|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
AR-15 Ammo Ban Shows How Ignorant Liberals Are About Guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Barack Obama and the ATF are in the news again with their attempt to ban the M855 projectile. The popular cartridge can be found in 5.56x45mm or .223 rifles, most notably the AR-15. The ATF claims their intent is to protect law enforcement. Of course, facts and logic, not to mention liberty, are insufficient deterrents for the agency.
Currently, the ATF has a ban on armor-piercing rounds for handguns. The standard handgun round, like the small calibers used in most gun crime, are incapable of penetrating body armor. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(3/5/2015)
|
Seems like another has fallen into the liberal's trap ! The key is their claim re 5.56mm pistols. Physics decrees most CF rounds will penetrate any police soft body armor regardless of bullet construction. And there's a variety of speciality handguns firing CF rifle rounds.
Think "stare decsis", or to us public, "precedent". Once established, BATFE can use this precedent to ban everything from a .222 to a .35 Rem (or larger) based solely on its use in a handgun. But even police view criminal use of 5.56mm handguns as a non-issue. So gun owners/users need to be asking "what's the reason ? " |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
