Assault weapon ban is back - Page 3

Joeaksa · 03-28-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat The projectiles were available as pulled pieces, but those went away a couple-three years ago; and the fedgov stopped selling any of them as surplus ammo.

They are still for sale. You just have to know where to look.

I do not need nor want any of the A/P rounds but they are still out there.

Jeff Higgins · 03-28-2006, 05:06 PM

There seems to be some miss-information on this thread concerning "armor piercing". That's entirely understandable considering the various meanings applied to this class of ammunition. All of the information put forth by our illustrious leaders has been politically motivated, and thus very exagerated.

The military has standards for penetration of certain hard objects at certain ranges by certain munitions. Their standards are very rigid and well defined. They have nothing to do with the civilian debate. The term has simply been miss-used to excite and inflame the public.

Our lawmakers dearly love to re-define accepted terms to fit their legislation. In this case, they came up with a new definition for "armor piercing". Pat is correct in that any modern rifle round fits this new definition. If it penetrates that vest, it is "armor piercing" in a legal sense, despite the original meaning of the term. It has been re-defined for us. That re-definition created a lot of problems when it was realized what its full effect would be, so it was watered down to specifically name munitions that were never commonaly available anyway.

It may surprise some of you just what is capable of defeating this vest. While the vest will stop common hollow point and jacketed soft point handgun ammunition, and even most if not all ball ammunition, there is some decidedly low-tech stuff it won't.

Hard-cast lead alloy bullets fired from calibers such as the .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 Colt will penetrate these vests every time. Cast from linotype, or common wheel weights and then quenched or heat-treated, these bullets typically can go into the low 20's on the Brinell hardness scale. Heavy for caliber designs in the 250-320 grain range driven as low as 900 fps will typically penetrate BOTH sides of the vest.

In other words, I can take an 1870's vintage .45 Colt, loaded with black powder and shooting a very hard lead bullet and shoot right through both sides of a 21st century kevlar vest. I have done it myself on a couple of occasions. The technology to defeat these vests is as old as the self-contained metalic cartridge. So where does that leave us?

Clearly there are elected leaders, and others, who would like to take all of our guns away. So what have they done here? It's a tried and true (and unfortunately effective) tactic to demonize some form of firearm or ammunition. It's better if you can attach some miss-applied buzz word and make it stick. "Assault rifle" - there are virtually no selective-fire weapons in civilian hands, and they simply do not show in crime statistics. "Saturday Night Special" - a special class of cheap gun, somehow inherently more evil than other guns because it is cheap. "Sniper Rifle" - as applied to .50 BMG rifles used by long-range match competitors and also never used in crimes. "Cop Killer Bullet" - a special armor piercing (first re-define that term) round used to kill officers, also never used by criminals. Apply these scary terms, promote them to the public as a menace, and take another slice out of gun ownership. We cannot let them keep going like this.

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

Why would civilians need to own military weapons anyways? Why do people feel the need to collect weapons in all powers and sizes? That seems childish to me. A gun for self-defense, and a rifle for hunting is all anyone needs. Anything beyond that must have something to do with some deep rooted fears, or inferiority complexes that must be dealt with a psychanalyst. Maybe a little dick causes that need for weapon ownership?

Aurel

fastpat · 03-28-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aurel
Why would civilians need to own military weapons anyways? Why do people feel the need to collect weapons in all powers and sizes? That seems childish to me. A gun for self-defense, and a rifle for hunting is all anyone needs. Anything beyond that must have something to do with some deep rooted fears, or inferiority complexes that must be dealt with a psychanalyst. Maybe a little dick causes that need for weapon ownership?

Aurel

Your question is incorrect. It's not for anyone, or everyone, to decide what a single man, woman, or responsible child needs for self defense. It is the decision of the one making a defense, and his or hers alone.

Self defense is a right. As such, it is not subject to arguments of social utility nor to the democratic process.

Jim Richards · 03-28-2006, 06:11 PM

There is no reasonable way to legislate what we need or don't need. Who's value system do we adopt, Sen. Kennedy's? No, I didn't think so. Better leave this up to individual discretion.

Jeff Higgins · 03-28-2006, 06:12 PM

It's just a hobby to many of us, Aurel. We find different kinds and calibers of firearms interesting and fun to play with. Just like our favorite cars, they are in fact probably totally unnecessary today other than for recreation. God forbid I ever have to use one in anger, but I sure want one available if I ever need to.

How many sets of clubs can a golfer own? How many cameras can a shutterbug own? How many pairs of shoes can my wife own? Bottom line is that none of this is anyone's damn business. It is our right to carry on our affairs in private until they affect some one else. My gun ownership will never affect you in any way. Why on Earh would you feel the need then to regulate it?

Your reference to little dicks and psyciatric problems is an all-too common (and very childish) retort used by folks that have run out of other ideas. They can put forth no rational arguments for their dislike of other men's interests, so this last resort is often used to make themselves feel better. Better about what, I'm not sure; must be some need to feel superior to the low-lifes that enjoy the targeted interest. I guess a guy like me that likes fast cars, big motorcycles, and guns has heard this on all three fronts. That's fine; I can live with that. Like I said, it's just a hobby I enjoy. If it has some kind of phalic symbolism for you, then I'm glad we both find something we can enjoy in it.

fastpat · 03-28-2006, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Your reference to little dicks and psyciatric problems is an all-too common (and very childish) retort used by folks that have run out of other ideas. They can put forth no rational arguments for their dislike of other men's interests, so this last resort is often used to make themselves feel better. Better about what, I'm not sure; must be some need to feel superior to the low-lifes that enjoy the targeted interest. I guess a guy like me that likes fast cars, big motorcycles, and guns has heard this on all three fronts. That's fine; I can live with that. Like I said, it's just a hobby I enjoy. If it has some kind of phalic symbolism for you, then I'm glad we both find something we can enjoy in it.

Actually, his reference is much more revealing than that.

Quote:

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. General Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud

Moneyguy1 · 03-28-2006, 06:23 PM

I don't know if I would want to own any high powered weapon. I don't think I am stable enough to be trusted!!

FrayAdjacent911 · 03-28-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aurel
Why would civilians need to own military weapons anyways? Why do people feel the need to collect weapons in all powers and sizes? That seems childish to me. A gun for self-defense, and a rifle for hunting is all anyone needs. Anything beyond that must have something to do with some deep rooted fears, or inferiority complexes that must be dealt with a psychanalyst. Maybe a little dick causes that need for weapon ownership?

Aurel

Why would anyone need a Porsche? They must have some deep rooted fear or inferiority complexes that must be dealt with by a psychiatrist. Little dick causes the need for Porsche ownership?

Sound familiar?

Your logic (or lack thereof) can be applied to anything, now can't it? (big house, fast car, boats, etc etc etc...)

Anyway, why should I NOT be allowed to own a 'military style' rifle? They're actually VERY good for home defense. Given it's much easier to be accurate with a rifle, combined with decent capacity magazines, they're great for defensive purposes. Pistols are good as a backup, and are great for defense when you can't take a rifle with you where you go.

Given it's already been decided by courts that the police are not responsible for protecting you, why should you not be able to own the most effective weapon for defending yourself? (and don't start with the nukes... I'm talking about self defense, not preemptive thermonuclear strikes in your living room)

Why would you trust the GOVERNMENT to protect you, your property, your wife, your KIDS...?

Owning firearms is about responsibility. I enjoy the responsibility, and practice safe firearm ownership and encourage it. Afraid of weapons? Maybe you should see a psychiatrist! After all 'A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity'. (S. Freud).

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Aurel
Why would civilians need to own military weapons anyways? Why do people feel the need to collect weapons in all powers and sizes? That seems childish to me. A gun for self-defense, and a rifle for hunting is all anyone needs. Anything beyond that must have something to do with some deep rooted fears, or inferiority complexes that must be dealt with a psychanalyst. Maybe a little dick causes that need for weapon ownership?

Aurel

Aurel, you may want to read a bit of our history to understand this country. Most 'Americans' (US Citizens) don't know or understand the History of this country. The founding of our present system of government was a compromise between people with some extremely different viewpoints.

The Bill of rights, or the first 10 amendments to our government's systemic foundation, have one common theme. It is a list of things prohibited to be done by our government. For most people, the reasons are lost. But you can read about the reasons easily.

Three books: "The Federalist papers", "The Anti-Federalist papers" and "Creating the Bill of Rights", lay out why our government is the way it is. The first book lays out why our system of government is good. It is a collection of Letters written to the editors of newspapers, under assumed names, laying out the good. The Anti-federalist papers opposed the government system.

While the form of government was accepted, the anti-federalists brought up many very valid points. The first congress was charged with making those changes. "Creating the Bill of Rights" is the congressional record from the first congress with many letters mixed in. It gives a good understanding behind the intent of those men who created our government.

Take a read through "Creating the Bill of Rights" and you'll understand why each and everyone of use should own arms of all types.

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

I understand and appreciate the US history and the fundamental right to own weapons. What I don`t understand is the wackos who go overboard with that and transform their houses in arsenals. Everything is good in moderation. When it becomes excessive, there is obvious pathology.

Aurel

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Well, one persons hobby is anothers psychosis. It's all a matter of perspective. Your law abiding gun owner, even the 'Wackos', almost never commit crimes. Unfortunately, the few that happen are trumped up.

FrayAdjacent911 · 03-28-2006, 07:10 PM

Aurel, yeah, everything is good in moderation.

If something seriously debilitating to our country and society ever happend, those whackos may not seem so whacko.

I am not a gloom and doom beleiving SHTF prepared chairborne ranger... I have about a dozen and a half weapons, and enough ammo that any nighttime caller would regret it... but I'm not going to be invading any small countries any time soon.

And as long as they're not hurting anyone, let 'em have as much ammo, guns, cars, boats, houses, etc, etc, etc, as they want.

Jeff Higgins · 03-28-2006, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aurel
I understand and appreciate the US history and the fundamental right to own weapons. What I don`t understand is the wackos who go overboard with that and transform their houses in arsenals. Everything is good in moderation. When it becomes excessive, there is obvious pathology.

Aurel

What is an "arsenal'? How many are "excessive"? There are an incredible variety of firearms out there for enthusiasts and collectors to enjoy. How many stamps in a collection are "excessive"? Your apparent position that some one that owns whatever you consider to be an "excessive" number of firearms is a "whacko" is narrow-minded prejudice in the extreme. The only obvious pathology here lies with you.

Moneyguy1 · 03-28-2006, 11:13 PM

Not taking sides here, but perhaps the "problem" is the perception that firearms have only one basic purpose. It would be difficult to equate this with someone owning mulitple cameras, pairs of shoes, or a massive stamp collection. Most posters here in favor of multiple ownership appear to rationalize it as a means of protecting home and hearth. Like I said, I am not against gun ownership. However, what I have difficulty understanding is if the firearm is to be readily available for, let's say' a late night breakin, where can it be safely stored and still be readily available? If I had kids, I would not want a loaded weapon in my nightstand.

Yeah, I own a shotgun that I keep in a locked closet. But that is the only firearm I have. Well, except for my .22 pellet pistol...

HardDrive · 03-28-2006, 11:34 PM

Aurel,

I currently only have 2 guns in my house. A .40 Sig pistol, and a MAK90(A chinese AK-47).

Is this an arsenal? I don't think so. I think people can collect and enjoy weapons simply because they are nice pieces of engineering. My pistol is a work of art. An amazing metal sculpture that just happens to shoot .40 bullets.

That being said, the are some people in this country that are gun NUTS. They own tons of them, their lives are consumed talking about them. I think they have picked a poor way to spend their time, but that my opinion. Hmmmmmm....the opinion of a guy who spends every waking hour thinking about Porsches....

fastpat · 03-29-2006, 04:21 AM

I have an acquaintance that's a US Naval Academy graduate, former Marine Corps helo pilot, now a National Guard pilot, and full time banker with a large, national known bank; who owns more than 200 guns. His collection is mainly one of every rifle produced with a folding bayonet, mostly old communist block bolt actions, but many semi-auto's too.

He's as law-abiding a man as anyone could be, family man, respectable, and completely sane.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

You know the old saying - I have more guns than I need, but never as many as I want.

I have about 10 guns now, but will get a few more probably every year. When does that become an arsenal? I have a buddy who has 12 Ferraris and everyone knows cars are involved in killing people a lot more than guns are. Is he insane? It's no one's damn business how many or what kinds of guns someone has. I've never ever come close to hurting someone or being urt by a gun. But I can't say the same for house pets, cars, power tools, etc. People need to get over their fear and misunderstanding of inanimate objects and put blame where it belongs- on PEOPLE who commit crimes.

Jeff Higgins · 03-29-2006, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Not taking sides here, but perhaps the "problem" is the perception that firearms have only one basic purpose. It would be difficult to equate this with someone owning mulitple cameras, pairs of shoes, or a massive stamp collection. Most posters here in favor of multiple ownership appear to rationalize it as a means of protecting home and hearth. Like I said, I am not against gun ownership. However, what I have difficulty understanding is if the firearm is to be readily available for, let's say' a late night breakin, where can it be safely stored and still be readily available? If I had kids, I would not want a loaded weapon in my nightstand.

Yeah, I own a shotgun that I keep in a locked closet. But that is the only firearm I have. Well, except for my .22 pellet pistol...

It's really not very hard to equate guns to cameras, shoes, or stamps. They are all innanimate objects that various folks like to collect. These objects bring pleasure to those people. It is no one's business how many any other individual would like to own. That is one parallel.

Another parallel is the need for rationalization. There is no need to rationalize anything you enjoy to anyone else. Particularly with firearms, this perceived need to rationalize puts us on a very sippery slope indeed. The day a gun owner is asked to rationalize his or her need for firearms is the day some one else gets to decide for them what is "reasonable" for them to own.

The bottom line is that it is simply no one else's business. That is the parallel I hoped to draw with the camera/shoe/stamp comparisons. No one feels threatened by my wife's shoe collection. No one is threatened by my gun collection. It's that simple.

VINMAN · 03-29-2006, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RickM
Yup, a list of those I despise with a passion.
Corzine is in the process of going back on at least two of his campaign promises. After the scum McGreedy F****ed us over for a few years. This crap is getting real old.

The only people that I hate more than them, are the a**holes that voted them back into office. Now Corzine will bend us over and slam us. I hope everyone that put him in, sleeps well at night.