RE: ATF tries the back door.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (3/12/2015 8:59:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

ATF has decided to shelve this proposal "for the present".

But the Democrats haven't.

House bill would ban AR-15 bullet

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) is pushing the Armor Piercing Bullets Act following the Obama administration’s decision earlier this week to withdraw a controversial proposal that would restrict 5.56mm projectiles for M855 cartridges commonly used in AR-15 rifles . . .

Even as they pursue legislation, congressional Democrats are also pushing for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to move ahead with restrictions on the armor-piercing bullets . . . Dozens of Democrats, including including Reps. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), Jackie Speier (Calif.) and Steve Israel (N.Y.), are expected to sign a letter that will be sent on Friday to ATF Director B. Todd Jones asking him to reconsider the plan.


In addition, Speier is said to be planning an even broader bill.

K.


As expected, that is why I put for the present in quotes.




MercTech -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (3/13/2015 1:49:06 AM)

To confuse the widdle politician mind; the ban, as they worded it, would not actually ban the bullets they describe but would ban commercial sale of rounds (bullet with casing and powder).

I'm thinking of the corollary thought from leadership training, "Beware of giving an order that you can't enforce." Congress, Beware of passing laws that are unenforceable. An unenforceable ban just makes the item more lucrative on the black market.

A few decades ago; there was a ban in many states on "Teflon coated bullets" as they were "armor piercing". The politicos totally missed the concept that the Teflon coating was to protect the barrel when firing extremely hard bullets that could pierce armor. So, the ultra hard bullets got a different coating than Teflon.




BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (3/13/2015 4:53:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

To confuse the widdle politician mind; the ban, as they worded it, would not actually ban the bullets they describe but would ban commercial sale of rounds (bullet with casing and powder).

I'm thinking of the corollary thought from leadership training, "Beware of giving an order that you can't enforce." Congress, Beware of passing laws that are unenforceable. An unenforceable ban just makes the item more lucrative on the black market.

A few decades ago; there was a ban in many states on "Teflon coated bullets" as they were "armor piercing". The politicos totally missed the concept that the Teflon coating was to protect the barrel when firing extremely hard bullets that could pierce armor. So, the ultra hard bullets got a different coating than Teflon.

You could put what most anti-gun politicos (and too many pro-gun ones) know about firearms on a single line.




MercTech -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (3/13/2015 7:20:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You could put what most anti-gun politicos (and too many pro-gun ones) know about firearms on a single line.


And the line is.... "They go bang, don't they?"

Like one politico clueless enough to want "nail guns" banned because they can fire hundreds of bullets before reloading. <snicker>




Sanity -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (3/15/2015 5:07:25 PM)


FR

[img]http://i.imgur.com/TynuQA8.jpg[/img]




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625