# atf trying to ban 223 ammo



## turkey hunter

So whats up with them wanting to ban 223/556 ammo.


----------



## angler69

In its never ending goal to ban modern sporting rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has proposed new regulations banning common AR-15 ammunition, arguing it's necessary to protect the safety of law enforcement officers. The NRA sounded the alarm late last week: 

In a move clearly intended by the XXXXX Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as armor piercing ammunition. The decision continues XXXXX use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.

It isnt even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated manufacturing of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered pistol. Now, BATFE has released a Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c), which would eliminate M855s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.

By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium. Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it may be used in a handgun. It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered armor piercing. Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be armor piercing ammunition, but granted it an exemption as a projectile primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.
And analysis from Bob Owens at BearingArms: 

The logic behind the ATF reclassification attempt it is that recent prevalence of AR-15 pistols means that the SS109/M855 cartridge is now an armor-piercing pistol bullet according to the absurd definitions crafted by politicians and bureaucrats who cant tell a bolt-face from a shoulder thing that goes up.

The bizarre reality of the ATF letter is, that if it goes into effect, the ruling would have the opposite effect of its stated purpose.

The ban on armor-piercing pistol ammunition is a great idea in theory, but is utterly absurd as a practical matter. Rifle caliber bullets are much more powerful than true pistol calibers, and all will easily penetrate Level IIa, Level II, and Level IIIa soft body armor worn by police, even fired from rifle-class pistols. The key difference is velocity, not the metals used in bullet construction.


The new proposal will allow Attorney General to determine if the ammunition in question qualifies under the broad definition of "sporting purposes." Current law gives ATF unfettered justification or power to decide what is and what is not sporting and therefore regulated or banned. 

A few questions come to mind as this new proposal gets more attention. 1) Why now? 2) Is "armor piercing" .223 ammunition really being used at epidemic rates against our law enforcement officers? The answer is no. 

Over the years, pro-gun control, big city police chiefs have argued that "assault weapons" are the main firearm being faced by law enforcement officers everyday. That just isn't true. In fact, when Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee back in 2013, he grossly misled the country when he said his officers were regularly facing this type of firepower in the streets. As I reported at the time: 

After the hearing Johnson told reporters, "Police officers face these weapons either in seizure cases or crimes of violence everyday. Dozens of police officers have lost their lives due to an assault weapon and a criminal adversary."

According to a Baltimore County Police Department report obtained and requested by Townhall, Johnson misled the public with his statement about assault weapons seizures. Townhall requested detailed documentation of weapons retrieved by Baltimore County Police Officers between October 1, 2012 and January 30, 2013, the day of Johnson's testimony. The department provided data from September 28, 2012 through February 5, 2013. The report not only shows that firearms aren't being seized on the streets "everyday" in Baltimore County, but that assault weapons in particular are hardly ever found in criminal seizures.

Out of approximately 600 guns seized only 26 of them were assault weapons under the Clinton era definition, of which included AR-15s, a few AKs/SKSs and a TEC-22. Less than 5 percent of guns seized in Baltimore County are assault weapons, despite Chief Johnson's statement to the press and implied statements before Congress.
ATF is accepting comments about this proposal through March 16, 2015.

NOT BANING .223/5.56 ammo in general just the "green" tip ammo


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ostbucks98

Go educate yourself on what it is specifically and dont contribute to hysteria by posting something like this.


^^^In reply to ops original post^^^


----------



## angler69

Send comments to : [email protected]


Sign the petition at : Petitions.whitehouse.gov




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ostbucks98

angler69 said:


> The decision continues Obamas use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Name another example?


----------



## turkey hunter

thanks for the infor


----------



## buckeye dan

ostbucks98 said:


> Name another example?


The article above mentions 3. Blocking the importation of all those M1 Garands from Korea also comes to mind. Russian 7N6 surplus ammo is now officially banned from future import. 

Which sets precedent for most of the 7.62 x XXmm because it's steel core too.

There were 23 orders signed immediately following Sandy Hook but admittedly most of them were procedural and not specifically anti gun. 

The Russian trade sanctions thanks to the goings on in the Ukraine and Georgia are part of the mix. Soon Kalashnikov rifles will be manufactured in the US because of that.

There are many more examples. Shall I go on?


----------



## ostbucks98

Yeah please do. I dont see any of those as attacks on gun rights...just common sense.


----------



## buckeye dan

ostbucks98 said:


> Yeah please do. I dont see any of those as attacks on gun rights...just common sense.


Actually, define your idea of "common sense" as it is used in the already given examples. Your idea of common sense may be unique to you. In which case there is no point in continuing this conversation. 

Any process or law that hinders or prohibits me from lawfully obtaining or owning firearms and ammunition is a direct attack on my gun rights. I don't use Russian 7N6 ammo or M855 ammo to shoot people wearing anything much less soft body armor. I have to be denied it's possession because of what someone has or may do? Screw that!

I would like to own one of those Korean M1's but now I can't because someone said so? Why should the entire country be denied the right to own one of those? They've been part of the CMP program for decades and I am not aware of any used in a crime.

Please explain the common sense in blocking the importation of M1 Garand rifles?


----------



## Workdog

ostbucks98 said:


> Yeah please do. I dont see any of those as attacks on gun rights...just common sense.


Do you suppose that gun control would only be decreed in this country in one fell swoop...or by many smaller actions upon a gullible and govt-trusting public?


----------



## buckeye dan

Workdog said:


> Do you suppose that gun control would only be decreed in this country in one fell swoop...or by many smaller actions upon a gullible and govt-trusting public?


Some people can't see the forest for the trees.

The 7N6 and M855 ban creates precedent for all steel core ammo. Therefore the 30 caliber stuff is next. Once we have gotten rid of all that horrible body armor defeating ammo and convinced everyone it was a good idea, we have to evaluate all ammo that can defeat soft body armor commonly used by law enforcement.

The proverbial snowball has been kicked from the mountain top. Since the courts are slowly protecting the guns, the ammo is the next logical target to attack.


----------



## bobk

ostbucks98 said:


> Yeah please do. I dont see any of those as attacks on gun rights...just common sense.



I can't believe you don't see what is taking place here.


----------



## bobk

Dan, you seem to be in the know on these subjects quite well. Would you still buy a rifle that uses 7.62 or pass?


----------



## joebertin

bobk said:


> I can't believe you don't see what is taking place here.


Believe it. It is convoluted logic, and dangerous to freedom.

Very frustrating to those of us who do see what is taking place.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

I should be able to own any gun I want right? Under any circumstances! Cmon now folks.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

What do you guys think about:

National Firearms Act:
Main article: National Firearms Act
The first major federal firearms law passed in the 20th century was the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. It was passed after Prohibition-era gangsterism peaked with the Saint Valentine's Day massacre of 1929. The era was famous for criminal use of firearms such as the Thompson submachine gun (Tommy gun) and sawed-off shotgun. Under the NFA, machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and other weapons fall under the regulation and jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) as described by Title II.[22]

How about the Gun Control act of 1968?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) was passed after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and African-American activists Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960s.[1] The GCA focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. It also prohibits selling firearms to certain categories of individuals defined as "prohibited persons."

Chaos outside the Washington Hilton Hotel after the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan. James Brady and police officer Thomas Delahanty lie wounded on the ground.
The murder of musician John Lennon in 1980 and an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981 led to enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) in 1993 which established the national background check system to prevent certain restricted individuals from owning, purchasing, or transporting firearms.

Also:

Proposals by Obama Administration[edit]
On January 16, 2013, in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and other mass shootings, President Barack Obama announced a plan for reducing gun violence in four parts: closing background check loopholes; banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines; making schools safer; and increasing access to mental health services.[80][81]:2 The plan included proposals for new laws to be passed by Congress, and a series of executive actions not requiring Congressional approval.[80][82][83] No new federal gun control legislation was passed as a result of these proposals.[84]

The executive actions included:

Improve the data used for the background check system for gun sales;
Direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence;[85]
Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers;
Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.

This is probably a better link talking about Gun Law in the US.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States


----------



## ostbucks98

I dont really care about any of that I just want a Korean M1...


Maybe if Korea would just send the m1's back there wouldnt be a problem. I have a problem with the US supplying other countries arms and then those countries trying to turn a buck by selling them back to us.


----------



## supercanoe

I am a law abiding and productive member of society. I own and shoot M855 ammunition. Why should this right be taken away from me? If gun owners don't take a hard line on all threats to our constitutional rights we will loose them.


----------



## ostbucks98

Oh spare me the scare tactics...its always all or nothing with a total lack of common sense. Just buy a different ammo.

" Federal regulators are considering revising the framework for determining if a particular type of ammo is used primarily for sporting purposes.

Prefacing a call for comments, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives details the current framework for identifying armor piercing ammunition, with key components defined by Congress in the*Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986being ammo with no sporting purposes that*can be fired out of a rifle and*handgun.

The*17-page document*puts a popular type of 5.56mm ammunition  M855 cartridges equipped with SS109 bullets  under scrutiny. M855, recognized by its green tip, are standardized military rounds.

To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework  ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm green tip ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges, the ATF says.

In 1986, the*M855 ammo was exempt for sporting purposes, but standards, processes and firearm types changed in the past 29 years. For instance, the AR-15  the M16 rifles civilian equivalent  is now available in a pistol configuration with nearly identical features and functionality.

In April, the ATF had a similar ruling with Russian surplus*7N6 5.45×39 type ammo. Upon discovering that an AK-pattern pistol was commercially available in the United States, the agency issued a ruling banning the import and sale of the ammo type. Based on its interpretation of LEOPA,*the availability of the AK-pistol alters the ammos legal description.

The ATF says it recognizes that M855 is widely available to the public, so it soliciting comments on how it can best implement withdrawal of this exemption while minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety.

The agency will consider all comments received by*March 16. Submissions will be accepted three ways:

ATF website:*[email protected] Follow the instructions for submitting comments.*(202) 648-9741.*Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.

For more information, contact*Denise Brown with the ATFs Office of Regulatory Affairs at 202-648-7070."


----------



## fallen513

*yawn*

_______________


----------



## snakedog

Too much drama. It's just more hyperbole from the NRA...

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo

...I'm so glad I don't belong to such an outfit of clowns.


----------



## buckeye dan

bobk said:


> Dan, you seem to be in the know on these subjects quite well. Would you still buy a rifle that uses 7.62 or pass?


The decision is ultimately yours. With that said, in spite of the rumors on the internet, there is no supply shortage of 7.62. There is only inflated panic buying. It's still streaming into the country for now.

Companies like Wolf for instance buy from a number of countries. Some of them have actual Russian surplus ammo that they are just rotating from inventory or reselling. So that stuff can be had almost indefinitely. (Unless we ban it like the 7N6)

If you are in the mood for a 7.62 because of the cheap 7N6 flooding the market, expect prices of what you are allowed to buy increase. Same goes for the M855. The military surplus remains cheap due to the definition of the word "surplus".

Look to history for your guidance. The .30 Carbine cartridge has been out of service for quite some time but you can still find it and it is still manufactured in small quantities.

I think the most relevant barometer for today is the 8mm Mauser. The surplus has dried up for the most part but it is still in circulation at inflated prices because the supply is diminished. I can buy a spam can of it for about $180 today but it's not the $80 it was a few years ago when tungsten and steel core stuff was everywhere.

Can I enjoy my 8mm today for cheap? You have to define what cheap is for you. Can I enjoy steel core 8mm today? Maybe but if they ban it then that is one more dried up source that will impact everything related to 8mm ammo. I rarely see the tungsten stuff these days and if it is for sale, the cost is prohibitive for general plinking.

I realize I did not directly answer your question but I did say the decision is ultimately up to you. MassillonBuckeye and our resident gun rights advocate ostbucks98 both pointed out the FOPA of 1986 and the GCA of 1934. Most of us know it as that NFA crap that law abiding citizens are subjected to.

29 years later and I am acquaintances with probably the last 2 guys on earth that can still manufacture US civilian transferable full auto firearms as brand new firearms. Their guns were about $800 and are now about $6000 after 29 years of regulations. They didn't go away, they just cost more.


----------



## buckeye dan

ostbucks98 said:


> Oh spare me the scare tactics...its always all or nothing with a total lack of common sense. Just buy a different ammo.
> 
> " Federal regulators are considering revising the framework for determining if a particular type of ammo is used primarily for sporting purposes.
> 
> Prefacing a call for comments, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives details the current framework for identifying armor piercing ammunition, with key components defined by Congress in the*Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986being ammo with no sporting purposes that*can be fired out of a rifle and*handgun.
> 
> The*17-page document*puts a popular type of 5.56mm ammunition  M855 cartridges equipped with SS109 bullets  under scrutiny. M855, recognized by its green tip, are standardized military rounds.
> 
> To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework  ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm green tip ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges, the ATF says.
> 
> In 1986, the*M855 ammo was exempt for sporting purposes, but standards, processes and firearm types changed in the past 29 years. For instance, the AR-15  the M16 rifles civilian equivalent  is now available in a pistol configuration with nearly identical features and functionality.
> 
> In April, the ATF had a similar ruling with Russian surplus*7N6 5.45×39 type ammo. Upon discovering that an AK-pattern pistol was commercially available in the United States, the agency issued a ruling banning the import and sale of the ammo type. Based on its interpretation of LEOPA,*the availability of the AK-pistol alters the ammos legal description.
> 
> The ATF says it recognizes that M855 is widely available to the public, so it soliciting comments on how it can best implement withdrawal of this exemption while minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety.
> 
> The agency will consider all comments received by*March 16. Submissions will be accepted three ways:
> 
> ATF website:*[email protected] Follow the instructions for submitting comments.*(202) 648-9741.*Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
> 
> For more information, contact*Denise Brown with the ATFs Office of Regulatory Affairs at 202-648-7070."


Define the parameters of sporting purposes. 2A does not contain boundaries regarding "sporting". Supreme court rulings suggest that commonality is the test to measure things.

I can assure you that any AR or AK style rifle and all of it's "common" capacity and ammunition will survive any test that SCOTUS can apply at this juncture.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

buckeye dan said:


> I realize I did not directly answer your question but I did say the decision is ultimately up to you. MassillonBuckeye and our resident gun rights advocate ostbucks98 both pointed out the FOPA of 1986 and the GCA of 1934. Most of us know it as that NFA crap that law abiding citizens are subjected to.
> 
> 29 years later and I am acquaintances with probably the last 2 guys on earth that can still manufacture US civilian transferable full auto firearms as brand new firearms. Their guns were about $800 and are now about $6000 after 29 years of regulations. They didn't go away, they just cost more.


Lest we not forget that no one is born a criminal and everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until they choose to break the law. Does the increased cost have anything to do with the fact our streets aren't littered with them(not theirs in particular)? What if there WAS a legal say, $350 machine gun? Speak to the issues you think that would cause in our society compared to the "NFA crap" us law abiding, gun owning citizens are so begrudgingly "subject to". I see it as a pretty small price to pay ultimately for the such large amount of freedom we continue to enjoy. I could be completely off base here..


----------



## bobk

Thanks Dan, 
the prices have already gone up. I should have got my ar10 fix last year. Just in the last week in my travels I've watched the prices go up. Frustrating to say the least. Here we go again.


----------



## ostbucks98

Blame panic buying....exactly what ammo suppliers want.


----------



## buckeye dan

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Lest we not forget that no one is born a criminal and everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until they choose to break the law. Does the increased cost have anything to do with the fact our streets aren't littered with them(not theirs in particular)? What if there WAS a legal say, $350 machine gun? Speak to the issues you think that would cause in our society compared to the "NFA crap" us law abiding, gun owning citizens are so begrudgingly "subject to". I see it as a pretty small price to pay ultimately for the such large amount of freedom we continue to enjoy. I could be completely off base here..


Haynes v. United States. Look it up.

There are several factors that prevent criminals from using machine guns to commit crimes. The registration process and tax stamp is not one of them.

Cost is not a factor. While actual factory condition machine guns are hard to come by, home made conversions can be done for almost nothing. Case and point, the North Hollywood bank robbery.

A sawed off shotgun is an NFA item. How many of those exist illegally? I can't answer that but I do see them turn up on occasion at no questions asked gun buy back programs. I can't own one without jumping through the hoops but a criminal can make one in a few minutes time with a hacksaw.

Sacrificing my freedoms to prevent the behavior of others is not something I consider a solution.

Banning one type of ammunition in a couple specific calibers seems like a good idea on the face of it. That leads to banning all of that type of ammunition in all of the calibers it exists in. Why are we banning that ammunition? Oh yea, it's because it defeats commonly used body armor. So logic would dictate that we need to eventually eliminate all body armor defeating inventory. Let's not forget capacity while we're at it. That is a big problem too.

It will never stop. I can give you pages of historical examples to prove it but that would drag us even further off topic.


----------



## buckeye dan

bobk said:


> Thanks Dan,
> the prices have already gone up. I should have got my ar10 fix last year. Just in the last week in my travels I've watched the prices go up. Frustrating to say the least. Here we go again.


I think the time to buy the gun would have been between 2004 and 2008. Same for the ammunition but ideally I would have stockpiled that in the early 2000's. There was an influx of Argentine 7.62x51 that was really good ammo and super cheap. Depending on the timing it could be found for .07 to .15 cents per round.

I remember that because of all the whining from the M1A crowd when it hit .20 to 30 cents per round. Sigh! Those days are gone.

If you want an AR-10 then go get one. It's still a service caliber around the world and surplus can be had but it costs more than it used to. You can find 500 round cases for about $330. The crappy Wolf stuff can be had for about $250/500rnds. I wouldn't run that in my AR-10 though. Nothing but brass for my AR's.


----------



## ostbucks98

Vances has the m&p15 for $450...go grab ya one


----------



## missionfishin

ostbucks98 said:


> Vances has the m&p15 for $450...go grab ya one


No they don't.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

buckeye dan said:


> Haynes v. United States. Look it up.
> 
> There are several factors that prevent criminals from using machine guns to commit crimes. The registration process and tax stamp is not one of them.
> 
> Cost is not a factor. While actual factory condition machine guns are hard to come by, home made conversions can be done for almost nothing. Case and point, the North Hollywood bank robbery.
> 
> A sawed off shotgun is an NFA item. How many of those exist illegally? I can't answer that but I do see them turn up on occasion at no questions asked gun buy back programs. I can't own one without jumping through the hoops but a criminal can make one in a few minutes time with a hacksaw.
> 
> Sacrificing my freedoms to prevent the behavior of others is not something I consider a solution.
> 
> Banning one type of ammunition in a couple specific calibers seems like a good idea on the face of it. That leads to banning all of that type of ammunition in all of the calibers it exists in. Why are we banning that ammunition? Oh yea, it's because it defeats commonly used body armor. So logic would dictate that we need to eventually eliminate all body armor defeating inventory. Let's not forget capacity while we're at it. That is a big problem too.
> 
> It will never stop. I can give you pages of historical examples to prove it but that would drag us even further off topic.


Saying the streets wouldn't be full of a fully automatic weapon if they were cheap and easily obtainable is absolutely ludicrous. Just like the streets are full of cheap throw away .380s. Hi Points, Cobras and everything else. Criminals are generally bottom feeders so that fully auto at 10k is out of their reach for all intents and purposes. I know I'd own one and so would many other "law abiding citizens" and in turn the people we don't want to have them if they were cheaper and more plentiful. How do criminals get their guns? At the gun stores? Steal them from "law abiding citizens"? Neither? I dunno, but if we can't see eye to eye on the fact that a cheap and readily available, legal automatic weapon would be relatively widespread in use in our society, we really have no reason to continue this conversation. If you could buy a Tommy Gun for $200, everyone would have one including the criminals. Look at the drug wars that started in Miami in the late 70s early 80s. Lots of machine gun murders. If you aren't even willing to concede that point, then everyone here should understand why we have such trouble coming to common ground on this issue in this country and why both sides have to resort to such extremes to make their points. Its rather unfortunate.

http://flashbackmiami.com/2014/09/10/miami-drug-wars/


----------



## bobk

buckeye dan said:


> I think the time to buy the gun would have been between 2004 and 2008. Same for the ammunition but ideally I would have stockpiled that in the early 2000's. There was an influx of Argentine 7.62x51 that was really good ammo and super cheap. Depending on the timing it could be found for .07 to .15 cents per round.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember that because of all the whining from the M1A crowd when it hit .20 to 30 cents per round. Sigh! Those days are gone.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want an AR-10 then go get one. It's still a service caliber around the world and surplus can be had but it costs more than it used to. You can find 500 round cases for about $330. The crappy Wolf stuff can be had for about $250/500rnds. I wouldn't run that in my AR-10 though. Nothing but brass for my AR's.



I'll probably still by one since I really like the ar platform. Yep, the steel case is pretty hard on the rifles. I bought a bunch of Brown Bear russian ammo for $5.00 a box last year. Too cheap to pass up. It cycled fine in my 15's but I made sure to clean the guns when done shooting.


----------



## ostbucks98

missionfishin said:


> No they don't.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-S959G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Well they were in January's flyer........I just checked and they went back up to $569


----------



## buckeye dan

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Saying the streets wouldn't be full of a fully automatic weapon if they were cheap and easily obtainable is absolutely ludicrous. Just like the streets are full of cheap throw away .380s. Hi Points, Cobras and everything else. Criminals are generally bottom feeders so that fully auto at 10k is out of their reach for all intents and purposes. I know I'd own one and so would many other "law abiding citizens" and in turn the people we don't want to have them if they were cheaper and more plentiful. How do criminals get their guns? At the gun stores? Steal them from "law abiding citizens"? Neither? I dunno, but if we can't see eye to eye on the fact that a cheap and readily available, legal automatic weapon would be relatively widespread in use in our society, we really have no reason to continue this conversation. If you could buy a Tommy Gun for $200, everyone would have one including the criminals. Look at the drug wars that started in Miami in the late 70s early 80s. Lots of machine gun murders. If you aren't even willing to concede that point, then everyone here should understand why we have such trouble coming to common ground on this issue in this country and why both sides have to resort to such extremes to make their points. Its rather unfortunate.
> 
> http://flashbackmiami.com/2014/09/10/miami-drug-wars/


Actually you inadvertently made my point. Where did the drug war guns come from? I think it is safe to say they were not legally obtained.

I know the point you are trying to make. You're speaking of a type of law of averages. The more there are, the easier they are to get, the more they will be used in a crime.

So your position is that of self sacrifice in order to prevent machine gun violence. Ready to do some more of that sacrificing for steel core ammunition violence?

We basically went from "shall not be infringed" to 3 gun control acts, an assault weapons ban and "reasonable restrictions" in 81 years. We'll get more of the same in the next 81 years I'm sure of it.


----------



## supercanoe

I am really surprised that fellow outdoorsmen are so willing to drink the Kool Aid.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

buckeye dan said:


> Actually you inadvertently made my point. Where did the drug war guns come from? I think it is safe to say they were not legally obtained.
> 
> I know the point you are trying to make. You're speaking of a type of law of averages. The more there are, the easier they are to get, the more they will be used in a crime.
> 
> So your position is that of self sacrifice in order to prevent machine gun violence. Ready to do some more of that sacrificing for steel core ammunition violence?
> 
> We basically went from "shall not be infringed" to 3 gun control acts, an assault weapons ban and "reasonable restrictions" in 81 years. We'll get more of the same in the next 81 years I'm sure of it.


Correct. Law of averages. My point is those weapons WERE legally obtained at one point. Gun manufacturers don't make them for the black market. They end up there somehow. THATS my point. They are made for LEGITIMATE purposes, then "re purposed". That's the issue we have. The more we have out there for Legitimate purposes, the more that end up in the wrong hands one way or another.
Look elsewhere in our society of similar "freedoms", if that's what you want to call em, that we have to give up for the greater good. So I go to a gas station and can't fill this old glass gallon jug with gas? I have to use an approved container? Them dogs! You mean I can't drive 100MPH down the freeway?? I'm a perfectly good driver with a clean driving record, how dare they tell me how fast I can drive! Seat belts? That's law now? How many of you agree with the seat belt laws?

Whos/which "freedoms" are more important than others? The majority decides whether right or wrong. That's the beauty of this country.

Steel core ammo: there are alternatives? Whats the lure of the steel core? Price? Freedom isn't free.

"shall not be infringed" vs. "as part of a well regulated militia". Discuss.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

supercanoe said:


> I am really surprised that fellow outdoorsmen are so willing to drink the Kool Aid.


Which flavor are you speaking of? The flavor that Obama and the ATF are actively coming for all our guns? Or the flavor that sees the need to balance whats best/safest for society vs sporting needs/wants?

No gun regulations would never work in this society. Too many crazies. It's pretty clear there needs to be a balance.


----------



## ostbucks98

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Which flavor are you speaking of? The flavor that Obama and the ATF are actively coming for all our guns? Or the flavor that sees the need to balance whats best/safest for society vs sporting needs/wants?
> 
> No gun regulations would never work in this society. Too many crazies. It's pretty clear there needs to be a balance.


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## buckeye dan

19 guys with razors managed to kill 3000+ people and changed the world forever. They thrust how many countries into war?

On the home front, if you want or need to fly now, you're 4th Amendment has been overridden. If you believe in a presumption of innocence then your 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment has arguably been compromised as well.

Let's just throw that silly old constitution away. It's obsolete and keeps getting in the way of governments trying to keep us safe from ourselves.


----------



## joebertin

buckeye dan said:


> 19 guys with razors managed to kill 3000+ people and changed the world forever. They thrust how many countries into war?
> 
> On the home front, if you want or need to fly now, you're 4th Amendment has been overridden. If you believe in a presumption of innocence then your 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment has arguably been compromised as well.
> 
> Let's just throw that silly old constitution away. It's obsolete and keeps getting in the way of governments trying to keep us safe from ourselves.


Kind of hard to argue with that kind of logic...of course someone will.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

buckeye dan said:


> 19 guys with razors managed to kill 3000+ people and changed the world forever. They thrust how many countries into war?
> 
> On the home front, if you want or need to fly now, you're 4th Amendment has been overridden. If you believe in a presumption of innocence then your 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment has arguably been compromised as well.
> 
> Let's just throw that silly old constitution away. It's obsolete and keeps getting in the way of governments trying to keep us safe from ourselves.


Then get up in arms about the Patriot Act GWB thrust upon us. I'll be right behind you. In the meantime..

Correction: razors w/ the threat of bombs. I'd be willing to be razors alone would not have had the same effect. Well actually we know it wouldn't have had the same effect and the brave souls on United Airlines flight 93 called their bluff and overcame the terrorists and crashed into the ground instead of their intended target. So not quite buddy and way to trivialize such a horrendous event. Nothing but box cutters... Hands and feet kill more folks than assault rifles etc. Yeah, we've heard it all, and it's all bunk, sorry.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

joebertin said:


> Kind of hard to argue with that kind of logic...of course someone will.


Yep! I just did. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 proved me right. I can almost guarantee you can't terrorize a group of 100 people in a confined space with a lone razor blade. How preposterous a notion. To me the notion is actually rather insulting to all the folks who lost their lives that day.

Now if someone says "We've got a bomb we're going to detonate if anyone gets out of their seat"... That's a little different don't you think?


----------



## buckeyebowman

bobk said:


> I can't believe you don't see what is taking place here.


Indeed! It's the time honored, leftist practice known as "incrementalism"!


----------



## ostbucks98

Typical righty you dont agree with me so ill go on the attack


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Why do we care about shooting steel core ammo? Cost? Let em do their thing if it makes them feel better. If they we're trying to ban all 5.56 it'd be a different story. No one is going to allow that to happen. I'd be one of the first to speak out trust me. 


I like this article on the subject and his apology at the end...

http://benswann.com/correction-ammunition-ban-would-be-on-5-56mm-green-tip-bullets/



> As a writer for Truth in Media, I apologize for the previous article on this subject where I stated AR-style rifles would be &#8220;rendered obsolete.&#8221; This in incorrect and I take full responsibility for my mistake. I will continue to strive for the truth behind stories from around the world. Again, I apologize for my mistake.
> Zach McAuliffe
> Zach McAuliffe is a University of Dayton alumni with degrees in journalism and English. He wants to present people with all the facts they need to make informed decisions on the world around them. He also enjoys Shakespeare and long walks on the beach with his puppy Lily.


Truth in Media! HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!


----------



## supercanoe

855 is not steel core ammunition. Before you "let em do their thing" you should know the facts. Read the document and look at the 855 bullet construction.


----------



## buckeye dan

supercanoe said:


> 855 is not steel core ammunition. Before you "let em do their thing" you should know the facts. Read the document and look at the 855 bullet construction.


Are you differentiating between the steel needle core and the steel tipped or what?

The M855 was all green tipped. Obviously it has evolved but all of it maintained it's M855 designation. Are we picking nits over M855 and M855A1? I am confused.


----------



## buckeye dan

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Why do we care about shooting steel core ammo? Cost? Let em do their thing if it makes them feel better. If they we're trying to ban all 5.56 it'd be a different story. No one is going to allow that to happen. I'd be one of the first to speak out trust me.
> 
> 
> I like this article on the subject and his apology at the end...
> 
> http://benswann.com/correction-ammunition-ban-would-be-on-5-56mm-green-tip-bullets/
> 
> 
> Truth in Media! HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

buckeye dan said:


> BATF Ban on M855 / SS109 "Green Tip" Ammo - YouTube


Is that Colin Black? I try not to knowingly click on his videos.. I will in this case, but I'm afraid I'm going to regret it.

Green tipped ammo is the most plentiful and affordable type of AR-15 ammo available? They use soft steel? 

This is more my speed Dan..






If the Gov't is going with a different spec, wont there be surplus of that? Shouldn't there always be military surplus ammo etc?


----------



## supercanoe

I'm referring to the XM855 since that is the round that is sold commercially. It is constructed with a jacket, 10 grain steel tip, and lead core. I don't see how it fits in the documents specific definition of what constitutes AP ammunition. They want to push this through to protect law enforcement officers. How many law enforcement officers have been shot with XM 855 from a pistol? The ballistic capabilities of this round to penetrate armor at normal engagement distance for LEO's is met or exceeded by many other rounds. So if this round doesn't fit the description of AP, is not used in attacks on LEO from a pistol , and has no advantage over other common 556 sporting rounds in penetrating armor at average engagement distances, why would it be banned? The reason is because it is the easiest to pick on due to stigma. If this round is banned the door is opened for many to follow.


----------



## buckeye dan

I had already discounted the Russian 5.56 because it was part of the sanctions.


----------



## buckeye dan

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Is that Colin Black?


It's Colion Noir. He is a professional competitor and a NRA commentator.


----------



## Fishtracker1

I don't pretend to have all the answers, however I've lived 64 years and learned not to trust government, either party. Give them an inch, they'll take 5 miles. I loved Reagan, he said something on this order "If we give up our freedoms here there is no place else on earth to go, this is our last bastion of hope". Here is a very interesting article which I believe has pretty of merit and lends itself to this debate. I hope God will continue to bless us with the freedoms of the past. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/413952/pincer-movement-ammunition-kevin-d-williamson


----------



## angler69

ostbucks98 said:


> Typical righty you dont agree with me so ill go on the attack


The other side does it just as much if not more....


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

buckeye dan said:


> It's Colion Noir. He is a professional competitor and a NRA commentator.


Yep. Hes just as bad as the rest. Green tip isn't the cheapest or most popular like he's claiming. All that same sensationalist crap as the article I link earlier. I'd say Colin owes us an apology as well. I'm sorry I clicked on that, I knew better. Colin sold his soul for YouTube views it seems.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

angler69 said:


> The other side does it just as much if not more....
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


What do comments like this add to the conversation? "Hey u guys r dumb". "NO, U guys are dumber!" Cmon man, you can do better than that!


----------



## Fishtracker1

So, with all this info out there, can you still defend the argument that the Gov. is not trying to ban the ammo? They tried the gun ban and got setback, so try the next tactic, firearms are useless w/out ammo! You can only defend the politicians so long until you begin to sound as foolish as they do!


----------



## ostbucks98

Cant beat education


----------



## joebertin

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Yep! I just did. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 proved me right. I can almost guarantee you can't terrorize a group of 100 people in a confined space with a lone razor blade. How preposterous a notion. To me the notion is actually rather insulting to all the folks who lost their lives that day.
> 
> Now if someone says "We've got a bomb we're going to detonate if anyone gets out of their seat"... That's a little different don't you think?


Yes, it is different. All situations are unique, which is why there is a strong logical argument against "blanket" legislation that will only effect the law abiding masses, giving leverage to the few criminals.

So... we DO have a need for laws. The laws should not "hog-tie" the law abiding citizen, when criminals, by definition will have no regard for the law.

Laws do not stop violent crime. This is obvious and indisputable.

Armed, law abiding citizens can and do, more effectively than any law or government agency.


----------



## ostbucks98

That road rage incident last week was two law abiding citizens...how did that turn out?...just saying.


----------



## joebertin

ostbucks98 said:


> That road rage incident last week was two law abiding citizens...how did that turn out?...just saying.


No... not two law abiding citizens.

One stupid law abiding citizen and one criminal.

If Erich Nowsch was law abiding, Tammy Meyers would still be stupid, but she'd be alive. The criminal actions of Erich ended her life.


----------



## ostbucks98

He looks to be a complete dbag but no "criminal" history


----------



## chris1162

ostbucks98 said:


> He looks to be a complete dbag but no "criminal" history



Please stop talking. Your logic and hatred of freedom is disgusting.


----------



## ostbucks98

chris1162 said:


> Please stop talking. Your logic and hatred of freedom is disgusting.


Where is my violin.......Just out of curiousity....I sacrificed 8 years of my life for this countries freedom, what did you contribute?


----------



## chris1162

ostbucks98 said:


> Where is my violin.......Just out of curiousity....I sacrificed 8 years of my life for this countries freedom, what did you contribute?



Most veterans call it serving not sacrificing but thanks for sacrificing 8 years of your life. Now take your "common sense" and go spout liberal nonsense elsewhere. Its quite annoying to have buckeye dan consistently type incredibly well spoken facts and thoughts and then listen to your dumbass spout nonsense.Have a nice day!


----------



## monsterKAT11

buckeye dan is awesome. that is all.


----------



## ostbucks98

chris1162 said:


> Most veterans call it serving not sacrificing but thanks for sacrificing 8 years of your life. Now take your "common sense" and go spout liberal nonsense elsewhere. Its quite annoying to have buckeye dan consistently type incredibly well spoken facts and thoughts and then listen to your dumbass spout nonsense.Have a nice day!


Have a nice day.


----------



## beaver

Another typical liberal who can't fathom the concept of taking responsibility for ones own actions. Afterall, the problem isn't criminals, it's our fault for not banning everything they could possibly use to commit the crime right?


----------



## ostbucks98

beaver said:


> Another typical liberal who can't fathom the concept of taking responsibility for ones own actions. Afterall, the problem isn't criminals, it's our fault for not banning everything they could possibly use to commit the crime right?


Oh no I understand completely. But the logic that perfect law abiding citizens are always law abiding isnt a reality. This thread has gotten way off course. I could care less really about the m855's getting banned. I bought 100 rounds 3 years ago and have about 50 or so left. If they ban it Ill buy a different ammo. The problem I have is those who think its the end of the world when something that sort of makes sense comes up like this. It goes from a ammo type ban to "omg the government is taking all our guns" hysteria that gets no one anywhere.


----------



## buckeye dan

Okay!
Disregard freedom, politics, emotion, self sacrifice, public safety, law enforcement safety etc etc.

Let's talk economics specifically. The loss of specific types of surplus ammo drives the price sky high for that type of ammo. This forces the frequent shooter to use regular civilian supply channels once the cost is comparable to milsurp. This creates a burden on the civilian supply of that ammunition which in turn drives it's cost up as well.

The civilian sources eventually catch up to the demand and the prices drop slightly but never fully return to their original cost prior to the milsurp loss. The reason for this is the cost of raw materials have gone up. You see, an ammo manufacturer is able to keep stable prices based on the lot of raw materials they have on hand. They source this stuff based on rounds in demand over time and inventory. A manufacturer can generally project this number several runs in advance.

Overall firearms sales increases and ammo panic buying forces unscheduled orders of raw materials in order to meet the demand. As you've probably already guessed, when the supply of raw materials is burdened, the cost of it rises too.

So if you are following, the cheap military ammo which cost pennies to produce because it is in such great supply and was manufactured with yesterday's raw materials cost is gone. It no longer is offsetting the burden to the civilian market. That leaves civilian suppliers in ramp up to meet demands with today's raw material costs and today's business expansion costs. 

Since the military style arms are what is trending, the ramp up to meet the demands for their ammunition causes production of some of the lessor ammunition types to suffer. All the manufacturing resources are dedicated to the 5.56, 9mm, 7.62 etc. In the case of .380 which is usually ran on the same lines as the 9mm, it gets cast aside for the 9mm supply to catch up. So now we can't find .380 and whats left from the last run costs more too.

For the very frequent shooter, trainer, competitor that doesn't have the luxury of an ammo sponsor, they are forced to use the next best affordable thing. Or worse yet, the most affordable thing, .22lr. Now the supply of .22lr is burdened and the cost of it goes up in turn.

More and more people turn to reloading. Problem with that is much of the raw material has been diverted to manufacturing supply and producing components for them. So we can't find powder and primers etc and if we do, it's cost has gone up as well.

So there you have the economic ripple effect of a simple ammo ban. The loss of it not only raising it's cost but it in turn towing the cost of everything else along with it. The raw material costs were destined to rise but we've accelerated the process by using it up in a short period.

This has no real impact on the guys that leave their firearms in the closet until hunting season arrives. In which case they probably only fire a couple of rounds to make their harvests with ammunition they bought 10 years ago. But for the rest of us, that are in the industry, shoot recreational, train, compete etc, it hurts. So next time they need a few more .22lrs for their squirrel rifle and can't find any or what they can find costs 3x what it used to, they can suck it up because they did nothing or supported a simple milsurp ban.

Forget all of the other reasons and ask yourself a simple question. "Do I think my ammunition and the ammunition for everyone else should cost more?" How many people really feel there is an ample supply of the ammunition you want and you are paying too little for it?

FYI, you're confusing awesomeness with passion. Passionate I am. Awesome? Not so much.

Peace out! *thump*


----------



## ostbucks98

Would you support a ban on AR style pistols instead?


----------



## bobk

ostbucks98 said:


> Oh no I understand completely. But the logic that perfect law abiding citizens are always law abiding isnt a reality. This thread has gotten way off course. I could care less really about the m855's getting banned. I bought 100 rounds 3 years ago and have about 50 or so left. If they ban it Ill buy a different ammo. The problem I have is those who think its the end of the world when something that sort of makes sense comes up like this. It goes from a ammo type ban to "omg the government is taking all our guns" hysteria that gets no one anywhere.


So since you don't use ammo that often you could "care less" 
That's quite selfish.


----------



## buckeye dan

ostbucks98 said:


> Would you support a ban on AR style pistols instead?


Nope. We ban neither the tool or it's consumables. 

If we want to correct the behavior, we need real deterrents. Where deterrents don't work, we need some genetic cleansing. That's how the rest of us get to live free with unimpeded lives.

This ammo ban is to protect law enforcement that wears soft body armor. How about we upgrade law enforcement to type III or IV vests for starters?

Since getting in a gun fight with an officer is usually a death sentence anyway, there is no deterrent strong enough to stop the behavior. We need to execute anyone who attempts it until that form of violence is so rare the officers no longer need vests.


----------



## ostbucks98

In light of recent and current events your last paragraph i think would only fuel more problems. Im a realist and I have my opinions on Fergeson and Eric Garner but there is a crazed attitude in this country with alot of people that LEO's are out to kill innocent people.


----------



## ostbucks98

bobk said:


> So since you don't use ammo that often you could "care less"
> That's quite selfish.


Its not selfish. I didnt chime in because of the threat of the ban. I chimed in on the "sky is falling" scare tactics. Now its evolved into this debate.

I dont smoke and I dont care if cigs are legal or illegal. Is that selfish?


----------



## trophy 2002

Open up more mental illness institutions, harder penalties for criminals . Then we can think about banning guns and ammunition. Sorry to bud in but we let criminals loose because we don't have the room or funds to hold them . Then they go and rob and steal from law abiding citizens !


----------



## joebertin

trophy 2002 said:


> Open up more mental illness institutions, harder penalties for criminals . Then we can think about banning guns and ammunition. Sorry to bud in but we let criminals loose because we don't have the room or funds to hold them . Then they go and rob and steal from law abiding citizens !


Valid point! They shut down most of the mental institutions in my area years ago. The authorities give them pills and let them roam the streets. Some people are dangerous, and should be institutionalized BEFORE they hurt anyone. Firearms laws will not correct this problem.


----------



## tsproperty

ostbucks98 said:


> Go educate yourself on what it is specifically and dont contribute to hysteria by posting something like this.
> 
> 
> ^^^In reply to ops original post^^^


Yeah, that sounded like bait get everyone fired up.


----------



## trophy 2002

My mistake tsproperty . I love my m855 ammo ! I enjoy target practice. Especially steel targets that Chinese caliber won't penetrate. Gonna love good clean America ammo ! Let's keep in mind that some barrel twist are designed to shoot the 62 grain bullet.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

beaver said:


> Another typical liberal who can't fathom the concept of taking responsibility for ones own actions. Afterall, the problem isn't criminals, it's our fault for not banning everything they could possibly use to commit the crime right?


Ahh here comes the "why don't we ban hammers because they kill more blah blah blah"

We don't ban cars because people are killing each other with them do we? No, we put speed limits up to minimize the stupidity we are able to perpetrate on each other.

Anyone agree that we shouldn't have speed limits and its infringing upon our freedoms to tell me I can't drive 100MPH around my neighborhood? Even though I've never been in an accident or gotten a ticket in my life?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

trophy 2002 said:


> My mistake tsproperty . I love my m855 ammo ! I enjoy target practice. Especially steel targets that Chinese caliber won't penetrate. Gonna love good clean America ammo ! Let's keep in mind that some barrel twist are designed to shoot the 62 grain bullet.


I cant even shoot it at the ranges I go to :/


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/AMM-2970

No reviews, high prices, are you guys sure people are actually shooting this stuff? That stuff looks twice as expensive as the cheapest .223.


----------



## supercanoe

That is the inflated price gouging/panic buying price. CTD is well known for that. Many people shoot it. It is an inexpensive round to shoot.


----------



## buckeye dan

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Ahh here comes the "why don't we ban hammers because they kill more blah blah blah"
> 
> We don't ban cars because people are killing each other with them do we? No, we put speed limits up to minimize the stupidity we are able to perpetrate on each other.
> 
> Anyone agree that we shouldn't have speed limits and its infringing upon our freedoms to tell me I can't drive 100MPH around my neighborhood? Even though I've never been in an accident or gotten a ticket in my life?


Driving is not Constitutionally protected. We also don't ban Corvettes and Ferrari's because they go too fast. We don't differentiate between a car, a truck or a motorcycle when one is used in a crime either.


----------



## ostbucks98

The 2nd amendment was written 226 years ago. Your allowed to own arms. It wasnt written with fully auto assualt rifles,armor piercing bullets,rocket launchers,school shootings,mall shootings,movie theatre shootings in mind.


----------



## buckeye dan

MassillonBuckeye said:


> http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/AMM-2970
> 
> No reviews, high prices, are you guys sure people are actually shooting this stuff? That stuff looks twice as expensive as the cheapest .223.


I can still find SS109/M855 for $0.42-$0.50 a round but my sources have gone up significantly since the mention of this ban. I was able to get it for $0.29-$0.33 per round a short while ago. That's retail price BTW.


----------



## beaver

ostbucks98 said:


> The 2nd amendment was written 226 years ago. Your allowed to own arms. It wasnt written with fully auto assualt rifles,armor piercing bullets,rocket launchers,school shootings,mall shootings,movie theatre shootings in mind.


But yet the concept is the same. Taking the tool away does nothing but create more headache. A criminal isn't a criminal because he has access to a gun, he's a criminal because that's who he is. A school shooter isn't that way because he has access to a semiautomatic weapon, he's that way because that's who he is. The law abiding citizen that snaps and shoots his ex wife doesn't do it because he was able to buy a gun from a flea market, he does it because something inside of his brain went haywire. The point is, the issues lie within the people, not the tools. The solution (if there is one) is harsher punishment and better enforcement. When someone decides to take another life, instead of taking care of them for the next 40 years, public hanging. Rather than finding an excuse as to why the poor shooter did the deed, make examples of them as to why you don't do that. Bottom line is that people are eventually going to have to be held responsible for their own actions or else. When a child is playing outside, we don't tether them to a leash so they can't walk into traffic. We teach them that walking into traffic is bad and comes with dire consequences. Orherwise, that leash eventually has to be cut and then we only have ourselves to blame when they get hit by a car.


----------



## buckeye dan

ostbucks98 said:


> The 2nd amendment was written 226 years ago. Your allowed to own arms. It wasnt written with fully auto assualt rifles,armor piercing bullets,rocket launchers,school shootings,mall shootings,movie theatre shootings in mind.


The technology timeline is already settled law by SCOTUS. They used it to resolve the 1st Amendment. Things like you and I assembling in this forum and communicating over the internet etc. 

If we use your argument, we could not assemble in a conference call using Skype to discuss our faith as Mormons. That form of assembly, communication and religion did not exist when the 1st Amendment was written.

Sorry, but you'll have to stop parroting this obsolete argument or take it up with SCOTUS. It doesn't apply.


----------



## buckeye dan

I also wanted to add this for the benefit of ostbucks98.

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not grant us anything. They describe our natural rights that we are born with and limit what .gov can do with them.

For the rest of us we can go here: http://www.wewillnotbackdown.com/

Enter to win the ammo they want to ban and send a letter to the ATF at the same time.


----------



## ostbucks98

Beaver, Do you think the Sandy Hook shooter had any thought of punishment? These people who flip dont care about the consequences at all. Capitol punishment only affects sane people.


----------



## ostbucks98

buckeye dan said:


> The technology timeline is already settled law by SCOTUS. They used it to resolve the 1st Amendment. Things like you and I assembling in this forum and communicating over the internet etc.
> 
> If we use your argument, we could not assemble in a conference call using Skype to discuss our faith as Mormons. That form of assembly, communication and religion did not exist when the 1st Amendment was written.
> 
> Sorry, but you'll have to stop parroting this obsolete argument or take it up with SCOTUS. It doesn't apply.


Thats an apples to oranges logic and a pathetic reach for you.


----------



## beaver

No I dont, but I also don't think it would have mattered what kind of ban was in place either. People like that are going to do things like that regardless. Some times bad things happen and that's just life. NOTHING will change that. I also don't think Sandy hook would have turned out the way it did if the shooter was going up against armed individuals.


----------



## ostbucks98

So our schools should resemble prison camps? I know its not what your probably intending but everyone filing thru a checkpoint with metal detectors and teachers carrying weapons doesnt seem like a positive environment. Im sure if most school teachers wanted to xarry a gun they would have taken law enforcement.


----------



## beaver

I'm not saying make them carry, but allow them. However, that's besides the point. The point is still that no ammount of banning will alleviate the issue of bad guys with guns or good guys using guns for bad things.


----------



## ostbucks98

But there is truth to having weapons that do more damage more quickly and more efficiently than others. Since apples to oranges apply why not allow AT4 rockets to the public? Why ban law abiding citizens from having rockets because a few bad apples will use them malicously?

The way I read and see this is the ATF wants to ban a specific type of ammo because they label it armor piercing. Im leaning more towards the fact its become so cheap and people are stockpiling millions of rounds of ammo that certain people in GOV are worried about. Thats millions of rounds of munitions the gov doest have track of and in todays world im sure it worries some people. So they remove the availability and cheapness of m855 surplus. To corral this hoard buying. Is it right or wrong? Im not really sure. Alot of other options still out there so its not really an attack on your rights. There is lots of 5.56 options.


----------



## beaver

I think comparing an at4 to a 5.56 is a little more than apples to oranges.

It is an attack on our rights. If you think they will stop at m855, you're as naive as you sound. As along with any kind of oppression or banning in history, they chip away rather than take everything at once. This way by the time the problem is noticed, it's too late. They take m855 now, and the ones like you and I who have no real use for it turn a blind eye. Why should we care? We don't target shoot or stockpile right? Then next time they take fmj, then hollow points..... sure there will be opposition with each just like there is now, but there will always be a crowd with the attitude that you have now. "I don't use them, so why should I care? " 

Next thing you know, we won't be "allowed" to have anything except single shot guns of certain calibers with an allotted ammount of ammunition that none of us can afford because the permits required go own them will be too exoensive. 

but the school shooters and thugs will abide by those laws and only purchase legal ammunition and weapons as well, so it will be safer right?


----------



## cincinnati

ostbucks98 said:


> Beaver, Do you think the Sandy Hook shooter had any thought of punishment? These people who flip dont care about the consequences at all. Capitol punishment only affects sane people.


Then why did he kill himself as soon as law enforcement arrived on the scene?


----------



## Popspastime

Why do we argue among ourselves, all armchair quarterbacks? We have many, many laws in place right now that have huge holes in them. The Sandy Hook shooter is like all the rest and get treated to a easy full life in prison instead of dealing the death penalty. The problem is the Judicial system and the process and all the bush beating of these conservatives just causes things like this. 

The laws are way too easy on these killers and some with multiple killings are walking the streets after 10 years only to do it all over again. There's a guy from Akron that shot and killed 4 family members and is still waiting arraignment. Is there any doubt, is there any legal argument, is there any reason not to fry this guy. Don't EVER give anything to them.. NEVER.. they need to get their useless, overpaid act together and enforce the laws already written. Ok I'm done now..

Pops


----------



## buckeye dan

ostbucks98 said:


> Thats an apples to oranges logic and a pathetic reach for you.


*facepalm*

I think I said before that you should read Heller v. DC. If I didn't, I am saying it now. Here it is: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Pay specific attention to pages 47-54. Here is the summary:


> (f) None of the Courts precedents forecloses the Courts interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in *common* use for lawful purposes.


Commonality has been used a number of times to make interpretations regarding the outcome of a case. Speech is the example I gave because it is the most understood. It's probably the most well known too. The conversation we are having now on this very forum is protected speech because this is a "*common*" form of communication today that did not exist when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written.

So you are really saying that SCOTUS is pathetic or their methods are pathetic. All I did was give you a brief tutorial on the subject that is historically accurate. I am absolutely confident when I said what I said because it's already happened on several occasions. The tests and methods are established and used again and again in every case that is presented to SCOTUS.

The Constitution is old. It's SCOTUS's job to interpret it and apply it to law today. Doesn't it make sense that they would have some measure of understanding as to how to get that done? Doesn't it also make sense that it's happened before? Doesn't it make even more sense that they have figured out how to do their jobs with the most applicable methods and techniques after being our 3rd branch of .gov that has been around as long as the documents that gave them their job in the first place?

If you want to discuss SCOTUS, political science or civics from a learning perspective, I welcome you to PM me. That goes for anyone else by the way. I am going to voluntarily remove myself from this tangent in this discussion/debate/conversation/thread out of respect for the community. If I'm wrong, prove it to me in a PM. I've done my best to keep party politics out of this conversation and keep it confined within operational politics but I fear this thread will derail soon.

Peace out! *thump*


----------



## ostbucks98

They abandoned the ban for now. Probably a minor victory for the atf. Caused panic buying and price gouging.


----------



## buckeye dan

ATF Director resigns. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...its-atf-director-amid-backlash-over/?page=all

I personally feel that if party politics and administration fiascoes would have been left out of it, Jones was Okay for the most part. We'll never know based on the sequence of events that led up to this.

I welcome his comments after the fact. If he truly believed what he was endorsing then we have cause to be concerned. I am not feeling that is the case however. 

I can't get beyond testing the waters/your the fall guy details. Time will tell.


----------



## IGbullshark

ostbucks98 said:


> Thats an apples to oranges logic and a pathetic reach for you.


Actually, its an apples to apples argument. If you're going to talk the talk then you should probably be prepared to walk the walk. If the supreme court were to agree with you that the 2nd amendment can only protect your right to own a musket then that will set a precedent for the rest of the amendments. the supreme court would then be able to ban the internet because little johnny learned how to make a bomb online. Someone opened fire in a convention of some religion or another, goodbye right to assemble. 

I'm sure you get the picture.


----------



## Saugernut

beaver said:


> But yet the concept is the same. Taking the tool away does nothing but create more headache. A criminal isn't a criminal because he has access to a gun, he's a criminal because that's who he is. A school shooter isn't that way because he has access to a semiautomatic weapon, he's that way because that's who he is. The law abiding citizen that snaps and shoots his ex wife doesn't do it because he was able to buy a gun from a flea market, he does it because something inside of his brain went haywire. The point is, the issues lie within the people, not the tools. The solution (if there is one) is harsher punishment and better enforcement. When someone decides to take another life, instead of taking care of them for the next 40 years, public hanging. Rather than finding an excuse as to why the poor shooter did the deed, make examples of them as to why you don't do that. Bottom line is that people are eventually going to have to be held responsible for their own actions or else. When a child is playing outside, we don't tether them to a leash so they can't walk into traffic. We teach them that walking into traffic is bad and comes with dire consequences. Orherwise, that leash eventually has to be cut and then we only have ourselves to blame when they get hit by a car.


Man oh man I could not have said it better myself and completely agree!!!


----------



## ostbucks98

Saugernut said:


> Man oh man I could not have said it better myself and completely agree!!!


Does the tool make a difference? Does a school shooter with a 9mm kill as many if he was using an AR?

When we fight wars who wins? Usually the guys with the bigger and better tools.


----------



## Saugernut

Ok so let me get this straight, if they ban this ammo then we will all be safer cause no criminal will be able to get their hands on it, got it. And nobody who's gonna commit mass murder or shoot LE officers will be able to do so now cause they cant get these killer bullets, got ya. And if we just let them ban this ammo that will be it, they wont go after anything else when criminals start using something different, good I was worried there for a minute. Can someone please pass me the Kool Aid?


----------



## joebertin

I fail to see the logic in making violent crime "more illegal", with more laws. 

Criminals do not obey laws. 

There is no logic in stating that the laws will make it harder for the criminals to get the weapons. Regardless of the inconvenience, violent criminals will get the weapons they need or want. Remember...they are criminals.

The problem is not the knives, guns or hammers that criminals use.

The problem is that part of human nature which is evil, and unlawful. 

The only remedies are incarceration, institutionalizing, or executing those of our society with a corrupt and violent nature.

Which opens another can of worms...


----------



## ostbucks98

Insane people dont give two big dumps about laws or punishment.

The people who are committing these mass shootings arent hardened criminals. Most have perfectly clean records. You could throw people in a wood chipper and it wouldnt make a difference.


----------



## joebertin

ostbucks98 said:


> Insane people dont give two big dumps about laws or pubishment.
> 
> The people who are committing these mass shootings arent hardened criminals. Most have perfectly clean records. You could throw people in a wood chipper and it wouldnt make a difference.


If you throw the right people in, it would make a difference...but how do you know. I've read and seen on the news that all of the mass shootings involved shooters that were on psychotropic drugs, or obsessively religiously motivated. People murder for numerous reasons.


----------



## Popspastime

Who starts all this garbage? Their not going to ban this caliber and all it does is creates pages and pages of this!


----------



## joebertin

Popspastime said:


> Who starts all this garbage? Their not going to ban this caliber and all it does is creates pages and pages of this!


This time it was the ATF...


----------



## buckeye dan

Yup the ATF started it. Also as I stated previously in this thread, the ATF Director Jones admitted they would have to examine all ammunition and not just the steel core stuff. 

Here: http://bearingarms.com/atf-chief-suggests-5-56-ammo-threat-law-enforcement/

I watched that hearing and he let the cat out of the bag. He resigned shortly after that but the intentions were clear. They wanted to create the framework that would allow them to question anything that can be fired from a handgun that would penetrate soft armor. Instead of trying to NFA list the pistols in question they were going after the ammo instead. Wake up Murica!


----------

