posted October 29, 2004 01:26 PM              

NRA Ad Falsely Accuses Kerry
It says he's sponsoring a proposal to ban "every pump shotgun" and voted "to ban deer-hunting ammunition." Don't believe either claim.

http://www.factcheck.org/article296m.html

Summary

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund began airing a TV ad Oct. 26 falsely accusing Kerry of voting to ban deer-hunting ammunition. In fact, what Kerry voted for was a proposal to outlaw rifle ammunition "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability."

The NRA ad also claims Kerry is co-sponsoring a bill to "that would ban every semiautomatic shotgun and every pump shotgun." That's false. Kerry co-sponsored extension of the now-expired assault-weapon ban, a measure that would have expanded the ban to cover military-style shotguns but specifically exempts pump-action shotguns.

Analysis

This ad began airing in Wisconsin Oct. 26, and may also be running in other battleground states. Some of the claims are false, others merely misleading or exaggerated

Kerry and Gun Control

There's a clear division between Kerry and Bush on the issue of guns. Kerry co-sponsored an legislation that would not only have extended the old assault-weapon ban that expired Oct. 1, but would also have expanded it to cover more weapons. Bush said he would have signed an extension of the expired ban, but didn't lobby Congress or push publicly for such legislation. The NRA has endorsed Bush, while the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) has endorsed Kerry.

Kerry nevertheless describes himself as a "life-long hunter and fisherman" and made a point of going goose hunting in Ohio on Oct. 21. One picture of that hunt appears on Kerry's website, and others got front-page display in many newspapers the following day.

It is that image of Kerry -- a gun-toting sportsman -- that the NRA seeks to undermine with this ad. But to make its point, the ad falsely characterizes Kerry's record.

Armored Deer?

The ad starts off saying, "John Kerry says he’s a sportsman, so why did he vote to ban deer hunting ammunition . . .?" In fact, what Kerry voted for was an amendment sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy that would have covered rifle bullets capable of piercing soft body armor and also marketed as "armor-piercing," and wasn't aimed at hunting ammunition.

Kennedy described the intent of his amendment during Senate debate March 2, 2004:

Sen. Kennedy: My amendment will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it only covers ammunition that is designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability. That is it--designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability, such as armor-piercing ammunition that is now advertised on the Hi-Vel Web site.

The NRA attacked Kennedy's amendment, claiming it would outlaw most rounds now used for deer hunting. The amendment did propose to expand a ban on armor-piercing ammunition for handguns to cover rifle ammunition as well, and it would have introduced a performance-based standard applying to rounds that "the Attorney General determines . . . to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber."

Kennedy's Amendment

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section

921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

``(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability , that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''

(The term "body armor" is later defined to mean "body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.")

Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, outlined the argument against a performance-based standard during Senate debate:

Sen Craig: The amendment's actual aim and effect would be to expand the definition of ``armor-piercing'' to include ammunition based, not on any threat to law enforcement officers, but on a manufacturer's marketing strategy. . . . The standards he establishes in his legislation, performance-based standards, ban what is currently on-the-shelf hunting ammunition. Does the hunting ammunition in a high-powered rifle have the ability to penetrate soft body armor? Yes, it does. . . .He says not.
. . .The fact is, virtually all hunting and target rifle ammunition is capable of penetrating soft body armor. That is a reality. So by his definition does that go off the market? I believe it does. That is why I think it is unnecessary.

Ignored both by Craig and the NRA, however, is the plain language of the amendment itself, which referred to ammunition that could penetrate body armor and is designed or sold as "armor piercing." Both conditions would have had to apply for the ammunition to fall under the proposed ban.

The Kennedy amendment was rejected 34-63, with only one Republican in favor of the measure and 13 Democrats against it.

Nine Votes to Ban Guns?

The ad states that Kerry voted "nine times to ban guns." In fact, Kerry did vote repeatedly to ban some guns, but by no means all guns.

Six of the nine votes cited by the NRA were in favor of the 1994 assault-weapons ban. Three were on its passage in 1994 and two others were in 1993 when the Senate initially considered its version of the ban. The sixth vote was in March of this year to extend the ban for another ten years without any changes. That proposed extension passed 52-47 but later died when the bill to which it was attached as an amendment was defeated.

The three other votes came in 1990 during consideration of an omnibus crime bill, and included an unsuccessful, early attempt to ban 12 specific assault weapons. The ban that later became law covered 19 specific weapons.

Ban Shotguns?

The NRA ad falsely claims Kerry is sponsoring a bill "that would ban every semiautomatic shotgun and every pump shotgun." That's just the opposite of Kerry's stated position, and falsely characterizes what's actually in the bill that Kerry co-sponsored (S.1431, authored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. See "supporting documents" at right.)

Kerry's Stated Position:In a campaign document on his website called a "Sportsmans Bill of Rights " Kerry vows to support "The Right to Own Firearms," and adds:

Kerry Campaign: John Kerry and John Edwards will always support the Second Amendment right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms, such as rifles and shotguns, including semi-automatic firearms used by hunters and sportsmen across this country. Gun rights are fundamental for the sport of hunting, and they will vigorously support those rights as president.

What the Bill Really Says: The Lautenberg bill that Kerry co-sponsored actually stopped well short of any blanket ban on semiautomatic shotguns or pump-action shotguns, two types of weapons commonly used for hunting.

Pump-action shotguns: These guns can fire more than one round without reloading. After firing one shot, the shooter ejects the spent cartridge and chambers a new round by pulling back on a slide or pump located under the barrel. Far from banning all such weapons, the bill Kerry co-sponsored specifically exempted them. It said the ban "shall not apply to any firearm that--
(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action ;
(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
(C) is an antique firearm."(We have underlined the word "or" to show that the exemption for pump or slide-action weapons applies independently of the other two exemptions for antique or inoperable weapons.)
Semiautomatic shotguns: These weapons can also fire more than one round without reloading, but the spent cartridge is ejected and a fresh round chambered automatically. The recoil action from the first round powers the mechanism that loads the next one. Kerry's bill would have banned any semi-automatic shotgun that had any one of the following features: "a folding or telescoping stock . . . a pistol grip . . . the ability to accept a detachable magazine, or . . . a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds." But semiautomatic shotguns sold for hunting or target shooting typically don't have detachable clips, and hold no more than five rounds, so few if any sporting weapons would have been affected.
The NRA's Claim

When we asked the NRA to explain, a spokesman pointed to a provision of the Lautenberg bill that would have added a ban on military style shotguns.

But read the provision for yourself :

The Shotguns Kerry Really Would Have Banned:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

The provision would ban a "shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use" that is also "not particularly suitable for sporting purposes."

Shotguns designed for military or law-enforcement use are generally quite distinct from those commonly used by hunters or target shooters. For examples of military shotguns that would have been covered by Kerry's proposal, see the Benelli M4 Super 90, the Mossberg 590, the military and law-enforcement versions of the Remington 870, or the more exotic Jackhammer shotgun, which is not the sort of thing normally found in a duck blind or on the skeet range.

Tax Bullets and Guns?

The NRA ad also shows an edited portion from a decade-old TV interview in which Kerry is shown saying he favors taxing ammunition and guns. On Nov. 7, 1993 Kerry appeared on CNN's "Late Edition" program to discuss a crime bill then making its way through Congress.

Kerry said he favored a punitive tax on what the interviewer described as "cop-killer" bullets designed to mushroom on impact. And he also said he favored "more" tax on ordinary ammunition as well.

Here is the full exchange:

Q: Now, Senator Moynihan has a very novel idea, and his idea is to put a very hefty tax on these mushrooming bullets, these bullets that are like cop-killer bullets, maybe a 10,000-fold tax on these bullets. . . . Senator Kerry, how about a big tax on guns if you're not going to go along with a big tax on bullets?

Kerry: Well, personally I would support a tax on bullets. There is no reason in the world for these particular- these dum-dum bullets to be sold . They're people-killers, and there is absolutely- they're not duck-killers, they're not deer-killers, they're not used in hunting. They're there to stop a human being. Absolutely-
Q: How about regular bullets ?
Kerry: I think you ought to tax all ammunition more, personally. I think you ought to tax guns.

Kerry's offhand response failed to make clear exactly what kind of tax, or how large, Kerry had in mind. So his words are open to differing interpretations. The NRA ad edited out the word "more," though its not clear that would have changed the sense of Kerry's remarks.

Kerry isn't currently proposing any new taxes on guns or ammunition.

Sources

U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 1st Session, S. 1431, Proposed 17 July 2003.

S. Amdt. 2637 to S. 1805, Proposed 2 March 2004.

U.S. House, 103rd Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. 3355, Proposed 26 Oct 1993.

S. Amdt. 1152 to S. Amdt. 1151 to S. 1607, Proposed 9 Nov 1993.

S. Amdt. 1151 to S. 1607, Proposed 9 Nov 1993.

S. Amdt. 2085 to S. 1970, Proposed 28 June 1990.

S. Amdt. 1681 to S. 1970, Proposed 22 May 1990.

S. Amdt. 1676 to S. 1970, Proposed 22 May 1990.

Congressional Roll Call 1993, 103rd Congress - 1st Session, Vote #103,

Congressional Quarterly: 47S.

Congressional Roll Call 1990, 101st Congress - 2nd Session, Vote #365,

Congressional Quarterly: 31S.

CNN Late Edition, "The View From Capitol Hill," 7 Nov 1993.

Related Articles
A False Ad About Assault Weapons
A new Moveon PAC ad implies machine-guns are becoming legal, which isn't true. And it blames Bush, even though Bush said he would have extended the ban on assault weapons.

posted October 29, 2004 01:32 PM              

As I understand it, the reason for civilians rights to have these weapons is to ensure that *we* can over-throw the government if they get out of control.

posted October 29, 2004 01:41 PM            

ANY and I mean ANY high powered rifle ammunition with a full metal jacket WILL pierce soft body armor...most of them will go through both sides.

John Kerry is a gun grabbing thug, who along with people like you and the rest of the gun grabbing violators of the US Constitution would disarm America.

You have absolutely no concept of the reason for the Second Amendment and neither does Kerry unless he realizes it's there to prevent people like him from seizing control of the government of the United States in violation of the Constitution.

posted October 29, 2004 01:42 PM              

This information did not come from me it came from factcheck.org.

What came from me was the concern for the guns and weapons made available to our children and our teens. And out and out lies that are being spread in the political ads.

posted October 29, 2004 03:16 PM            

Your biggest problem is putting your trust in appearance, in phony words and phrases that when examined, turn out to mean something entirely different that what anyone would think.

Example, the assault weapons ban. Whoooopeeee, everyone thought fully automatic weapons were now banned. But those weapons were banned for civilian ownership since 1934. What was banned was semiautomatic rifles that LOOKED like military assault weapons. They banned semiautomatic replicas, calling them assault weapons.

Kerry and his cronies are phony baloney BS artists.

How about this Mirandee. Let someone from FactCheck.org don soft body armor and go down range about 100 yards from me with my .264 Winchester Magnum and regular rifle ammunition sold at sporting goods stores.

You won't get a single taker because if they know anything at all, they know that regular hunting ammo in that caliber would go through the front of that vest, through them, through the back of that vest and through someone else similarly attired standing behind them. So would 30/06, .308/7.62mm, .243 Winchester, 6mm Remington, 7mm Remington Mag, .270 Winchester and just about every other legal hunting ammunition go through at least the front of that armor and through them too.

For all of Kerry's 4 months of military duty in a war zone, Kerry is an ignoramus when it comes to firearms. He and you do not understand that M-16/5.56mm/.223 caliber is a popgun variety weapon when compared to a modern high powered hunting rifle. Yet, the M-16 and it's semiautomatic replica, AR-15 were both banned by the assault weapons ban, while my far more powerful and accurate .264 Winchester Magnum was not. The AK-47 IS the weapon of choice for the terrorists. Note that most US forces wear body armor to stop AK-47 rounds, so it is NOT very powerful either.

Your main problem is that you don't know much about much because most of what you think you know isn't true.

So, Kerry would outlaw regular hunting ammo for most hunting rifles. Kerry's a gun grabber and so are you. Kerry has no respect for the Constitution and neither do you.
Kerry is an appeaser who would surrender America's sovereignty to the UN and so are you.

posted October 29, 2004 05:09 PM            

I am enamored....(and feeling somewhat warm and tingly) by your brilliance

posted October 30, 2004 01:15 AM              

Any takers?

Oh, and FYI, if the govt. ever did go nuts, it could bomb its own people off the surface of this Earth over 500 times with nuclear weapons, or take a more subtle approach with depleted uranium-tipped bunker buster bombs. Not to mention that the U.S. Military has an annual budget of over 200 Billion, and access to fully automatic weapons, conventional munitions, Bazookas, missle-launching Blackhawk helicopters, and the like. I can just picture you, JWhop, trembling in your shoes, facing down paramilitaries with your rifle and praying it will pierce their body armor.

Simple fact is, these laws are in place to prevent crackpots from committing crimes right here in America. I'd say a ban makes it pretty hard for a criminal to get his hands on the weapon.

Oh, and JWhop, if you feel that way about America (want to overthrow it) get the hell out! Better get away while you still can, because regime change is on the way.

Oh, and take your assault rifle with you.

posted October 30, 2004 02:13 AM            

I don't know what the hell they're teaching in the public schools these days. Certainly not American history and for sure there is not even a nodding acquaintance with the Federalist Papers. If American history was being taught or anyone ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers, the reason for the Second Amendment would be very clear.

It's obvious you just don't get it laff. You seem to think American Military forces would go along with a coup and fight against American citizens. That question was posed to a lot of military personnel. The answer was negative.

Now laff, imagine being in control...or thinking you are but knowing the first time you poked your head outside, the first time you tried to go out to do all the things you enjoy, you cease to exist. I doubt anyone seizing or attempting to seize the government of the United States would manage to survive, say one month. Further, I doubt anyone attempting to keep them in power by attacking American civilians would survive to see the next sunrise.

Right laff, nuke em. That would sure solve the problem of resistance now wouldn't it? It would also render the spoils of the coup unusable.

Only in an America populated with laffs but not in the real world. The rest of us or most of us would hunt them and kill them. Kind of makes a coup an unattractive pursuit.

posted October 30, 2004 02:43 AM              

You don't need guns in case the government was overthrown, because not only would you not survive if your government was out to get you, but a coupe of that kind could *never happen*. It would be totally unsuccessful.

So what, exactly, do you need paramilitary weapons for? You've got the military to protect you (if they weren't all overseas in Iraq!) So, again, what do you plan to do with those kinds of weapons?

Are you sure there's a single neuron still buzzing around in your head, JWhop? Because if there is, let's hear your answer.

posted October 30, 2004 11:11 AM              

all the police officers i've trained with strongly support the ban on armor piercing ammunition....a teflon coated ap round fired from a small handgun will penetrate 50+ layers of kevlar

posted October 30, 2004 11:46 AM            

quote:

---

So what, exactly, do you need paramilitary weapons for? You've got the military to protect you (if they weren't all overseas in Iraq!) So, again, what do you plan to do with those kinds of weapons?

---

Being the product of shallow thinking laff, your question is easy to answer. I'll do so just as soon as you answer the question I asked you and asked you....first.

You seem to be infected with the same disease other liberals caught...lack of ability to answer simple questions and the mistaken belief no one will notice.

Focus hard now laff. Here's the question you ducked but I'll give you a second chance to answer it. BTW laff, I have vast experience in exchanges with liberal leftists, so please don't attempt to give me the one word answer "yes" to my question.

quote:

---

BTW, is there anything you would fight for laff....or against. Any concept that's important enough to you to put your rear on the line for?

---

posted October 30, 2004 11:54 AM              

quote:

---

The difference between you and me Mirandee is that when I say something, I can back it up with something more than whacko opinion from a lefty website. My arguments are on point and you evade and try to change the subject or simply deny what is manifestly true.

---

No instead you back it up with whacko opinion from a far right conservative web site.

Once again I was discussing the ban that was put into effect by Clinton which just expired. It was you who evaded and started talking about something else, jwhop. I do wish you would stop projecting what you do onto all of us.

God forbid jwhop should have an arsenal of assault weapons. He would freak out and start killing all Democrats and anyone he deemed a liberal.

posted October 30, 2004 12:14 PM              

Though Kerry hasn't mentioned it in the debates, if elected he has said he intends to put a 5 year ban on lobbying in Wash. D.C. He also wants to get legislation through Congress that would require all special interest group and lobbyists to file a public document concerning their transactions.

posted October 30, 2004 02:02 PM            

FactCheck.org is an unreliable source for discovering the truth about candidates positions because they just listen to the words without checking the real facts.

Following is debate text from the Senate floor where the results of Kennedy's amendment was laid out clearly. It's very clear this amendment would establish a performance based test to determine whether any bullets/cartridges are in fact capable of piercing body armor.

There is no question almost all centerfire hunting ammunition will pierce body armor so this amendment was directed against hunting ammo and not against the so called cop killer ammo which would carry and be stamped with the AP code...Armor Piercing or Teflon coated ammo.

I've also looked up the actual text of Kennedy's amendment to make sure the Senator debating Kennedy had his facts straight about what Kennedy's bill contained. He did have it exactly right and FactCheck.org has it exactly wrong.

Excerpt from a debate on the Senate floor about Edward M. Kennedy's amendment as it relates to so called armor piercing ammunition.

"What we also know is that there is ammunition out there used with a rifle
[Page: S1636] GPO's PDF
that can pierce body armor. That is a fact. But the ammunition we are talking about that is traditionally known as the cop-killer bullet that is now outlawed in this country has nothing to do with the rifle. It had everything to do with the pistol, that weapon of choice by criminals in our country, and we know why. Criminals do not walk down the street with a 30.06 over their shoulder. Somehow there is the visible factor that denies them the use of that rifle. They use handguns. They conceal them. They hide them on their person. They carry them in a package or in a carrying type of valise. They do not carry rifles. Yet the Senator's (kennedy's) amendment goes directly at the hunting sports; it goes directly at hunting ammunition. This is why at the appropriate time when we have concluded the debate on the Senator's amendment, I will offer an alternative amendment under the unanimous consent agreement that we think reflects what ought to be done in relation to what the Senator is offering. Let me also add that the most extensive study on this issue pursuant to a congressional mandate to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was a BATF draft report provided in 1997 to those individuals and organizations that had assisted in a BATF study of the issue of armor-piercing ammunition. That study mandated, in response to President Clinton's repeated call, for a ban on bullets capable of penetrating soft body armor.*** Virtually all centerfire rifle ammoThose Presidential statements rightfully concerned many in Congress who were aware that a performance-based ban, and that is what the Senator is offering, would outlaw the majority of rifle ammunition used for hunting and target shooting worldwide. That is just what I have spoken to. If that is the Senator's intent, then I wish he would address that. Clearly that is what we believe one begins to enter into when they deal with a performance-based standard. The 1997 study took an intelligent and honest approach to examining how best to protect the lives of law enforcement officers, recognizing the reality that between 1985 and 1994 no officer in the United States who was wearing a bullet-resistant vest died as a result of any round of ammunition having been fired from a handgun penetrating that officer's armor causing the primary lethal injuries. The study instead focused on how to improve police training, both in teaching officers how to defeat snatches by criminals and to encourage officers to wear vests routinely. Legislatively, the 1997 study rightfully concluded that to prohibit any of these commonly used pistol, rifle, shotgun cartridges because they might defeat a level 1 bullet-resistant vest would create an unreasonable burden on the legitimate consumer of such cartridges. Combined with the availability of sensible, defensive strategies, the existence of laws restricting the common availability of armor-piercing ammunition was clearly working to protect law enforcement officers, and no attempt to discard the existing law, in my opinion and many others, should be undertaken. At the same time, because the existing laws are working, no additional legislation is necessary or required, certainly that that deals with performance-based standards, because one goes directly at ammunition used in target practice and in hunting. We do not believe, and I would hope the Senator from Massachusetts would agree, that is what we would intend to do. In conclusion, what I am saying is the current law is adequate. This is not perfecting language. This is language to try to defeat the underlying bill, S. 1805. Obviously, the Senator has spoken openly against that. This is in no way a bill that improves the underlying bill itself and we think very questionably does it improve any existing Federal law. What it begins to do is what the sporting community and the legitimate owners of firearms have always been fearful of, that if the handgun or the rifle could not be controlled,**** read banned*** the ammunition would be targeted and certain classes of ammunition would begin to be controlled and outlawed, and that is exactly what Senator Kennedy is attempting to do with this amendment. I think it is obvious by my statement I will strongly oppose this, but I will offer--or I should say the majority leader will offer--an amendment finalizing the debate on Senator Kennedy's amendment that we think if there is reason to fine-tune the existing law, then we will offer that fine-tuning to make it extremely punitive for anyone who might use armor-piercing bullets that would strike a law enforcement officer in our country, or anyone else for that matter, that would result in injury or death."

Text of actual Kennedy amendment.

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - February 26, 2004)

[Page: S1695] GPO's PDF---

SA 2619. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1805, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others; as follows:

On page 11, after line 19, add the following:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end; (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following: ``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or ***Note ``(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), [b]to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.

DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--
Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar. `

`(2) The standards promulgated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or centerfire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.

``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.

Now Petron and everyone else who thinks the Kennedy amendment was not aimed directly at centerfire rifle ammo, let me point out to you that:

1. Armor piercing ammunition designated AP is not a function of the amount of powder used in the cartridge or the length of barrel the projectile is fired from. It's the actual projectile (bullet) that is specifically hardened to retain it's shape upon impact and it usually contains a heavy dose of tungsten which is harder that steel. The fact this causes rapid barrel erosion...rifles have steel barrels....mitigates against hunters and target shooters using ammo designated AP because a few hundred rounds of AP ammo fired through the barrel means you get to scrap that barrel.

2. A program of testing centerfire ammo is established by Kennedy's amendment where ammo is tested against body armor to determine which ammo will pierce the body armor. Virtually all centerfire ammo from .220 Swift, 22-250, .243, 6mm, .264, 7mm, .270, 30/06, .308/7.62mm, .338 and most calibers in between will, with routine consistency penetrate and pierce body armor.

Now this test proposes to establish criteria based on whether a bullet fired from a cartridge having more powder, a cartridge with a bullet of different weight, or fired from a rifle with a longer barrel, is more likely to penetrate and pierce body armor.

Fact Petron, hunting ammo comes in different bullet weights, standard issue over the counter but each and every one of those loads will pierce body armor. Fact Petron, my .264 Winchester Magnum has standard ammo available over the counter in bullet weights of 80 grains, 85 grains, 100, grains, 120 grains, and 140 grains for different purposes...both hunting and target shooting. So do virtually all the calibers above .22 caliber. Each and every one of those would be banned by Kennedy's amendment because they would all pierce body armor.

Kennedy and Kerry are liars and so is FactCheck.org. The proof is in the wording in the text of Kennedy's amendment, their public statements notwithstanding.

So Petron, in what capacity do you consult with or associate with police officers or police officer associations?

Just so you know, most police...officer associations endorse Bush for President. Police Chiefs are a different matter.

posted October 30, 2004 04:06 PM              

However ...
"as I understand it, the reason for civilians rights to have these weapons is to ensure that *we* can over-throw the government if they get out of control"

many many LS

My ignorance of firearms is also colossal and I am certainly not qualified to argue the details. In general though, while I imagine that having guns solely in the hands of the government might very well make our streets safer in the short term, I shudder to think of the long term effects.

posted October 30, 2004 04:41 PM            

We already know Kerry is against free speech because he attempted to shut the Swiftboat vets up and attempted to prevent Stolen Honor from being shown.

We also know Kerry is a gun grabbing nut who trashes the 2nd Amendment and has voted repeatedly in the past to deny citizens the right to possess firearms..and now ammunition too.

Listen Mirandee, it's John Kerry who has the look of a maniacal dictator when we look at the stances he takes and has taken.

But, Kerry isn't going to do a damned thing the United States Congress doesn't permit him to do. He has absolutely no power to implement a single one of his whacko ideas and if he attempts to seize that power, he will be impeached and convicted.

Beyond that, it's unlikely he's going to ever get into the office anyway so you can breathe a sigh of relief that your civil rights will not be stripped away from you by a Kerry presidency.

posted October 30, 2004 05:24 PM              

also....
Ability to actually penetrate any kind of soft body armor is irrelevant in the existing bill...
Hardness of the bullet is irrelevant. only the MATERIALS listed are banned(and percentage of weight of a jacketed piercer)
the secretary of treasury isnt going to suddenly designate lead as a banned material for ammunition lol
the intent of the amendment was to eventually get rifle rounds which have been designated by the atf as "ap rifle ammo" banned.....

so most armor piercing rifle rounds (like the iraqis are using) are not even banned ......i suppose now you want some so here is a supplier where you can get armor piercing and ap incendiary rounds
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/Browse.asp?Cat=3017

or how about a 50 caliber tactical rifle?(like the 1's the afghans still use that we gave them during the 80's) http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976446511.htm

and heres a good deal on some armor piercers and incendiary ammo for it..... http://www.shotgunnews.com/gunad/adinfo2.dog?nclass=S5800
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/index/index-display.jhtml?id=cat20839&navAction=pop&navCount=4&parentId=&parentType=&rid=&returnPage=&returnQueryString=&_DARGS=%2Fcabel

posted October 30, 2004 06:28 PM              

I'm certainly not in favor of total gun control, JWhop. All I asked you was, and obviously you couldn't answer a simple question, what do you need those kinds of weapons, for? 'Cause, see, I thought maybe you needed them to rob a bank, or something.

You a gangsta?

laff

posted October 30, 2004 06:30 PM              

Cheney in fact told people to check the facts of something that Edwards said in the debate and he gave the site address. Only he messed up and gave factcheck.com instead of factcheck.org and whoever visited the site at factcheck.com got diverted to an article by George Soros.

Yes, Tink I told jwhop once before in another thread concerning the ban expiration that he turned into a gun debate. I told him I was not going to debate the difference between guns because I don't know one gun from another. I don't personally own one and don't like them. That was not the point in the other post and it was not the point in this post.

I know that all ads lie about products and how well they work. That's not right either. However, political ads should be kept honest. It is unfair to the voter to spread lies. It's amazing what we have just come to accept in our society as "the norm or ordinary" without question. And maybe that is the problem. Dishonesty is dishonesty in TV ads promoting products. It should not be acceptable in political ads. That is a disservice to the voters. And it might be a problem when our society just accepts being lied to.

Kerry has stated repeatedly that he is not out to ban guns for hunters. He is a hunter himself. This article by factcheck.org gives the bill numbers jwhop, and it did not just "accept Kennedy's word for it" they gave you everything for you to go and check for yourself.

My husband has a shotgun that he uses for skeet shooting and small game hunting. While I don't like guns myself and I don't like killing anything it is fine with me that he has a shotgun and likes to hunt small game.

The whole point of this post is that rarely does factcheck.org call anything a lie or falsehood. Usually it is just misleading or a distortion of the facts and both candidates are guilty of that. But this ad by NRA they called an out and out lie.

posted October 30, 2004 06:36 PM              

quote:

---

We already know Kerry is against free speech because he attempted to shut the Swiftboat vets up and attempted to prevent Stolen Honor from being shown

---