Rahm Emanuel: Take American People Out of 2nd Amendment “Debate”

[parmenio]

For all you PATRIOTS..., the one thing Communists, Liberals, Democrats, Social Liberals..., or whatever term these anti-American folks want to call themselves, they do NOT want to be called marxists. The stigma is too heavy for their brand. But, this is what they are. There is VERY LITTLE that seperates them. Their goals are the same...to destroy Capitalism! BEWARE!

[Farwould]

I know how you feel tony,I too was a neg magnet on this subject.

now I feel a little safer owning 2 new rifles and even thou I have'nt shot them yet

I could still club the wicked over the head.or a CPRSOB thats a good one dog.

Yer a class act shabibilicious I am glad yer my friend and I gave you all the pluses I had.

You just cant take away a right that was given to the people to protect themselves

A right that so many men and women lost their lives to obtain the right to protect and serve.

That would be like having mashed taters and the government banning the gravy.

[caz1104]

I know how you feel tony,I too was a neg magnet on this subject.

now I feel a little safer owning 2 new rifles and even thou I have'nt shot them yet

I could still club the wicked over the head.or a CPRSOB thats a good one dog.

Yer a class act shabibilicious I am glad yer my friend and I gave you all the pluses I had.

You just cant take away a right that was given to the people to protect themselves

A right that so many men and women lost their lives to obtain the right to protect and serve.

That would be like having mashed taters and the government banning the gravy.

[Farwould]

I wanted to feel a little more secure and reached for my Jaw Bone of a Ass

and obama was still attached to it.

Dont let guns scare you

Be scared if you dont have one and the government is the only one who does.

Peace and Love folks

[willy1der]

The second amendment to the US constitution was written by James Madison, who became a member of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was presented to the House of Representatives in Congress on 8 June 1789 and ratified in 15 december 1791.. It was one of a total of 10 amendments drafted by Madison, who is thus often known as the "father of the Bill of Rights" as well as being called "the father of the constitution" for his work on this (with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.)

The second amendment is famous for its enshrinement of the right of citizens to bear arms, a right which is still being hotly debated in the US today, regarding whether it refers to individuals or a specially appointed militia.

I only have problem with this one, this was written in1791, this was perfect for 200 years ago because people needed to protect their family and lands, but you have to agree that we don't live like they did in the 1700's or 1800's things have changed and we need to make it for today's living, I'm not saying to throw it in the garbage but they need to ammend it.

I have to respectfully disagree with you about the reason the 2nd amendment was written Tony. Our founders left a country that infringed on their rights and knew that there would come a time to defend their freedom in a new country. Knowing a governemnt would/will become tyrannical is pretty much a given, they all have over time. Our 2nd amendment is there to protect us from that as well. But using your argument for defending my property, how many alw abiding citizens have been placed in prison protecting their property? Wasn't one of the founders asked what they had given the people and the response had to do with a republic, and our responsibility would be to keep our republic. Now why do you suppose they responded like that? Maybe it was because history has a way of repeating itself and history had shown that governments overstepped their power.

[TonyDownTheShore]

More Americans favor stronger gun laws after Newtown shooting, poll shows By JONATHAN D. SALANT Bloomberg News Thursday, December 27, 2012

(Published in print: Friday, December 28, 2012)

Stronger gun laws are favored by 58 percent of Americans, the highest percentage in eight years, according to a national poll conducted after 20 elementary school students were gunned down in Newtown, Conn.

The results of the USA Today/Gallup poll released yesterday show 58 percent of respondents favor making laws covering the sale of firearms more strict. That’s the highest level since 2004, when 60 percent favored stronger gun laws. Thirty-four percent called for weaker laws, the same level as in 2004.

In October 2011, 43 percent favored stricter gun laws while 44 percent said the laws should remain unchanged.

Gallup’s survey is the latest poll indicating increased support for new gun regulations following the Dec. 14 killings of six educators in addition to 20 first-grade children. The gunman also shot and killed his mother and killed himself, the police said.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken Dec. 14-16 showed 54 percent favoring stricter gun laws and 43 percent opposing them. In a January 2011 ABC/Post poll, 52 percent supported stronger laws, with 45 percent in opposition.

The Gallup survey found 92 percent of respondents favoring background checks of all gun purchasers, including those at gun shows, and 62 percent supporting a ban on the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines. By 51 percent to 44 percent, respondents opposed a ban on assault weapons.

Vice President Joe Biden is leading a White House task force examining gun regulations and other issues such as mental health and violent entertainment. The National Rifle Association, the leading pro-gun rights group, has proposed stationing armed guards in the nation’s schools.

The poll of 1,038 adults was taken Dec. 19-22 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/3539571-95/percent-gun-laws-poll

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, searchBrady Handgun Violence Prevention ActFull titleBrady Handgun Violence Prevention ActEnacted by the103rd United States CongressEffectiveFebruary 28, 1994CitationsPublic Law103-159Stat.107 Stat. 1536CodificationTitle(s) amended18U.S.C. sections created921-922Legislative history

• Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R.1025 by Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) on February 22, 1993
• Passed the House of Representatives on November 10, 1993 (238 - 189)
• Passed the Senate on November 20, 1993 (63-36)
• Reported by the joint conference committee on November 22, 1993; agreed to by the House of Representatives on November 23, 1993 (238 - 187) and by the Senate on November 24, 1993 (passed by voice vote)
• Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993

• v
• t
• e

U.S. Firearms Legal Topics

• Assault weapon
• Assault weapons ban
• ATF Bureau
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
• Concealed carry in the U.S.
• Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban
• Federal Firearms License
• Firearm case law
• Firearm Owners Protection Act
• Gun Control Act of 1968
• Gun laws in the U.S. — by state
• Gun laws in the U.S. — federal
• Gun politics in the U.S.
• National Firearms Act (NFA)
• Second Amendment to the Constitution
• Straw purchase
• Sullivan Act (New York)
• Violent Crime Control Act

• v
• t
• e

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536) is an Act of the United States Congress that instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States.

It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994. The Act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.

Contents

[hide]

• 1 Provisions
• 2 Jim and Sarah Brady
• 3 Opposition by National Rifle Association
• 4 The Brady Law today
• 5 References
• 6 External links

[edit] Provisions

The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks.

Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:

1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
2. Is a fugitive from justice;
3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
9. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
10. Has a record of being a felon

Section 922(n) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receive any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.^[1]

Currently, 92% of Brady background checks through NICS are completed while the FBI is still on the phone with the gun dealer.^[2] In rare cases, a gun purchaser may have to wait for up to three business days if the NICS system fails to positively approve or deny his/her application to purchase a firearm. If a denial is not issued within those three days, the transfer may be completed at that time.

Firearm transfers by unlicensed private sellers that are "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms are not subject to the Brady Act, but may be covered under other federal, state, and local restrictions.

The Brady Act also does not apply to licensed Curios & Relics (C&R) collectors, but only in respect to C&R firearms.^[3] The FFL Category 03 Curio & Relic license costs $30 and is valid for 3 years. Licensed C&R collectors may also purchase C&R firearms from private individuals or from federal firearms dealers, whether in their home state or in another state, and ship C&R firearms in interstate commerce by common carrier. Curios or relics are defined in 27 C.F.R. 478.11 as "Firearms which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons." The regulation further states:

To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:(a) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof;

(

Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, State, or Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; or

© Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event. Proof of qualification of a particular firearm under this category may be established by evidence of present value and evidence that like firearms are not available except as collector's items, or that the value of like firearms available in ordinary commercial channels is substantially less.

[edit] Jim and Sarah Brady

Jim BradyJim Brady was press secretary to President Ronald Reagan when both he and the president, along with Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and District of Columbia police officer Thomas Delehanty, were shot on March 30, 1981, during an assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr. Brady was shot in the head and suffered a serious wound that left him partially paralyzed for life.^[4]

John Hinckley, Jr., bought the .22 caliber Röhm RG-14 revolver used in the shooting at a Dallas, Texas, pawn shop on October 13, 1980. In a purchase application that he filled out before taking possession of the revolver, he provided a false home address on the form and showed an old Texas driver's license as "proof" that he lived there. This constituted a felony offense. Additionally, Hinckley had been arrested four days earlier at the Metropolitan Airport in Nashville, Tennessee, when he attempted to board an American Airlines flight for New York with three handguns and some loose ammunition in his carry-on bag.^[5] That same day, President Jimmy Carter was in Nashville and scheduled to travel to New York. Finally, Hinckley had been under psychiatric care prior to his gun purchase.

According to Sarah Brady, had a background check been conducted on Hinckley, it could have detected some, or all, of this important criminal and mental health history.^[6]

Sarah Brady, Jim's wife, became active in the gun control movement a few years after the shooting. She joined the Board of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) in 1985 and later became its Chair in 1989. Two years later, she became Chair of The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, HCI's 501©(3) sister organization.

On February 4, 1987, the Brady Act was introduced in the U.S. Congress for the first time. Sarah Brady and HCI made the passage of the bill their top legislative priority.^[7] In a 1991 editorial, President Reagan opined that the Brady Act would provide a crucial "enforcement mechanism" to end the "honor system" of the 1968 Gun Control Act and "can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases."^[8]

Jim and Sarah Brady were guests of honor when President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Act into law on November 30, 1993.^[9] President Clinton has stated, "If it hadn't been for them, we would not have passed the Brady Law."^[10] In December 2000, the Boards of Trustees for HCI and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence voted to honor Jim and Sarah Brady's hard work and commitment to gun control by renaming the two organizations the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.^[11]

In 2000, controversy arose when Sarah Brady purchased a .30-06 Springfield rifle in Delaware for her son.^[12] Gun rights groups claimed that this action was a straw purchase, intended to avoid the NICS, and may have also violated Delaware firearms purchase laws.^[13] No charges were ever filed against Sarah Brady, however. A firearm purchased as a gift is not considered a straw purchase under U.S. federal law if the recipient may legally possess it. Critics pointed out, however, that private firearm transfers like the one made by Sarah Brady are a common concern of gun control advocates (although exemptions for family members have been allowed in past legislation to regulate such sales).^[14]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act}

[Shabibilicious]

It's Friday and as it turns out, I feel the same way I felt yesterday about the 2nd Amendment........If it allows the mentally ill to own a weapon.....it is defective and needs an upgrade. If my dirt bag neighbor can go to the monthly gun show and walk out with a weapon without a background check.....it is defective and needs an upgrade. If trained military personnel are not allowed to carry their weapon 24/7 on post.....but Bubba with no training can purchase one without a background check.......it is defective and needs an upgrade. As always, just my opinion.

GO RV, then BV

[dog53]

It's Friday and as it turns out, I feel the same way I felt yesterday about the 2nd Amendment........If it allows the mentally ill to own a weapon.....it is defective and needs an upgrade. If my dirt bag neighbor can go to the monthly gun show and walk out with a weapon without a background check.....it is defective and needs an upgrade. If trained military personnel are not allowed to carry their weapon 24/7 on post.....but Bubba with no training can purchase one without a background check.......it is defective and needs an upgrade. As always, just my opinion.

GO RV, then BV

Sounds to me like you should go out and purchase yourself a high graded Stoner my man . That way you will be on par with your dirt bag neighbor. Soon as Obummer passes this assault weapons ban . Your gonna be completely out gunned. Your dirt bag neighbor however will be ready for anything. Better hurry though times running out bro

[caz1104]

Sounds to me like you should go out and purchase yourself a high graded Stoner my man . That way you will be on par with your dirt bag neighbor. Soon as Obummer passes this assault weapons ban . Your gonna be completely out gunned. Your dirt bag neighbor however will be ready for anything. Better hurry though times running out bro

Poll: New Gun Laws WON'T Stop Violence. A CNN & Time poll released wednesday jan 16th 2013 states that "only 39% of americans think new wave of gun laws will prevent future mass shootings" Polls can be skewed to whatever results the pollster wishes. I say this because for every poll that suggests the opposit there is one that agrees with the above. This poll falls in line with what I believe, laws don't deter actions due. We have laws that state killing is illegal....................has'nt stop murders. Same goes for speeding,robberies,fraud,.............etc. Make laws more stingent and ENFORCE them to the T,that will curb the tide of violence. You can never stop it sadly-peace.

[dog53]

We have become to politically correct.

Bottom line.

You stop murderers from murdering by killing them

[ocdude]

Poll: New Gun Laws WON'T Stop Violence. A CNN & Time poll released wednesday jan 16th 2013 states that "only 39% of americans think new wave of gun laws will prevent future mass shootings" Polls can be skewed to whatever results the pollster wishes. I say this because for every poll that suggests the opposit there is one that agrees with the above. This poll falls in line with what I believe, laws don't deter actions due. We have laws that state killing is illegal....................has'nt stop murders. Same goes for speeding,robberies,fraud,.............etc. Make laws more stingent and ENFORCE them to the T,that will curb the tide of violence. You can never stop it sadly-peace.

We have laws that prevent the average citizen from owning rocket launchers, hand grenades and cop killer bullets. Not too many of those on the street now, is there?

No one is taking your guns away....just stopping weapons whose sole purpose is mass slaughter in seconds.

[caz1104]

We have become to politically correct.

Bottom line.

You stop murderers from murdering by killing them

[TonyDownTheShore]

Has the Brady Bill Helped Reduced Violent Crime?

There are politicians and gun control proponents who claim the Brady Act was a factor in producing the visible drop in homicide and violent crime of the last several years (for a display of homicide rates, see chart). For example Bill Clinton said:

"I would close the gun show loophole, because the Brady bill has worked superbly. It’s given us a 35 percent drop in gun crime and a 31 year low in the homicide rate, and kept a half a million people — felons, fugitives, stalkers, from getting handguns." (April 12, 2000,

NBC’s Tom Brokaw discusses gun control with the president

)

And Sarah Brady, Chairwoman of Handgun Control Inc., claimed:

"The new FBI report demonstrates that the significant drop in the homicide rate last year is clearly linked to new efforts at gun tracing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the Brady Law, and state anti-gun trafficking initiatives such as Virginia's one-gun-a-month law." (Oct. 18, 1999 U.S. Newswire).

The first part of Sarah Brady's statement is true. "Gun tracing," which is directed at criminal activity, has proved to be very effective (see enforcing the laws we already have). However it is extremely doubtful that the "Brady Law" was "clearly linked" to a "significant drop in the homicide rate last year [1998]."

For example, California, which has had at least a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases since 1965 (see California's Handgun Waiting Period Law, 1952-1990: Did it Work?, by Clayton Cramer), experienced a greater decrease in its homicide rate (17.5%), in 1998, than the rest of the nation (7.4%). (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1997 and 1998)

Between 1991 and 1998, without implementing significant gun control legislation (see endnote), California's homicide rate dropped 48.9% versus 31.9% for the rest of the U.S. Likewise, violent crime fell 34.8% in California compared to 23.2% for the rest of the nation. Even choosing a different year to start the comparison, such as 1993 (when the Brady Act was signed) or 1994 (when Brady became effective, February 28, 1994), homicide and violent crime declined faster in California than nationally (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1991-1998). Evidence indicates the Brady Act is not a significant factor in violent crime reduction, or as the case of California suggests, neither were any of the gun control measures that were enacted during the 90's. (The page containing the chart, cited in the first paragraph above, briefly mentions these other factors.)

A statistical analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (full text [PDF], Vol. 284 No. 5, August 2, 2000) found:

"Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states."

Read the whole article if it interests you

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html

[caz1104]

We have laws that prevent the average citizen from owning rocket launchers, hand grenades and cop killer bullets. Not too many of those on the street now, is there?

No one is taking your guns away....just stopping weapons whose sole purpose is mass slaughter in seconds.

"mass slaughter in seconds".......................like automobiles,planes,cigarettes,alcohol? When will they be banned? It's not the weapons,it's people. Until IMO we get a grasp on this very simple fact debate is futile. I do respect your point of view................just don't agree with it-peace.

[ocdude]

"mass slaughter in seconds".......................like automobiles,planes,cigarettes,alcohol? When will they be banned? It's not the weapons,it's people. Until IMO we get a grasp on this very simple fact debate is futile. I do respect your point of view................just don't agree with it-peace.

Cigarettes cause mass slaughter in seconds?? REALLY??? Pretty sure it takes YEARS of smoking to kill even ONE person.

Automobiles and planes?? Okay....let's play that card....

Just like with cars, people should have to pass a test before they can use a gun. They must insure their guns. They must register their guns EVERY YEAR with the state. Their guns must pass annual inspections. If they do not follow the rules, they lose the right to use a gun and their guns will be impounded. Want to go that route?

As for the ""it's not guns, it's people"....how many people did UNARMED people shoot last year.

Edited January 18, 2013 by ocdude

[dog53]

We have laws that prevent the average citizen from owning rocket launchers, hand grenades and cop killer bullets. Not too many of those on the street now, is there?

No one is taking your guns away....just stopping weapons whose sole purpose is mass slaughter in seconds.

Thats truly the most idiotic statement I have heard on this board in quite a while.

Yeah dude they wont let us have a nuclear devise ether. Huh whats up with that.

Cigarettes cause mass slaughter in seconds?? REALLY??? Pretty sure it takes YEARS of smoking to kill even ONE person.

Automobiles and planes?? Okay....let's play that card....

Just like with cars, people should have to pass a test before they can use a gun. They must insure their guns. They must register their guns EVERY YEAR with the state. Their guns must pass annual inspections. If they do not follow the rules, they lose the right to use a gun and their guns will be impounded. Want to go that route?

As for the ""it's not guns, it's people"....how many people did UNARMED people shoot last year.

Nope the question to ask is how many UNARMED people were shot last year.

[ocdude]

Thats truly the most idiotic statement I have heard on this board in quite a while.

Yeah dude they wont let us have a nuclear devise ether. Huh whats up with that.

ROFL...I see that you are incapable of understanding simple logic.

Nope the question to ask is how many UNARMED people were shot last year.

Okay.....lets look up how many ARMED people were shot by ther own guns as well.

NO ONE IS TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY. You still have the right to own a gun...You have no more business with an auto weapon than you do with a rocket launcher or cop killer bullets.

[caz1104]

Cigarettes cause mass slaughter in seconds?? REALLY??? Pretty sure it takes YEARS of smoking to kill even ONE person.

Automobiles and planes?? Okay....let's play that card....

Just like with cars, people should have to pass a test before they can use a gun. They must insure their guns. They must register their guns EVERY YEAR with the state. Their guns must pass annual inspections. If they do not follow the rules, they lose the right to use a gun and their guns will be impounded. Want to go that route?

As for the ""it's not guns, it's people"....how many people did UNARMED people shoot last year.

[caz1104]

Cigarettes cause mass slaughter in seconds?? REALLY??? Pretty sure it takes YEARS of smoking to kill even ONE person.

Automobiles and planes?? Okay....let's play that card....

Just like with cars, people should have to pass a test before they can use a gun. They must insure their guns. They must register their guns EVERY YEAR with the state. Their guns must pass annual inspections. If they do not follow the rules, they lose the right to use a gun and their guns will be impounded. Want to go that route?

As for the ""it's not guns, it's people"....how many people did UNARMED people shoot last year.

5.4 million people die each year from smoking,yes I would call that "mass". "how many people did UNARMED people shoot last year" about the same as amount of folks that died from smoking that don't smoke-crazy anaolgy. What does testing,insuring,& inspections have to do with the argument presented. What is the common denominator in all we discussed......................humans. Stronger/Stringent enforced laws on HUMANS IMO is our only hope to minimize-peace.

[dog53]

And you Ocdude have no business talking about a subject that you obviously don't know a dam thing about. AUTO WEAPON ? hahahahahaha

There`s no such thing as cop killer bullets. The vest they wear will only stop small arms fire. Not rifle fire. That includes single shot hunting rifle`s . Teflon handgun bullets which perhaps might be what your trying to talk about went out years ago. They were crap.

Edited January 18, 2013 by dog53

[Iownya83]

And you Ocdude have no business talking about a subject that you obviously don't know a dam thing about. AUTO WEAPON ? hahahahahaha

There`s no such thing as cop killer bullets. The vest they wear will only stop small arms fire. Not rifle fire. That includes single shot hunting rifle`s . Teflon handgun bullets which perhaps might be what your trying to talk about went out years ago. They were crap.

100% agree side note: also FULL AUTO weapons ARE illegal to own without special permitts. and who has annual inspections on their vehicles never heard of that one.

[ocdude]

5.4 million people die each year from smoking,yes I would call that "mass". "

You forgot the "IN SECONDS" part.

how many people did UNARMED people shoot last year" about the same as amount of folks that died from smoking that don't smoke-crazy anaolgy.

You mean ...the analogy you were unable to understand? The point is that it IS guns that kill people...unarmed people do not shoot ANYONE.

What does testing,insuring,& inspections have to do with the argument presented.

You want to compare cars to guns...it's YOUR analogy.

What is the common denominator in all we discussed......................humans. Stronger/Stringent enforced laws on HUMANS IMO is our only hope to minimize-peace.

Good we agree. Stronger enforced laws on HUMANS owning guns whose sole purpose is mass slaughter in seconds.

And you Ocdude have no business talking about a subject that you obviously don't know a dam thing about. AUTO WEAPON ? hahahahahaha

Sorry....that's short for an AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Didn't realize you couldn't put that together,

There`s no such thing as cop killer bullets.

OOPS.

cop-killer bullet

Public health A popular term for a bullet capable of penetrating bullet-proof vests worn by law enforcement officers–cops. See Ballistics, Soft body armor.

The vest they wear will only stop small arms fire. Not rifle fire. That includes single shot hunting rifle`s

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin/

. Teflon handgun bullets which perhaps might be what your trying to talk about went out years ago. They were crap.

Wrong. AND you are missing the point. The fact that some kinds of bullets are illegal does not affect your right to buy and own bullets. Period.

United States

The federal ban on armor-piercing pistol ammunition uses only the composition of the bullet's core to determine legality.[4] However, many individual states have legislation restricting various kinds of coating materials. For example:

North Carolina state law specifically forbids persons in that state to "import, manufacture, possess, store, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, offer to purchase, deliver or give to another, or acquire any Teflon-coated bullet". [5]

Teflon-coated bullets are illegal in Oklahoma under some circumstances.

Oregon state law forbids the "[possession of] any handgun ammunition, the bullet or projectile of which is coated with Teflon" while committing or intending to commit a felony.[6]

South Carolina state law specifically bans "ammunition or shells that are coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon)".[7]

Virginia state law specifically bans "bullets, projectiles or other types of ammunition that are: coated with or contain, in whole or in part, polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) or a similar product" while committing or attempting to commit a crime.[8]

100% agree side note: also FULL AUTO weapons ARE illegal to own without special permitts. and who has annual inspections on their vehicles never heard of that one.

Shouldn't be allowed AT ALL. Their sole purpose is mass slaughter in seconds. As are Semi autos.

As for annual inspections for cars....They are required in California...don't know about the rest of the country.

[uncirculd]

I don' t feel a thing for the sorry sucker that attempts to take away the 2nd amendment I pity those who would have been followers. The sun would not come up if they tried to do this. Darkness will fall upon this nation like noboby's business. They will try to further violate the constitution by using our military, but they don't know the power of the people and what they serve. (i.e. oathkeepers.org)

[dog53]

Quote

Sorry....that's short for an AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Didn't realize you couldn't put that together,

Yeah what I realized is just what I said you dont know what your talking about. We are not allowed

a AUTOMATIC WEAPON

Hey whatever im not going to get in a pi$$ing match with you man

You dont need a gun thats cool. But you or this GOVT will not take mine.

[ocdude]

I don' t feel a thing for the sorry sucker that attempts to take away the 2nd amendment I pity those who would have been followers. The sun would not come up if they tried to do this. Darkness will fall upon this nation like noboby's business. They will try to further violate the constitution by using our military, but they don't know the power of the people and what they serve. (i.e. oathkeepers.org)

NO ONE is taking away your guns...and NO ONE is getting rid of the second amendment.

Even REAGAN wanted assault weapons BANNED and the SC agreed with him.

Quote

Sorry....that's short for an AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Didn't realize you couldn't put that together,

Yeah what I realized is just what I said you dont know what your talking about. We are not allowed

a AUTOMATIC WEAPON

Sure you are....you just posted yourself that you can own one with a permit.

Hey whatever im not going to get in a pi$$ing match with you man

You dont need a gun thats cool. But you or this GOVT will not take mine.

We have guns.....we just don't need weapons whose sole purpose is mass slaughter in seconds. Why is that so hard to understand? :blink:/>

Edited January 18, 2013 by ocdude