January 15th, 2009
Holder: Gun-control options ‘narrowed’
Posted: 03:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Attorney General-designate Eric Holder conceded during his confirmation hearing Thursday that the government’s options for regulating the possession of firearms have been narrowed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms.
“Reasonable restrictions are still possible,” Holder said, including measures such as a ban on the sale of what are called “cop-killer” bullets.
But, he granted, “we’re living in a different world” since the high court’s 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Holder said that he previously viewed the Second Amendment as a “collective right” to bear arms, not an individual right.
The Heller ruling, Holder said, was a “very significant opinion.”
If I shoot a cop with a .22 in the head is that a “cop killer bullet”? What If I use a .38 and he isn’t wearing body armor? Can someone please explain WTF a “cop killer bullet” is? Fucking morons.
Just political marketing slogan, much like the word extreme or tactical is also used for marketing.I have went through this many times with many people who are not part of the gun culture, even though some have guns and do hunt, they just don’t get it, or think it through or in many cases understand. So sad
Exactly. “options” narrowed. Just what shit are they planning now?
“Cop Killer” was a term from the 80s regarding teflon coated ammo developed by the police and only sold to the police for shooting criminals with kevlar vests. Now it could be applied to any centerfire rifle cartidge.
Next, expect to hear about the “Terrorist’s Plastic Gun” that airport x-ray machines can’t detect.
Non cop killer bullets would be wax plugs fired by the primer only w/o powder. . . . which are suitable for indoor shooting ranges . . . anything more is more than Obama, Holder, and the S.S. believe free citizens NEED.
There was no Internet in the '80s to do research- that is the story I was told.- sorry.
Here is the history:
Teflon is another such lubricant, and bullets coated in which had an interesting political saga in the United States. They were first introduced in the 1960s by three law enforcement officers who worked together to develop new ammunition for police use. The first Teflon coated bullets were known as “KTW bullets”, after the initials of the three inventors, and were sold only to law enforcement organizations.
In 1982, the NBC TV network ran a special on the bullets and argued that the bullets were a threat to police. Gun control organizations in the US labelled Teflon coated bullets as “cop killer bullets”, and argued that they were capable of penetrating Kevlar bullet-resistant vests. This was, in a sense, true: many of the bullets that had Teflon coatings were capable of penetrating Kevlar vests…but they would be equally capable of penetrating the vests without Teflon coating: the coating has no effect on the ability of a bullet to punch through body armor.
Its just a media buzzword marketing concept. “.50 cal. sniper rifles can be used to shoot down helicopters” sounds more credible as a “legitimate reason” than “first lets ban the largest, and then work our way down…”
Same here, and I also think he will be confirmed. What a jerk this man is. He backed Clinton in pardons for the FALN. But, he doesn’t think the average guy should have a gun to protect himself. Maybe he will let us carry bombs. :rolleyes:
I guess I was being a ranting sarcastic ass. I just find it absurd. What’s next? Cop killing knives, cars, etc…etc…or wait a novel idea. Cop killing people.
I agree 110% that Holder is a douchebag and I expressed my doubts about him and a few other Klinton rejects. I just hope this doesn’t get ugly.
What I really find ironic is that here in Iraq every household is allowed to have 1 AK47 rifle (or similar IIRC) and a couple of mags.
(1) Drop overt attempts at regulation at the Federal level and work through their henchmen at the STATE LEVEL to create the regulation there. Fifty times as much work, but much less resistance and publicity. Remember Obama mentioned the states in his famous “just because you have an individual right” speech.
(2) Go after AMMUNITION. If the constitution protects “arms” then forget arms. Attack the consumables.
(3) Use TAXATION as the invisible form of regulation. No one says you can’t have a gun or buy ammo. What, you can’t afford to buy a gun or ammo? Well that sounds like a personal finance problem to me…
Keep your eye on these things and not the big ban in the sky. Not that they won’t try that too, but I think the areas above are where they are going to concentrate their offensive.
This is why IMO a AWB is now impossible due to Heller
It allows restriction but not bans, yet the very features they want to ban actually make it a new type of arm, by their own name of a certain classification and configuration of a rifle, it becomes an “Assault Rifle”
Now, Heller says you cannot ban a weapon in common use at the time, and “Assault Rifles” are definatly in common use
Once you ban certain features, or configurations thereoff, it is no longer an “Assault Rifle” and they cant ban a weapon in common use…yet once those features are gone its no longer an ‘Assault Weapon’ and they just effectively banned it…
And in many states it has already been up for a vote without any fanfare. It got voted down, fortunately, in my state before I had even heard of it. And I follow these things. It is seen as favorable legislation in many locations, so someone better get their challenges ready.
Now this is not a “tax”, which is even more insidious. It is a regulatory requirement intended to drive the cost of ammunition up and make it difficult to obtain. Same result.
