Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Post you comments on the bullet ban >

Post you comments on the bullet ban

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Post you comments on the bullet ban

Old 03-02-2015, 09:22 AM
  #1  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,225
Default Post you comments on the bullet ban

Folks, the following email address is being used by the ATF to gather public opinion on the proposed ban of ammo. They are taking comments until 16 March.

[email protected]

I've already sent them mine. I hope you do the same.

Flags
flags is offline  
Old 03-02-2015, 09:56 AM
  #2  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 14,296
Default

Here is mine!

What is the point of banning the .223 caliber bullet, other than making Obama happy? Banning any bullet will not do a blessed thing for anyone. Does anyone in your Bureau really believe banning a caliber of bullet will make anyone safer? It will not! People who are bound and determined to harm others will find a way to do it. The way to make society safer is to enforce the laws we already have riggorously and either put criminals away for the rest of their natrual lives or lop off their heads. Imposing bans on law abiding citizens does not protect society, it leaves them more vunerable to the criminals.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 03-02-2015, 11:17 AM
  #3  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 193
Default

You guys see the prices on 5.56 ammo? It's doubled online. Nothing under .40 per round. i got 1k rounds last month at .23/rd
Hartski is offline  
Old 03-02-2015, 03:19 PM
  #4  
Giant Nontypical
 
jeepkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ****ifornia
Posts: 5,052
Default

Originally Posted by Hartski View Post
You guys see the prices on 5.56 ammo? It's doubled online. Nothing under .40 per round. i got 1k rounds last month at .23/rd

Funny because nobody is proposing to ban all .223/5.56. Only green tip ammo for them.

I'm much more concerned about the lead bullet bans that will affect every caliber.
jeepkid is offline  
Old 03-02-2015, 05:18 PM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
Kybuckhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,498
Default

Originally Posted by jeepkid View Post
Funny because nobody is proposing to ban all .223/5.56. Only green tip ammo for them.

I'm much more concerned about the lead bullet bans that will affect every caliber.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. I'm sure you've heard that before. When people say its "just" this or "just" that they are giving the little bit they are willing to take. They take away your freedoms one bite at a time. There is zero reasons to allow this to be banned.
Kybuckhunter is offline  
Old 03-03-2015, 03:33 AM
  #6  
Nontypical Buck
 
olsaltydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Onslow County, NC
Posts: 1,856
Default

I tried to find information regarding the issue, but have come across zero documentation that says this particular type of ammo has been used or is a direct threat to law enforcement. I sent my letter and encourage others to do the same.
olsaltydog is offline  
Old 03-03-2015, 04:03 AM
  #7  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 193
Default

Well, just look at the .50BMG ban in California. It has been used exactly zero times in a crime.
Hartski is offline  
Old 03-03-2015, 04:36 AM
  #8  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,225
Default

Originally Posted by jeepkid View Post
I'm much more concerned about the lead bullet bans that will affect every caliber.
The only place I know of with a lead bullet ban is CA. There has, to date, been no move to do the same on a nationwide basis by the Fed Govt. Big difference!

It is worth noting that the bullets they want to ban, under the claim they can now be used in handguns, have never been involved in any crime as a handgun load. Not one time across the entire nation. Banning a bullet because it may eventually be used is akin to banning gasoline because someday someone will use a car as a mode of escape during the commission of a crime! That makes as much sense!
flags is offline  
Old 03-03-2015, 05:07 AM
  #9  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

We sent off an email expressing our opposition to this ban.

We also sent a letter to our Congressman. We figure a Congressman probably knows that someone who takes the trouble to write a letter, will take the trouble to VOTE.
sachiko is offline  
Old 03-03-2015, 09:03 AM
  #10  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,340
Default

A lot of different comments on this thread. Let me add mine. I'm not too excited about this particular action because I don't have a .223 caliber rifle. I am concerned, however, by the general drift of the politics of this.

This executive action is not motivated by the desire to reduce risks to law enforcement officers. There is a difference between a purpose and a pretense. This is a pretense only.

It seems to me that once the government has established this as a precedent, that the next step would be banning other ammunition that is capable of penetrating police vests. I'm not sure that this would need to be limited to cartridges for which a commercially available pistol exists. Why would the .30-06 not be among the list of such cartridges? Why could they not ban the .30-06 as penetrating police vests?

I see this less as incrementalism -- which may also be a strategy, I'm not denying that -- but more about establishing legal precedent and then moving in the logical path of development from that precedent. How many things have we seen in our country's history where a legal precedent is set -- in a case which seems entirely reasonable on the surface -- which is then followed down a path of logic to a totally ridiculous result?

Here, isn't the principle of reason that ammunition that could conceivably threaten LEOs, that could conceivably be used as a countermeasure against LEO protective gear, can be banned? Wouldn't the rationale argued before the public -- the highly uneducated and ignorant public when if comes to firearms -- be that any ammunition that is armor piercing (e.g., can penetrate a police vest -- not exactly armor, but such verbal gymnastics is not unknown in the realm of politics) is unnecessary for the public to possess, and removing it from private ownership is not infringing the second amendment?

Perhaps I am cynical or too paranoid about the intentions of our caring, protective government.

Last edited by Alsatian; 03-03-2015 at 09:11 AM.
Alsatian is online now  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.