![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
3fgburner, come talk to me about ammo
Sep. 30th, 2008 10:31 amI don't want to threadjack bs's post any more, and I do want to take some time to get more information from both sides.
The point I was making in her LJ was not that ammo should be outlawed; it was that the NRA was claiming Obama was anti-gun and was exaggerating the implication of the Kennedy amendment.
However, you raised a good point; namely that the amendment as written would have excluded ammunition that was not designed specifically as "armor-piercing" but would have had unintended consequences. I have some questions for you on this topic, although it may go slowly as I have other things to attend to as well.
When I started looking into the background on the amendment, I found a Congressional study from 1995 looking at .50 armor-piercing ammunition, which was releasable to civilian populations through a DoD program. This loophole was -- in my opinion -- what the Kennedy amendment was intended to close. ("Never ascribe to malice what can be explained simply as ignorance") Given that, how could the amendment have been written to (1) exclude military-grade sniper ammunition designed to pierce substantial armor and yet (2) not create problems with pistol and rifle ammunition used by the vast majority of Americans? Do you have any suggestions, since you're more familiar with the original Kennedy amendment?
The point I was making in her LJ was not that ammo should be outlawed; it was that the NRA was claiming Obama was anti-gun and was exaggerating the implication of the Kennedy amendment.
However, you raised a good point; namely that the amendment as written would have excluded ammunition that was not designed specifically as "armor-piercing" but would have had unintended consequences. I have some questions for you on this topic, although it may go slowly as I have other things to attend to as well.
When I started looking into the background on the amendment, I found a Congressional study from 1995 looking at .50 armor-piercing ammunition, which was releasable to civilian populations through a DoD program. This loophole was -- in my opinion -- what the Kennedy amendment was intended to close. ("Never ascribe to malice what can be explained simply as ignorance") Given that, how could the amendment have been written to (1) exclude military-grade sniper ammunition designed to pierce substantial armor and yet (2) not create problems with pistol and rifle ammunition used by the vast majority of Americans? Do you have any suggestions, since you're more familiar with the original Kennedy amendment?
