President Obama to Sign Executive Action to Ban AR-15 Ammo

The Second Amendment is unlike other Amendments as it is the only one with the words "Shall Not Be Infringed" added for emphasis on the right the founders were elucidating into words. Anyone who's taken time to study the history knows the founders did not casually add or detract wording without explicit meaning.

Proposing banning of, banning of or regulating ammunition is an infringement on the Second Amendment period.

IMHO there are potentially Amendment 4, 9 and 10 issues with such a proposal as well.

Sure the OP found an article that incorrectly stated that an E.O. was issued and I concede that technical detail, however, Obama has provably provided the climate, motivation and political cover for ATF to violate Congressional intent by attempting to apply AP designation to rifle ammunition. Obama threatened to act this way and is indeed using all the levers available while enjoying the cover of the regulatory agencies involved.

There is a seemingly wholesale attack on the Second Amendment by this particular administration via regulatory fiat, Operation Choke Point, Reversal of lower manufacturing rules, reversal of rule covering SBR's, Attorney General approval of civil forfeiture by ATF (new story not yet in MSM) and of course the attempt to designate M855 as an AP round. Most of these items are since the last mid term elections.

I wonder that they go far enough to cause the pendulum to swing very far the other way and congress will neuter this agency, as I have heard talk of defunding it if it proceeds.

Where in the articles does it actually say Obama signed an E.O.?

The deflections are wild.

All I see are proposals.

The concern is the threatening proposals.



The Democrats' knees are shaking because the proposals haven't remained hidden and secret.

It's about time.
The last this country is more paranoid ammosexuals with unfettered access to assault rifles and ammo running around.

Isn't it only one specific .223 cartridge, not all .223 ammunition.

originally posted by: NotTooHappy
It's about time.
The last this country is more paranoid ammosexuals with unfettered access to assault rifles and ammo running around.

See here's what Beezzer is talking about. Why can't you have the sentiments of making fun of ammosexuals while still defending their rights? We ask them to do the same and complain when they don't.

Gun culture in America is screwed up. As a nation, we have a very unhealthy obsession with guns. Those are my opinions. Our rights are not held sway to my opinion, however, nor should they be. I will never vote to take away the 2nd amendment no matter how much I don't like to see guns in society. I'll vote to enhance access and make ownership safer but never to reduce the right.

originally posted by: NotTooHappy
It's about time.
The last this country is more paranoid ammosexuals with unfettered access to assault rifles and ammo running around.

Just as I would defend your right not to have a Department of Homeland Thought impose rules upon you forcing the use of only government approved words and ideas, you should not so blithely approve of limits on others rights.

The proposal is real. The "nudge" is real.

Someone posted that we should really start paying attention to what Obama's words and actions are. Even thought the US did not ratify the Small Arms Trade Treaty, we did sign it via John Kerry, our Secy. of State. Keep that in mind....it was signed by this globalist bunch we now have in power. Study the Articles of this treaty and you will find much to be concerned about should the demographics of our country be forcibly changed enough to "purchase" the ratification.

The soul of America is in jeopardy and when the 2A is weakened, this nation of the people, by the people, and for the people will be no more. Without the 2A, we are subjects rather than citizens.

Obama likes to use the back door. He likes to say one thing and actually DO another. He baffles with BS. He oversteps his authority with impunity. He wields the sword of executive action without fear of reprisal and counts on people's complacency.

You Have Till March 16th

originally posted by: roadgravel
Isn't it only one specific .223 cartridge, not all .223 ammunition.

And.......then what?????

All the other rifle cartridges that semi-auto pistols are chambered for - that's what!

Sure, sure, sure, some kind of ammo will be available so the government can claim its not an outright ban to get around constitutional concerns - so what right?

First off it creates artificial market shortages, a substantial increase in cost, leading to fewer sales of AR-15 type firearms and lessened proficiency by those who can no longer afford to practice with their firearm.

Doe's that not constitute infringement - if not I don't know what does.

I think Beezers idea of applying similar ban language to other amendments such as the first is wisdom for those who just don't get the point here.

Like i have kept sayin caliber by caliber round by round.
If people actually stood up individually for each amendment then it would be different,
The reason people defend as ammowhores is because once the guns are gone so is the freedom.
Im cuban and when fidel took over the first thing he did was ban firearms and ammo.
If the cuban people wouldnt have relinquished thier firearms there would be no castro regime!!!a reply to: Phoenix

a reply to: xuenchen

No ones knees are shaking out side of those that think the sky is falling over it.

It is not a deflection when the claim is this is by EO and people are asking to see the EO...

a reply to: Phoenix

Shall not be infringed:

-Unless your gun is scary looking
-Unless your ammo is armor piercing
-Unless your gun is automatic
-Unless your gun isn't single shot
-Unless your gun has a detachable magazine
-Unless your gun has a forend grip
-Unless your gun has a bayonette lug
-Unless your gun holds more than 5 rounds
-Unless your gun has a folding stock
-Unless your gun has a collapsable stock
-Unless your gun's barrell length is shorter than 16"
-Unless your ammo is lead


-Unless your gun has a lazer*
-Unless your gun has a flashlight*
-Unless your gun has a flash hider*
-Unless your gun is lounder than 100 dB levels*
-Unless your gun fires anything other than non lethal rounds*

*Indicates how stupid things can get if left to continue...


People just don't understand how chipping away at rights works. Maybe this might clear it up?

a reply to: Phoenix

Another thing to think about is why only armor-piercing? If it was about public safety, why not all of it? Armor-piercing round pose the same threat to you and I as standard rounds, right?

It's only to protect themselves from us. The average Joe isn't running around in Kevlar.

Now I'm definitely not one of "those" people (the bubba effect types) but it does make me wonder why there's such a concentrated push on armor-piercing.

a reply to: 4N0M4LY

It is criminal to deny a man the right to defend himself.
I'm going to the gun show tomorrow. That's

GUN SHOW ONTARIO CONVENTION CENTER, ONTARIO CALIFORNIA

originally posted by: Sremmos80

No ones knees are shaking out side of those that thing the sky is falling over it.

It is not a deflection when the claim is this is by EO and people are asking to see the EO...

The deflections are obvious.

The jealousies are obvious.

Obama is exposed again.

The proxies' knees are weak.

a reply to: Phoenix

Where was the big stink over other armor piercing rounds?

This ban is probably not going to do much for what it is intended though.

People are making it sound as if all ammo is banned. If the government decided to ban all then nothing can be done anyway. People should quite letting the same group of rich men run the country.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

No ones knees are shaking out side of those that thing the sky is falling over it.

It is not a deflection when the claim is this is by EO and people are asking to see the EO...

What does it matter whether it's by EO or not? The simple fact is that it doesn't matter. It's happening with the explicit consent of Obama. If it wasn't, he'd be telling them to stop.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes the deflections are quite obvious..

Not sure who is jealous, or what there is to jealous of and feel free to expose him, cause that is what everyone is asking.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

No ones knees are shaking out side of those that thing the sky is falling over it.

It is not a deflection when the claim is this is by EO and people are asking to see the EO...

People need an effigy to burn. They always have.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Cause there is a difference, if it is by EO then he is bypassing everyone.
If it is not then it is not just him that is doing it but our gov as a whole, as in congress.

I doubt this is going to go anywhere any way, in the stance of using your weapons to defeat a tyrannical gov I see this as something that can't happen.

a reply to: roadgravel

Most AP ammunition is made specifically to penetrate armor. For instance a teflon coating, hardened steel, or tungesten insert.

This ban that the ATF is calling for, is wide sweeping. What they call "ball ammo" is known to civilians as "full metal jacket" or FMJ ammunition.

Labeling M855, aka "ball ammo", aka "FMJ", ammunition as armor piercing, effectively bans it completely.