7.62x39mm RussianWolf FMJ
While wandering around I came across this article by Jeff Riley on the Buckeye Firearms Association page: Brady Center calls for ban on popular hunting ammo
It was written in December in response to a Brady Bunch statement after the shootings in Omaha, Denver, and Colorado Springs, which included this bit:
Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons.
Riley replied to this "shocking" statement with
Not content to go after assault weapons, now they are going after any bullet that can penetrate body armor.
And as usual, they're trying to sway public opinion with inaccurate, misleading, and provably false information.
In his blog, Brady bunch leader Paul Helmke references a National Institute of Justice report on soft body armor protection, but incorrectly identifies the type of bullet used in the shooting. The report references the 7.62 NATO round (.308 Win) in the testing, but the round used in the Omaha shooting was a 7.62x39 Russian. He also neglected to inform his readers that the test he refers to is for soft body armor, which is designed to stop handgun rounds only. It was never intended to stop rifle rounds. This is a telling mistake, as the Brady Center doesn't care about providing accurate information - only hysterical information.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Now that they've failed miserably to get everyone's guns, they're going to be shifting their sights to the ammunition. They'll lie about the ammunition used in crimes when they can to make it look a lot scarier than it really is, then they'll try to convince the public that no one needs that scary ammo. If they can't ban it, they'll restrict it in some way, maybe by requiring special permits to buy it or by limiting the amount that one individual can purchase.
If they manage to get their scary ammo (and I don't think they will), they will suddenly notice, for the first time ever, that hunting ammunition is far more powerful than the "high powered assault weapon" ammo they've just successfully restricted.
Riley writes
What you call a 'deer rifle,' they refer to as an 'intermediate sniper rifle,' which they define as "any rifle with an optical sight making it capable of shooting at distances of 100 meters or greater". For those who thought anti-gunners were only after "assault rifles" now they want to ban your granddad's deer gun.
2 Comments
Jay.Mac said:
This is a very dangerous time for the Second Amendment- as we've seen time and again the hoplophobes won't stop with any single piece of legislation (just look at the UK where they successfully banned handguns, then replica gas-cartridge firing handguns and now they've banned the sale of airsoft guns too: next up water pistols?).
All is takes is one key piece of legislation in their banning agenda and the Second Amendment will be in real trouble, regardless of the success of Heller. Another assault weapon ban (without a sunset this time) could make it through under a Democrat presidency, and HR 1022 would ban a whole raft of weapons which are in no way even related to assault weapons (it has 60 co-sponsors, all of them Democrat). Then there's the sniper rifle ban, the prohibitions on ammunition- and who knows what else they'll try to go after. Maybe "police-style handguns" like the Glock after the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings? Chisleing away at the Second while all the time assuring Americans that they don't want to ban all their guns.
Once they make successful inroads into a portion of gun culture it's all that easier to hack away at the rest, one segment at a time: assault weapons, sniper rifles, .50 cal shooters, before you know it there will be a complete ban on semi-auto rifles. Just look at the UK where in less than 50 years gun culture has all but been eradicated.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many gun owners in America and so few actually seem to do anything to protect their rights. The time to fight is now - before the hoplophobes get the upper hand.
Steve said:
I thought this was funny.
"any rifle with an optical sight making it capable of shooting at distances of 100 meters or greater."
When I was in Marine Corps Boot Camp (1986), the minimum distance we qualified at was 200 meters. That was open sights on an M16A2. We also shot at 300 and 500 meters. Open Sights.
Obviously you can be more accurate with a scope, but come one, 100 meters is nothing. Hitting bulls at 500 meters was nothing.
If you're trained right, as we were, you don't need a scope. Marines are marksmen.