I wonder if the online bullet scalpers work for the FED?
5K free rounds..scalp..profit!
I kinda wish they did. I'd rather the occasional scalping run than a genuine risk of "reasonable gun laws".
edit2: got to the end. i think the ATF's conclusion is flawed, but they are definitely erring on the side of caution in terms of safety of police officers. while i understand this, i think they should err on the side of "freedom", or at least look at statistics to find out how frequently, if at all, AR pistols are used in homicides, and specifically, police homicides. if the number is small or even zero, why ban green-tip ammo? and that assumes that the ammunition used in the homicide was in fact green-tip. so you end up looking at a very, very, very small subset of homicides, i'd expect.
Even people who don't like guns should be concerned that a federal agency and the President of the United States are proposing policies that have no basis in fact or reason.
lol +1That's not fair rudeguy. Jhhnn is a shill no matter what thread he/she posts in, no need to call him/her out in this thread specifically...
BATFE has long had as its agenda disarming everyone who isn't government. Lying to gullible fools is an important part of that effort.Correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2sWiZ8BizI
That is an ATF special agent saying on the news that an airsoft gun can be easily converted into a machine gun. These are the people who make the rules. They are supposed to be the experts and instead they talk like they get their knowledge from playing CoD.
Misinformation is our biggest enemy. The left spreads it until it is believed as fact and attacks anyone who dares speak the truth. Jhhnn's first posts in this thread prove that.
Agreed, and well said. But as Knowing points out, this is more the rule than the exception.I think they're erring on the side of stupid. The purpose of LEOPA was to prevent street criminals from carrying easily concealed handguns that could pierce bulletproof vests and kill police officers. Banning M855 does nothing to further that goal:
I could understand the ATF's and White House's position if this were simply a case of following the letter of the law. But it's not--ATF is explicitly authorized to define the criteria for "sporting purpose" exemptions, and it's chosen a definition that clearly defies logic and reality, and that objectively cannot increase police officer safety. Even people who don't like guns should be concerned that a federal agency and the President of the United States are proposing policies that have no basis in fact or reason.
- All 5.56 ammo will pierce a bulletproof vest.
- M855 doesn't expand and fragments less often than many other rounds. It's actually less likely to be lethal than much non-"AP" ammo.
- AR-15 pistols are handguns in name only. They're huge and unwieldy, with the smallest ones still over a foot and a half long. The lightest model weighs four pounds. They simply exist as a clever way to bypass the NFA's restrictions on short barrel rifles.
But it was written in a different time. Long barreled black powder smoothbore flintlocks were generally the weapons of the day. Rifled barrels were unusual, as were breechloaders. Repeaters had multiple barrels. Neither the percussion cap nor smokeless powder had been invented, let alone cartridges as we know them. Even the minie ball wasn't invented until much later.
It was also a frontier society with hostiles on our borders, as well.
It's impossible to say how they would have felt about modern firearms.
I'm sure that there was a lot of doom preaching when the FFA was passed back in 1934 and also when mail order guns were banned in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, too. So where are we today? We have even greater selection of firearms & ammo than ever before. Funny that.
You fucking moron. That's an air rifle. It takes 1500 strokes of a separate air pump to charge it up. See 1:49 of the video-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI
Lewis & Clark used it to flimflam native Americans in a very clever way.
Air rifles have never been classified as firearms.
Yay, we're swearing and insulting now!
I think the point he is making is that there was a magazine...which in the 18th century was a novel idea. Regardless, the SCOTUS review the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Why are we having this discussion? Heller made it pretty clear.
I'm sure the "gun grabbers" would gladly trade any type of air rifle in exchange for any gun, magazine capacity or not. Is that what you are proposing? No? Then it doesn't matter what his point was, does it?
As far as scotus goes; what they currently think about the 2nd doesn't really matter does it? We've seen that precedent doesn't always affect their rulings and we've seen them effectively overturn their prior rulings. So why have this discussion? I'd hope it's to create and promote smarter, more effective policy regarding the most useless of rights, the 2nd amendment.
The SCOTUS does not often overturn precedent - not as often as you might think (or in this case, hope.) That air rifle would be roughly as powerful as black powder muskets of that time (black powder isn't really that powerful, especially so when compared to modern propellants.) I think his point remains a valid one. But hey, you won't care. Debating the 2A is beyond pointless on a forum (short of the discussion club)...and most certainly debating it with you would be a complete waste of my time.
It's impossible to say how they would have felt about modern firearms.
You fucking moron. That's an air rifle. It takes 1500 strokes of a separate air pump to charge it up. See 1:49 of the video-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI
Lewis & Clark used it to flimflam native Americans in a very clever way.
Air rifles have never been classified as firearms.
Wow, that was pretty impressive, had never even heard of one prior to that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juOQ9Ij3G1c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dZLeEUE940
Some nice engineering went into that at the time.
An excellent reminder, and well said, sir.The point is you made out as though the founders were some sort of ignorant barbarians that couldn't possibly fathom the development of technology. They obviously could, many of them were not only entrepreneurs but men of science themselves.
Franklin's quote about security versus safety is often bandied about in terms of the Patriot Act, but it's interesting to note he was actually talking about the right to keep and bear arms.
The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasnt Jeffersons proposal of No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Yup, although ultimately a dead end.Wow, that was pretty impressive, had never even heard of one prior to that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juOQ9Ij3G1c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dZLeEUE940
Some nice engineering went into that at the time.
The point is you made out as though the founders were some sort of ignorant barbarians that couldn't possibly fathom the development of technology. They obviously could, many of them were not only entrepreneurs but men of science themselves.
Franklin's quote about security versus safety is often bandied about in terms of the Patriot Act, but it's interesting to note he was actually talking about the right to keep and bear arms.
The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasnt Jeffersons proposal of No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Yup, very impressive given the level of technology of the day.
Food for thought - if an air rifle is not considered a firearm by ATF, I wonder if a Gauss rifle would be considered the same. Heh, they're starting to get in a tizzy about 3D printing, I wonder how they'd react to THAT.
Because, as you know, that air riffle was just as powerful as other guns at that time.
The point is that the Founders *were* ignorant as to the future course of firearms development. Which is not to say that they weren't intelligent men seeking knowledge at all. They simply could not have known.
So tell us- did you know it was an air rifle, or did you just find that image on a pro-gun site?
It'd likely fall under the destructive device category.
That is, honestly, irrelevant. Their view was that the citizens should have the right to arms for protection (go read some John Locke) and to keep the government in check. This is exactly what the Heller case looked at. My point (and the person who posted it) is that it wasn't just about muskets.
I simply quoted the point the poster was trying to make and the unrelated comment it's response included. You saying it wasn't "just about muskets", is pure speculation on your part.
Were they? You think they were so stupid to think technology would stand still? They had seen things such as interchangeable parts introduced. Guns were still relatively new, but had come a long way in terms of being able to puncture the plate armor of the time, rendering plate armor virtually worthless. So to say that the founding fathers cannot have seen where guns would have gone (that is to say, that they'd be made "better") is to say they were complete morons...which would be pretty far from the truth. Off all of the founding fathers, Franklin had to have the best idea of the advancement of technology.
Were they? You think they were so stupid to think technology would stand still? They had seen things such as interchangeable parts introduced. Guns were still relatively new, but had come a long way in terms of being able to puncture the plate armor of the time, rendering plate armor virtually worthless. So to say that the founding fathers cannot have seen where guns would have gone (that is to say, that they'd be made "better") is to say they were complete morons...which would be pretty far from the truth. Off all of the founding fathers, Franklin had to have the best idea of the advancement of technology.
I think they're erring on the side of stupid. The purpose of LEOPA was to prevent street criminals from carrying easily concealed handguns that could pierce bulletproof vests and kill police officers. Banning M855 does nothing to further that goal:
I could understand the ATF's and White House's position if this were simply a case of following the letter of the law. But it's not--ATF is explicitly authorized to define the criteria for "sporting purpose" exemptions, and it's chosen a definition that clearly defies logic and reality, and that objectively cannot increase police officer safety. Even people who don't like guns should be concerned that a federal agency and the President of the United States are proposing policies that have no basis in fact or reason.
- All 5.56 ammo will pierce a bulletproof vest.
- M855 doesn't expand and fragments less often than many other rounds. It's actually less likely to be lethal than much non-"AP" ammo.
- AR-15 pistols are handguns in name only. They're huge and unwieldy, with the smallest ones still over a foot and a half long. The lightest model weighs four pounds. They simply exist as a clever way to bypass the NFA's restrictions on short barrel rifles.
Say what you will about Wayne but one thing is clear, he sure knows his audience!
Like him or hate him, Obama isn't stupid. He would have lost votes in some key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania if he tried to push gun control legislation in his first term.
Besides, it looks like Obama won on this issue for now. He didn't get the ammo banned, but now its so damn expensive that most people can't afford to shoot it.