Patty Murray, what are cop killer bullets?
Jim String
commercial featuring her stance on "cop killer" bullets. Now tell me,
just what _are_ cop killer bullets? And if such a thing exists, how many
cops have been killed by them? Yikes, shades of the nonsense presented on
those silly Lethal Weapon movies. Given how soundly I-676 was defeated
(71% to 29%) by sensible citizens who prefer that WA remain safe from
crime by remaining armed and preserving the fairly common sense status
quo regarding firearms, I have to assume that Patty Murray is either very
stupid or else she _really_ doesn't want to get elected. I figure she's
just stupid because the photograph showed ordinary target (hardball) ammo.
As is typical of both democrats and the "nose in everyone else's business"
antigun camp, she resorts to emoting rather than rational discussion
of real issues. Just what is "cop killer" ammo? I know there is no such
thing, ask anyone who knows about firearms and ballistics. Perhaps she
is talking about banning the average 30-06 deer rifle because they will
go right through any vest.
I'm now quite convinced that Patty Murray is an idiot. Didn't she learn
anything when I-676 was soundly defeated? The people of Washington obviously
distrust gun grabbers and prefer to remain armed and safe from crime. I'm
quite sure that cops appreciate it too.
Best Regards,
Jim
terry lee
a statement for freedom to own firearms. I am against anyone owning handguns
because, in my opinion, they were designed with one purpose in mind....an easily
concealable weapon to kill other human beings. I am not against people owning
shot guns or rifles because those cannot be easily concealed.
Jonathan K.
>As is typical of both democrats and the "nose in everyone else's business"
>antigun camp, she resorts to emoting rather than rational discussion
>of real issues. Just what is "cop killer" ammo? I know there is no such
>thing, ask anyone who knows about firearms and ballistics. Perhaps she
>is talking about banning the average 30-06 deer rifle because they will
>go right through any vest.
I think she's talking about armour-piercing ammo in small pistol
calibers that can go through a flak jacket. Are you saying there's no
such thing?
If there's an easily concealable pistol that reliably fires a standard
round that packs the punch of a 30-06, I have yet to hear of it, as I
have yet to hear of a gang arming its members with an average 30-06
deer rifle. (I don't know how a .44 stacks up against an 06, nor do I
know if there are easily concealable .44s out there.) Maybe you can
provide us with more information on these topics.
--
Jonathan K.
ICQ: #19206429
Jonathan Clemens
Jonathan K. <apostate@*r*e*m*o*v*e.gte.net> wrote:
>pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>
>>As is typical of both democrats and the "nose in everyone else's business"
>>antigun camp, she resorts to emoting rather than rational discussion
>>of real issues. Just what is "cop killer" ammo? I know there is no such
>>thing, ask anyone who knows about firearms and ballistics. Perhaps she
>>is talking about banning the average 30-06 deer rifle because they will
>>go right through any vest.
>I think she's talking about armour-piercing ammo in small pistol
>calibers that can go through a flak jacket. Are you saying there's no
>such thing?
No, only that no police officer has ever been killed by a bullet
designed to penetrate a bullet-proof vest penetrating his or her bullet-
proof vest; after the anti-gunners publicized the existence of such ammo
years back, criminals decided it was easier to aim for cops' heads rather
than get special ammo.
>If there's an easily concealable pistol that reliably fires a standard
>round that packs the punch of a 30-06, I have yet to hear of it, as I
>have yet to hear of a gang arming its members with an average 30-06
>deer rifle. (I don't know how a .44 stacks up against an 06, nor do I
>know if there are easily concealable .44s out there.) Maybe you can
>provide us with more information on these topics.
I've seen and fired a pistol that's chambered for 5.56 (M-16, AR-15)
rounds; no idea if it would have penetrated a ballistic vest, but it
seemed to have the same effect on a pop can as the same round fired
from a rifle... And the pistol was relatively concealable--it wasn't
a Desert Eagle, but it wasn't a derringer, either. This was about
seven years ago, though.
Jonathan Clemens
Clavius
<snip>
>Just what is "cop killer" ammo? I know there is no such
>thing, ask anyone who knows about firearms and ballistics.
Meaning just about anybody but you, apparently.
The original cop-killers (metal alloy & Teflon-coated) were banned in the
mid-80's. The gun manufacturers found a way around that legislation,
introducing the steel-core armor piercing round in the early '90s. The
steel-core rounds were exempt from the early legislation because no
*handgun* existed that could chamber them. They were specifically outlawed
by another ban a couple of years ago.
Today, *plastic* armor-piercing rounds are being legally manufactured.
These skirt the early bans because of their non-metallic composition.
>I'm now quite convinced that Patty Murray is an idiot.
<snip>
Pot, kettle, etc., dude. You know, it's really pretty easy to research this
kind of thing before you post and embarrass yourself. Try it next time.
Jim
Craig Dowell
This time of year I could easily conceal a shotgun or rifle. What's wrong
with carrying a concealed weapon anyway?
tinfoil
>I'm now quite convinced that Patty Murray is an idiot. Didn't she learn
>anything when I-676 was soundly defeated? The people of Washington
obviously
>distrust gun grabbers and prefer to remain armed and safe from crime. I'm
>quite sure that cops appreciate it too.
I was nauseated by the cutesiness of the Pattyness of the mentioned
commercial...I don't remember any MALE candidate referring to himself by his
feminized first name ("Hi, I'm Georgie, I want to be your next
dog-catcher!")
Hell, I might vote for Mike the Mover at this rate....or write in a dead
person, something, ANYTHING......
Tinfoil
Matthew P Moore
Clavius wrote in message <70qkk8$c9m$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>Jim String wrote (really!) ...
>
><snip>
>
>>Just what is "cop killer" ammo? I know there is no such
>>thing, ask anyone who knows about firearms and ballistics.
>
>Meaning just about anybody but you, apparently.
>
>The original cop-killers (metal alloy & Teflon-coated) were banned in the
>mid-80's. The gun manufacturers found a way around that legislation,
>introducing the steel-core armor piercing round in the early '90s. The
>steel-core rounds were exempt from the early legislation because no
>*handgun* existed that could chamber them. They were specifically outlawed
>by another ban a couple of years ago.
>
>Today, *plastic* armor-piercing rounds are being legally manufactured.
>These skirt the early bans because of their non-metallic composition.
>
Clavius, now you have me interested. The way I've heard the story is this:
back in the 1980's some experimental armor piercing handgun ammo was made,
by policemen for policemen. "KTW" was the brand if I recall correctly, and
it was indeed a hard metal alloy bullet with a Teflon coating. The scenario
it was designed for was shooting at bad guys who were behind cover, for
example automobile body panels. Eventually the cops decided this stuff
didn't make any tactical sense and no major law enforcement purchases were
made. Volume production was never undertaken. Very little if any of it ever
reached the civilian market and no record of it's felonious misuse exists.
Nonetheless, the existence of armor-piercing handgun ammo had by this time
agitated various people, and the stuff was banned, based on a materials
standard - no handgun ammo may be made of <some list of> hard materials.
Fast forward to the middle 1990's. Congressman Charles Schumer, prominent
gun ban proponent, proposed that the materials-based standard be replaced by
a performance-based standard: any ammo which can penetrate a ballistic vest
should be illegal for civilians. It was pointed out that this would outlaw
the vast majority of hunting rifle cartridges, and that Schumer had
sometimes been willing to concede that hunting was a legitimate reason for
civilian gun ownership. He didn't have a good answer for that objection,
besides which policemen are very seldom shot at with rifles of any type, so
his agenda went nowhere.
At about the same time a firearms manufacturer called Olympic Arms started
making "pistols" which fired commonly available military ammunition (5.56mm
NATO, 7.62mm NATO, 7.62mm Russian). Very few of these firearms were ever
made or sold (literally: a few dozen all told), and there is no record of
their felonious misuse, but still that made the aforementioned types of
ammunition into "pistol ammunition" in the eyes of the BATF, which was
reporting to a Democratic administration by this time and looking for a way
to annoy gun owners whom Bill Clinton correctly believed would never vote
for him anyway. The reason this was annoying is that most military surplus
ammo has a steel core to improve armor penetration (and has had for decades:
the military is the business of shooting things with armor plates on them).
Mil surplus ammo used to be cheap and useful for informal target shooting,
but now the BATF outlawed further sales to civilians. The crime control
value of this measure was nil because any modern rifle ammo in the above
calibers can penetrate the typical police body armor (and again, is almost
never used for that anyway).
So your account of the history of "cop-killer" ammo up to this time is, from
my research, full of pejorative half-truths and slantings. Then you make the
statement that armor piercing handgun ammo made out of plastic is being made
and sold. That seems incredible to me, since the essential recipe for any
armor piercing bullet is: a hard, pointy, non-deforming bullet with high
sectional energy density (i.e. a high ratio of kinetic energy to frontal
area), and high sectional momentum density. I'm just barely willing to
believe that a polymer material could be made sufficiently hard and
non-deforming, but high momentum and energy densities implies high mass,
which implies a dense material given the size constraints of ammunition,
which implies making it out of heavy elements instead of light elements (in
other words, out of hard metals rather than hard polymers).
So I challenge you: where can I buy a sample of this polymer-based armor
piercing handgun ammo? What is the brand name, and who is the distributor?
I'm actually willing to buy a few rounds and try them out on samples of
ballistic armor cloth, which I can get hold of.
thank you;
matt moore
Shea F. Kenny
}OK, that did it, how low can she go? I just saw a Patty Murray TV
}commercial featuring her stance on "cop killer" bullets. Now tell me,
}just what _are_ cop killer bullets? And if such a thing exists, how many
}cops have been killed by them? Yikes, shades of the nonsense presented on
}those silly Lethal Weapon movies. Given how soundly I-676 was defeated
}(71% to 29%) by sensible citizens who prefer that WA remain safe from
}crime by remaining armed and preserving the fairly common sense status
}quo regarding firearms, I have to assume that Patty Murray is either very
}stupid or else she _really_ doesn't want to get elected. I figure she's
}just stupid because the photograph showed ordinary target (hardball) ammo.
I'd say the question isn't so much as cop killer bullets, but how can
she allow her opponent to be slandered to such a degree. Does she really think
Smith wants to see cops get hurt, much less killed?
Here's the reason Smith probably voted to keep vest penetrating bullets
legal. Criminals have access to bullet proof vests. What if someone attacked
your home, someone who'd been threatening you and you wanted the best
preparation possible in case that person did. The guy shows up in a vest.
?
-
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corp)
http://www.ncfweb.com/lunarchy/welcome.htm (Updated 9/6)
This has been, Lunar Network News
(No e-mail replies, thanks)
Jim String
>Actually I voted against that initiative because it was just plain stupid not as
>a statement for freedom to own firearms. I am against anyone owning handguns
>because, in my opinion, they were designed with one purpose in mind....an easily
>concealable weapon to kill other human beings. I am not against people owning
>shot guns or rifles because those cannot be easily concealed.
>
I can grant you the right to feel as you do about concealed handguns. Can
you grant me the same?
I-676 was just plain stupid. I was accosted (in the dictionary I looked
at "accosted" means "to speak first") by a presumably paid signature
gatherer and encouraged to sign something in favor of I-676. I looked
at her and asked in all honesty and sincerity, "are you serious? This
is stupid _and_ crazy."
Here's the thing: you are against anyone owning a handgun because it's
an easily (I'll dispute the easily part) concealable weapon designed
to kill other human beings. OK, that's true enough, the reason we carry
handguns is expressly for the purpose of hurling jacketed lead at other
human beings, preferably with the express purpose of gaining maximum
expansion of the projectile (hollowpoints) in order to incure the
maximim ability of stopping the aggression directed toward us. Why would
you want to interfere with someone's ability to defend themselves against
aggression?
I carry one or two of my hanguns routinely. I get annoyed that I have
to divest myself of my protection when I go to the Post Office or
anywhere near a school. I know that the 1000 ft rule regarding schools
is totally unconstitutional and has been struck down once, only to
be rapidly passed again. The Feds have no authority whatsoever to
stick their noses into such things, the only way they manage to insinuate
themselves into the issue is by extremely torturous logic within the
bill involving inter-state commerce, one area where the federal
government actually does have constitutional authority and powers.
Now that it has been revealed that Seattle and outlying areas are
beseiged by blue mail box thefts due to idiocy regarding master
keys it seems that the only safe alternative is to mail your checks
right at the post office. Thing is, it's one of those federal felonies
to carry your sidearm into a post office.
You are mistaken in your belief that handguns are designed to kill
other human beings. You are correct in that they are designed to
be easily concealable, but they really aren't, just ask anyone who
routinely carries. The whole point of carrying is to stop aggression
and anyone who uses a handgun to kill (which is your main objection,
as stated above) is in fact guilty of murder. Murder is the intent
to kill, right?
The whole point of carrying a concealed handgun is to protect one's
self against criminal aggression. (well, and those that are in your
custody, family, neighbor's children you are babysitting, etc) When
threatened, the best response is two shots to the center of mass (chest)
and if the aggression still doesn't stop then a shot to the head. Note
that the intention is most assuredly _not_ to kill and if it is then it is
murder. If you shoot to wound then it is certainly assault. The only
thing you are allowed to do is stop aggression and anything else is
criminal.
Look around you. My understanding of the statistics is that about one
out of every twenty law-abiding citizens in WA has a concealed pistol
license. Criminals _hate_ that.
Best Regards,
Jim
Jim String
>In article <36308FE8...@seanet.com>, terry lee <tl...@seanet.com> wrote:
>>Actually I voted against that initiative because it was just plain stupid not as
>>a statement for freedom to own firearms. I am against anyone owning handguns
>>because, in my opinion, they were designed with one purpose in mind....an easily
>>concealable weapon to kill other human beings. I am not against people owning
>>shot guns or rifles because those cannot be easily concealed.
>
>with carrying a concealed weapon anyway?
>
As long as you have no criminal record and are passed by the state patrol
and FBI background checks then I have no problem whatsoever with you carrying
concealed pistols and what ridiculous restrictions the City of Seattle
has on knives. (3 inch blade max, and it'd better be a folder)
I am personally reassured when I hear of more and more private citizens
carrying arms. It makes Seattle a much safer place. Carrying a handgun
or Spyderco knife or two is one thing a citizen can do as defense
against crime.
Tell you what, next time you are patronizing the local "stop and rob"
would you prefer that the store personel are armed or that the fellow
(or gal) getting a coke out of the fridge has a concealed handgun?
I very much like the idea that that the store personel can have the option
of pulling a double barrel shotgun or an over-under from under the counter.
So much for 7-11 corporate policy, eh? I invite you to visit the 7-11
at 4th and Virginia at 1:40 to 2:05 in the morning. Do those guys
subscribe to corporate policy? Hell no. And there are sign to that effect.
Are they armed? None of my business, but they look relaxed as hell.
Criminals beware. Around here in WA, private citizens _can_ do something
about your sorry asses, unlike CA or WA DC. We can't kill you, but we
certainly retain the ability to stop you, which most often means you
sustain fatal wounds in spite of the fact that we cannot intend to kill
you, only stop. Mind that shooting to wound is assault...
Best Regards,
Jim
Jim String
>pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>
>>As is typical of both democrats and the "nose in everyone else's business"
>>antigun camp, she resorts to emoting rather than rational discussion
>>of real issues. Just what is "cop killer" ammo? I know there is no such
>>thing, ask anyone who knows about firearms and ballistics. Perhaps she
>>is talking about banning the average 30-06 deer rifle because they will
>>go right through any vest.
>
>I think she's talking about armour-piercing ammo in small pistol
>calibers that can go through a flak jacket. Are you saying there's no
>such thing?
Yes, I am saying there is no such thing. I know of no ammo that has
the ballistic numbers to go through the typical police vest. What
ammo from a handgun can do that? What is "armour-piercing" ammo from
a handgun?
See, the best defensive handgun round is widely considered to be
the .45, most often realized in the Colt 1911 model pistol, although
there's lots of 1911 designs out there. The .45 is a _big_ heavy and
most importantly a _slow_ bullet, not even supersonic. Even my 9mm
would have a thin chance of penertrating a vest even though it is
supersonic with "black talon-like" ammo. Even my .380 or .40 loaded
with the hottest rounds I can imagine (skip the .380, it's a blowback)
couldn't deal with a vest. Gee, I can't think of a handgun that I can
load to appropriate pressures to get through a vest.
Futhermore, if idiot Patty Murry was really (and I mean really rationally)
talking about "cop killer" bullets, then don't you think she'd actually
show some in the ad, instead of the photos of regular (what we call
'hardball') ammo used for target shooting which no one would consider
carrying for self defense?
>If there's an easily concealable pistol that reliably fires a standard
>round that packs the punch of a 30-06, I have yet to hear of it, as I
There are pistols which fire rifle cartridges, including the 30-06.
I suspect that they are extremely unpleasant to fire, not to mention
expensive.
>have yet to hear of a gang arming its members with an average 30-06
>deer rifle. (I don't know how a .44 stacks up against an 06, nor do I
>know if there are easily concealable .44s out there.) Maybe you can
>provide us with more information on these topics.
Mmm, ok. In seattle there are gangs and I have the misfortune of living
in the area where they hang around on street corners. They are mostly
pretty low-key and I think that it is largely because they don't dare
fuck around with average people walking around because about one in
twentyfive or so is armed. Mostly they are pretty nice people, though
not exactly what I'd invite home. A fair number of them have felony
convictions and I've noticed that the crack dealers don't tend to want
to carry firearms, much less the drugs, at least the idiots that are selling.
No, the street punks are not carrying heavy ordinance. They have to
ditch their guns on a moments notice and while the real heavies
might be carrying serious pistol calibers it's still not enough to
punch through a vest. A .44 is a hand cannon and the wielder is going
to be seriously deaf and shocked after firing it. Even so, there's
badder rounds than a .44 magnum in handgun and even those don't
hold a candle to determined fellow with a rifle.
Pattry Murray has displayed her idiocy. Gun restrictions have an
obvious effect of increase in crime. We know better in WA, and
criminals just hate that.
Kindest Regards,
Jim
Jim String
>In article <70qi70$spv$3...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
>>pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>>
>>>As is typical of both democrats and the "nose in everyone else's business"
>>>antigun camp, she resorts to emoting rather than rational discussion
>>>of real issues. Just what is "cop killer" ammo? I know there is no such
>>>thing, ask anyone who knows about firearms and ballistics. Perhaps she
>>>is talking about banning the average 30-06 deer rifle because they will
>>>go right through any vest.
>
>>I think she's talking about armour-piercing ammo in small pistol
>>calibers that can go through a flak jacket. Are you saying there's no
>>such thing?
What armor-piercing ammo? I have a 9mm Glock and I just can't see
how you can load a round to pierce a type -II vest. Excuse me, but
I can fantasize all day and still not come up with a so called "cop
killer" round. From a handgun, any cop's vest is going to offer fair
protection. In CA a lot of people are wearing jackets with Kevlar
panels which offer slightly less protection compared to what cops
wear in Seattle. If someone wants to kill a cop (and I mean like
they're really serious) then they are going to use an 800 yard scope
and pick them off with rifle bullets which no vest can resist.
>
>No, only that no police officer has ever been killed by a bullet
>designed to penetrate a bullet-proof vest penetrating his or her bullet-
>proof vest; after the anti-gunners publicized the existence of such ammo
>years back, criminals decided it was easier to aim for cops' heads rather
>than get special ammo.
What ammo? Even the teflon coated ammo was not designed for going
through vests and was not effective at it anyway. Sure made a lot
of ignorant (read, Patty Murray) media noise about it though, just like
the Glocks because they are patially plastic.
I don't know what the stats are, but since there is no such thing
as "cop killer" ammo I find it hard to believe that any of our
police officers have been killed by assholes using it. If anyone has
details about a real incident then I think it really ought to be made
public, but what Patty Murray is doing with her silly ads (which
unfortunatly many silly people will belive) is just borderline criminal
misrepresentation.
Show me "cop killer" ammo. I say there's no such thing.
Kindest Regards,
Jim
>
>>If there's an easily concealable pistol that reliably fires a standard
>>round that packs the punch of a 30-06, I have yet to hear of it, as I
>>have yet to hear of a gang arming its members with an average 30-06
>>deer rifle. (I don't know how a .44 stacks up against an 06, nor do I
>>know if there are easily concealable .44s out there.) Maybe you can
>>provide us with more information on these topics.
>
Jim String
>Jim String wrote (really!) ...
>
><snip>
>
>>thing, ask anyone who knows about firearms and ballistics.
>
I guess you watched too many of those "Lethal Idiot" er, "Weapon"
movies.
>The original cop-killers (metal alloy & Teflon-coated) were banned in the
>mid-80's. The gun manufacturers found a way around that legislation,
Would you mind explaining just what teflon coating does in terms of
penetrating kevlar vests? Just why should an individual handloader
who knows a whole lot more about ballistics than you do be prevented
from loading rounds with various metal alloys and/or steel cores and
selling them to whomever he pleases?
>introducing the steel-core armor piercing round in the early '90s. The
>steel-core rounds were exempt from the early legislation because no
>*handgun* existed that could chamber them. They were specifically outlawed
>by another ban a couple of years ago.
Yeah, can you say "personal property" just once, slowly?
>Today, *plastic* armor-piercing rounds are being legally manufactured.
>These skirt the early bans because of their non-metallic composition.
Tell me all about them. Manufacturers, muzzle velocity, bullet weight,
average ballistic gelatin penetration, effectiveness through typical
police ballistic armor.
I am I supposed to be concerned or scared about *plastic*? Is that the
new miracle ballistic material? Or are you just emoting like the typical
antigunner?
>>I'm now quite convinced that Patty Murray is an idiot.
>
><snip>
>
>Pot, kettle, etc., dude. You know, it's really pretty easy to research this
>kind of thing before you post and embarrass yourself. Try it next time.
OK, you first. I made no claims which were other than common sense, no facts
to be disputed. If you'd like, we can crosspost this to rec.guns if you
have any factual errors to dispute, though rec.guns is moderated and typically
won't tolerate political spew. I'd hesitate to crosspost to talk.politics.gun
since they are a noisy bunch. They'd undoubtedly eventually set you straight
but it'd be rude thing to do to crosspost to seattle.general.
I'm sure you would be quite grateful for my or any other CPL holder's
presence should the local stop and rob get exciting while you are there.
Oh, perhaps you never frequent the local 7-11 or equivalent? Congratulations
on your financial security, many of us just have to take our lumps or
fight back.
Kind Regards,
Jim
Jim String
Thank you Matt, you are informed and have considerable sense about the
facts regarding this issue, Patty Murray should be ashamed for her emoting
tactics and baseless foundation in facts. Unfortunately most people are
idiots and are desperatly trying to conform and really listen to those
lying polls. Then they adjust their opinions to reflect the (supposed)
majority so hat they don't stand out.
Best Regards,
Jim
Jim String
>Fun_ky cola - nida! pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) said,
>}OK, that did it, how low can she go? I just saw a Patty Murray TV
>}commercial featuring her stance on "cop killer" bullets. Now tell me,
>}just what _are_ cop killer bullets? And if such a thing exists, how many
>}cops have been killed by them? Yikes, shades of the nonsense presented on
>}those silly Lethal Weapon movies. Given how soundly I-676 was defeated
>}(71% to 29%) by sensible citizens who prefer that WA remain safe from
>}crime by remaining armed and preserving the fairly common sense status
>}quo regarding firearms, I have to assume that Patty Murray is either very
>}stupid or else she _really_ doesn't want to get elected. I figure she's
>}just stupid because the photograph showed ordinary target (hardball) ammo.
>
> I'd say the question isn't so much as cop killer bullets, but how can
>she allow her opponent to be slandered to such a degree. Does she really think
>Smith wants to see cops get hurt, much less killed?
>
> Here's the reason Smith probably voted to keep vest penetrating bullets
>legal. Criminals have access to bullet proof vests. What if someone attacked
>your home, someone who'd been threatening you and you wanted the best
>preparation possible in case that person did. The guy shows up in a vest.
Ugh, Shea, you need to get a decent newsreader. Your followup was ugly
as hell. Usenet is an ascii medium, does it really make sense to use
ridiculously promoted graphical tools? Has anyone else out there
appreciated the inherent ridiculousness of windows notepad.exe, a
graphical tool to edit _text_? Ah well, feel free to slap me around
when I start ranting on this...
Well, while I can understand your take on the Murray/Smith issue I think
it's a bit simplistic. No modern politician can afford to appear pro-gun
in any way. I mean, it really works for a campaign as long as it's presented
in a very low key sort of way, as long as the candidate make no really
overt statements regarding guns but generates the sort of fuzzy understanding
without-really-saying-so that that she/he isn't going to interfere with the
status quo, which is pretty sensible in WA. In CA only celebrities carry
guns...
Of course Murray Is interested in making Smith look as bad as possible.
Are voters really that stupid? Or have they (finally) developed the
sophistication to realize that virtually everything they see on TV is a
lie. Typically the person with the biggest fiction somehow manages to
get the biggest budget for TV commercials.
Smith is a decent human being (just like Murray, as dangerous as I consider
her) and certainly doesn't want cops getting killed. I considered becoming
a Seattle cop myself, the money was fair, not great, the benefits outstanding,
and the fact that I'm a white male a serious obstacle.
I researched the whole thing to a pretty fair degree, after all I really
don't want to get my ass blown off by some perp. I find that _one_ cop
has been killed in the past ten years, pretty safe career if you ask me.
I sure as hell wouldn't consider it as career in, for example, LA, where
citizens can't carry guns.
Bottom line, handguns aren't a threat to vests, per se. I dare anyone
to present "cop killer" ammo that I can run through any of my handguns.
It doesn't exist.
Patty Murray is a dangerous lawmaker. Taking this foolish "cop killer"
stance is very uninformed. It's unfortunate that it will work on the
foolish people in this state.
Best Regards,
Jim
Bradley Metcalf
Bullets" In the picture you refer to they are the black ones. These bullets
are made of Teflon and their reason for being is that they can not be
stopped by body armor () bullet proof vests. As for the number of cop killed
by them... well there are no public records but there has been a lot of them
in the past 5 years.
Still you are being in by an advertisement written by someone hopping to
get the vote. They are ALL lies. These people get away with this because it
has some truth in it. The bill covered many things to do with gun control
and she voted against the bill.
I love guns and I dislike most officials voted into office more than
twice but I HATE these elections that allow this type of add. They get the
wrong people elected because the average voter can not, or will NOT, take
the time to find the facts BEHIND the add. A half truth is a lie and should
not be allowed in the election process.
Jim String wrote in message ...
Clavius
<snip>
Matt, you've missed the point of my post as much as Jim missed the point of
his own original post. He suggested that cop-killer bullets didn't exist,
and on that basis called Murray an idiot. I'm certainly no Murray
apologist, but if you're going to call someone an idiot for obviously
partisan reasons, let's let those reasons be on some solid ground, OK?
>Clavius, now you have me interested. The way I've heard the story is this:
>back in the 1980's some experimental armor piercing handgun ammo was made,
>by policemen for policemen. "KTW" was the brand if I recall correctly, and
>it was indeed a hard metal alloy bullet with a Teflon coating. The scenario
>it was designed for was shooting at bad guys who were behind cover, for
>example automobile body panels. Eventually the cops decided this stuff
>didn't make any tactical sense and no major law enforcement purchases were
>made. Volume production was never undertaken. Very little if any of it ever
>reached the civilian market and no record of it's felonious misuse exists.
>Nonetheless, the existence of armor-piercing handgun ammo had by this time
>agitated various people, and the stuff was banned, based on a materials
>standard - no handgun ammo may be made of <some list of> hard materials.
No disagreement.
>Fast forward to the middle 1990's. Congressman Charles Schumer, prominent
>gun ban proponent,
And former cop, BTW.
>proposed that the materials-based standard be replaced by
>a performance-based standard: any ammo which can penetrate a ballistic vest
>should be illegal for civilians.
May I point out that this push was prompted by various law enforcement
organizations and was not Schumer's own initiative.
>It was pointed out that this would outlaw
>the vast majority of hunting rifle cartridges, and that Schumer had
>sometimes been willing to concede that hunting was a legitimate reason for
>civilian gun ownership. He didn't have a good answer for that objection,
>besides which policemen are very seldom shot at with rifles of any type, so
>his agenda went nowhere.
Again, it wasn't just his agenda.
>At about the same time a firearms manufacturer called Olympic Arms started
>making "pistols" which fired commonly available military ammunition (5.56mm
>NATO, 7.62mm NATO, 7.62mm Russian). Very few of these firearms were ever
>made or sold (literally: a few dozen all told), and there is no record of
>their felonious misuse, but still that made the aforementioned types of
>ammunition into "pistol ammunition" in the eyes of the BATF, which was
>reporting to a Democratic administration by this time and looking for a way
>to annoy gun owners whom Bill Clinton correctly believed would never vote
>for him anyway. The reason this was annoying is that most military surplus
>ammo has a steel core to improve armor penetration (and has had for
decades:
>the military is the business of shooting things with armor plates on them).
>Mil surplus ammo used to be cheap and useful for informal target shooting,
>but now the BATF outlawed further sales to civilians. The crime control
>value of this measure was nil because any modern rifle ammo in the above
>calibers can penetrate the typical police body armor (and again, is almost
>never used for that anyway).
>
>So your account of the history of "cop-killer" ammo up to this time is,
from
>my research, full of pejorative half-truths and slantings.
Oh, please. And your statements above are *objective?* My recounting of
the history was just as factually accurate as yours, but not as complete,
but a complete history wasn't my point.
>Then you make the
>statement that armor piercing handgun ammo made out of plastic is being
made
>and sold.
Bullshit. I said they are being legally manufactured. I personally don't
give two hoots whether they're being sold or not.
>That seems incredible to me, since the essential recipe for any
>armor piercing bullet is: a hard, pointy, non-deforming bullet with high
>sectional energy density (i.e. a high ratio of kinetic energy to frontal
>area), and high sectional momentum density. I'm just barely willing to
>believe that a polymer material could be made sufficiently hard and
>non-deforming, but high momentum and energy densities implies high mass,
>which implies a dense material given the size constraints of ammunition,
>which implies making it out of heavy elements instead of light elements (in
>other words, out of hard metals rather than hard polymers).
In other words, based on *your* knowledge of materials science, you *doubt*
that they could exist.
<snip>
For the record, I didn't respond to Jim's original post to get into a
pissing contest with a couple of NRA shills. He made a ludicrous statement,
and I called him on it. If he (and you) want to denigrate Patty Murray, let
it be with facts, not this "Patty Murray's a poopy-head! Neener-neener!"
sort of garbage.
If you want to rant about guns & ammo, do it to someone else -- I'm just not
interested.
Jim
Joshua_Putnam
> Hay Jim. I know how you feel but there is such a thing as "Cop Killer
>Bullets" In the picture you refer to they are the black ones. These bullets
>are made of Teflon and their reason for being is that they can not be
>stopped by body armor () bullet proof vests. As for the number of cop killed
>by them... well there are no public records but there has been a lot of them
>in the past 5 years.
Actually the records are public, and the bullets haven't been
used to kill police. Not surprising, since they're already
illegal.
Schumer's last hyped bill against supposed "cop killer" bullets
would have banned any ammunitiion that could penetrate body
armor. That's an important change from the previous ban on
*pistol* ammunition that could penetrate body armor, since any
decent hunting rifle ammunition will penetrate a vest. (He's
running into trouble in his own race for the senate since some
of his future constituents remember this attempt.)
I voted for Murray again this year, but I held my nose to do it.
Her opposition to the Bill of Rights isn't as strident as the
GOP's, and in this climate her brand of attack on individual
liberty is less likely to make it through Congress than that of
the religious right.
Why neither party can find a candidate that supports the entire
Bill of Rights is beyond me.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
Craig Dowell
[ ... ]
>For the record, I didn't respond to Jim's original post to get into a
>pissing contest with a couple of NRA shills. He made a ludicrous statement,
>and I called him on it. If he (and you) want to denigrate Patty Murray, let
>it be with facts, not this "Patty Murray's a poopy-head! Neener-neener!"
>sort of garbage.
>
>If you want to rant about guns & ammo, do it to someone else -- I'm just not
>interested.
Hmmm. Must've missed those ranting posts. The ones I read seemed to
disect the claims of cop-killer bullets in a reasonable, rational way.
"You people who are disagreeing with me are just gun nuts ranting, so
I'll ignore everything you say even though it can be shown to be factually
correct, and just keep on believing what I want to believe" is an all too
familiar refrain.
I think that people who continue to repeat things that have been shown
to be ... inaccurate, are indeed "poopy-heads" and they need to be called
on it. Most people don't seem to, unfortunately.
Clavius
Craig Dowell wrote in message <712j43$h29$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>I'll ignore everything you say even though it can be shown to be factually
>correct, and just keep on believing what I want to believe" is an all too
>familiar refrain.
My point in the first place. Cop-killers exist. I have not argued that
they are frequently used, nor have I argued that they're easy to get. Show
me where my facts were wrong.
Jim
Matthew P Moore
Bradley Metcalf wrote in message
<91tY1.110$my2.1...@news.premier1.net>...
> Hay Jim. I know how you feel but there is such a thing as "Cop Killer
>Bullets" In the picture you refer to they are the black ones. These bullets
>are made of Teflon and their reason for being is that they can not be
>stopped by body armor () bullet proof vests. As for the number of cop
killed
>by them... well there are no public records but there has been a lot of
them
>in the past 5 years.
I'm really suspicious of this: what is the brand name of this ammo, who is
the distributor? Where can I buy a few rounds to fire into samples of Kevlar
armor cloth? I can get the cloth, I'm willing to do the testing. Help me out
here. So far as I know, there is no such thing as polymer-based
armor-piercing handgun ammo. The "Black Rhino" hoax back around last
Christmas was just that, by the way, a hoax. No-one could ever get actual
samples for testing.
How can it be that "a lot" of cops have been killed by armor piercing
handgun ammo in the last 5 years, but "there are no public records"? Every
murder of a policeman is investigated exhaustively, the FBI publishes cases,
statistics, and lessons learned every year. Do you have any reference at all
that I could read to back up your statements? Handgun Control Inc press
releases don't count unless they, in turn, contain references to real
sources.
> Still you are being in by an advertisement written by someone hopping
to
>get the vote. They are ALL lies. These people get away with this because it
>has some truth in it. The bill covered many things to do with gun control
>and she voted against the bill.
Darn that pesky First Amendment anyways!
> I love guns and I dislike most officials voted into office more than
>twice but I HATE these elections that allow this type of add. They get the
>wrong people elected because the average voter can not, or will NOT, take
>the time to find the facts BEHIND the add. A half truth is a lie and should
>not be allowed in the election process.
all the best;
matt moore
Matthew P Moore
Clavius wrote in message <712c33$ml6$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>Matthew P Moore wrote in message <70rn77$qnl$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
<< Lots of history lessons snipped - see dejanews. Not relevant to statement
below. >>
>
>>Then you make the
>>statement that armor piercing handgun ammo made out of plastic is being
>made
>>and sold.
>
>Bullshit. I said they are being legally manufactured. I personally don't
>give two hoots whether they're being sold or not.
>
>>That seems incredible to me, since the essential recipe for any
>>armor piercing bullet is: a hard, pointy, non-deforming bullet with high
>>sectional energy density (i.e. a high ratio of kinetic energy to frontal
>>area), and high sectional momentum density. I'm just barely willing to
>>believe that a polymer material could be made sufficiently hard and
>>non-deforming, but high momentum and energy densities implies high mass,
>>which implies a dense material given the size constraints of ammunition,
>>which implies making it out of heavy elements instead of light elements
(in
>>other words, out of hard metals rather than hard polymers).
>
>In other words, based on *your* knowledge of materials science, you *doubt*
>that they could exist.
>
><snip>
Excellent snipping job, "Clavius". People coming in late would never
suspect that I asked you to name the manufacturer, the brand name, and the
distributor, so that I could buy some of the above-mentioned polymer-based
armor piercing handgun ammo. I plan to test it on samples of Kevlar armor
cloth, which I can get, with my own guns, at my own shooting club. I promise
to report the results. You are welcome to witness the tests if you like and
make your own report.
Without the manufacturer, the brand name, and the distributor, I have to
assume that this is another hoax like the infamous, non-existant "Black
Rhino" ammo last year. The existance of polymer-based armor piercing handgun
ammo is hard for me to believe, for the reasons given above. You telling me
what a bad person I am doesn't enlarge my understanding of physics and
chemistry.
>
>For the record, I didn't respond to Jim's original post to get into a
>pissing contest with a couple of NRA shills. He made a ludicrous
statement,
>and I called him on it. If he (and you) want to denigrate Patty Murray,
let
>it be with facts, not this "Patty Murray's a poopy-head! Neener-neener!"
>sort of garbage.
>
>If you want to rant about guns & ammo, do it to someone else -- I'm just
not
>interested.
If you aren't interested, then stop insulting me. And BTW, I never said
anything about Patty Murray, good or bad. I just said that you were making a
factual claim which I believe to be impossible. And now that I've asked you
to help me verify that factual claim, you respond with personal abuse. Why
am I not convinced?
matt moore
StanlyKupp
>I voted for Murray again this year, but I held my nose to do it.
>Her opposition to the Bill of Rights isn't as strident as the
>GOP's
Curious, it sounds like you know a lot about guns (at least the politics
concerning them) and one of Murray's ads attacked Smith's pro (2nd ammendment)
gun stance. Certainly the GOP is more pro 10th ammendment. I'm guessing 1st and
9th are the ones you have issues with?
-Stan Czervik
StanlyKupp
>Today, *plastic* armor-piercing rounds are being legally manufactured.
>These skirt the early bans because of their non-metallic composition.
I've looked for hours now. Where is a reference to these armor-piercing
"plastic" bullets? I did read about congress banning the export of plastic
bullets to the UK, but those were the crowd control variety.
The BATF has to approve any round for sale to the public, so wouldn't a
high-tech bullet be in the same category as a bazooka? Sure you can get one,
but it's goin' to cost ya.
-Stan Czervik
Scott Weiser
>
>Craig Dowell wrote in message <712j43$h29$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>>In article <712c33$ml6$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>, Clavius <cla...@gte.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>[ ... ]
>>
>>"You people who are disagreeing with me are just gun nuts ranting, so
>>I'll ignore everything you say even though it can be shown to be factually
>>correct, and just keep on believing what I want to believe" is an all too
>>familiar refrain.
>
>My point in the first place. Cop-killers exist.
That would depend on how you define "Cop-killer bullet." If you're
sophistrizing and obfuscating, then *any* bullet which kills a cop is
a "cop-killer" bullet.
If you mean "handgun ammunition specifically designed to penetrate
standard NIJ Threat-Level IIIA and above police body armor", such
ammunition does not exist in the civilian market, nor has it ever
existed in the civilian market. There are no "plastic" or "Teflon"
pistol bullets manufactured which would pierce body armor, neither
plastic nor Teflon have the required density, mass or structural
integrity to be used as effective pistol ammunition, and the only
"armor piercing" ammunition ever manufactured which was sold on the
open market was "KTW", which was a bronze-alloy, teflon coated bullet
designed to pierce *automobile doors and windshields*, not body armor.
While it was *capable* of penetrating a NIJ Threat Level III vest,
there are ABSOLUTELY NO cases of it EVER being used to kill *any*
police officer, with our without a vest, and the ammunition is no
longer manufactured. And KTW was also remarkably useless in it's
intended design capacity. I know, I tested it on junk autos during
my tenure as range officer at the police department I worked for. It
was effective at glass penetration, but it was relatively ineffective
at penetrating body or door panels except in .357 magnum loads at very
close range, where it tended to overpenetrate, which is *worse* than
lack of penetration, due to the danger it posed to bystanders. It was
also *very* hard on gun barrels, despite the very thin layer of Teflon
ostensibly used to lubricate the bullet as it passed down the barrel.
It was never popular, even with police.
There are several types of armor-piercing ammunition manufactured by
contractors for the military, but none are available on the civilian
market, thus such a reference by you would be specious and
self-serving.
There are no "black bullets" which are designed to penetrate body
armor, and you are probably referring to the "Black Talon" bullet
which is absolutely *not* designed to penetrate body armor, but is a
highly expansive hollow-point design intended to maximize tissue
damage. It was manufactured as a self-defense round, but is no longer
on the market.
> I have not argued that
>they are frequently used, nor have I argued that they're easy to get. Show
>me where my facts were wrong.
According to the FBI, there are *NO* confirmed cases of a pistol
bullet penetrating any police officer's body armor in the United
States, ever, though there are cases of *rifle bullets* doing so...but
then again, standard police body armor is not designed to stop rifle
bullets in the first place.
A criminal could, theoretically, take a billet of beryllium or
depleted uranium and machine a pistol bullet which would be capable of
penetrating standard NIJ TL IIIa body armor, but no such event has
occurred, nor would any ban on "cop-killer bullets" stop such an
event.
The term "cop-killer bullet" is a lie manufactured by HCI and Clinton
(among others) which they use to try to justify ammunition bans which
would not ban any such non-existent bullets, but *would* ban nearly
*all* rifle ammunition.
You are repeating the lie.
There are no facts for you to state.
That is where you're wrong.
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/
Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser
By the act of transmitting any commercial
e-mail or advertisment to this address, you are expressly
contracting with me in my professional capacity for a
consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly
agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such
consultation within 10 days of my report to the original
sending address. You further expressly agree that all
actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely
to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have
sole jurisdiction.
Joshua_Putnam
>Josh wrote:
First, I should note I'm a member of both the NRA and the ACLU,
and don't see any contradiction in that.
As I see it, the GOP religious wing are actively undermining:
* First Amendment: freedom of speech (internet censhorship, for
example); establishment clause (seeking to establish official
prayers in public schools).
* Fourth Amendment: ever-increasing exceptions to the right to be
secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, usually first
introduced through drug-war hysteria, then expanded to other
police actions once the drug cases pass court review; opposition
to secure private encryption without government backdoors.
* Sixth Amendment: right to competent counsel; right to an
impartial jury.
* Eighth Amendment: excessive fines (in the form of forfeiture of
assets) have clearly been introduced in the War on Drugs and are
expanding into other areas.
The GOP has continued to pursue these attacks on the
Constitution throughout the Clinton administration, while the
previously potent anti-Constitutional wing of the Democratic
party has been largely stymied in efforts to attack the First,
Second, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendments. Patty Murray
strikes me as particularly ineffective legislatively, thus a
very desirable incumbent. With luck she will age into a
toothless crone concentrating on constituent service like
tracking down social security errors.
If only complaints of a "do nothing" congress were true, I'd be
happy to re-elect every recumbent incumbent to sleep through
another term and leave me alone.
Clavius
>On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:12:32 -0800, "Clavius" <cla...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Craig Dowell wrote in message <712j43$h29$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>>>In article <712c33$ml6$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>, Clavius <cla...@gte.net>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>[ ... ]
>>>
>>>"You people who are disagreeing with me are just gun nuts ranting, so
>>>I'll ignore everything you say even though it can be shown to be
factually
>>>correct, and just keep on believing what I want to believe" is an all too
>>>familiar refrain.
>>
>>My point in the first place. Cop-killers exist.
>
>That would depend on how you define "Cop-killer bullet." If you're
>sophistrizing and obfuscating, then *any* bullet which kills a cop is
>a "cop-killer" bullet.
>
>If you mean "handgun ammunition specifically designed to penetrate
>standard NIJ Threat-Level IIIA and above police body armor", such
>ammunition does not exist in the civilian market, nor has it ever
>existed in the civilian market.
I said they exist. I never said a word about availability or frequency of
use.
Jim
Mark Jungck
> stanl...@aol.com (StanlyKupp) writes:
> >Josh wrote:
> >>I voted for Murray again this year, but I held my nose to do it.
> >>Her opposition to the Bill of Rights isn't as strident as the
> >>GOP's
> >Curious, it sounds like you know a lot about guns (at least the politics
> >concerning them) and one of Murray's ads attacked Smith's pro (2nd ammendment)
> >gun stance. Certainly the GOP is more pro 10th ammendment. I'm guessing 1st and
> >9th are the ones you have issues with?
> First, I should note I'm a member of both the NRA and the ACLU,
> and don't see any contradiction in that.
You have the first two amendments covered anyway. :-)
> As I see it, the GOP religious wing are actively undermining:
<snip>
> * Fourth Amendment: ever-increasing exceptions to the right to be
> secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, usually first
> introduced through drug-war hysteria, then expanded to other
> police actions once the drug cases pass court review; opposition
> to secure private encryption without government backdoors.
These are bi-partisan efforts to trash your rights and not lead
from the "religious right".
> * Sixth Amendment: right to competent counsel; right to an
> impartial jury.
Not sure what you mean by this. Could you be more specific please?
> * Eighth Amendment: excessive fines (in the form of forfeiture of
> assets) have clearly been introduced in the War on Drugs and are
> expanding into other areas.
Again another bi-partisan effort. I believe it is the left that
has been most diligent in expanding the abuse called RICO, a la
anti-abortion demonstrators, which has opened the floodgates for
even more abuse.
<snip>
> Patty Murray
> strikes me as particularly ineffective legislatively, thus a
> very desirable incumbent. With luck she will age into a
> toothless crone concentrating on constituent service like
> tracking down social security errors.
I could almost go along with this, IF she wasn't such a rubber
stamp and had been more of a maverick. Given Linda Smith's
record, who do you think will be a bigger thorn in the Republican
leadership's side? An ineffective Patty Murray or an antagonistic
Linda Smith?
> If only complaints of a "do nothing" congress were true, I'd be
> happy to re-elect every recumbent incumbent to sleep through
> another term and leave me alone.
"Neither man nor beast is safe while Congress is in session."
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Jungck mju...@cmc.net
Clavius
>distorting the truth (usually called lying) in order to forward the
>HCI/Clinton/Schumer agenda of scaremongering over something which a)
>does NOT exist (no bullet has ever been designed or manufactured
>specifically to pierce law enforcement body armor with the specific
>intent of "killing cops") and b) which is not of the least risk to
>police officers because any pistol ammunition which *may* be designed
>to penetrate "body armor" is neither intended to be used against
>police officers nor is it available to or used by criminals to "kill
>cops," nor has any police officer *EVER* been shot and wounded by such
>mythical ammunition, much less killed.
>
>So, simply calling you a liar seems appropriate...particularly since
>you are utterly unable to give us the technical data about these
>"alleged" bullets, such as the manufacturer and distributor and design
>parameters/name of the bullet, which would prove your assertions.
>
>Here goes: You're a liar.
No need to get all frothy, I don't want to take your bullets away.
What assertions? That armor-piercing bullets exist? That they're commonly
called "cop-killers?" I think that's about all I ever asserted, and I don't
think there's much to argue about there.
I made no intent to decieve, but if I was wrong about anything, it was my
allusion to your being a shill for the NRA. I think tool is a better word.
Your pal,
Jim
Scott Weiser
Regards,
StanlyKupp
>As I see it, the GOP religious wing are actively undermining:
>
>* First Amendment: freedom of speech (internet censhorship, for
>example); establishment clause (seeking to establish official
>prayers in public schools).
Haven't heard of either of these in a formal way; like a bill. Wasn't it Gore
who's pushing for the V-chip?
>* Fourth Amendment: ever-increasing exceptions to the right to be
>secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, usually first
>introduced through drug-war hysteria, then expanded to other
>police actions once the drug cases pass court review; opposition
>to secure private encryption without government backdoors.
I agree about siezures. RICO was a GOP idea? Encryption sounds like Gore again,
but I don't know.
>* Sixth Amendment: right to competent counsel; right to an
>impartial jury.
Lost me here...
>* Eighth Amendment: excessive fines (in the form of forfeiture of
>assets) have clearly been introduced in the War on Drugs and are
>expanding into other areas.
I agree, allthough I cannot place the blame of this on a specific party without
knowing the history of it.
>The GOP has continued to pursue these attacks on the
>Constitution throughout the Clinton administration, while the
>previously potent anti-Constitutional wing of the Democratic
>party has been largely stymied in efforts to attack the First,
>Second, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendments. Patty Murray
>strikes me as particularly ineffective legislatively, thus a
>very desirable incumbent. With luck she will age into a
>toothless crone concentrating on constituent service like
>tracking down social security errors.
>
>If only complaints of a "do nothing" congress were true, I'd be
>happy to re-elect every recumbent incumbent to sleep through
>another term and leave me alone.
I guess I'm not that cynical (yet). Anyway, I don't think we have to worry
about Murray messing around with an intern.
Thanks for the reply.
-Stan Czervik
Scott Weiser
>>Here goes: You're a liar.
>
>No need to get all frothy, I don't want to take your bullets away.
Really? Then why are you defending and perpetuating the
Schumer/HCI/Clinton lie? You're denial is about as believeable as
the "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" lie.
I wouldn't trust you as far as I can throw my NEC monitor.
>What assertions? That armor-piercing bullets exist? That they're commonly
>called "cop-killers?" I think that's about all I ever asserted, and I don't
>think there's much to argue about there.
Oh, but there is. First, the name "cop-killer bullets" is the root
lie, because no such bullets exist, since, as you have been told
several times, no police officer anywhere in the United States has
*ever* been killed by an "armor-piercing" pistol bullet.
By implying that such bullets exist, which they do not, you are
deliberately perpetuating the lie again.
By deliberately ignoring the distinction between rifle bullets and
pistol bullets, you obfuscate the issue and you compound the very lie
that Schumer wants compounded. He, and you by your use and defense
of the term, are deliberately attempting to misrepresent and mislead
the public into believing that "cop-killer" bullets *do* exist, (which
they don't) and thus gain support for a vaguely worded ammunition ban
which would affect not just the mythically nonexistent "cop-killer"
bullets, but which would outlaw virtually *all* high-power rifle
ammunition in the United States. This is a *deliberate* and
calculated objective of Schumer et al to gain a backdoor defacto gun
ban by outlawing the ammunition such firearms use, just as the
high-capacity magazine ban was a backdoor attempt to ban "assault
weapons".
You are participating in this deliberate distortion and fraud, and you
are doing it knowingly, which means that you are an HCI shill, and an
ignorant one at that, in addition to being a bald-faced liar.
>I made no intent to decieve,
Lie.
>but if I was wrong about anything, it was my
>allusion to your being a shill for the NRA. I think tool is a better word.
Better to be a tool of liberty and defense of the 2nd Amendment than
lying gun-banning scum of the earth like Schumer, HCI, Clinton and
yourself.
I'm proud to be a Life Member of the NRA, the premier organization
which is defending the civil rights and liberties of every citizen,
and I'm quite happy to be considered a "tool" of justice and freedom.
How do YOU stand to look at yourself in the mirror?
FOO DOG
Patsy
Jonathan Clemens wrote in message <70qjns$oko$1...@big.aa.net>...
>In article <70qi70$spv$3...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
>Jonathan K. <apostate@*r*e*m*o*v*e.gte.net> wrote:
>>pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>>
>>>As is typical of both democrats and the "nose in everyone else's
business"
>>>antigun camp, she resorts to emoting rather than rational discussion
>>>of real issues. Just what is "cop killer" ammo? I know there is no such
>>>thing, ask anyone who knows about firearms and ballistics. Perhaps she
>>>is talking about banning the average 30-06 deer rifle because they will
>>>go right through any vest.
>
>>I think she's talking about armour-piercing ammo in small pistol
>>calibers that can go through a flak jacket. Are you saying there's no
>>such thing?
>
>designed to penetrate a bullet-proof vest penetrating his or her bullet-
>proof vest; after the anti-gunners publicized the existence of such ammo
>years back, criminals decided it was easier to aim for cops' heads rather
>than get special ammo.
>
Jerome A. Schroeder
>>>If there's an easily concealable pistol that reliably fires a standard
>>>round that packs the punch of a 30-06, I have yet to hear of it, as I
>>>have yet to hear of a gang arming its members with an average 30-06
>>>deer rifle. (I don't know how a .44 stacks up against an 06, nor do I
>>>know if there are easily concealable .44s out there.) Maybe you can
>>>provide us with more information on these topics.
>>
Thompson Center makes two types of pistols that will handle rifle caliber
ammo. The Contender, and the Encore. The Contender will handle .30-30 and
.45-70, the Encore .30-06 and .308. These are single shot weapons, but, it
only takes one round.
Jerry
Bradley Metcalf
"cop killer bullet" is real. This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
designed to go through a bullet proof vest and works very well.
Jerome A. Schroeder wrote in message
<723h4h$jsm$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
StanlyKupp
>I will point out that a
>"cop killer bullet" is real.
Who manufactures it? Can I get some if I wanted to? If not, who is allowed to
purchase them?
> This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
>designed to go through a bullet proof vest
Are you sure they weren't designed to go car door panels?
>and works very well.
I'm still looking for a website, a book or anything that has the BATF test
results. Maybe you know where they are?
>The topic below is weeks old and was settled
????
-Stan Czervik
Shea F. Kenny
<jun...@premier1.net> said:
}The topic below is weeks old and was settled but I will point out that a
}"cop killer bullet" is real. This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
}designed to go through a bullet proof vest and works very well.
Yah, that teflon is some hard material.
-
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corp)
http://www.ncfweb.com/lunarchy/welcome.htm (Updated 9/6)
This has been, Lunar Network News
(No e-mail replies But look for me on heat.net MW2 & Mercs )
Scott Weiser
<jun...@premier1.net> wrote:
>The topic below is weeks old and was settled but I will point out that a
>"cop killer bullet" is real. This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
>designed to go through a bullet proof vest and works very well.
Lie.
The so-called "cop killer bullet" touted by Clinton and HCI was
called "KTW", and was a bronze-alloy bullet which used Teflon to
lubricate it's passage down the gun barrel to prevent it from binding
in the gun, and to reduce barrel wear, and it was *not* designed to
penetrate Kevlar body armor, and has *never* been used to "kill a
cop", and doesn't work very well for it's *intended* purpose, which
was to penetrate automobile doors and glass. That's why it's no
longer on the market and why reference to it is a blatent falsehood.
The fact that it *might* penetrate body armor is largely irrelevant,
since just about *any* rifle round, "armor-piercing" or not, *will* do
so...because standard police body armor is not designed to prevent
penetration by high-velocity rifle rounds. Some of it is not even
designed to stop penetration by *pistol* rounds fired from a barrel
longer than 6"...such as 9mm submachine gun rounds.
So, you are simply repeating another HCI/Clinton BIG LIE.
Sort of like the new BIG LIE, which is that gun shows are "illegal
arms bazaars", which is the current rhetoric being used as Clinton and
HCI stump for their agenda of applying the Brady bill waiting period
and criminal history check on gun-show transactions...which I'm
willing to bet will be worded in such a way as to make ANY private
firearms transaction subject to the Brady law, and thus will
criminalize "transfers" even between family members on a shooting
outing...which is what the gun-banners tried in Washington state as a
part of I -676.
He's planning to do this by executive order and thus bypass the
Congress and engage in imperial lawmaking.
It's even *more* important that he be quickly impeached and ejected
from office now...as a lame-duck, he's going to trample on our civil
liberties in every way possible on the way out the door.
Bradley Metcalf
Shea F. Kenny wrote in message <36472c1...@news.ncfweb.net>...
>Even though it was really, really, dark out, "
>}The topic below is weeks old and was settled but I will point out that a
>}"cop killer bullet" is real. This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
>}designed to go through a bullet proof vest and works very well.
>
> Yah, that teflon is some hard material.
The hardness of the teflon has NOTHING to do with penatration.
The vest it self isn't hard; just tightly woven fabric and telfon slides
between the material. When my father was a police officer in Juneau Alaska I
was allowed to wittness a test being done on the pratic range and 12 out of
14 38 cal. bullets went through a vest (Kevlar body armor) that had, minutes
before, stopped five 9 mm slugs.
Jonathan Clemens
Bradley Metcalf <jun...@premier1.net> wrote:
>[...] When my father was a police officer in Juneau Alaska I
>was allowed to wittness a test being done on the pratic range and 12 out of
>14 38 cal. bullets went through a vest (Kevlar body armor) that had, minutes
>before, stopped five 9 mm slugs.
I still know a couple of cops in Juneau, Bradley. What was his name,
when was the test done, what specific brand of ammunition was used,
what specific vest model was used (or at least what threat level was it
certified for), and at what distance were the rounds fired?
Actually, let's start simple: which range was this test conducted at?
I hate to be so skeptical, but a lot of folks have made claims that
they can't or won't back up in this thread; you'd be doing a service
to the folks who claimed that such bullets do exist.
Jonathan Clemens
PS, not that I'm a ballistics expert, but are you sure those weren't just
FMJ .357 Magnum rounds? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe
those would go through a light vest where 9mm rounds would be reliably
stopped.
Chris Pollard
Distribution:
In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
: Sort of like the new BIG LIE, which is that gun shows are "illegal
: arms bazaars", which is the current rhetoric being used as Clinton and
: HCI stump for their agenda of applying the Brady bill waiting period
: and criminal history check on gun-show transactions...
And exactly why shouldn't these transactions and in fact ALL transactions
follow the rules - YOU are always the one asking for consistency?
By the way what evidence do you have that none of the transactions are
illegal? What no constitution to cite because it requires actual
knowledge and data of the present?
Scott Weiser
<jun...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
>Shea F. Kenny wrote in message <36472c1...@news.ncfweb.net>...
>>Even though it was really, really, dark out, "
>
>>}The topic below is weeks old and was settled but I will point out that a
>>}"cop killer bullet" is real. This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
>>}designed to go through a bullet proof vest and works very well.
>>
>> Yah, that teflon is some hard material.
>
>
>The hardness of the teflon has NOTHING to do with penatration.
Absolutely wrong, but more importantly the sectional density of a
"Teflon" bullet does. Teflon is plastic. They use plastic bullets in
*training*...albeit with squib loads. Teflon is not a highly dense
material like lead or bronze.
A bullet made out of pure teflon would be highly inaccurate beyond
probably 3 yards and it would have insufficient sectional density to
penetrate the woven Kevlar layers, even if it struck point on, which
it probably wouldn't. Also, teflon is a soft plastic from the
deformability standpoint, much softer than, say, Lexan or
Polycarbonate, and a "teflon" bullet fired at 1500 fps would simply
squash and mushroom when it hit the vest, and it's highly unlikely it
would even penetrate the *first* layer, much less the vest.
The is NO SUCH THING as a "teflon bullet"...there NEVER HAS BEEN, and
you're repeating a LIE.
>The vest it self isn't hard; just tightly woven fabric and telfon slides
>between the material.
Bullshit. Utter and complete bullshit. You don't have a clue what
you're talking about.
> When my father was a police officer in Juneau Alaska I
>was allowed to wittness a test being done on the pratic range and 12 out of
>14 38 cal. bullets went through a vest (Kevlar body armor) that had, minutes
>before, stopped five 9 mm slugs.
Gee...did you know that body armor is only intended to take *one* hit.
It'll stop multiple hits...most of the time, but if a round (almost
any round) hits the same spot as a previous round, there is a
substantial chance for penetration. Kevlar body armor works by
absorbing and dissapating the energy of the round through several
layers of cross-layered fabric. It depends on distorting the bullet
on impact so it doesn't go between or cut the fibers...which is why
kevlar vests are *not certified* for use against stabbing or cutting
weapons (a knife can go right through 12 layers of Kevlar).
The function of the material necessarily includes the ripping or
tearing of the outer layers of the vest as necessary to dissipate
energy, and NIJ specifications for the different threat levels of
armor dictate how many layers may be peirced by the bullet and how
many must remain unpeirced in order to prevent blunt trauma.
Thus, by shooting a bunch of 9mm rounds at the vest first, the
structure and integrity of the vest was destroyed, which allowed
subsequent rounds to penetrate. Now, if the ammunition used was KTW
armor-piercing ammunition, it would have had a bright green teflon
coating, but the bullet *itself* is made of bronze alloy, and was
designed and intended to be used to penetrate automobile doors and
windshields, which are surprisingly resistant to handgun ammunition.
But, it was not very good even at that, much less penetrating body
armor.
Please stop repeating this HCI/Schumer/Clinton lie.
Scott Weiser
Clemens) wrote:
>In article <ESq12.333$Bp3.3...@news.premier1.net>,
>Bradley Metcalf <jun...@premier1.net> wrote:
>>[...] When my father was a police officer in Juneau Alaska I
>>was allowed to wittness a test being done on the pratic range and 12 out of
>>14 38 cal. bullets went through a vest (Kevlar body armor) that had, minutes
>>before, stopped five 9 mm slugs.
>
>I still know a couple of cops in Juneau, Bradley. What was his name,
>when was the test done, what specific brand of ammunition was used,
>what specific vest model was used (or at least what threat level was it
>certified for), and at what distance were the rounds fired?
>
>Actually, let's start simple: which range was this test conducted at?
>I hate to be so skeptical, but a lot of folks have made claims that
>they can't or won't back up in this thread; you'd be doing a service
>to the folks who claimed that such bullets do exist.
>
>Jonathan Clemens
>
>PS, not that I'm a ballistics expert, but are you sure those weren't just
>FMJ .357 Magnum rounds? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe
>those would go through a light vest where 9mm rounds would be reliably
>stopped.
It depends on the NIJ threat level rating of the vest. There are
vests out there certifed to stop *7.62mm NATO armor-piercing* assault
rifle rounds which will go *right through* a HMMWV, which are made out
of copper-jacketed steel. They are mostly Kevlar or Spectra with
ceramic plates, and they are certified for *ONE* hit..after that they
are trash.
So, apocraphal stories sans credible scientific proof are just
HCI/Schumer/Clinton lies, nothing more.
Scott Weiser
wrote:
>ensional.com>
>Distribution:
>
>
>In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>: Sort of like the new BIG LIE, which is that gun shows are "illegal
>: arms bazaars", which is the current rhetoric being used as Clinton and
>: HCI stump for their agenda of applying the Brady bill waiting period
>: and criminal history check on gun-show transactions...
>And exactly why shouldn't these transactions and in fact ALL transactions
>follow the rules - YOU are always the one asking for consistency?
Because there are no such rules for occasional private transactions by
persons who are not federally licensed gun dealers and who do not
regularly engage in buying and selling guns, nor should there be, and
because in addition to the "checks", the FBI is going to *keep* the
information on file, and presumeably share it with the ATF, even
though this is *specifically* prohibited by Congress.
>By the way what evidence do you have that none of the transactions are
>illegal? What no constitution to cite because it requires actual
>knowledge and data of the present?
I didn't state that none of the transactions were illegal, I said that
gun shows are not "illegal arms bazaars" and that Clinton is
lying...again (big surprise).
The question is how far the BATF should be allowed to intrude upon the
right to keep and bear arms. Gun shows are fundamentally *private*
affairs where private individuals may buy and sell guns between
themselves on an occasional basis. Federal rules regarding *regular*
sales of guns are quite strict, and all the major booths you see where
there are new, boxed guns are primarily operated by *fully licensed
dealers*, under the same rules as in their shops, which includes
filling out all the appropriate paperwork. Believe me, the BATF keeps
very careful track of people who regularly sell guns at gun shows, and
they have *prosecuted* several of them, hitting them with the harshest
of penalties, for even *minor* paperwork flaws.
In one case, the BATF actually tried to *lock the doors* to a gun-show
and detain, ID and question *everyone* there...without the slightest
shred of probable cause or evidence that a crime had occurred.
Fortunately, the people inside told the BATF to go fuck themselves and
pushed their way right out the doors and the BATF jackbooted thugs
could do nothing but stand there and fume.
The private transfer, buying and selling of guns must not be regulated
by the BATF, because that makes them even more of a tool for
oppression and violation of our fundamental civil liberties. It's
*still* illegal for a felon to even *attempt* to buy a firearm, from a
private person or a dealer. But despite the supposed "300,000 felons"
allegedly prevented from buying a gun by the Brady law, do you know
how many of these *felons* were *prosecuted* for the federal offense
of *attempted purchase of a firearm by a disqualified person?*
Seven.
So, there are, by Clinton's own propaganda, 300,000 people who
committed a *serious* federal felony offense, of which SEVEN were
prosecuted. This means that there are 299,993 FELONS walking around
that Clinton and Sarah Brady are *ignoring*. Why is that?
And do you really think that the hardened criminals who *really*
wanted a gun went to a *dealer* to buy one? Hell no, they just
*stole* one, or bought one illegally on the street.
Thus, the ONLY people whom the Brady law affected was law-abiding gun
owners, who were inconvienenced by waiting periods (sometimes fatally
so), caused to pay exhorbitant extra fees for a 30-second computer
check, and who were required to sacrifice their privacy and their
right to keep and bear arms for *no legitimate purpose*.
And who, if this "executive order" is allowed to stand, will be even
more inconvienenced and brutalized by the BATF, who will use this
regulation to harass and oppress innocent citizens even more than they
do now.
I say impeach Clinton, disband the BATF, prosecute the heads of the
BATF for conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the citizens of the
US and put them in jail.
Jim String
>The topic below is weeks old and was settled but I will point out that a
>"cop killer bullet" is real. This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
>designed to go through a bullet proof vest and works very well.
You are wrong. A teflon coated bullet is no more effective against
against a vest than regular hardball ammo. You've been watching too
many Lethal Idiots movies.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>The topic below is weeks old and was settled but I will point out that a
>"cop killer bullet" is real. This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
>designed to go through a bullet proof vest and works very well.
And if this was really the case then don't you think Murray could
scare up some of this stuff to use in her television ads? All she
could come up with was regular hardball target ammo.
So if this stuff is real, how about mentioning some brands or manufacturers?
Most serious shooters reload anyway, do you propose to burden them with a
bunch of nonsense laws about what kind of loads they can make in the privacy
of their own home?
Are you going to mention that dreaded Black Talon ammo, the oh-so-feared
cop killers? That ammo sucked, the nastiest thing about it was its name.
It doesn't go through vests.
What was settled about this thread? That Patty Murray is a liar, using
despicable feel-good tactics that have no bearing in reality?
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>
>Thus, the ONLY people whom the Brady law affected was law-abiding gun
>owners, who were inconvienenced by waiting periods (sometimes fatally
>so), caused to pay exhorbitant extra fees for a 30-second computer
>check, and who were required to sacrifice their privacy and their
>right to keep and bear arms for *no legitimate purpose*.
Get ready for waiting periods again here in WA state. Apparently as
a result of the dim-witted Patty Murray being elected and the Nov
30 crap that is about to come down even white-card concealed pistol
license holders will no longer be able to buy handguns over the counter
like they used to and will have to wait like everyone else. Note that
this is _after_ already having been fingerprinted and subjected to
state patrol and FBI background checks in order to get the CPL.
They _are_ after our guns. Expect a lot of hard-core antigun legislation
prior to the millenium...
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>
>Shea F. Kenny wrote in message <36472c1...@news.ncfweb.net>...
>>Even though it was really, really, dark out, "
>
>>}"cop killer bullet" is real. This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
>>}designed to go through a bullet proof vest and works very well.
>>
>
>
>The hardness of the teflon has NOTHING to do with penatration.
>was allowed to wittness a test being done on the pratic range and 12 out of
>14 38 cal. bullets went through a vest (Kevlar body armor) that had, minutes
>before, stopped five 9 mm slugs.
A .38 is quite a bit better round than a 9 mm. Sounds like the vest
wore out.
Best,
Jim
Doug Smith
>
> ensional.com>
> Distribution:
>
> In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> : Sort of like the new BIG LIE, which is that gun shows are "illegal
> : arms bazaars", which is the current rhetoric being used as Clinton and
> : HCI stump for their agenda of applying the Brady bill waiting period
> : and criminal history check on gun-show transactions...
> And exactly why shouldn't these transactions and in fact ALL transactions
> follow the rules - YOU are always the one asking for consistency?
>
> illegal? What no constitution to cite because it requires actual
> knowledge and data of the present?
They ARE following the rules. The law does not require that
private sales by private individuals be recorded.
doug
Chris Pollard
Distribution:
In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
: Because there are no such rules for occasional private transactions by
: persons who are not federally licensed gun dealers and who do not
: regularly engage in buying and selling guns, nor should there be.
Oh so if I start making automatic weapons and cultivate ebola virus "it's
OK" as long as it's between friends?
What sort of rule is that. Maybe murder should be that way too.
Chris Pollard
Distribution:
In boulder.general Doug Smith <dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> wrote:
: They ARE following the rules. The law does not require that
: private sales by private individuals be recorded.
So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
at these gun shows?
I didn't say did they meet a record of sale rule because there isn't one
that's why htey are changing it.
Jonathan Clemens
Chris Pollard <cpol...@teal.csn.net> wrote:
Chris,
You and Scott are no longer discussing anything of specific interest to
Seattle, but are now engaging in an ideological discussion.
seattle.general has had enough of these flame wars cross-posted recently;
please trim this newsgroup from your followups. I'm sure
talk.politics.guns will welcome your traffic.
Thanks,
Jonathan Clemens
Eric Pinnell
Chris Pollard wrote:
> So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
> at these gun shows?
The weapons might be illegal, but you could always check with the ATF.
There's no way they'd sell conversion kits since the ATF monitors gun
showsanyway.
> I didn't say did they meet a record of sale rule because there isn't one
> that's why htey are changing it.
Private individuals are not subject to the Brady law. Clinton may try
to twist
the meaning of the law, but it states "Federal Firearms Licensee".
Eric Pinnell
Scott Weiser
wrote:
>> <36467db5....@news.dimensional.com>
>Distribution:
>
>
>In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>: Because there are no such rules for occasional private transactions by
>: persons who are not federally licensed gun dealers and who do not
>: regularly engage in buying and selling guns, nor should there be.
>Oh so if I start making automatic weapons and cultivate ebola virus "it's
>OK" as long as it's between friends?
No, it's illegal for you to manufacture an automatic weapon, or even
posses the parts for one unless you are properly licensed by the
BATF...though it shouldn't be.
You should be able to manufacture or possess any automatic weapon you
like, since automatic weapons are "military arms" and since "military
arms" are *specifically* what the 2nd Amendment protects your right to
keep and bear.
As for ebola...well, if you want to try to cultivate it, I'd say that
stupidity would be it's own reward. In any event, biological weapons
are not what we are discussing and you know it..you're just throwing
out this strawman argument because you haven't got a rational one to
make.
>What sort of rule is that. Maybe murder should be that way too.
It's a rule (regarding firearms) that's a part of our fundamental
beliefs, and it's a fine, just and reasonable one. If you don't like
that rule, feel free to move to Canada or England, where you don't
have such a right.
Scott Weiser
wrote:
>> <36470802...@tacnet.missouri.org>
>Distribution:
>
>
>In boulder.general Doug Smith <dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> wrote:
>: They ARE following the rules. The law does not require that
>: private sales by private individuals be recorded.
>So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
>weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
>at these gun shows?
Nope. No such guarantee is possible, nor is it required. However,
it's highly unlikely, because the BATF has a strong undercover
presence at these events with the specific purpose of looking for
illegal weapons, conversion kits or accessories, so any fool who tried
to sell such an item openly would almost certainly be arrested. One
can never prevent clandestine transfers of illegal weapons, and one
can obviously never prevent such transfers by making *legal* transfers
of weapons harder because those who would make such illegal transfers
*know* they are breaking the law. Since the penalties for making such
an illegal transfer are far worse than the penalties for failing to do
some paperwork, a criminal intent on obtaining such an illegal device
isn't likely to care much about the paperwork penalties.
But, the simple way to make 100% certain that no transfer of an
"illegal weapon, conversion kit or accessory" is done illegally is to
repeal the law which makes such weapons illegal...a law which itself
is unconstitutional.
>I didn't say did they meet a record of sale rule because there isn't one
>that's why htey are changing it.
Your logical faculties are once again being subsumed by your anti-gun
hysteria. Figure it out: If someone is intent on selling an illegal
weapon illegally, do you think making a new law requiring that they
fill out a form first is going to dissuade them?
Furthermore, the BATF *cannot* make it a crime for a criminal to fail
to admit in writing that they are making an illegal transfer...that's
a violation of the prohibition against self-incrimination, and it's
been decided already by the United States Supreme Court.
So, the upshot is that requiring transfer paperwork between
individuals, at gun shows or elsewhere, can have only one purpose,
which is to create a defacto gun registration program by requiring
them to submit to a background check and fill out paperwork, all of
which are retained by the FBI and BATF,often in direct defiance of the
Congress. The purpose of creating such a defacto registration system
is to give the BATF and the FBI the information needed to track all
firearms transactions so that they can more easily seize firearms once
unconstitutional laws banning firearms are enacted.
No criminal will be prevented from obtaining a firearm illegally by
the new paperwork, no criminal will be prosecuted for attempting to
illegally buy a gun, they will just be added to the growing list of
300,000 federal felons at large whom Clinton refuses to prosecute,
thus the law must have some other intent, which is clearly to infringe
upon and deny the *law-abiding* public's constitutional right to keep
and bear arms, nothing more.
Scott Weiser
Clemens) wrote:
How do you know?
Who appointed you Usenet Censor for seattle.general?
It's not up to you to decide what may or may not be of interest to the
people who have an interest in Seattle, it's up to them. If they
don't want to participate, they can not participate and skip the
thread.
Scott Weiser
wrote:
>
>
>Chris Pollard wrote:
>
>> So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
>> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
>> at these gun shows?
>
> The weapons might be illegal, but you could always check with the ATF.
>There's no way they'd sell conversion kits since the ATF monitors gun
>showsanyway.
>
>> I didn't say did they meet a record of sale rule because there isn't one
>> that's why htey are changing it.
>
> Private individuals are not subject to the Brady law. Clinton may try
>to twist
>the meaning of the law, but it states "Federal Firearms Licensee".
That's PRECISELY what he's trying to do, by executive order.
If he is able to make private citizens subject to Brady at "gun
shows", it's a trivial step to requiring a form and background check
for *any* firearms transfer anywhere.
Further, beginning December 1, *all* firearms transfers by gun
dealers, including shotguns and rifles, are subject to the background
check. Clinton et al want to *also* require a 5 day waiting period
for *all* transfers, in spite of the Brady language which repeals the
wait for instant check states. This will *include* those already
closely scrutinized by states, ie; those who hold concealed weapons
permits.
It's another step in Clinton's *announced* agenda to "twist the law"
as far as possible to ban guns.
He *must* be impeached...if not tried for treason.
a_jabb...@hotmail.com
Chris Pollard <cpol...@teal.csn.net> wrote:
> So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
> at these gun shows?
So, are you giving me a 100% guarantee that you will not in the future break
some law? Using your logic, we should lock you up just in case.
The BATF is known for trolling for illegal activity quite often at gun shows.
I would say Illegal gun activity is almost nill at these events. The problem
Clinton has is that he wants to regulate private sales of firearms on the
unsupported premise that this is how felons are getting guns. The simple fact
is that guns can be bought or stolen by criminals despite any laws, just like
drugs. The only real result of these increased restrictions on honest guns
buyers will be an increase in deaths, as per the Lott study. Of course, if
you don't mind supporting murder...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David R. Voth
to determine what made wei...@dimensional.com (Scott Weiser) write:
>On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:51:29 -0500, Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net>
>wrote:
<snip>
>> Private individuals are not subject to the Brady law. Clinton may try
>>to twist
>>the meaning of the law, but it states "Federal Firearms Licensee".
>
>That's PRECISELY what he's trying to do, by executive order.
>
>If he is able to make private citizens subject to Brady at "gun
>shows", it's a trivial step to requiring a form and background check
>for *any* firearms transfer anywhere. <snip>
That's already a fact of life in California. There are no
private-party transfers here. Every sale has to be done through a
licensed dealer. Mandating that at the Federal level would require
merely a wave of the hand from Congress.
It would be awfully hard to enforce, though.
David Voth
San Diego, California
USA
--
Hang up that cell phone and DRIVE THE #$%^&{} CAR!
Craig Dowell
>The topic below is weeks old and was settled but I will point out that a
>"cop killer bullet" is real. This is a bullet that has a Teflon coating
>designed to go through a bullet proof vest and works very well.
Actually, the topic is years old. It is "settled" every six months or
so by someone who _knows_ they exist and describes what a massive problem
they are and talks all about the gun-nuts and militia wackos who want to
pass them out like candy to children so all of the police can be killed
in preparation for the coming religious revolution.
The assertion is made and repeated, but any real proof of a problem
is never given.
People will assert they exist but can't seem to ever provide specs.
People will speak about how they cut through bullet proof vests like a
hot knife through butter, but can't show where to buy them. People will
talk about how Republican politicians don't care if police are killed,
but can never provide evidence of their use. The topic is "settled"
when no proof of the giant problem is ever forthcoming. Someone always
pops up again a little while later and says the same things over again.
I believe the ammunition these folks are dissembling on about is a
case-hardened steel armor-piercing round made by Kopsch, Turcus and
Ward (KTW) in 1969. They coated the round with teflon not to aid with
penetration, but to keep the rounds from destroying the barrels they
were fired from. These rounds were designed to drill through things
like cars and cinder blocks -- not bullet-proof vests. These rounds
were only available to police. They're not even used by police
anymore, since they were inaccurate. Major new crisis and problem,
eh? Yup, and Patty was there for us.
This has been settled many times. :-)
Doug Smith
>
> > <36467db5....@news.dimensional.com>
> Distribution:
>
> In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> : Because there are no such rules for occasional private transactions by
> : persons who are not federally licensed gun dealers and who do not
> : regularly engage in buying and selling guns, nor should there be.
> Oh so if I start making automatic weapons and cultivate ebola virus "it's
> OK" as long as it's between friends?
>
> What sort of rule is that. Maybe murder should be that way too.
Can you say "non sequitor"? I knew you could.
doug
Lee E. Brown
Chris Pollard wrote in message <7274ru$bp8$2...@news-2.csn.net>...
>So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
>weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
>at these gun shows?
COnversely, can you give me a one hundred percent guarantee that the Ladies
Auxiliary of you local church isn't selling drugs or plotting to overthrow the
government?
You are insisting upon an impossible standard. If we illegalized activities
that weren't 100% impossible to misuse, exactly what would be left?
Eric Williams
: ensional.com>
: Distribution:
: In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
: : Sort of like the new BIG LIE, which is that gun shows are "illegal
: : arms bazaars", which is the current rhetoric being used as Clinton and
: : HCI stump for their agenda of applying the Brady bill waiting period
: : and criminal history check on gun-show transactions...
: And exactly why shouldn't these transactions and in fact ALL transactions
: follow the rules - YOU are always the one asking for consistency?
California has had exactly the rules Clinton is advocating for many
years, and it hasn't made a bit of difference in our crime rate.
It also hasn't kept HCI and local and state politicians from calling
for the complete elimination of gun shows. So when Billy-Jeff says he
just wants "consistancy", I don't believe him for a second.
: By the way what evidence do you have that none of the transactions are
: illegal? What no constitution to cite because it requires actual
: knowledge and data of the present?
To believe that banning gun shows will reduce illegal sales
you have to reason as follows:
1) Gun shows are pre-announced, bring many transactions together at
one place and time, and are open to the public for inspection.
2) Private sales take place at multiple and unknown times, in widely-
spread places, behind closed doors, and without any public or police
knowledge or accessibility.
3) Clinton and HCI want you to believe it is in law enforcement's
interest to eliminate 1) and replace it with 2), despite the fact
that 1) is obviously easier and more efficient for agencies to patrol
and regulate than 2).
Clearly, what is going on here has nothing to do with illegal sales.
What Clinton and HCI want to do is to stigmatize gun sales and make
them a furtive and anti-social interaction, like a trip to the X-rated
video store. Banning gun shows is part of a campaign of cultural
genocide and has nothing to do with reducing crime or violence. That
they are willing to take actions that will make illegal gun sales more
difficult to detect shows how far they are willing to sacrifice public
safety in order to advance their war on the gun culture.
--
May your zero stay true and the winds heed your call.
Doug Smith
>
> > <36470802...@tacnet.missouri.org>
> Distribution:
>
> In boulder.general Doug Smith <dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> wrote:
> : They ARE following the rules. The law does not require that
> : private sales by private individuals be recorded.
> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
> at these gun shows?
> that's why htey are changing it.
I am having trouble parsing that last sentence, could you try again?
As to a 100% guarantee, I can't give you that. There are hundreds
of gun shows every year, and someone, somewhere could be making
illegal sales. But do you have any evidence that this is a common
problem? The BATFags monitor gun shows quite vigorously. If a lot
of this was going on, we would have some trials and convictions.
Can you point to any?
doug
Benjamin Carlis
rhetoric.
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
>If we illegalized activities that weren't 100% impossible to misuse,
exactly what would be left?
Hey - give old Billy-Jeff a few more years. You'll get to find out.
Jonathan Clemens
Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>On 9 Nov 1998 09:03:11 -0800, jcle...@bigger.aa.net (Jonathan
>Clemens) wrote:
>>seattle.general has had enough of these flame wars cross-posted recently;
>>please trim this newsgroup from your followups. I'm sure
>>talk.politics.guns will welcome your traffic.
>How do you know?
It's called an opinion, Scott. One that I doubt is unique.
>Who appointed you Usenet Censor for seattle.general?
Censor? No one. I asked you two to trim seattle.general from your
replies, and it's up to you to be a decent enough human being to
actually honor a politely phrased request. That is, Scott, you have
such a well-developed sense of your RIGHTS, it would be nice if
you actually developed a congruent view of your RESPONSIBILITIES.
>It's not up to you to decide what may or may not be of interest to the
>people who have an interest in Seattle, it's up to them. If they
>don't want to participate, they can not participate and skip the
>thread.
Translation: I'm not going to honor a civil request, not going to
allow myself to be guided by rules of netiquette, and generally
going to increase the signal-to-noise ratio all over the Usenet
because I feel that I have a right to do so.
Get a life, Scott. Followups directed appropriately.
Jonathan Clemens
Drew Eckhardt
>> So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
>> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
>> at these gun shows?
With 240,000,000 guns in this country, if a criminal wants one,
he'll get it. Cocaine is illegal, and comes into this country
by the ton. If guns were illegal and you magically eliminated
those quarter billion guns, the smugglers would change cargo
and the situation would be no different.
Doing away with gunshows will have no real effect on criminal
gun posession which isn't really a crime, since most prosecutors
won't enforce the existing laws against it.
If criminals with guns scare you, I suggest you have a word with
your prosecutors about enforcing those laws, and about keeping them
in prison longer than the three years the average rapist serves and
seven we keep the average murderer behind bars. When they complain
about the added workload, tell them that's what we're paying them
for. When they complain about prison space, suggest letting out the
non-violent drug, gambling, and prostitution offenders to make room.
--
If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he
should resign," --- William Clinton, 1974 while running for the US House of
Representatives responding to a question about President Nixon.
Chris Pollard
Distribution:
In boulder.general Doug Smith <dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> wrote:
: > What sort of rule is that. Maybe murder should be that way too.
: Can you say "non sequitor"? I knew you could.
Please explain then why just one set of laws can be broken "between
friends" or "at a gun show" and not others?
I thought there was supposed to be some sort of consistency - maybe you
could explain which laws CAN be broken between consenting individuals and
which can't - I admittedly haven't looked far but there again even Scott
couldn't quote any piece of legislation except what he thought ought to be
the case, which on this group will supposedly work as a legal substitute.
Chris Pollard
Distribution:
In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
: It's another step in Clinton's *announced* agenda to "twist the law"
: as far as possible to ban guns.
Sounds like he wants to fix the loopholes.
: He *must* be impeached...if not tried for treason.
Hmm I'd rather go after the people who put all the pork in the last
spending bill - that's my money and yours that somebody stole.
I guess you want to pick the easy targets instead of attacking the real
problem. And I thought the popular thinking was that liberals were
inclined to give money away - I guess the Republicans want to make it more
specific so that when its given away it goes to their Republican friends
and not just anybody.
Chris Pollard
Distribution:
In boulder.general Lee E. Brown <leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
: You are insisting upon an impossible standard. If we illegalized activities
: that weren't 100% impossible to misuse, exactly what would be left?
I am not insisting on an impossible standard I was trying to point out
that somebody said that there was no need for this because it "never
happened" - a rather broad generalization implying an all knowing person.
(Who wasn't Scott - who is)
Chris Pollard
Distribution:
In boulder.general Benjamin Carlis <bc...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
: take it elsewhere guys...my killfile is getting tired and so is your gun
: rhetoric.
Your killfile is apparently not working as well as it should - what
happened - did you sneak a peek?
Tired of that new boring look to Boulder.gen.
Shea F. Kenny
Well, I don't know about teflon bullets. My guess would be the stuff
would burn off by the time it hit it's target, with a sufficient velocity. I
mean most bullets of plain metal just travelling through air, suffer a great
deal of surface removal. ( I don't know the technical term for it but the
bullet gets scratched up pretty good.)
-
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corp)
http://www.ncfweb.com/lunarchy/welcome.htm (Updated 9/6)
This has been, Lunar Network News
(No e-mail replies But look for me on heat.net MW2 & Mercs )
Scott Weiser
wrote:
>et> <36477784...@tacnet.missouri.org>
>Distribution:
>
>
>In boulder.general Doug Smith <dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> wrote:
>: > What sort of rule is that. Maybe murder should be that way too.
>
>: Can you say "non sequitor"? I knew you could.
>Please explain then why just one set of laws can be broken "between
>friends" or "at a gun show" and not others?
Because your premise is faulty. No laws are being broken at gun shows
or between law-abiding citizens when they transfer firearms.
An illegal firearms transaction is *always* illegal, whether it takes
place at a gun show, in your kitchen or in a back alley somewhere.
>I thought there was supposed to be some sort of consistency - maybe you
>could explain which laws CAN be broken between consenting individuals and
>which can't - I admittedly haven't looked far but there again even Scott
>couldn't quote any piece of legislation except what he thought ought to be
>the case, which on this group will supposedly work as a legal substitute.
More non sequitur.
You clearly don't understand the point of the thread.
Let me try again for your tiny mind.
It is not illegal for private citizens to buy and sell guns on an
occasional basis among themselves. No federal paperwork is required
for such transactions. It's irrelevant whether these occasional
private transactions take place in someone's home or at an organized
"gun show". It's perfectly lawful commerce.
Clinton proposes to apply the background check and federal paperwork
requirements to private transactions which take places at "gun shows",
under the guise that they are hotbeds of illegal gun
transactions...which they are not.
We gun owners object to this blatent mischaracterization (read lie)
and to the imposition of paperwork and background check burdens which
would be difficult to comply with in the first place...since no
mechanism for collecting the forms or doing the background checks
exists...and we believe that Clinton's jack-booted thugs at the ATF
will use the most minor and unintentional errors in reporting as a
means to harrass, assault and victimize citizens, which is something
they *already* do routinely to licensed FFL dealers, but which it's
clear he wishes to expand to include all citizens, and we believe that
this is just another step in his announced agenda of violating gun
owners rights, and that it will be expanded almost immediately to
include such paperwork requirements for *any* transfer or sale by
anyone, anywhere, which will have the effect of making millions of
people into felons, since nobody is going to comply with such a
requirement in order to hand their gun to their friend at the shooting
range.
We believe this is an illegal exercise of executive authority and
violates not only the explicit provisions of the Brady bill as enacted
but also the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
Is that simple enough for your simple mind?
Scott Weiser
wrote:
>et> <36472BA1...@ibm.net> <364743f4....@news.dimensional.com>
>Distribution:
>
>
>In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>: It's another step in Clinton's *announced* agenda to "twist the law"
>: as far as possible to ban guns.
>Sounds like he wants to fix the loopholes.
They're not loopholes, they are liberties explicitly excluded from the
Brady law by the Congress.
>: He *must* be impeached...if not tried for treason.
>Hmm I'd rather go after the people who put all the pork in the last
>spending bill - that's my money and yours that somebody stole.
Of course you would, because your head's so far up your ass you can't
see the dangers inherent in a disarmed populace.
>I guess you want to pick the easy targets instead of attacking the real
>problem.
You can't attack anything if you're disarmed, all you can do is bow
down before tyrants.
Scott Weiser
Clemens) wrote:
>In article <36474505....@news.dimensional.com>,
>Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>>On 9 Nov 1998 09:03:11 -0800, jcle...@bigger.aa.net (Jonathan
>>Clemens) wrote:
>>>seattle.general has had enough of these flame wars cross-posted recently;
>>>please trim this newsgroup from your followups. I'm sure
>>>talk.politics.guns will welcome your traffic.
>
>>How do you know?
>
>It's called an opinion, Scott. One that I doubt is unique.
Ah, well, it's my opinion that neither seattle.general nor any other
regional newsgroup has had *nearly enough* discussions of the attack
upon the 2nd Amendment by that traitor in the White House.
>
>>Who appointed you Usenet Censor for seattle.general?
>
>Censor? No one. I asked you two to trim seattle.general from your
>replies, and it's up to you to be a decent enough human being to
>actually honor a politely phrased request.
A polite request for censorship is just as repugnant as an impolite
demand.
> That is, Scott, you have
>such a well-developed sense of your RIGHTS, it would be nice if
>you actually developed a congruent view of your RESPONSIBILITIES.
My responsibility is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States and the nation, and since we're AT WAR with the
traitor in the White House and those who support his agenda to disarm
and tyrannize the people of the United States. I'll use whatever
methods and whatever medium I feel are appropriate in that battle.
I have NO responsibility to comply with your "polite requests", nor do
I have any responsibility to avoid annoying you or anybody else. If
you don't like the content of seattle.general, then feel free to go
elsewhere.
>
>>It's not up to you to decide what may or may not be of interest to the
>>people who have an interest in Seattle, it's up to them. If they
>>don't want to participate, they can not participate and skip the
>>thread.
>
>Translation: I'm not going to honor a civil request,
Of course not. Politely asking a speaker if you can stuff a sock in
his mouth doesn't make the stuffing any more acceptable.
If you don't like the conversation, then use the universal
killfile...it's labeled "OFF", and it's found somewhere on your
computer's CPU. That will guarantee you aren't annoyed by my exercise
of free speech and defense of the 2nd Amendment.
> not going to
>allow myself to be guided by rules of netiquette,
Netiquette has absolutely nothing to do with it. You are merely
expressing your personal opinion about the degree to which you enjoy
threads about guns. This does not mean that your opinion is
universally held...and even if it were, it would impute no authority
for you to do other than tune to a different channel if you don't like
the program.
> and generally
>going to increase the signal-to-noise ratio all over the Usenet
>because I feel that I have a right to do so.
No, I have a right to discuss issues important and of interest to
those of Seattle and anywhere else, and they have a right to make the
decision for themselves if they wish to enter the conversation. You
have no right to require that I do anything different.
>Get a life, Scott. Followups directed appropriately.
Get off your high horse, Jonathan. Followups reset to original.
HerrGlock
> > <36467db5....@news.dimensional.com>
> Distribution:
>
> In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> : Because there are no such rules for occasional private transactions by
> : persons who are not federally licensed gun dealers and who do not
> : regularly engage in buying and selling guns, nor should there be.
> Oh so if I start making automatic weapons and cultivate ebola virus "it's
> OK" as long as it's between friends?
So, you equate selling personally owned property with manufacturing?
Interesting.
> What sort of rule is that. Maybe murder should be that way too.
Now you equate selling property with an action against another person. Even
more interesting.
HerrGlock
HerrGlock
> > <36470802...@tacnet.missouri.org>
> Distribution:
>
> In boulder.general Doug Smith <dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> wrote:
> : They ARE following the rules. The law does not require that
> : private sales by private individuals be recorded.
> So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
> at these gun shows?
Huh? When did conversion kits become illegal? Installation of the kit is
illegal (felony) but the kits themselves are not.
What "accessories to make illegal weapons" are you talking about?
> I didn't say did they meet a record of sale rule because there isn't one
> that's why htey are changing it.
Why? There's no reason for it.
HerrGlock
HerrGlock
> > <36470802...@tacnet.missouri.org>
> Distribution:
>
> In boulder.general Doug Smith <dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> wrote:
> : They ARE following the rules. The law does not require that
> : private sales by private individuals be recorded.
> So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
> at these gun shows?
> I didn't say did they meet a record of sale rule because there isn't one
> that's why htey are changing it.
A question about that. Under what authority can the federal government
require a private sale to do ANYTHING? The FFL is required to due to the
fact that they can perform interstate commerce. Private individuals are
already forbidden from that.
Simple request, what gives the feds the authority to regulate intrastate
commerce?
HerrGlock
Doug Smith
>
> et> <36477784...@tacnet.missouri.org>
>
> : Can you say "non sequitor"? I knew you could.
> Please explain then why just one set of laws can be broken "between
> friends" or "at a gun show" and not others?
>
What laws are being broken? Private sales between individuals
are LEGAL. Just because you think something should be
against the law doesn't mean that it is.
> I thought there was supposed to be some sort of consistency - maybe you
> could explain which laws CAN be broken between consenting individuals and
> which can't - I admittedly haven't looked far but there again even Scott
> couldn't quote any piece of legislation except what he thought ought to be
> the case, which on this group will supposedly work as a legal substitute.
NAME THE LAWS THAT ARE BEING BROKEN. The BATF monitors
sales at gun shows all the time. Why are they not makeing
dozens or hundreds of arrests if illegal sales are common?
doug
Jonathan Clemens
Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>No, I have a right to discuss issues important and of interest to
>those of Seattle and anywhere else, and they have a right to make the
>decision for themselves if they wish to enter the conversation. You
>have no right to require that I do anything different.
Rights without responsibilities, Scott. You're a great contributor to
those who think that pro-RKBA people aren't anything but selfish
boors; you ought to be a poster child for HCI: "I'm Scott Weiser, and
I'm the NRA"... Remember how someone accused CWP of being an NRA
plant, because he did such a bad job defending I-676 that he helped
those arguing for freedom? Scott, you're such a jerk in defense of
freedom that you might as well (and in fact, probably are) helping
the opposition more than the cause of freedom.
>Get off your high horse, Jonathan. Followups reset to original.
Scott, your impoliteness knows no bounds. You have nothing of
substance to say, yet DEMAND that the world listen. I pity you;
I'd hope you deal with your personal acquaintances in a much
less self-serving manner than the manner in which you deal with
the internet.
Once again, followups set properly; I don't intent to respond again,
Scott, so you may satisfy your ego by having the last word--just
know that for every insult you hurl, you're helping the man you
term (and probably not inappropriately) "the traitor in the White
House"
Jonathan Clemens
Paul Stevens
>
> > <36467db5....@news.dimensional.com>
> Distribution:
>
> In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> : Because there are no such rules for occasional private transactions by
> : persons who are not federally licensed gun dealers and who do not
> : regularly engage in buying and selling guns, nor should there be.
> Oh so if I start making automatic weapons and cultivate ebola virus "it's
> OK" as long as it's between friends?
Wrong. Check the exhisting federal laws. Firearms manufacture
requires a manufacturer's permit from the BATF. For the manufacturer
to transfer ownership (even to a friend) requires a FFL from the BATF.
The manufacturer's permit means you are no longer a private individual,
and it does not allow you to process your own transfers. Then there's
the little problem of the 1986 full auto ban.
As for the ebola, I'm sure the FBI would want to know about that.
> What sort of rule is that. Maybe murder should be that way too.
Maybe we should make it illegal for anyone to sell a used car without
a business license and registering themselves as a car dealer.
Maybe we should make it illegal for anyone to have a yardsale without
getting a business license and having their yard rezoned as commercial
property. Garage sales would require the garage to be rezoned, and
pass a firemarshal's inspection for a commercial building. If the
garage is attached to the house, the house would be subject to the same
zoning and inspection requirements (Does your area allow people to live
in a commercially zoned building?).
Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?
P.S.
Paul Stevens
>
> Here at the talk.politics.guns Institute our experts are working hard
> to determine what made wei...@dimensional.com (Scott Weiser) write:
>
> >On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:51:29 -0500, Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net>
> >wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Private individuals are not subject to the Brady law. Clinton may try
> >>to twist
> >>the meaning of the law, but it states "Federal Firearms Licensee".
> >
> >That's PRECISELY what he's trying to do, by executive order.
> >
> >If he is able to make private citizens subject to Brady at "gun
> >shows", it's a trivial step to requiring a form and background check
> >for *any* firearms transfer anywhere.
The easiest way to require all gun show transactions to submit to the
background check, is to extend the requirement to ALL private sales.
Here in Tennesse, the state has agreed to act as a point of contact for
the FBI's "instant" check. The state started doing the "instant" checks
on November 1st (to get the system up and running before linking to the
FBI on November 30th). The "INSTANT" checks take anywhere from 15
minutes to "call back tomorrow". This is with the application being
compared to the database of criminal convictions in the state of
Tennessee. When the National "Instant" Check System comes on line
(November 30th), the applications will be compared to a database of
federal criminal convictions, and criminal convictions from every
state in the US (plus military dishonorable discharges, court ordered
commitments to mental hospitals, etc.). Federal law allows the FBI to
take up to THREE DAYS to process an application through the National
"INSTANT" Check System. Adding private sales to the background check
system will guarantee an overload of the system.
Welcome to the federal three day waiting period (and it didn't even
take a vote in Congress to get it put in place).
<snip>
>
> That's already a fact of life in California. There are no
> private-party transfers here. Every sale has to be done through a
> licensed dealer. Mandating that at the Federal level would require
> merely a wave of the hand from Congress.
Clinton is trying to keep Congress out of the loop on this one. He
wants to do it with an executive order, or a "reinterpretation" of
exhisting law.
> It would be awfully hard to enforce, though.
They know that. The BATF will do heavy prosecution on a few example
cases, to show everyone that they mean serious business. I feel sorry
for the people who be singled out as examples. The BATF will choose
carefully on this. The victims/examples will be uneducated and low
income. Less chance of them getting a good lawyer, and more chance
the media will portray them as criminals.
Then again, they might start saying they need complete gun registration
to allow enforcement of the law.
P.S.
ma...@pumatech.com
> Chris Pollard wrote:
> >
> > et> <36477784...@tacnet.missouri.org>
> > Distribution:
> >
> > In boulder.general Doug Smith <dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> wrote:
> > : > What sort of rule is that. Maybe murder should be that way too.
> >
> > : Can you say "non sequitor"? I knew you could.
> > Please explain then why just one set of laws can be broken "between
> > friends" or "at a gun show" and not others?
> >
>
> What laws are being broken? Private sales between individuals
> are LEGAL. Just because you think something should be
> against the law doesn't mean that it is.
YMMV. Here in California, private sales between individuals
(and gun shows) are indeed illegal, and 10 - 15 day waiting
periods apply (for rifles and handguns, respectively). All
firearm sales must go through an FFL dealer (with a storefront;
per state law).
Doesn't affect crime at all, of course, but the paranoid
delusionals at HCI, Inc. want this "California Standard" applied
nationwide to lay one more step on the long road to the ultimate
goal of total civilian disarmament.
-Matt
David R. Voth
<snip>
> YMMV. Here in California, private sales between individuals
> (and gun shows) are indeed illegal, and 10 - 15 day waiting
> periods apply (for rifles and handguns, respectively)...
Actually it's now uniformly 10 days in CA for rifles, shotguns, and
handguns; except for curios and antiques. So you have to wait 10 days
for a vintage handgun or a recently made Chinese SKS, but a Russian
SKS from the '50s is cash and carry. [Yes that is utterly devoid of
logic, but it's the LAW, dammit.]
As of my Nov. 6 visit to a local gun store, the Feds had not yet
explained to dealers exactly how the check system will be implemented
in CA. Neither CA DOJ nor FBI have been forthcoming with details
other than CA will be doing it by voice. It won't make any practical
difference to legitimate buyers due to the 10-day wait, but it still
seems pretty flaky.
> ... All
> firearm sales must go through an FFL dealer (with a storefront;
> per state law).
YM all LEGAL sales <g>. In most municipalities people can still deal
legitimately out of their homes if they have the required local
permits.
> Doesn't affect crime at all, of course, but the paranoid
> delusionals at HCI, Inc. want this "California Standard" applied
> nationwide to lay one more step on the long road to the ultimate
> goal of total civilian disarmament.
Which of course they continue to deny. Only some of them are paranoid
delusionals. The rest are humorless Machiavellian control freaks who
can't stay out of other peoples' business.
David Voth
San Diego, California
USA
--
Hang up that cell phone and DRIVE THE #$%^&{} CAR!
a_jabb...@hotmail.com
dr...@village.org (Drew Eckhardt) wrote:
Hey Drew, how's it going? (I gave your bike a ride home a while back)
> Doing away with gunshows will have no real effect on criminal
> gun posession which isn't really a crime, since most prosecutors
> won't enforce the existing laws against it.
>
> If criminals with guns scare you, I suggest you have a word with
> your prosecutors about enforcing those laws,
The problem is they don't want a test case of the absoulte RTKBA to go to the
SC, so this is the first thing they plea bargain away in any case that might
get appealed on those grounds. You will never find a DA willing to hammer
someone hard enough to make them appeal it, especially if there are other
charges.
> --
> If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he
> should resign," --- William Clinton, 1974 while running for the US House of
> Representatives responding to a question about President Nixon.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Paul Stevens
Clinton is saying the background check requirement must be extended
to prevent private individuals selling guns, from private collections,
at gun shows. He is implying heavily (if he isn't coming out and
saying it) that these private individuals are using the gun shows to
run a black market selling handguns and assault rifles to people with
criminal records. Has anyone ever looked around at a gun show to see
if this kind of activity is going on?
I have been to several local gunshows. The vast majority of people
selling guns at these shows DO have federal licenses to do so, and
they are required BY FEDERAL LAW to conduct business as if they were
operating from their normal place of business. If you look around
enough, you can find a few guys selling guns, without a license, from
their "private collections". They generally do have a lot of
ex-military hardware, and their prices are very high (well over $1000
per gun). The prices are the main reason I don't do business with
them, I would really like to have several of the guns they are selling.
It's really hard (unless you are at a gun show) to find those Trap-
door Springfields, Sharps Carbines, etc. If you are not familiar
with military firearms, these people are selling guns that the US
military removed from service during the late 1800's (the handguns
are usually from the civil war era). All of these guns were considered
obsolete before World War I.
Clinton is trying to scare people by talking about senior citizens
selling old single shot military rifles (and handguns in calibers for
which ammunition is no longer made), without a federal license.
Illegal Arms Bazaars? Funniest joke I've heard in quite a while.
P.S.
Paul Stevens
>
> > <36470802...@tacnet.missouri.org>
> : private sales by private individuals be recorded.
> So you ar egiving me a one hundred percent guarantee that no illegal
> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
> at these gun shows?
> I didn't say did they meet a record of sale rule because there isn't one
> that's why htey are changing it.
Check on what is illegal before you start calling it illegal. You're
mixing a lot of "strictly regulated" things into your "illegal" mix.
Can you elaborate a bit on which types of "illegal weapons" you are
talking about? I would also like to hear exactly what kind of
"conversion kits or accessories" you are talking about.
If you can't be more specific, it is obvious you have no clue what
you are talking about.
P.S.
David R. Voth
<snip>
>Can you elaborate a bit on which types of "illegal weapons" you are
>talking about? I would also like to hear exactly what kind of
>"conversion kits or accessories" you are talking about.
I think I saw someone selling hacksaws at a gun show once. That could
be considered a "conversion kit" for a shotgun.
David Voth
Scott Weiser
<Paul.S...@nashville.com> wrote:
>Illegal Arms Bazaars? Funniest joke I've heard in quite a while.
It's not funny at all, it's very, very scary.
Scott Weiser
Clemens) wrote:
>In article <3647d58a...@news.dimensional.com>,
>Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>>No, I have a right to discuss issues important and of interest to
>>those of Seattle and anywhere else, and they have a right to make the
>>decision for themselves if they wish to enter the conversation. You
>>have no right to require that I do anything different.
>
>Rights without responsibilities, Scott.
What, precisely, is my "responsibility" to you regarding my exercise
of free speech on the Usenet? Where does this "responsibility" derive
from and who enforces it?
>You're a great contributor to
>those who think that pro-RKBA people aren't anything but selfish
>boors; you ought to be a poster child for HCI: "I'm Scott Weiser, and
>I'm the NRA"... Remember how someone accused CWP of being an NRA
>plant, because he did such a bad job defending I-676 that he helped
>those arguing for freedom? Scott, you're such a jerk in defense of
>freedom that you might as well (and in fact, probably are) helping
>the opposition more than the cause of freedom.
You're entitled to your opinion, that's the great thing about the
First Amendment.
But I'm also entitled to mine, and mine is, in this case, that your
opinion is like your asshole...you've got one, but what comes out of
it is smelly and repugnant.
>>Get off your high horse, Jonathan. Followups reset to original.
>
>Scott, your impoliteness knows no bounds.
Hey, it's a dirty job, but *somebody* has to do it.
> You have nothing of
>substance to say, yet DEMAND that the world listen.
There's that asshole...er...opinon working overtime again.
I demand nothing. You need to learn to use a killfile or the OFF
switch.
>Once again, followups set properly;
Once again I reset them where I believe they should go.
Paul Stevens
> >
> > : Can you say "non sequitor"? I knew you could.
> > Please explain then why just one set of laws can be broken "between
> > friends" or "at a gun show" and not others?
> >
>
> What laws are being broken? Private sales between individuals
> are LEGAL. Just because you think something should be
> against the law doesn't mean that it is.
>
> > could explain which laws CAN be broken between consenting individuals and
> > which can't - I admittedly haven't looked far but there again even Scott
> > couldn't quote any piece of legislation except what he thought ought to be
> > the case, which on this group will supposedly work as a legal substitute.
>
> NAME THE LAWS THAT ARE BEING BROKEN. The BATF monitors
> sales at gun shows all the time. Why are they not makeing
> dozens or hundreds of arrests if illegal sales are common?
>
For the same reason that the federal government took no action on the
tens of thousands of "illegal" handgun sales stopped by the Brady Law.
They were not illegal!
An audit by the federal government's own accounting office found that
there were only SEVEN convictions for violations of the Brady Law. A
closer look, at the massive numbers of "illegal" attempts to purchase
a hnadgun, found the majority to be errors (clerical, incorrectly
filled out forms, etc.) that were later corrected and approved.
Clinton's favorite tactic for selling gun control is to take a
situation that either never occurs, or occurs extremely rarely, and
sell it to the public as common, everyday criminal activity.
P.S.
Paul Stevens
> >> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
> >> at these gun shows?
>
> he'll get it. Cocaine is illegal, and comes into this country
> by the ton. If guns were illegal and you magically eliminated
> those quarter billion guns, the smugglers would change cargo
> and the situation would be no different.
I used to know a pilot who flew (legal, legitimate) charters to various
countries in the Carribean and Central America. On one trip to a
Central American country, a soldier walked up to him while he was
locking up the plane. The soldier offered to sell him a full auto
AK-47 (not the lame semi-autos that used to be imported to the US)
for $50. He very politely, but firmly, refused (he wanted nothing
to do with smuggling guns). He told me that he knew for a fact that
he could have gotten the AK-47 back through US Customs, he did it
frequently with cases of Carribean rum (kept his liquor cabinet
well stocked). On one trip, some of his passengers were US federal
law enforcement officers, and they knew the rum was in the plane
(I guess they thought it was funny that Customs couldn't find
something so obvious as a case of rum in the baggage compartment).
> Doing away with gunshows will have no real effect on criminal
> gun posession which isn't really a crime, since most prosecutors
> won't enforce the existing laws against it.
>
> If criminals with guns scare you, I suggest you have a word with
> your prosecutors about enforcing those laws, and about keeping them
> in prison longer than the three years the average rapist serves and
> seven we keep the average murderer behind bars. When they complain
> about the added workload, tell them that's what we're paying them
> for. When they complain about prison space, suggest letting out the
> non-violent drug, gambling, and prostitution offenders to make room.
Clinton recently fought Congressional approval of a plan to have every
federal prosecutor act to fully prosecute every single violation of
a federal gun law. Congress wanted to provide special funding to pay
for staff that would do nothing more than make sure every crook caught
with a gun was prosecuted for every single gun law they violated
(instead of concentrating on one criminal act and dropping, or plea
bargaining away, everything else).
If Clinton is so concerned about criminals getting guns, why is he
against having the Justice Department prosecute criminal violations
of federal gun laws?
> If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he
> should resign," --- William Clinton, 1974 while running for the US House of
> Representatives responding to a question about President Nixon.
P.S.
Scott Weiser
<Paul.S...@nashville.com> wrote:
>Clinton recently fought Congressional approval of a plan to have every
>federal prosecutor act to fully prosecute every single violation of
>a federal gun law. Congress wanted to provide special funding to pay
>for staff that would do nothing more than make sure every crook caught
>with a gun was prosecuted for every single gun law they violated
>(instead of concentrating on one criminal act and dropping, or plea
>bargaining away, everything else).
>
>If Clinton is so concerned about criminals getting guns, why is he
>against having the Justice Department prosecute criminal violations
>of federal gun laws?
I assume this is rhetorical, but I'll state the obvious...it's because
it has nothing to do with getting the criminals prosecuted and
everything to do with confiscating the guns of law-abiding citizens
under the threat of severe federal penalties.
This is why, for example, the BATF's jackbooted thugs will raid an
innocent citizen's home in the middle of the night, terrorize them,
stomp their cat to death and hang them out to dry in court while
ignoring rampant armed gang violence and armed criminal conspiracies.
It's much easier and safer to kick down the door of a law abiding
citizen, who is unlikely to shoot back, than it is to track down and
capture the violent felons like the LA bank robbers who *will* shoot
back. The thugs at the ATF are nothing if not abject cowards.
Scott Weiser
wrote:
>Paul Stevens <Paul.S...@nashville.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Can you elaborate a bit on which types of "illegal weapons" you are
>>talking about? I would also like to hear exactly what kind of
>>"conversion kits or accessories" you are talking about.
>
>I think I saw someone selling hacksaws at a gun show once. That could
>be considered a "conversion kit" for a shotgun.
Very probably, under BATF's twisted interpretation. It's well known
that owning a semi-automatic rifle and a lathe or milling machine is
sufficient "probable cause" for the BATF to jackboot your door in the
AM.
Jim String
>> <36467db5....@news.dimensional.com>
>Distribution:
>
>
>In boulder.general Scott Weiser <wei...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>: Because there are no such rules for occasional private transactions by
>: persons who are not federally licensed gun dealers and who do not
>: regularly engage in buying and selling guns, nor should there be.
>Oh so if I start making automatic weapons and cultivate ebola virus "it's
>OK" as long as it's between friends?
In quite a few places in the US you can still own automatic weapons. You
just have to pay your $200 tax or the tax collectors (BATF) will
kill you. WA state has an unconstitutional law forbidding ownership
of automatics. As far as I know you can still own artillery pieces,
grenades, cannons, tanks, sawed-off shotguns and such, you just have
to pay your (unconstitutional) $200 tax.
Biologicals aren't arms so you have no right to own them. They are
instruments of terror.
>What sort of rule is that. Maybe murder should be that way too.
Think about it for a second, it's a heck of lot harder to murder
someone if they are armed or in the custody of someone who is armed.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>Chris Pollard wrote:
>
>> > <36470802...@tacnet.missouri.org>
>> : private sales by private individuals be recorded.
>> weapons, conversion kits or accessories to make illegal weapons are sold
>> at these gun shows?
>> that's why htey are changing it.
>
>require a private sale to do ANYTHING? The FFL is required to due to the
>fact that they can perform interstate commerce. Private individuals are
>already forbidden from that.
>
>Simple request, what gives the feds the authority to regulate intrastate
>commerce?
They have no authority to regulate intrastate commerce. For example, you
can set up an FM transmitter of a couple of watts and run your own
"pirate" radio station and as long as your transmission doesn't cross
state line the FCC has no jurisdiction over you. They will and have
reluctantly admitted this. Still, better check with local and state laws
first, they _do_ have authority over this sort of thing. Still, even if there
are no laws prohibiting your broadcast you can still expect to be harrassed
and have your equipment seized. Such is America these days, people oversea
in some areas do not consider America to be a free country anymore.
What gives the feds the authority to make that 1000 foot rule about
guns near schools? Nothing, except for some really "creative" logic in the
language in order to involve inter-state commerce. It was thrown out once
and quickly re-passed. It's still unconstitutional.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>In a previous post, Chris Pollard (cpol...@teal.csn.net) wrote:
>: ensional.com>
>: Distribution:
>: : Sort of like the new BIG LIE, which is that gun shows are "illegal
>: : arms bazaars", which is the current rhetoric being used as Clinton and
>: : HCI stump for their agenda of applying the Brady bill waiting period
>: : and criminal history check on gun-show transactions...
>
>: And exactly why shouldn't these transactions and in fact ALL transactions
>: follow the rules - YOU are always the one asking for consistency?
>
>California has had exactly the rules Clinton is advocating for many
>years, and it hasn't made a bit of difference in our crime rate.
Well yes it has: crime rates have gone up a lot.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>et> <36472BA1...@ibm.net> <364743f4....@news.dimensional.com>
>: as far as possible to ban guns.
>Sounds like he wants to fix the loopholes.
>Hmm I'd rather go after the people who put all the pork in the last
>spending bill - that's my money and yours that somebody stole.
>
>inclined to give money away - I guess the Republicans want to make it more
>specific so that when its given away it goes to their Republican friends
>and not just anybody.
>
The real problem is that we no longer hang enough politicians.
Best,
Jim