|
Post by jjas on Feb 18, 2015 8:39:29 GMT -5
But certainly should!!! Jay The only people who can implement term limits are the very ones who don't want term limits....so, I don't see it happening....
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Feb 18, 2015 19:18:36 GMT -5
then things will never change.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Feb 27, 2015 9:50:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Feb 27, 2015 9:53:30 GMT -5
youre a naive fool if you think they will stop at that if they are successful
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 27, 2015 9:58:18 GMT -5
youre a naive fool if you think they will stop at that if they are successful You are right. Just one small step towards total confiscation ...
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Feb 27, 2015 12:12:59 GMT -5
I've said for years that if you tax ammo @ extremely high rates, plus push environmental laws aimed @ lead you can effectively disarm a large portion of the country.
This will tell us where the Republicans that took over the House and Senate stand on this issue. Will they do nothing or will they try to circumvent Obama's ban with legislation of their own?
I'd say it's time to let your House and Senate members know how you feel.......
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 28, 2015 5:34:43 GMT -5
I've said for years that if you tax ammo @ extremely high rates, plus push environmental laws aimed @ lead you can effectively disarm a large portion of the country. This will tell us where the Republicans that took over the House and Senate stand on this issue. Will they do nothing or will they try to circumvent Obama's ban with legislation of their own? I'd say it's time to let your House and Senate members know how you feel.......
In other words, they (Anti-2nd Amendment people) found a "Backdoor" in their attempt to disarm the American Citizens. IMO shouldn't these elected officials, at both State & Federal, be charged with TREASON?? They ALL took an "Oath-Of-Office" to protect & defend the constitution plus the Bill-Of-Rights as written by the founding Fathers?? They should ALL be prosecuted, regardless if THEY are Democrats or Republicans!!!!
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Feb 28, 2015 10:10:37 GMT -5
I've said for years that if you tax ammo @ extremely high rates, plus push environmental laws aimed @ lead you can effectively disarm a large portion of the country. This will tell us where the Republicans that took over the House and Senate stand on this issue. Will they do nothing or will they try to circumvent Obama's ban with legislation of their own? I'd say it's time to let your House and Senate members know how you feel.......
In other words, they (Anti-2nd Amendment people) found a "Backdoor" in their attempt to disarm the American Citizens. IMO shouldn't these elected officials, at both State & Federal, be charged with TREASON?? They ALL took an "Oath-Of-Office" to protect & defend the constitution plus the Bill-Of-Rights as written by the founding Fathers?? They should ALL be prosecuted, regardless if THEY are Democrats or Republicans!!!! But here's where you get into the gray area..... Is what Obama is doing legal? If not (and I can't imagine it is) then it's the duty of the members of the House and Senate to step in and put a stop to it. As far as the 2nd amendment goes....FWIW, an attorney I know told me years ago that the "right to keep and bear arms" is really gray when it comes to "the right to keep and bear ammo" for those arms.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 1, 2015 5:22:54 GMT -5
In other words, they (Anti-2nd Amendment people) found a "Backdoor" in their attempt to disarm the American Citizens. IMO shouldn't these elected officials, at both State & Federal, be charged with TREASON?? They ALL took an "Oath-Of-Office" to protect & defend the constitution plus the Bill-Of-Rights as written by the founding Fathers?? They should ALL be prosecuted, regardless if THEY are Democrats or Republicans!!!! But here's where you get into the gray area..... Is what Obama is doing legal? If not (and I can't imagine it is) then it's the duty of the members of the House and Senate to step in and put a stop to it. As far as the 2nd amendment goes....FWIW, an attorney I know told me years ago that the "right to keep and bear arms" is really gray when it comes to "the right to keep and bear ammo" for those arms. The answer to your first question is: NO what Obama is doing concerning ammunition is NOT LEGAL. Only Congress has that power to ban anything. Your second question: You Attorney friend must be against firearm ownership. Ammunition is part of the 2nd amendment, and banning certain or all ammunition would be like banning gasoline for your car or truck. So he is incorrect on this point. We might not have a right to own and operate cars, but we do have the RIGHT to "Keep & Bear Arms" which includes ammunition, even if it is not mentioned or worded in the 2nd amendment, ammunition is still part of the firearm amendment as common knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 1, 2015 9:26:48 GMT -5
I'm not saying he was right, I'm just saying he said it was a gray area. I hope you're right about it, but with this president and the way congress gets nothing done.....who knows what will happen.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 1, 2015 10:21:48 GMT -5
Legal or not comes down to the opinions of 9 people dressed in black robes....their predecessors have already said there are limitations to our constitutional right. I disagree with their opinion but I doubt they care.....
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Mar 1, 2015 12:26:27 GMT -5
I never thought Id see the day when 22 ammo couldnt be readily found. Nothing will surprise me now. HUMM. I'm going to research this a bit more before I comment on this. But it's true that 22LR ammo is in short supply and has been for the last two years.
I've got plenty of 223 ammo for now and I don't shoot my AR15 as much since I got a pistol. The pistol is more fun and easier to clean up after I shoot it.
I would encourage people to just be calm and don't get too over excited. This will have to be published in the Federal Register and then approved after a comment period. And then there is always the Courts to block this type of BS.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 4, 2015 11:40:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 4, 2015 12:00:49 GMT -5
What "easily concealed weapon" shoots this ammo? Is there a small handgun that can be "easily concealed" that shoots this ammo?
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 4, 2015 12:12:31 GMT -5
What "easily concealed weapon" shoots this ammo? Is there a small handgun that can be "easily concealed" that shoots this ammo? I had to shake my head a bit when I read that........
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 4, 2015 13:37:48 GMT -5
I wonder if there is accurate data available detailing the number of LEO's that have been shot and wounded or killed with M855's ..... ?
An AR is easily concealable under a trench coat or under a tarp in the bed of a truck. All depends on what ones definition of concealed is ...... even with that, you cant say the reason for the ban is to keep LEO's safe when very few, if any, have ever been shot and killed with the ammunition.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 4, 2015 14:55:12 GMT -5
I think it more depends on the definition of "easily".
Wearing a trench coat in the dead of summer would be highly suspicious ...
If "body armor" piercing is the criteria then just about any high powered rifle cartridge does the trick.
I'd bet a razor sharp fixed blade broad head, such as a Zwickey, pushed by a 350+ arrow will slice through it too..
Lord, I'll be glad when this man is out of office and hopefully the idiots that voted him in have wised up..
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 4, 2015 15:04:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 4, 2015 15:04:07 GMT -5
I should have put easily ... concealed is pretty self explanatory.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Mar 5, 2015 13:30:49 GMT -5
It's just a smokescreen to cover the fact that what they're really doing is ban the cheapest type of .223 out there. Mil surplus is cheap, which is why it's popular, take away cheap ammo and people start buying fewer weapons that shoot it. It has nothing to do with its armor piercing capability since nearly all center fire rifle rounds, and even some pistol and shotgun rounds, can pierce the soft body armor that cops typically wear. It's also common knowledge in law enforcement that criminals are far more likely to pack a handgun than a rifle simply because it's easier to carry concealed. The pistols that fire .223 rounds are ill suited to such carry due to their bulk, and generally don't pack a magazine larger than ten rounds. Why would a scumbag pack such an unwieldy arm when a much smaller one with a 17+ round mag is readily available? No, it's about cost per round, make the cost higher and people are less likely to choose the weapon that fires it. Oddly, they aren't trying to ban 7.62 x 39, the most popular round for the AK that would be any criminal's choice if they were going to pack a rifle instead of a pistol. They also come in armor piercing, as well as any number of configurations capable of punching through body armor from any range. AK rounds are just as cheap as .223 if you look around, so why aren't they going after those? Simple, the AR is an easier target.
|
|