|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NY: Deer don't wear Kevlar
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I was shocked earlier this month when the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives withdrew its proposal to prohibit the sale of 5.56 NATO armor-piercing bullets – so-called "green tip" rounds. ATF's finding that these bullets can be loaded into easily-concealed handguns – and that they pose a grave threat to police – means that they are no longer just tools for hunters. These bullets are a threat to our police officers and to our military men and women. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/27/2015)
|
It's hard to believe that a US congressman can be this stupid.
Hunters don't use "green tip" bullets. They use expanding bullets. And every bullet from a medium power or high power rifle will penetrate a so called bullet proof vest. It's the velocity and energy that cause the penetration, not the type of bullet. Bullet proof vests are only effective against hand gun and low energy cartridges.
Ban this bullet, and you might as well band almost all rifle caliber ammunition. That is why the NRA and any knowledgeable gun proponent is against this ban. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
