Reply
Fri 4 Mar, 2005 10:07 am
I would ask this question of those who are opposed to gun control. Should the possesion of this weapon be made illegal. If not why?
Schumer: Ban "Cop Killer" Assault Pistol
Mar 3, 2005 5:07 pm US/Eastern
(1010 WINS) (WASHINGTON) The Five-SeveN pistol is small enough to fit into your pocket but packs a big punch -- its bullets can penetrate a bulletproof vest. One of the weapons was recently pulled off the streets of Camden County, N.J., and New Jersey and New York lawmakers want them out of the hands of the public for good.
New Jersey Democratic Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., on Thursday introduced a bill that would make it illegal for anyone except a police officer or military official to possess the assault pistol.
In November, the Homeland Security Department issued an "Officer Safety Alert" regarding the pistol with the headline "body armor defeating handgun." The alert said that the Trumbull, Conn., police department had seized such a pistol and noted that its bullets were "advertised as being able to penetrate 48 layers of Kevlar at 50 meters."
The lawmakers said there is no legitimate reason for members of the general public to own the gun -- you wouldn't buy it for hunting, for example.
"This is not a First Amendment issue," Corzine said. "Who needs one of these? The only reason is for violence."
The Protect Law Enforcement Armor (PLEA) Act would ban the sale, purchase and use of the handgun and its ammunition by anyone other than a police officer or military official. The bill would also prohibit the gun and bullets from being made in the United States.
Camden County Prosecutor Vincent Sarubbi urged lawmakers to support the bill, calling it a test case.
"If we let this one slip by, the flood gates will open," Sarubbi said.
A Five-SeveN gun was found on an alleged drug dealer in December during a drug investigation in Camden County, Sarubbi said. The gun had been purchased in Philadelphia using a false name and false Social Security number, he said.
Peter Newsham, the assistant chief of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police, said his department recently tested the gun and it penetrated a Kevlar vest.
"The danger of this gun is that it can be concealed," he said. He, too, urged Congress to support the bill.
Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, challenged the National Rifle Association to defend the pistol, even daring NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre to don a bulletproof vest to have the pistol tested. The NRA did not immediately return a telephone call for comment.
The pistol is made by the Belgian company FN Herstal, which has a U.S. division in McLean, Va. Richard DeMilt, director of sales and marketing for the U.S. division, said the pistol has been approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the only ammunition available to the public are cartridges approved by the agency.
The bullets that can penetrate Kevlar vests are sold only to law enforcement and military agencies, and that ammunition is only released and shipped from a U.S. Customs-controlled warehouse, DeMilt said.
That information was little comfort to Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, a group that seeks to reduce gun violence. His brother, an FBI agent, was killed along with two other agents when a gunman burst into their Washington, D.C., office in 1994 and opened fire with an assault weapon.
"There's no such thing as closure," Miller said at the news conference. "Police officers should not have to face this kind of gun.
No, it shoudln't. First of all, the firearm itself has nothing to do with it. The ammo is what gives it the potential to penetrate body armor or not.
For this particular handgun there are 4 types of ammo made - the SS190AP (Armor Peircing), the I191 Tracer round, the SB Subsonic and the SS1902 Training round.
The SS190AP is the only round capable of actually peircing through body armor and it isn't available for sale in North America any more (and when it was it was only available to Law Enforcement). That is the round that the Trumbull, CT Police Dept found that were "advertised as being able to penetrate 48 layers of Kevlar at 50 meters." . What they neglected to mention in your article is that the alert stated that the Trumbull Police found that advertised on the manufacturers European WWW site in reference to the SS190AP ammo.
The BATF report on this firearm is very different picture than what is painted in your article."
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearmstech/fabriquen.htm
The Brady campaign is doing their best to villanize the gun though. You'll note they refer to it as an "Assult Pistol" yet it doesn't have ANY of the features that the Brady Campaign has previously pushed for states to use in defining an assult pistol.
This is cute:
Quote:
The lawmakers said there is no legitimate reason for members of the general public to own the gun -- you wouldn't buy it for hunting, for example.
There is no legitimate reason for anyone NOT to own one. Contrary to their assertion, hunting isn't the only legitimate reason to own a firearm.
Quote:"This is not a First Amendment issue," Corzine said. "Who needs one of these? The only reason is for violence."
Ummm.. Someone should inform Corzine that the 2nd Amendment is the one in question here. Duh!
I thought about pulling the same two quotes. They simply couldn't have been written by anyone who had read the second amendment.
.
An Armed Civilian populace serves four basic purposes.
1) Hunting: You always have the right to natural food and sport.
2) Protection against Criminals: You have the right to defend yourself, your property, and the safety and property of others. Concealed handguns are the most ideal when you're not in your car or home. Shotguns are ideal in the home, rifles, including military grade, are ideal in your car. By banning certain arms, the lawful give up their arms and the criminals keep theirs or get them through the Black Market.
3) Defense against Domestic Tyranny: Eventually, our nation will be much less stable than it is now, and a situation will arise for where our government will impose tyranny upon at least a portion of the citizenry by denying them basic rights. When this time comes, however long it will take, it is crucial to the survival of we as a free people that we be capable of fighting our own military. Numbers and adequate weaponry will make the civilian populace capable of such an endeavour as to defend themselves from Domestic Tyranny.
4) Foreign Invasion: Eventually, our nation will fall behind in military strength, and there will come a point where a foreign power is capable and willing to invade our country and our military is incapable of entirely defending the civilian populace. When such a situation arises, it is critical to our survival as Free Americans that we have the arms to adequately defend ourselves from a Foreign military.
If any gun control laws prevent us from fulfilling these four goals, then it threatens our security and freedom.
To ban this handgun is to make the fulfillment of goal number 2 more difficult, by denying lawful civilians its' access and unwittingly giving criminals a monopoly on it.
Ivory Fury
Protection, how often do you see or hear of a civilian with a gun has thwarted a crime. Conversely how many time have you read about children getting shot while Playing with a gun they found at home. Just the other day a four year old shot and killed his two year old brother while playing with a gun he found in his mothers purse.
Regarding the myth of protecting us against the tyranny of the Government. Do you think the small arms in civilian possession will protect one against the arms of our military.
Foreign invasion Laugh, laugh.
Hunting yes for sport we are long past the time when we needed to shoot our dinner.
.
4 months ago I awoke to look out my window and see someone rummaging through my shed. I fired my 18 guage shotgun into the air, and he jumped my fence so fast he shaved his skin off and left blood where he went over.
3 years ago my 20 year old friend was out on a walk smoking a cigar, he was beaten and permanently misfigured to within an inch of his life by a couple of thuggish youths. On his 21st birthday he started carrying around a .45 Magnum like it was a seatbelt. When he was at school he constantly badgered the University to allow him a permit to carry around Campus. He will never be a defenseless victim again.
If you subscribe to a Gun magazine you would generally see a bunch of self-defense stories every week.
But that is besides the point, the point is people have the right to defend themselves, you can't take that right away because sometimes things don't pan out so well for the armed.
You made an assumption that I was talking about small arms. I am talking about arms. Not WMD, as those are indiscriminate, I am talking about the precise capability to neutralize any military threat. If a tank rumbles down my street to quell resistance, I should be able to have anti-armor weapons, .50 cal machine guns, RPGs, etc...
You sure do comfort me with your ability to predict the future. What does the future look like? Is it a utopia where we're always a stable country that is topdog in the military world? That sounds wonderful, I guess we don't need to ever worry about ever needing to defend ourselves from domestic or foreign tyranny. Thanks for the good news, can you give more amazing predictions?
As for hunting, hey, you have the right to live however you want, if that is a hermit in the woods, or even a working class poor looking for a free natural and cheap meal, you gotta be able to hunt for food.
.
This forum is error ridden, please delete this accidental double post, thank you.
Double posts occur because the poster clicks on submit twice.
Never heard of a .45 Magnum, by the way, and what the tarnal Hell is an 18 guage shotgun?
If I were to believe your story. I would tell you those thugs you speak about would have taken his gun and shoved it up his a**.
50 caliper machine guns and RPG's. Indeed. Suggest you cut down on the Arnold movies. They are fiction.
.
roger wrote:Double posts occur because the poster clicks on submit twice.
Never heard of a .45 Magnum, by the way, and what the tarnal Hell is an 18 guage shotgun?
The shells say 20A UMC, my grandfather told me it used 18 gauge shells, I really don't know know enough about it.
I just called my friend up and he says his .45 Magnum is a Winchester.
au, if you can't argue by disproving my logic than don't do it at all.
au1929 wrote: Regarding the myth of protecting us against the tyranny of the Government. Do you think the small arms in civilian possession will protect one against the arms of our military.
No. But they don't have to make it impossible for a tyrannical government to win -- only hard enough so that it's not worth the effort.
au1929 wrote:Foreign invasion Laugh, laugh.
You can laugh all you want, but protection against foreign invasion and usurpations of tyrannical governments are the reasons for "a well-regulated being necessary to the security of a free state", and why "the right of the people to hold and bear arms shall not be infringed." You can disagree with the Second Amendment if you want, and if you do, you are welcome to start an initiative for having it repealed with a new amendment to the constitution. But as long as the Second Amendment exists, you have to live with the fact that people in your country have a right to be armed, for the reasons just given.
when they outlaw guns only outlaws (governments) will have guns.
Ivory Fury
Logic? Are you trying to pass that series of fatuous statements as logic? There is a complete lack of critical or logical thinking in most of your ramble. Try separating fantasy from reality.
Thomas
I am well aware of the second amendment and the right to bear arms. I am also aware of the "well regulated militia" statement. Do you by any stretch of the imagination believe that the people now in possession of arms gives us this well regulated militia? Further, with the fire power of the government or an invading force the gun owners will be anything but a pimple on an elephants ass. Anyone who justifies the possession of guns based upon there use as protection against tyranny or a foreign invasion is IMO blowing smoke.
I would add that in the event of an invasion we would have our armed forces on our side.
In any event this post is not nor was it intended to argue a case for or against the second amendment.
au1929 wrote:Thomas
I would add that in the event of an invasion we would have our armed forces on our side.
They would not be here if they were at war somewhere else. The chances of someone attacking us when the armed forces are here are slim. they would attack at a time like now when we have our forces scattered. This is when the recruits and reserves would step in but that would not be enough. Thus we would have to defend our country
Quote:In any event this post is not nor was it intended to argue a case for or against the second amendment.
It is a case arguing for or against the second amendment for this reason: If the government banned this gun it would be against the 2nd amendment.
Also
Quote:Regarding the myth of protecting us against the tyranny of the Government. Do you think the small arms in civilian possession will protect one against the arms of our military.
If by small arms you mean the right definition, that is, Handguns, automatic assault weapons. then they would do quite a bit.
However the constrution workers would have to step in to take out the tanks with DYNAMITE
if by small arms you mean hanguns only then they would do nothing compared to AK's, TANKS, granades.
Swift wrote
Quote:If by small arms you mean the right definition, that is, Handguns, automatic assault weapons. then they would do quite a bit.
if by small arms you mean hanguns only then they would do nothing compared to AK's, TANKS, granades.
What do you think most gun owners have if not small arms?
Swift wrote
Quote:However the construction workers would have to step in to take out the tanks with DYNAMITE
What if any relation does that have to the subject at hand. Are you advocating the allowing of a cache of dynamite in every home.
But you don't have to stop tanks, au. All you need to be able to do is make the secret police think twice before making that 3:00 a.m. knock on your door and dragging you off for posting subversive screeds on a2k.
au1929 wrote: Do you by any stretch of the imagination believe that the people now in possession of arms gives us this well regulated militia? Further, with the fire power of the government or an invading force the gun owners will be anything but a pimple on an elephants ass. Anyone who justifies the possession of guns based upon there use as protection against tyranny or a foreign invasion is IMO blowing smoke.
Perhaps you're right -- after all, you live in the United States and I don't. If you are what should the consequence be? I think we should encourage more average Americans to possess guns, not discourage them. This would get the USA closer to having a well-regulated militia that can provide defense against government usurpation.
I don't own one. I bought two.
Any hunting rifle can penetrate a kevlar vest. When are these retarded antis with their agenda going to quit? Never. And I refuse to surrender.
Thomas
More guns in the hands of irresponsible American's heaven forbid.
In my opinion the well regulated militia is they speak of should be the national guard. If not that does not sit well than a militia should be created and recruited and equipped. They would be in time of need it seems to me better prepared to deal with the described situations than people in possession of guns running around willy nilly without direction.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace