NRA Supported Universal Background Checks After Columbine Massacre

[Jeebus]

LaPierre's argument seems to be, there's no point in having laws because criminals don't obey laws.

No, his point is there's no point in passing NEW laws that do nothing that the OLD laws wouldn't do if they were enforced.

It's all laughable anyway, they grabbers don't have the votes--semi-automatic firearms aren't going anywhere, no matter how much they whine and cry and use children as props to further their radical leftist agenda.

[SemiAuto]

Armopr Piercing?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/2...n-our-country/



http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

The first link is an idiot fight.

“Armor-piercing bullets, why do you need that?” Granholm interrupted.

“Why do you need to protect Hollywood?” Santorum shot back.

“You’re deflecting,” Granholm observed. “Deer don’t wear armor. Why do you need an armor-piercing bullet?”

“But criminals could,” Santorum quipped.

“And police officers certainly do,” Granholm noted.

“Having the ability to defend yourself is something that is a right in our country,” Santorum asserted.

A typical .30-06 deer hunting rifle would be 'armor piercing' to your typical police vest.

From the second link:

Sen. Kennedy (March 2, 2004): My amendment will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it only covers ammunition that is designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability.

It is a catch-22. If you design a .30-06 round for deer hunting then guess what you are also doing? If your answer is, "Designing an armor piercing round in regards to police vests." then give yourself a gold star. In designing the former, a deer hunting round, you have to do nothing different to achieve the latter's goal, an armor piercing round for a typical police vest.
Gun control lawyers would have a field day with something so vague.

[banner1124]

No, his point is there's no point in passing NEW laws that do nothing that the OLD laws wouldn't do if they were enforced.

It's all laughable anyway, they grabbers don't have the votes--semi-automatic firearms aren't going anywhere, no matter how much they whine and cry and use children as props to further their radical leftist agenda.

Regarding background checks, there are a couple of points. First, clearly the background check system needs to be fixed as there are too many holes in it as it currently exists. Second, even if the background check system operated flawlessly, currently some 40% of gun sales don't even have to go through that system so it's incorrect to say that the new laws do nothing that the old laws wouldn't do if enforced.

[banner1124]

The first link is an idiot fight.



A typical .30-06 deer hunting rifle would be 'armor piercing' to your typical police vest.

From the second link:

It is a catch-22. If you design a .30-06 round for deer hunting then guess what you are also doing? If your answer is, "Designing an armor piercing round in regards to police vests." then give yourself a gold star. In designing the former, a deer hunting round, you have to do nothing different to achieve the latter's goal, an armor piercing round for a typical police vest.
Gun control lawyers would have a field day with something so vague.

The problem is your common criminal doesn't run around with a deer hunting rifle. The distinction that folks seem to be missing is that there's a difference between producing a round that's intended for hunting, but that just so happens to be able to pierce a police vest versus designing a round that specifically designed and intended to pierce a police vest.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

The distinction that folks seem to be missing is that there's a difference between producing a round that's intended for hunting, but that just so happens to be able to pierce a police vest versus designing a round that specifically designed and intended to pierce a police vest.

That important distinction being that a round "specifically designed and intended to pierce a police vest" never existed.

[Grindelwald]

What "facts"?

Yeah, didn't think you presented any. They seem to be your bane.

[banner1124]

That important distinction being that a round "specifically designed and intended to pierce a police vest" never existed.

Maybe I should have more accurately stated "specifically desgined and intended to pierce armor"... gonna tell me that armor piercing rounds never existed?

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

Maybe I should have more accurately stated "specifically desgined and intended to pierce armor"... gonna tell me that armor piercing rounds never existed?

No, because they obviously do. But "armor piercing" rounds are designed to pierce armor plate. It would be redundant and silly to design a rifle round specifically to defeat body armor, for reasons that have already been posted here.

[banner1124]

No, because they obviously do. But "armor piercing" rounds are designed to pierce armor plate. It would be redundant and silly to design a rifle round specifically to defeat body armor, for reasons that have already been posted here.

I'm not going to get into a silly semantics debate. My point remains precisely the same a round designed for hunting that just so happens would pierce armor is wholly different than a round that is designed and intended specifically for piercing armor.

[Gopher]

I see it popped up again. Some interesting reading about the dubious "40%" claim:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s=rss_politics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...55e7_blog.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...loophole-myth/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...myth-john-lott

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/po...ecks-is-false/

BTW, the "study" was actually a random telephone survey of 251 people prior to the Brady Law taking effect. Here's the actual study that was published in 1997 from the data collected in 1994:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf.

[SemiAuto]

The problem is your common criminal doesn't run around with a deer hunting rifle. The distinction that folks seem to be missing is that there's a difference between producing a round that's intended for hunting, but that just so happens to be able to pierce a police vest versus designing a round that specifically designed and intended to pierce a police vest.

The point is that in regards to hunting ammo and police vests the hunting ammo is armor piercing. You can't avoid designing it that way unless you want to be a particularly cruel hunter.

[AttackPlanR]

That was then, this is now. Now there is a Commie Atheist Muslim Radical Black Man Illegally squatting in the Oval Office so there must be as little gun regulation as possible. Good Christian White Men need to be able to defend their White Women against the Black Horde.

Yup.

The nuttiest of the nuts have come out of the political woodwork sense the 08 election and this is just another example of that same group having a hard time facing what many people call the "reality of a changing world".

[banner1124]

The point is that in regards to hunting ammo and police vests the hunting ammo is armor piercing. You can't avoid designing it that way unless you want to be a particularly cruel hunter.

Are you just playing dumb or are you really missing my point or are you just blatantly misrepresenting what I'm saying? Good freaking Lord man.

[Daan]

Armopr Piercing?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/2...n-our-country/



http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

In the first link Jennifer Granholm brings up armor piercing bullets for handguns which I am unaware was part of the current gun control debate. And I can't recall reading about any incident where it has been used as handgun ammunition in a case of criminal violence.

Conventional hunting rifle ammunition will penetrate most body armor BUT IT IS NOT "designed" for that purpose. If Granholm is referring to conventional hunting rifle ammunition in her rant about "armor piercing" bullets, then she is profoundly stupid.


The "cop killer bullet" [for handguns] myth was created by dishonest media and dishonest gun control types.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html
Quote

In the mid 1960's, Dr. Paul Kopsch (an Ohio coroner), Daniel Turcos (a police sergeant) and Donald Ward (Dr. Kopsch's special investigator) began experimenting with special purpose handgun ammunition. Their objective was to develop a law enforcement [handgun] round capable of improved penetration against hard targets like windshield glass and automobile doors. Conventional bullets, made primarily from lead, are often ineffective against hard targets especially when fired at handgun velocities. In the 1970's, Kopsch, Turcos and Ward produced their "KTW" handgun ammunition using steel cored bullets capable of great penetration. Following further experimentation, in 1981 they began producing bullets constructed primarily of brass. The hard brass bullets caused exceptional wear on handgun barrels, a problem combated by coating the bullets with Teflon. The Teflon coating did nothing to improve penetration, it simply reduced damage to the gun barrel.

Despite the facts that "KTW" ammunition had never been available to the general public and that no police officer has ever been killed by a handgun bullet penetrating their body armor, the media incorrectly reported that the Teflon coated bullets were designed to defeat the body armor that law enforcement officers were beginning to use. The myth of "Cop-killer" bullets was born.

End Quote


Furthermore, it is my understanding that it is against federal law to manufacture, import, or sell ammunition that is specifically for and is specifically called "armor piercing" (except for government and law enforcement).



Btw, in Jennifer Granholm's profile on wikipedia it says "she has been mentioned as a potential Supreme Court justice for President Barack Obama".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Granholm

.

[SemiAuto]

Are you just playing dumb or are you really missing my point or are you just blatantly misrepresenting what I'm saying? Good freaking Lord man.

No, I'm not playing dumb. I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in what is meant by 'armor piercing'.

[musicmd]

That important distinction being that a round "specifically designed and intended to pierce a police vest" never existed.

Bs

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

Bs

No, the truth, which has already been posted here. Sorry.

[Daan]

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEXhPbunw1Y


Seriously?!


.

[ODENTON]

N.R.A. = No Reasoning Ability

[banner1124]

No, I'm not playing dumb. I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in what is meant by 'armor piercing'.

Then you aren't getting my point at all. I'm not focused on the fact that the round is armor piercing. I'm talking about the intent behind it's manufacture. One just so happens to be armor piercing because it has to be that way in order to take down certain animals. The other is intentionally made to be armor piercing because it's intended use is to puncture body armor.