Does anyone have anything to say about the proposed ATF ban? Because it seems like we've just gone off on a tangent about hunting. Which if this was general, I'd be cool with, or hey, even if it was the regs lounge....but in this thread? Seems a little out of place to me. So maybe we could just move the lively hunting discussion over to the regs lounge? Please and thank you very much :).

At 3/17/15 06:00 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Does anyone have anything to say about the proposed ATF ban? Because it seems like we've just gone off on a tangent about hunting. Which if this was general, I'd be cool with, or hey, even if it was the regs lounge....but in this thread? Seems a little out of place to me. So maybe we could just move the lively hunting discussion over to the regs lounge? Please and thank you very much :).

the proposed ban is dumb just because said bullets can be used in a AR styled pistol doesn't make it any less dangerous than any other gun. besides the fact that M885 is used by our military which is used to WOUND instead of killed and are not armor piercing and using the fear mongering tactic that it kills cops when no record of that even occurring even exists.

At 3/17/15 11:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: besides the fact that M885 is used by our military which is used to WOUND instead of killed and are not armor piercing and using the fear mongering tactic that it kills cops when no record of that even occurring even exists.

I'd flip it around and say that bullets that are not AP and are designed to wound and not kill are actually more viscous.

At 3/17/15 11:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'd flip it around and say that bullets that are not AP and are designed to wound and not kill are actually more viscous.

it doesn't matter they aren't what they say they are as the reason for the ban. I would always rather be wounded than dead any day of the week.

At 3/17/15 06:00 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Does anyone have anything to say about the proposed ATF ban? Because it seems like we've just gone off on a tangent about hunting. Which if this was general, I'd be cool with, or hey, even if it was the regs lounge....but in this thread? Seems a little out of place to me. So maybe we could just move the lively hunting discussion over to the regs lounge? Please and thank you very much :).

I respectfully disagree.

The BATF is making an assertion that this round presents an extra-lethal threat to cops. Therefore how lethal the round is very much relevant to any proposed ban on .223/5.56mm ammo. Its effectiveness in hunting (the art of quickly and efficiently killing an animal) has a direct bearing on the BATF's case.

I see your concern, but I do think that a discussion of the sporting uses of the ammo is directly related and while slightly tangential...not enough to move the topic to the cesspool of general. If I have failed to convince you, we can discuss it in IM (I'm exhausted...trying to stay awake so I don't screw-up my sleeping schedule for shift-work on a day off and don't want to be inadvertently impolite to a mod! lol)

At 3/17/15 11:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/17/15 11:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: besides the fact that M885 is used by our military which is used to WOUND instead of killed and are not armor piercing and using the fear mongering tactic that it kills cops when no record of that even occurring even exists.

I'd flip it around and say that bullets that are not AP and are designed to wound and not kill are actually more viscous.

And you'd fail.

The vast majority of non-AP rounds (by their very nature of not being AP) are designed to KILL rather than WOUND.

AP ROUNDS: You typically have a very fast moving bullet (ie: a lot of power behind it for the bullet weight) which is solid with a strong metal core (ie: steel). This means the bullet keeps its shape and integrity as it goes through material. The advantage to getting shot by an AP round is human/animal bodies which are mostly bags of water/soft tissue tend to offer minimal resistance meaning less damage.

NON-AP ROUNDS: Tend to be slower bullets with soft cores (ie: hollow points or lead). This means when the bullet hits you it will expand. It also tends to bludgeon...even if it is a FMJ round...which creates more serious wounds. Finally, since the bullet is traveling more slowly it can get lodged in the body cavity and more prone to bouncing off bones in the body tearing up internal organs and creating a longer wound channel.

So in essence...you start from a false premise.

At 3/18/15 08:52 PM, TheMason wrote: The BATF is making an assertion that this round presents an extra-lethal threat to cops. Therefore how lethal the round is very much relevant to any proposed ban on .223/5.56mm ammo. Its effectiveness in hunting (the art of quickly and efficiently killing an animal) has a direct bearing on the BATF's case.

Which is why I waited as long as I did to break in and say anything. I very much don't like to "flex my muscle" or whatever metaphor you want to use for when I talk as "avie the mod" instead of "avie the regular". But it seemed like we were going from a discussion about the lethality and application of the round and into just a general discussion of hunting and such....seemed like the tangent was overriding what had started the discussion (I'd still like somebody to find me some real proof that the President is ultimately behind this which I've asked for at least twice now).

I see your concern, but I do think that a discussion of the sporting uses of the ammo is directly related and while slightly tangential...not enough to move the topic to the cesspool of general.

Oh god no. I don't want to move this to General for a multitude of reasons. But my point is if folks are done with the very poorly constructed, researched, etc which started a thread, then maybe we use the resource of the regs lounge built into this forum so that discussion can be continued, and we're not potentially pushing other topics of more interest to the wider (though limited I admit) audience. That's my only concern.

At 3/18/15 09:01 PM, TheMason wrote: So in essence...you start from a false premise.

Half of my premise matches exactly what you said, the other half fits, but a little less soundly. You did make my point that AP rounds make less gruesome wounds. My other point is perhaps one of semantics. I meant that AP rounds are meant to pierce, whereas non-AP rounds are meant to cause severe wounds. The action of piercing is directly intended to kill. The action of creating severe wounds is not necessarily intended to kill, although it may have a higher chance of doing so than the AP. When looking to wound, you don't want a small through and through, you want a blunt wound that will incapacitate (this is the logic I was going off of in making my statement.)

At 3/18/15 09:58 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'd still like somebody to find me some real proof that the President is ultimately behind this which I've asked for at least twice now.

Real proof like:
Dear ATF,
This is Barak and when I went down to the gun show (because you know how i'm an avid shooter, and not just of hoops or chip shots!)...I noticed that they are making an AR pistol version now. Now I know how much I enjoy being able to shoot military surplus ammo...and I know how the little guy cannot afford more expensive ammo. But I'm worried about the safety of our cops. Now I've been looking at law from the eighties...and I hate to do this...BUT I think you have the authority to ban it. So I'm going to go ahead and take the political heat on this one (Hillary is a LOCK in 2016!) and so I hereby order you to ban this ammo.
Love the police,
BO

No one is going to be able to produce it.

But three things:
1) While the president is only directly responsible for 1% of what happens in his name...he catches flak for all of it. Democrat or Republican. Popular or unpopular. Black or white. So this is perfectly normal. That's why I try and be careful to avoid the trap of 'he doesn't direct everything'. Because...
2) Any executive office is always mindful of what the president wants on any particular issue and tries to make sure the policies they can set either a) fall within acceptable limits of what he does not care about or b) falls in line with something he has made a policy priority.
3) Following Newtown, these types of policies became a priority for Obama and these are the types of things he promised the American people he was going to do.

So points 2 & 3 are the critical ones here. While Obama may not have directed this action, it is the result of his public statements in 2013 where he made the American people a promise that he was going to pursue 'common sense' gun control to the fullest extent he could...even if he had to act unilaterally.

Now this could be two different things...the BATF could have come to this conclusion by themselves. After all, Obama is really ignorant when it comes to guns so I don't think he'd be aware of the new AR style pistols on the market. But even if he was totally unaware of it...I'm sure the BATF acted on the proposed ban expecting this would fit in with Obama's policy objectives.

I see your concern, but I do think that a discussion of the sporting uses of the ammo is directly related and while slightly tangential...not enough to move the topic to the cesspool of general.

But my point is if folks are done with the very poorly constructed, researched, etc which started a thread, then maybe we use the resource of the regs lounge built into this forum so that discussion can be continued, and we're not potentially pushing other topics of more interest to the wider (though limited I admit) audience. That's my only concern.

Question: if we are not being total dicks and flame warring...is there any harm in keeping the conversation alive? I mean it will probably die off soon enough. Not trying to be defiant (I think you know me better than that! lol)...just wondering where the harm is.

At 3/19/15 01:45 AM, TheMason wrote: No one is going to be able to produce it.

Give me just a little credit please. I just wanted real proof as in a legitimate news source who isn't completely biased against the sitting President or Democrats in general to have a source saying "this is something the President made sure the ATF knew he wanted done" or "They claim the President made it clear this what he wanted done.

But three things:
1) While the president is only directly responsible for 1% of what happens in his name...he catches flak for all of it. Democrat or Republican. Popular or unpopular. Black or white. So this is perfectly normal. That's why I try and be careful to avoid the trap of 'he doesn't direct everything'. Because...

Yup.

2) Any executive office is always mindful of what the president wants on any particular issue and tries to make sure the policies they can set either a) fall within acceptable limits of what he does not care about or b) falls in line with something he has made a policy priority.

Also true.

3) Following Newtown, these types of policies became a priority for Obama and these are the types of things he promised the American people he was going to do.

So points 2 & 3 are the critical ones here. While Obama may not have directed this action, it is the result of his public statements in 2013 where he made the American people a promise that he was going to pursue 'common sense' gun control to the fullest extent he could...even if he had to act unilaterally.

Which is all well and good. But that is a long step away from what the topic starter alleges with merely the title, that Obama is banning bullets via executive order (which he clearly isn't), with a bunch of disreputable conspiracy sites as evidence. I think despite any political differences that may exist on this forum, I think it's bi-partisan to agree that if you're going to start a discussion here, the bar is set much higher then that.

Now this could be two different things...the BATF could have come to this conclusion by themselves. After all, Obama is really ignorant when it comes to guns so I don't think he'd be aware of the new AR style pistols on the market. But even if he was totally unaware of it...I'm sure the BATF acted on the proposed ban expecting this would fit in with Obama's policy objectives.

Possible, but again, no link, and the OP stated a clear casual link. You want to state something, you prove it.

Question: if we are not being total dicks and flame warring...is there any harm in keeping the conversation alive? I mean it will probably die off soon enough. Not trying to be defiant (I think you know me better than that! lol)...just wondering where the harm is.

Hmmmm, I guess there isn't so much in this forum since it's slower moving, but it's reflex and instinct not to let it become a habit or anything. Plus it makes it harder to shut it down in places where it's muchly inappropriate or bad.

At 3/19/15 07:46 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 3/19/15 01:45 AM, TheMason wrote: No one is going to be able to produce it.

Give me just a little credit please. I just wanted real proof as in a legitimate news source who isn't completely biased against the sitting President or Democrats in general to have a source saying "this is something the President made sure the ATF knew he wanted done" or "They claim the President made it clear this what he wanted done.

Well, to be fair to Mason, I think what he's trying to say is that there are no news sources who aren't completely biased against the sitting President or Democrats in general who can produce proof that the alleged act is happening, because it was never happening in the first place. It's an impossible request to fulfill.

ATF Director Resigns Amid Controversy Over Backdoor Ammo Ban

And back to the ATF being the wayward agency no one loves. and it only lasted two years! so for the last eleven years since 2004 there have been only two directors that didn't even make it a full term.

2004 Edgar A. Domenech (1st time—acting)
2004–2006 Carl Truscott (b. 1957)
2006 Edgar A. Domenech (2nd time—acting)
2006–2009 Michael Sullivan (acting)
2009 Ronald "Ronnie" A. Carter (acting)
2009–2011 Kenneth E. Melson (acting)
2011–2013 B. Todd Jones (acting)
2013-2015 B. Todd Jones (1st Time Resigned)

At 2/26/15 08:07 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

This president has done wonders for the profit margin of firearm manufacturers. Heh, probably exactly what he didn't want to have happen. :

If there is no take-away-guns-conspiracy, then you are right, this is a serious miscalculation for the gun control activists.

I meant the profit margin of firearm manufacturers in relationship to the consumption of firearms in the US. More firearm sales in US means more improperly stored, loaded and armed weapons in homes. That increases the probability of dangerous crimes. Something that was caused by take-away-our-guns conspiracy lunacy.

When the conversation should have been on how to curb devastating gun massacres, fringe elements of both the gun-control and gun-rights crowd hijacked the argument. Frenzy ensued and right wingers ran to their nearest sporting goods store to stock up. They obviously won the argument with dollars... the American way.

However, there are now more guns in US homes. Obama obviously didn't want the consquence of a conversation on preventing horrible atrocities to result in this and I can understand why.