Quoted: Quoted: ...If you don't like the bold, smileys or size, sorry, but it's the only way to get some lunk heads to read the post. Not that fonts are your only problem, but using stupidly big fonts, too much bold lettering, and other stupid gimmicks just ensures that people will not read what you have to say. They'll skim it and see you are ranting about something and they'll move on. Why don't you tell us (in plain english), why the bill, should it become law, is something to be worried about? You are big on ranting and raving like a loon, but why not calm down a bit and and actually explain what the legal ramifications of the amendment are?

Please go back and read ALL of my replies and posts. Then get back with me. I thought I have stated clearly that this "Amendment" will come back to haunt us in the long run. THAT is what I am concerned about.  Can you SEE that now?

Lippo- I know it is sad but many people are very much under false impressions about the politicians. You cannot preach to those who have their minds made up that these are merely privilages that we are lucky to have, and can be taken away one measure at a time. Hindsight is 20/20. I suppose we will bitch togather then.

Lippo... I hear where you are coming from & I agree with you to some extent, but take a deep breath & calm down!

Your hysterical tone is only turning others off to what you have to say. What we really need to do is present a unified front aganist this amendment. We need to let the Republican leadership in both houses know that amendment has the real potential to erode our rights & that we demand that it be dropped from the final version of this bill.

Relax brother... we're all on the same side when it comes to our RKBA, so let's act like it & get some positive shit done!    

Quoted: Lippo- I know it is sad but many people are very much under false impressions about the politicians. You cannot preach to those who have their minds made up that these are merely privilages that we are lucky to have, and can be taken away one measure at a time. Hindsight is 20/20. I suppose we will bitch togather then.

So true. So true. Just wish I could keep reminding myself of that. I wouldn't feel like I should post threads about infringements like this one.

Quoted: Lippo... I hear where you are coming from & I agree with you to some extent, but take a deep breath & calm down! Your hysterical tone is only turning others off to what you have to say. What we really need to do is present a unified front aganist this amendment. We need to let the Republican leadership in both houses know that amendment has the real potential to erode our rights & that we demand that it be dropped from the final version of this bill. Relax brother... we're all on the same side when it comes to our RKBA, so let's act like it & get some positive shit done!

Funny thing is, I AM calm! If anybody things they have control over a lot of this stuff, they are sadly mistaken. That IS a fact of life.

I guess people want to take fonds, smileys and sizes WAY to seriously. I do them to get people to READ the post. I'm not sitting here pacing around. In fact I DO need to go mow my lawn. But there are WAY to many people that look through the political scene with rose colored classes on. And, IF, I hadn't started this thread, I doubt ANY of you would have picked up on it before it was signed into law. Or if someone had, just "posted" it, without getting people REALLY talking about it, it would have just been flushed under a..."Does my sister look fat (BOTD)" thread.


You do make a good point though, START CALLING FOLKS and see what happens. I bet I'm right. I'll take 3, I'll buy you a beer bets. If I am right and this Amendment stands, 3 of you owe me a beer. If I am wrong, which I hope I am, I'll buy. Whose going to sit down and drink a beer with me? Anyone?

What in the Hell am I going to need AP ammo for anyway?

Quoted: What in the Hell am I going to need AP ammo for anyway?

What the hell do I need tannerite for anyway?

Quoted: Quoted: What in the Hell am I going to need AP ammo for anyway? What the hell do I need tannerite for anyway?

What the hell do you need tannerite for anyway?

Quoted: Quoted: What in the Hell am I going to need AP ammo for anyway? What the hell do I need tannerite for anyway?

Tannerite and AP ammo are two different entity's.


I use Tannerite as a reactive target to see when I hit my mark at 200 yards with my AR.  What do you use tannerite for?

Please tell me what you need AP rounds for?

If I use your reasoning, i want RPG's and Land mines to be legal for me to own.

Also I'm surprised that haven't banned Incendiary rounds yet.

Quoted: And, IF, I hadn't started this thread, I doubt ANY of you would have picked up on it before it was signed into law.

The rest of the debate notwithstanding, do you really think you're the only one that keeps up with this stuff here? You doubt any of us would have picked up on it before it was signed into law?  Get real man! As mentioned this thing is at least several months away from becoming law, if it ever does. There has been a thread on the Kennedy ammendment for days. The one you're referring to didn't exist until a day or two ago, and you happened to start the first thread referring to this particular ammendment. Don't think for a minute that nobody but you is watching the politicians - this board is FULL of folks that watch what's going on.

Quoted: What in the Hell am I going to need AP ammo for anyway?

You are completely missing the point here mjrowley. A "performance" based standard means that if a round is  capable of defeating soft body armor then it is legally considered "armor piercing ammunition", and thus banned.

You do realize that some commonly available handgun rounds & ALL RIFLE ROUNDS are capable of penetrating soft body armor, don't you?

Now can you see why this amendment is leading us down a path that we dare not tread???    

This "study" could come back to haunt us as well as the gun lock issue, at this point the gun locks are not mandatory to use but neither were wearing seat belts at one point. I see these two things as the antis way of getting their foot in the door so they can make things more unpleasent for us down the road. They knew they could not win this time so they decided to include things that they may be able to use to further their agenda later on down the line. They figured every one would be to busy celebrating to notice their BS, with these two issues this could in fact be a short lived victory/ass reaming in disguise. The only thing we can do is get ahold of the congresscretons and try and get the "study" and hopefully the gunlock thing removed before it is signed in to law.

Quoted: Quoted: What in the Hell am I going to need AP ammo for anyway? You are completely missing the point here mjrowley. A "performance" based standard means that if a round is  capable of defeating soft body armor then it is legally considered "armor piercing ammunition", and thus banned. You do realize that some commonly available handgun rounds & ALL RIFLE ROUNDS are capable of penetrating soft body armor, don't you? Now can you see why this amendment is leading us down a path that we dare not tread???

OK now that makes sense.  I was just thinking of the stuff that will punch through tanks and such.

Thanks for clearing that up.

We won a huge one here, and all some people can do is scream "The sky is falling!" The antigun left just lost their primary weapon in their crusade to destroy the US firearms industry.

The antis lost, they failed in every attemp to kill this bill, this " ap study" is just a fob to bring a few fence sitters over to our side, without actually giving anything up. It will amount to nothing just as the other toothless studies did.


WE Won! For christ sake.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What in the Hell am I going to need AP ammo for anyway? You are completely missing the point here mjrowley. A "performance" based standard means that if a round is  capable of defeating soft body armor then it is legally considered "armor piercing ammunition", and thus banned. You do realize that some commonly available handgun rounds & ALL RIFLE ROUNDS are capable of penetrating soft body armor, don't you? Now can you see why this amendment is leading us down a path that we dare not tread???     OK now that makes sense.  I was just thinking of the stuff that will punch through tanks and such. Thanks for clearing that up.

And why shouldn't law-abiding citizens be able to own ammunition like what you just mentioned??    Just because i don't 'need' it, doesn't mean i shouldn't be able to purchase it just because...

I'm coming in on this late, but the way I see it,

1.) This bill is now a special interest bill because it's only protecting the manufacturer. Somehow the gun owners have been left out of the thought process if they allowed this BS to get through.

2.) Armor piercing? If you think the Dems won't be pulling out all the stops to prove that every piece of ammunition available to the public can in one way or another be capable of penetrating some form of body armor or another. This amendment is a gun ban by proxy. Ban the ammo and you pretty much negate the point of owning a gun.

The danger of something like this has been discussed in countless issues of NRA's "America's 1st Freedom" magazine.

I haven't gone through this entire thread yet, but if they allow this one to fly through we're gonna see some serious shit hitting the fan down the road.

Quoted: We won a huge one here, and all some people can do is scream "The sky is falling!" The antigun left just lost their primary weapon in their crusade to destroy the US firearms industry. The antis lost, they failed in every attemp to kill this bill, this " ap study" is just a fob to bring a few fence sitters over to our side, without actually giving anything up. It will amount to nothing just as the other toothless studies did. WE Won! For christ sake.

I agree, but better safe than VERY sorry!  We need to contact our reps. and tell them to strip out this amendment when the bill goes to committee!

It seems like a lot of people are missing the point.  Just because an amendment to a bill might not have any immediate relevancy, down the road it could be interpreted in a way that is detrimental to gunowners.   That is one of the most important reasons for keeping any pro-gun bill clean.

Quoted: It seems like a lot of people are missing the point.  Just because an amendment to a bill might not have any immediate relevancy, down the road it could be interpreted in a way that is detrimental to gunowners.   That is one of the most important reasons for keeping any pro-gun bill clean.

Amen... I thought everyone here at ARFCOM was familiar with the concept of "unintended consequences".

I guess not...  

Quoted: While I'm not ready to run down the street naked & screaming over this amendment, I am dissapointed that it was allowed to be tacked on to an otherwise good bill. I acknowledge that it has the *potential * to do our rights grave harm in the future, and I very much hope that this language is stripped out in committee. I would suggest that we all contact our reps. & the Republican leadership of the House & Senate and tell them kick this amendment to the curb!

Lippo, please use the above post as an example
of how to start a positive discussion on a topic.
Raving lunacy gets you no where and puts people
on the defensive.

Thanks, NYPatriot for your typical sane response
to a heated topic and one in which I agree.

The ban on AP ammo has been in effect for years. It was left for activist  judges to decide how much time not to give a criminal that uses AP in the commision of a crime. Now it is spelled out.

It appears to me that specifing the penalties for using AP in a crime is a good thing. Criminals need to be incarcerated.

The 'testing' thing has a 2-year time frame. I don't see the Repubs doing much about it over the next 2 years. It expires after that.

As far as 'needing' AP.....if it ever becomes neccessary to rebel against tyrany in the form of an organized military force, (read: UN forces), I'll take all the advantage I can get!

When .gov decides to ban all center-fire rifle ammo capable of defeating body armor, (all of it).....well, that would look a whole lot like that  mysterious 'line in the sand'.  

I can see the sand.....just can't see the 'line' yet.

Quoted: The ban on AP ammo has been in effect for years. It was left for activist  judges to decide how much time not to give a criminal that uses AP in the commision of a crime. Now it is spelled out.

Yep

Quoted: It appears to me that specifing the penalties for using AP in a crime is a good thing. Criminals need to be incarcerated.

Again agreement

Quoted: The 'testing' thing has a 2-year time frame. I don't see the Repubs doing much about it over the next 2 years. It expires after that.

Yeah, and we will have REAL numbers about AP the next time Fineswine goes on the rag. Real AP is {almost} never used in violent crime. Largely because 32acp is not an optimal platform.

THE REAL DATA can't but help the cause. Simple as that.

Quoted: As far as 'needing' AP.....if it ever becomes neccessary to rebel against tyrany in the form of an organized military force, (read: UN forces), I'll take all the advantage I can get!

If you watch the news, you know that nail polish remover and hair bleach just might be enough to put a western government into a tail-spin.  - *shrug* @ AP ammo

Quoted: When .gov decides to ban all center-fire rifle ammo capable of defeating body armor, (all of it).....well, that would look a whole lot like that  mysterious 'line in the sand'.   I can see the sand.....just can't see the 'line' yet.

Craig is one of the good guys. The concern expressed in this thread is misdirected. Time will tell though.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What in the Hell am I going to need AP ammo for anyway? What the hell do I need tannerite for anyway? Tannerite and AP ammo are two different entity's. I use Tannerite as a reactive target to see when I hit my mark at 200 yards with my AR.  What do you use tannerite for? Please tell me what you need AP rounds for? If I use your reasoning, i want RPG's and Land mines to be legal for me to own. Also I'm surprised that haven't banned Incendiary rounds yet.

So you couldn't make a suit case bomb out of tannerite, huh? I think you see the point, but infringed is infringed. Have you ever seen what a .50 can do at 300 yards with an AP round? I have, and wasn't that impressed. I bet I could get a .300 win mag to do about the same.

Owning something shouldn't be illegal, like they are trying to do with this. Committing a crime with it should be and the penalty should be MUCH greater when you commit a crime using  more violent means. The greater the crime and the greater the violence involved, the greater the penalty. However, a lot of criminals don't care about ther law, so why penalize the average citizen? That's all you are doing....turning honest, non-violent, hard working people into criminals who'd never commit a crime in the first place. Real criminals don't care what you think and will get what ever they want, somewhere.

Quoted: Quoted: While I'm not ready to run down the street naked & screaming over this amendment, I am dissapointed that it was allowed to be tacked on to an otherwise good bill. I acknowledge that it has the *potential * to do our rights grave harm in the future, and I very much hope that this language is stripped out in committee. I would suggest that we all contact our reps. & the Republican leadership of the House & Senate and tell them kick this amendment to the curb! Lippo, please use the above post as an example of how to start a positive discussion on a topic. Raving lunacy gets you no where and puts people on the defensive. Thanks, NYPatriot for your typical sane response to a heated topic and one in which I agree.

I never would have thought in a million years that an AP ban amendment would be such a heated topic.

But it's not, the heat comes from supporters of Republicans that want to be in denial. If S. 397 wouldn't have had this attached to it...I wouldn't have been happier. People are on the defensive, not because you "want" to see me as a raving lunatic, they are just pissed because they know deep down that this could come back to screw us and they don't want to face facts that they may have gotten screwed by someone that they support so much. Just like the wife that defends the husband that beats her all the time. "It's not like that officer, it was me. My husband didn't mean it. He didn't mean to hit me. I'm sure it won't happen again." THAT'S where the heat is coming from in this thread. The more ardent the Republican, the more flack I'm going to get for saying, this could come back to haunt us and it's not right, just not plain right.

NYPatriot had the best IDEA....PRESSURE your REPUBLICAN officals. Here in Michigan, it won't do much good. My rep., Schwartz, say's he's a 2nd Amendment supporter, but when it comes to bans and such, he's right on the band wagon. Protecting the perception of himself and keeping his job is his biggest worry, he proposed or supported the house version of S.397, but I'd bet he'll approve of this study and any law banning any "terrible" ammo.

So if you Republican supporters want to do something...CALL the NRA, CALL your House Reps and pressure them to deep six this Amendment.

I've already talked to the NRA about it. I talked to them today. How many of you RBKA supporters have called yet? If you haven't GET on the phones!

Quoted: Remember the mandated study on ballistic fingerprinting?  It hasn't come back to bite us.  On the contrary, it nixed the idea.

Quit bringing up facts. Facts aren't welcome here.

Sub-MOA

Yeah, and we will have REAL numbers about AP the next time Fineswine goes on the rag. Real AP is {almost} never used in violent crime. Largely because 32acp is not an optimal platform. THE REAL DATA can't but help the cause. Simple as that.

When have real numbers and facts meant anything to any of these people? Even the TOP dog Republicans say illegal imigrants are not an issue.

Studies don't mean anything. You can make up anything you want with a study. And I don't trust the Justice department to be really honest when it comes to making out the facts. And since when, did they get the Right to study and legislate WHAT I CAN USE? As long as I don't commit a Constitutional crime with it, when is it their business? If I use AP at the range or hunting and don't hurt anyone else with it, what Right do they have to stop me? Maybe I LIKE to make sure a Grizzly is dead! You know what I am saying? They DON'T have this Right and we are allowing these people to TAKE away our Freedom. They keep spouting FREEDOM, but I keep seeing it slip away. Hopefully, they won't use Eminent Domain to close all of the ranges. It's for the public good you know....a walmart is better for the community than your range, so good bye range. Chicken Little? I'd rather error on the side of caution.

Quoted: Quoted: While I'm not ready to run down the street naked & screaming over this amendment, I am dissapointed that it was allowed to be tacked on to an otherwise good bill. I acknowledge that it has the *potential * to do our rights grave harm in the future, and I very much hope that this language is stripped out in committee. I would suggest that we all contact our reps. & the Republican leadership of the House & Senate and tell them kick this amendment to the curb! Lippo, please use the above post as an example of how to start a positive discussion on a topic. Raving lunacy gets you no where and puts people on the defensive. Thanks, NYPatriot for your typical sane response to a heated topic and one in which I agree.

I said the same thing in a previous post. However, some people think that since a bill has passed one house of Congress that the battle is lost. Not to mention those same people did not read the amendment to said bill prior to going off tilting at windmills.

Quoted: Quoted: It's cripping to need and not have, than have an not need. I've got AP rifle ammo stacked up for the blue helmets when they come to confiscate my weapons. me too!!!

Come again tango alpha whisky foxtrot.

I may be wrong, but weren't AP bullets intended to increase the affectiveness of rifles/MGs against ARMORED vehicles? Normal lead FMJ bullets will go through bulletproof vests with ease (of any type)

ben

Quoted: Quoted: Remember the mandated study on ballistic fingerprinting?  It hasn't come back to bite us.  On the contrary, it nixed the idea. Quit bringing up facts. Facts aren't welcome here.

Isn't there a state that as law about ballistic finger printing?????

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: While I'm not ready to run down the street naked & screaming over this amendment, I am dissapointed that it was allowed to be tacked on to an otherwise good bill. I acknowledge that it has the *potential * to do our rights grave harm in the future, and I very much hope that this language is stripped out in committee. I would suggest that we all contact our reps. & the Republican leadership of the House & Senate and tell them kick this amendment to the curb! Lippo, please use the above post as an example of how to start a positive discussion on a topic. Raving lunacy gets you no where and puts people on the defensive. Thanks, NYPatriot for your typical sane response to a heated topic and one in which I agree. I said the same thing in a previous post. However, some people think that since a bill has passed one house of Congress that the battle is lost. Not to mention those same people did not read the amendment to said bill prior to going off tilting at windmills.

It's sad to see you are more worried about windmills than discussing what could come of this and how WRONG it is in the first place. Wording of..."To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes." has some very serious tone to it. Don't you agree?

Quoted: It's sad to see you are more worried about windmills than discussing what could come of this and how WRONG it is in the first place. Wording of..."To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes." has some very serious tone to it. Don't you agree?

...and for other purposes is what really makes me nervous.  While many here will agree that its good that this bill got passed one has to wonder why Craig even took the risk with this?  

Sure, I'm sure the AG will do the study and come back with good results for us but who knows.  Someone posted earlier that all they have to do is set the bar low in their thinking (like penatrating a level II vest) and then a lot of things come into play.  I can see Kennedy standing up at the podium now saying we need another stricter AP ammo ban becuase even Bush's evil right wing Republican AG said he can come up with criteria to guide congress on what should and should not be legal to own.

Most of the sheeple also do not understand the difference between soft body armor and hard armor.  Even if they know that bullet "proof" vests don't stop all rounds out there they probably don't understand what the differnt levels of protection are.

Craig took a risk with this and I'm hoping it will go away when the House (praying here) passes a clean and non-amended bill.

Quoted: (Liar, huh? Sounds like a VERY personal attack.  )

It is a very personal attack. Your lie and my calling you on it. You said I believed politicians are on my side. I have never said that; you cannot show where I did say taht. You deliberately tried to mischaracterize my statement. That sir, is a lie. And for perpetrating it, you are a liar.

(Well, it looks like that's the only thing we'll agree on)

Yet you insisted that I believe politicians are "on my side." So which is it? It's obvious that you have not read my posts just like you didn't read the amendment prior to typing. The process should be: read, think, then post. Not jump to conclusions and then display your ignorance on a public forum.

This Amendment should have never been allowed out of committee, and if we had a government that actually "recognized" our Rights, this would be struck down by committee or be heard by the Surpreme Court and struck down. And you KNOW the US Surpreme Court will NEVER hear a 2nd Amendment case. You DO realize that right?

Who said the amendment was added in committee? You do know that amendment/riders can be attached in the full Senate right?  Again, you are showing your ignorance of the legislative process.

(Can you name any where we were given our Rights back?)

Actually, since you can't seem to find the text of an amendment to a bill that was passed yesterday, when you had the bill and amendment number, you need the practice at internet research. Try findlaw.com and work from there.

(I understand what you are saying, but you don't want to acknowledge the fact that no matter what, these kinds of infringements should never even leave the committee. You want to fight them, I want to see the government "uphold" the Constitution from the word go. There's the difference between us. You like to fight, I want to see that we don't have too.)

Umm, with senators like Feingold, Feinstien, Boxer, Kennedy, Clinton, etc. everything is a fight. You don't think that this bill wasn't a fight even in its purest form? Senator Kennedy was going to add a rider that would have expanded the definition of AP when the bill was being debated in the full Senate. Instead the R's preempted his action by adding their own amendment that stiffened sentencing for crimes committed with AP ammo and promised to study the issue of "cop killer" bullets. That had the effect of taking the wind out of Kennedy's sails and preserved our rights a bit longer. Every piece of legislation is a fight and the fight is not over until the House approves such a bill and the President signs it.

Pressuring your elected reps, in the long run, is a losing battle.

If that is a losing battle the our rights are already lost. Are you advocating a revolution?
It's not a losing battle. It's a constant battle. The liberals didn't get their way all at once, as you point out in your progression of lost rights. They got a little bit at a time. The restoration of rights will only be gained the same way. Small battles incrementally moving our direction. That has been happening since 1994. CCW, the expiration of the ban, the adjustments to Brady, and now the protection for gun makers.

What I don't think you realize is we have been winning in the Congress. If we weren't the liberals wouldn't have had to resort to their fall back tactic, the courts. You see when the libs don't get their way they attack something in the courts.  They use the courts to get their way. In this case, they were going to make it so expensive to make and sell guns to the general public, by using junk lawsuits, that it would have banned the sale of firearms to "civilians," in effect.

Stopping that is more important than stopping a study of the use of AP ammo vs body armor.

Gotta think long-term and big picture.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Remember the mandated study on ballistic fingerprinting?  It hasn't come back to bite us.  On the contrary, it nixed the idea. Quit bringing up facts. Facts aren't welcome here. Isn't there a state that as law about ballistic finger printing?????

MD, IIRC, but it's not a federal law. The BF study was a federal study and the MD law was passed before it was completed.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: While I'm not ready to run down the street naked & screaming over this amendment, I am dissapointed that it was allowed to be tacked on to an otherwise good bill. I acknowledge that it has the *potential * to do our rights grave harm in the future, and I very much hope that this language is stripped out in committee. I would suggest that we all contact our reps. & the Republican leadership of the House & Senate and tell them kick this amendment to the curb! Lippo, please use the above post as an example of how to start a positive discussion on a topic. Raving lunacy gets you no where and puts people on the defensive. Thanks, NYPatriot for your typical sane response to a heated topic and one in which I agree. I said the same thing in a previous post. However, some people think that since a bill has passed one house of Congress that the battle is lost. Not to mention those same people did not read the amendment to said bill prior to going off tilting at windmills. It's sad to see you are more worried about windmills than discussing what could come of this and how WRONG it is in the first place. Wording of..."To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes." has some very serious tone to it. Don't you agree?

OMG you're right the title is so scary I should be scared of the amendment!

Jesus, you're sounding like a liberal. The black gun looks scary so it should be banned!

Go back and read the text of the amendment, which you didn't do before your original post. NoVaGator has laid it out vs the law that is already on the books. Besides the "evil study" and the sentencing guidelines there is no change. It doesn't do anything more to regulate the sale and possession of AP ammo than what is already on the books.

But don't let facts get in your way Don Quixote.

Quoted: I said the same thing in a previous post. However, some people think that since a bill has passed one house of Congress that the battle is lost. Not to mention those same people did not read the amendment to said bill prior to going off tilting at windmills.

You're correct. I bow to your level-headedness,
as well. That said, I am also concerned about
this amd. However, I do not see it in quite the
ominous light as Lippo does.

I do plan on calling the NRA on Monday and
expressing my concern on the matter.

Lippo...

So if you Republican supporters want to do something...CALL the NRA, CALL your House Reps and pressure them to deep six this Amendment. I've already talked to the NRA about it. I talked to them today. How many of you RBKA supporters have called yet? If you haven't GET on the phones!

See... we do agree!

Take his (and my) advice folks... we have to let the NRA & the Republican majority know in no uncertain terms that this  this amendment is a bad seed that needs to be shit canned ASAP!

 

Quoted: Quoted: I said the same thing in a previous post. However, some people think that since a bill has passed one house of Congress that the battle is lost. Not to mention those same people did not read the amendment to said bill prior to going off tilting at windmills. You're correct. I bow to your level-headedness, as well. That said, I am also concerned about this amd. However, I do not see it in quite the ominous light as Lippo does. I do plan on calling the NRA on Monday and expressing my concern on the matter.

I'm glad someone else agrees. I agree it's not ideal and should be absent in the house version.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Remember the mandated study on ballistic fingerprinting?  It hasn't come back to bite us.  On the contrary, it nixed the idea. Quit bringing up facts. Facts aren't welcome here. Isn't there a state that as law about ballistic finger printing????? MD, IIRC, but it's not a federal law. The BF study was a federal study and the MD law was passed before it was completed.

Guess it's come back to haunt some huh? There are some US citizens that are AFFECTED by this. You just seem to want to sweep it under the rug.

And for your LIAR comment...Personal attacks on this scale get you banned...MODERATORS I'd like to talk to you!

You called me a LIAR because I said,

"I voted Republican because they are the lessor of two evils, but the lessor of two evils is STILL evil! You on the other hand, think they are completely on your side. Too bad for you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now you have just shown yourself to be a complete and total LIAR. You have no honor. You are the lowest of the low.

Are you saying I am a liar because I posted an observation that your wording leads me to believe that you are a very ardent supporter of the republicans. If this is not so, sorry, but that's the way it comes off. But your comment is very immature and YOU should appologize for it. If not, I'll be having a talk with the moderators. I don't take to being called a liar very lightly. I didn't not fabricate anything and YOU are showing that you are pissed because I feel the republicans are a lessor of two evils. I don't believe they are on the evil scale of the devil, but they DON'T always serve to uphold our Rights. I take your attack very seriously and I'd hope you do some growing up. From the FACTS of exactly what was said, You are lying about what you called ME a lair about. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the comment of low of the low, is totally uncalled for.

I still haven't seen your "facts" of where the surpreme court ruled that our 2nd Amendment Rights are an individual Right. Or where are the cases you spout off about? YOU are being a hypocrite on this, you challenge me about posting a thread with no facts, but you are doing the same. I saw an Amendment with a very serious title that could mean more restricting of Rights and posted my feelings about it. However, all you can do is attack without backing up any facts of your own. I may be throwing some stones, but this IS a very serious Amendment with VERY serious consequences. You seem to just want to defend the republicans and attack me for bringing it up. Am I wrong about that? Are you, not, just defending the republican party?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Remember the mandated study on ballistic fingerprinting?  It hasn't come back to bite us.  On the contrary, it nixed the idea. Quit bringing up facts. Facts aren't welcome here. Isn't there a state that as law about ballistic finger printing????? MD, IIRC, but it's not a federal law. The BF study was a federal study and the MD law was passed before it was completed.

Correct, Maryland requires it, but even our state police recommends dropping it so the investigators can work on more successful investigations (in a blind test of the system, the investigators couldnt even get a match) since they're in a money crunch.  Of course, the liberals say it would work if they just threw a few million more at it.

Kharn

Quoted: Umm, AP ammo is already regulated, so what's the big F'n deal? Unless they expanded the definition of AP, which it doesn't appear so based on the vast amount of information you've been able to post. Ah, I see that rider didn't pass in the final version, good to know. This just shows how important it is to know about the legislative process, instead of thinking you know something and jumping to irrational conclusions.

Currently AP ammo is only regulated in that License holders/FFLs can only sell it to other FFLS and police agencies.  Will this mean the rest of use can no longer sell/trade it?

Quoted: The Ap amendment didn't pass I got this email from the NRA this morning. NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 12, No. 30 7/29/05 S. 397 PASSES U.S. SENATE!!! Thanks to your efforts, today, the U.S. Senate passed S. 397 by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31!  While this doesn't assure the bill will be enacted into law, it represents a MAJOR first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's reign of extortion through reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry.  The fight now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, so it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to pass S. 397--"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." As reported yesterday, an amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) passed, which requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (does not apply to long guns).  It does not require gun owners to use the device, does not apply to private transfers, and does not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with some type of secure storage or safety device.  The amendment has no significant impact on current law or S. 397 itself. The U.S. Senate rejected a slew of anti-gun amendments to S. 397 including: Special "carve out" amendments by Sens. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Lautenberg (D-N.J.) that would have permitted reckless lawsuits by law enforcement and juveniles to continue unabated.  Both were soundly defeated; A ban on "armor piercing" ammunition (Kennedy-D-Mass.) (by a vote of 31-64) that would have banned virtually all hunting ammunition. Similar efforts have been continuously defeated by Congress, and Sen. Kennedy's most recent attempt was nothing more than anti-gun political posturing.  (The Senate did adopt an amendment by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) calling for increased penalties if "armor piercing" handgun  ammunition is used in the commission of a crime.),and; A "gutting" amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that sought to continue to allow the very types of suits  S. 397 prohibits (by a vote of 33-63). This long overdue victory marks the culmination of your tireless efforts--your phone calls, faxes, letters, e-mails, and personal meetings--over the past few days, and over the past many years.  As critical as these efforts were, this victory also highlights your importance in volunteering and voting for pro-gun candidates running for office.  Without your steadfast work in past election years to elect more pro-gun U.S. Senators, we simply would not have had enough votes to pass this bill in the Senate. Defeating former Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) in the 2004 elections (Daschle, as you'll recall was the architect who last year allowed the bill to be loaded up with anti-gun amendments), and thus elevating Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a consistent and longstanding supporter of S. 397, to that leadership position represented a major step toward guaranteeing we finally received a fair procedure to bring this measure up for a final vote, and carried out the will of a majority of the U.S. Senate.  And of course, members should express their gratitude to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid, and bill sponsors Sens. Larry Craig and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for their leadership and stewardship on S. 397. While this fight is far from over, the Senate's action today enabled us to overcome a major hurdle in enacting this legislation into law.  All of us at NRA-ILA thank you from the bottoms of our hearts for your continued vigilance in seeing this bill through the U.S. Senate.  You deserve a lion's share of the credit, and we know you will help us finish the job once and for all by now contacting your U.S. Representative and urging him/her to support "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

I think lippo has stated numerous times that he is not talking about the Kennedy AP amendment, but a different one.

BTW:  Anyone else notice that this is like the 10,000th time Kennedy has tried to add an AP ban amendment to a bill?  Can't he come up with anything else?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Remember the mandated study on ballistic fingerprinting?  It hasn't come back to bite us.  On the contrary, it nixed the idea. Quit bringing up facts. Facts aren't welcome here. Isn't there a state that as law about ballistic finger printing????? MD, IIRC, but it's not a federal law. The BF study was a federal study and the MD law was passed before it was completed. Guess it's come back to haunt some huh? There are some US citizens that are AFFECTED by this. You just seem to want to sweep it under the rug. And for your LIAR comment...Personal attacks on this scale get you banned...MODERATORS I'd like to talk to you! You called me a LIAR because I said, "I voted Republican because they are the lessor of two evils, but the lessor of two evils is STILL evil! You on the other hand, think they are completely on your side. Too bad for you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now you have just shown yourself to be a complete and total LIAR. You have no honor. You are the lowest of the low. Are you saying I am a liar because I posted an observation that your wording leads me to believe that you are a very ardent supporter of the republicans. If this is not so, sorry, but that's the way it comes off. But your comment is very immature and YOU should appologize for it. If not, I'll be having a talk with the moderators. I don't take to being called a liar very lightly. I didn't not fabricate anything and YOU are showing that you are pissed because I feel the republicans are a lessor of two evils. I don't believe they are on the evil scale of the devil, but they DON'T always serve to uphold our Rights. I take your attack very seriously and I'd hope you do some growing up. From the FACTS of exactly what was said, You are lying about what you called ME a lair about. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the comment of low of the low, is totally uncalled for. I still haven't seen your "facts" of where the surpreme court ruled that our 2nd Amendment Rights are an individual Right. Or where are the cases you spout off about? YOU are being a hypocrite on this, you challenge me about posting a thread with no facts, but you are doing the same. I saw an Amendment with a very serious title that could mean more restricting of Rights and posted my feelings about it. However, all you can do is attack without backing up any facts of your own. I may be throwing some stones, but this IS a very serious Amendment with VERY serious consequences. You seem to just want to defend the republicans and attack me for bringing it up. Am I wrong about that? Are you, not, just defending the republican party?

Have a talk with the moderators. Go ahead. If they ban me then so be it. You mischaracterized my statements, and then you told me what I beleived. Show me anywhere I said the Republicans were "on our side" as gunowners. You can't do it.
You have basically told me to pull my head out of my ass because I wasn't as worked up about this as you, when you had not even read the amendment, which, oh by the way, doesn't change the definition of AP nor does it change the regulations surrounding it.
Now you are going to cry about personal attacks? Go ahead.
As for USSC 2nd Amendment cases, it's called google or findlaw.com. You need the practice researching things on the internet.

ETA: This just shows how "open" you are to what others are saying here. That post which called you a liar for mischaracterizing my position, actually totally fabricating my position, was two pages ago, and you're only just now getting upset.

Quoted: Quoted: Umm, AP ammo is already regulated, so what's the big F'n deal? Unless they expanded the definition of AP, which it doesn't appear so based on the vast amount of information you've been able to post. Ah, I see that rider didn't pass in the final version, good to know. This just shows how important it is to know about the legislative process, instead of thinking you know something and jumping to irrational conclusions. Well, lets see. YES, IT DID PASS! And no matter what. Testing will lead to confiscation or jail time for standing up for your Rights! And any anti-gun Attorney General....like Goonzales...can say, NO MORE FOR YOU....PERIOD! Just like the ATF interpeting their own version of the GCA and not allowing the imporation of barrels. No big deal? People that think like you, are one of these.... www.gotstogo.com/images/head_up_butt.jpg or www.natural-health-information-centre.com/image-files/head-in-sand.jpg

According to lippo, this is not a personal attack. Just for the record.

Posted by Lippo --I DON'T TRUST ANY POLITICAN...PERIOD!
Smart move


The rebel is doomed to a violent death. The rest of us can look forward to sedated expiration in a coma inside an oxygen tent, with tubes inserted in every bodily orifice.

Abbey




http://www.strike-the-root.com/caption.html

Quoted: We got screwed, this will come back to haunt us, it shouldn't have even been allowed to be voted on, it should have been kicked out of committee and you CAN NOT trust the governement to do what is right.

Ok, now I'm confused.  The bill just went through Senate yesterday, and it's already gone through committee?  I've also heard from some of you guys that it still has to go through the House.  I thought it passed the House before it passed the Senate, am I wrong?

Quoted: Quoted: We got screwed, this will come back to haunt us, it shouldn't have even been allowed to be voted on, it should have been kicked out of committee and you CAN NOT trust the governement to do what is right. Ok, now I'm confused.  The bill just went through Senate yesterday, and it's already gone through committee?  I've also heard from some of you guys that it still has to go through the House.  I thought it passed the House before it passed the Senate, am I wrong?

As I understand it the amendment was added during debate on the Senate floor. It was added to head of Sen. Kennedy's amendment.

The House has passed similar measures before, but they were never passed in the Senate. This year the Senate passed it, but the House hasn't touched it yet. Now that the Senate has passed it, it's likely the more conservative House will take it up.

Of course, if the House doesn't pass the exact same bill, they have to reconcile the two and then submit the new bill to the House and the Senate for final approval before it reaches the President's desk.

Didn't the House already pass their version of the bill before the Senate?

Quoted:

Stop digging, dude.

Quoted: Didn't the House already pass their version of the bill before the Senate?

From what I've read, they did last year, but not this year. So they'll have to do it again. Probably, they decided not to waste their time this time until the Senate addressed it.