott
41 GGJohn
42 Shamash
43 libvoter87
44 kcci
45 clffrdjk
46 WDIM
RKBA group
1 Hoyt
Now compare the traffic of the RKBA group to your group
Number of posts, 30 days: 401
Number of posts, All time: 8,355
Number of subscribers: 150
Number of people trashing: 32
RKBA Group
Number of posts, All time: 162,160
Number of subscribers: 297
Number of people trashing: 189
I hope this educates many of the DU members that do not frequent any of the gun related groups.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I guess you have nothing else to add to the topic except insults.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)On Fri Feb 27, 2015, 08:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
DU's resident gun humpers in particular are pathetic beyond belief
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6289351
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling other DU members gun humpers and pathetic should not be tolerated here. Lets just be civil in our posts please.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 27, 2015, 09:01 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What do we call gunhumpers now? Gun romancers? I wish somebody would decide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Guns are against the GD SOP.
This is why.
Either enforce the SOP or this is what one gets.
Leave it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: But DU does have gun humpers, and they are pathetic.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DU gun humpers have their own protected forum. They should complain amongst themselves.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Over the line.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that is great for nice civil discussion.
I alert very few times. Insults to DU members fall into that category.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We need a list.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)to insult fellow DU members and I thought we were above that and could allow polite discussion. I guess I was wrong and that is a sad thing in my opinion.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This might merit a discussion. I don't really have a catch phrase for gun owners myself. But I do like gun romancers. Sorry. We can avoid that one too. I have quite a few things I don't like to be called myself.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It is very few people that will admit that and I truly do appreciate that. The host of the anti-gun group is happy to host the insults in his group knowing he has blocked all firearms owners from that group so they can not respond to the insults. He posts regularly in the RKBA group and will not apologize for those insults and even posts insults to firearms owners in the RKBA group. At least we can respond and he generally runs away when called out on those things.
We may differ on the right to own firearms but I am sure we all agree on trying to come up with ways to limit the deaths of a legal product. I really could care less if they ban this one particular bullet. most any rifle round will penetrate soft body armor as it is not designed or tested against rifle rounds of any type. My rifle likes the 55 grain bullet better anyway. This is more feel good rules that will have no real impact except to get the far right wing fired up against the democratic party.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I just don't want certain people having them. I don't think banning will be effective, just like prohibition. My main problem with some legal gun owners is when they have the proper training and still act irresponsibly. I think we need to raise awareness of neglectful gun ownership. I also don't think we will ever get rid of guns. They are technology. Societies don't gonback to sticks and stones if they can help it. I hope gun owners can teach other gun owners to be more aware.
Illegal gun owners on the other hand. I have no solution because you cannot find them to talk about safety. People will make their own guns if they can't buy what they want.
I hope bith of your groups can find away to mend fences and work together on things you can accomplish together. May not be possible. But maybe.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But if you bring up the fact that the NRA actually has a very robust gun safety program you are trashed. They miss the part where we also call out the NRA's legislative body as being just totally nuts. The "gun safety" groups do no gun safety training but it has been poll tested to sound better than "gun control". We need to get better information into NICS and I would hope to open it up to all private sales and give some king of receipt of a "go" for a sale to be held by the seller. Safe gun storage is another thing that can be helped by discounted gun cabinets or safes. Most pistols already come with free locks, use them if they are being stored.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And yes. The nra has gone nuts in the political arena. Makes it toxic. Be nice if they went back to the way they were. Less about worry about gun sales and Obama, and more about the safety of people. This is by no means the only thing in politics that are problematic. But I think that things have gotten very strange in the last few years.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)I call them citizens & patriots.
To each his own.
-app
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)is what Firearms owners see. Shows the level of civility on the controller side.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)
... Tom T & I just happen to disagree about whether the Second Amendment and the 'occasional massacres' are inevitably linked. Tom & I agree that people should be able to have dangerous ideas despite the very real consequences of perverting ideas via propaganda, hate, etc. OTOH, Tom & I diverge when it comes to dangerous hardware such as guns...
Regardless, I consider calling someone a 'delicate flower' because they care about Second Amendment rights to be about on the same level as Rush Limbaugh calling women 'sluts' because they care about reproductive freedom (another right I also care about). Both insults are low, mean-spirited, and do nothing to address the substance of the debate. It's one thing for Tom Tomorrow to use the phrase once in a comic, and quite another for every gun-grabbing DU'er to trot it out in every discussion of gun rights.
-app
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)The whole gun culture has been captured by the most devious and effective marketing strategy ever invented. They convince people, someone is coming for their guns and ammo, then these poor fools go out in droves to buy up stuff they do not need and most likely will never use more than a few times shooting at targets in their backyards while annoying the neighbors. Since the numbers of people who are interested in owning guns is shrinking, the marketing strategists know they must create panic buying for the gun manufacturers and gun sellers to maintain their massive profits from an ever shrinking number of people. Sadly, separating fools from their money is not too difficult, especially in gun culture.
sir pball
(4,758 posts)NATO and by extension the US armed forces have recently changed to a newer type of bullet, which leaves mindbogglingly huge stocks of M855 on their hands with no real use for it - what better way to get rid of it than make rumbles of a "ban", ???, profit!
I say this because the ATF action is preliminary, no bans issued yet, and the bullets in question literally do not meet the definition in the law the ATF is citing...they have a very large lead slug behind the steel tip, while the law explicitly says a bullet must first and foremost be made entirely of non-lead material to even be considered " armor piercing." If I were prone to flights of fancy, I'd almost say somebody at ATK (owners of most of the US military ammo manufacturers) had the ear of somebody at the ATF..
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)Just put out there, the government is thinking about regulating it in some "sinister" way. Be sure to mention Obama in the mix and you are golden. It is straight out of the "Merchants of Death" playbook.
Thanks for the information. It is important to understand the what is going on. Follow the money, as they say.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)pathetic people
EX500rider
(10,856 posts)Not.
spanone
(135,873 posts)don't worry they'll blame Obama and not god reagan
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)I love it.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)While you were occupying yourselves insulting, laughing at, and making sexual references about gun owners, the gun owners mobilized:
https://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2015-03-021015-advisory-notice-those-commenting-armor-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework.html
Skittles
(153,193 posts)you mean, the kind more offended by dead kids than by PRICEY AMMO or PENIS ANALOGIES
DONE HERE - GUN HUMPERS BORE ME
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Skittles
(153,193 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)A little creepy when you think about it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)insults and sexual references
linuxman
(2,337 posts)1. It's an infantile way to demean the opposition and get a few hits in.
2. It serves to stroke the egos of the ones spouting it. "People who have guns have tiny penises. I don't have guns, therefore I got a big ole' cock!". It's the internet equivalent of bragging about what you got as you adjust the sock in your pants.
Man, this amateur psychoanalysis is fun. No wonder the grabbers like it so much.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I'm going to put on my asbestos suit, though, for some people think that when we see a thread about the Rude Pundit we're supposed to simply turn toward the OP and bow.
anotojefiremnesuka
(198 posts)In my experience the vast majority of 'people' who own guns should not own them because they lack the emotional maturity too own them in the first place.
If one thinks that they need a gun to keep the Gov in check that is a whole bunch of paranoia reason enough to ban them ownership.
As of now we have about 1/3 of American households who own gunz, about 350 million guns and growing with the vast majority of em Conservatives/Republicans, which also makes me question the loyalty of gunners who claim to be Democrats.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Standard insults too. Do you have them on a little sticky note next to your computer?
Oh, and the 'people' in quotation marks - that was good.
It must really bother you to know that your little pet issue is such a political loser. BTW, who here have you seen saying "they need a gun to keep the Gov in check"? Name three.
You're not very good at this yet. Keep trying.
anotojefiremnesuka
(198 posts)Enjoy your Precious
beevul
(12,194 posts)What could your experience with 80 to 100 million people possibly be?
And thus, how meaningful could it possibly be?
Those questions tend to answer themselves.
Cha
(297,655 posts)bullets!
ileus
(15,396 posts)or if they're too dumb to understand past the mommy propaganda?
Cha
(297,655 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Wah! I want the ATF to ban bullets!
Is that how it works.
Cha
(297,655 posts)"The Rude Pundit's favorite comments came from a lackadaisical gun store owner in Springfield, Missouri, who is a former cop. He doesn't think the ban will happen; however, "Gun people tend to create their own drama," he said. "If we freaked out every time BATF discusses something we'd be freaking out on this all the time. Sometimes gun owners are their own worst enemy."
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Good man, there. I'm glad he was right.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)will now blog about the defeat of the ammo ban and ponder who is losing whose mind.
meegbear
(25,438 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)He sure seems disgruntled that the ATF allowed the "little people" to speak up on this issue.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)the issues both opposing and supporting it are covered pretty well in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172161113
To summarize, the ammo in question was misclassified as AP to start with, and poses no more threat to law enforcement than other rifle rounds. The Dems who wrote the AP handgun ammo ban specifically excluded rifle rounds with lead or partial lead cores, and M855 is 80% lead. It is stopped by the lowest level of body armor rated to stop rifle rounds (NIJ Level III).