The General American Politics Thread

[Tornado]

I'm wondering who is going to be the face of the parties a couple years from now, which is usually the most interesting thing to come from midterm elections.

 

 

 

 

 

Boehner is on the outs (not that he ever had a chance of running), and was on the outs even before this stunt after that fracas in a couple of the primaries showed that his power base isn't as strong as it seemed to be two years ago; so the people who associated with him who may have run could be screwed.. The former repeated names (most notably Jeb Bush) seem pretty quaint now that they have to worry about keeping their influence in light of a resurgence of the Tea Party fringe groups; though I suppose that hinges more on how those groups do in the actual elections.

 

Hilary is persona non grata now that its basically evident following the release of her book that she was always a complete sociopath; and no good times nostalgia love for Bill is going to overcome that when the primaries role around. Obama may very well be damaged goods two years from now to the extent that disassociating from him is the better option; because as well as he's dealt with the Ukraine mess (working to kick Russia out of G8 was a stroke of brilliance), the new Iraq mess is a no win scenario for anyone currently involved in it and is much more relevant to Americans than that country more people probably remember from a Seinfeld episode than anything else. That leaves third stringers at the moment, since so much of Obama's current working group is made up of people who probably would have run or have run in the past.

[Patticus]

Out of curiosity... just who are these third stringers whom you believe stand a chance of becoming household names between now and the next election? I'm sure you don't have a complete list of them, of course, but could you provide an example? Here's hoping that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are among them, in any case.

[Tornado]

Andrew Cuomo is a fairly big name who managed to pass a few things on the state level that were on Obama's agenda but failed despite similarly ferocious opposition, but he seems to want to just be governor right now.

 

Martin O'Malley has actually admitted to planning on running, which is out of left field considering how much pussying around potential candidates this far away from an election, and ordinarily he would be one of the more major candidates just like Hilary in 2008, but his viability as a real candidate hinges entirely on whether the current proposed gasoline tax increase floating around Congress is passed. If it is, he might be able to ride it out. If it isn't, he'd have a hard time carrying any state away from the coasts.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

EDIT: Fine I will do my research into this stuff more carefully before I go guns blazing with my outrage.

 

But I still intend to go guns blazing if it's justified.

[Tornado]

Except for the part where that's not what the Supreme Court said. What the Supreme Court said was that, when there is sufficient reasoning to object to it (like, for example, if your small retaier is owned and founded by Mennonites or you work in a chain of Christian book stores), closely held (in this context meaning family owned) companies that have more than 50 employees and are for profit can take advantage of the programs already in place that the government provides for companies that normally would be exempt from Obamacare anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Try to put a bit more effort the next time you post an egregious abuse of rights or some shit than a link to an obscenely biased online petition and a couple sentences expressing your outrage at the bullshit it's spewing.

[Tani Coyote]

Suing the President? Oh, this should make for good ratings on CSPAN.

 

In all seriousness... a lot of people cry abuse at a President not enforcing laws or using Executive Orders. Ignoring Obama's reasons for doing so... there's this thing called checks and balances. We are not Parliamentary, but Congress is ultimately the strongest branch just like in any Parliamentary state. They can remove Justices that cause problems, as well as the President. They don't even need to go that far, and can simply reduce the funding of certain agencies, or outright put agencies under Congressional control rather than Presidential.

 

The President's ability to act (or not act) unilaterally is important. So is the ability of Congress to rein in any abuse by the Presidency and courts.

 

People see a President not enforcing laws as some criminal behavior. Last I checked, civil rights leaders have often broken laws as well, but I doubt many people would criticize them for that. This criticism is a matter of political convenience.

 

Boehner and co. are just incompetent to use the tools given to them. If Obama is genuinely being abusive, no amount of party affiliation is going to stop him from being impeached, overruled by the Courts, or otherwise handicapped by funding controls.

 

Conclusion: he's not being abusive. Not anymore than George Bush or other Presidents have been. They want him to be the new Nixon, but despite all the crap that's gone wrong with his term, he's not even close.

[Tani Coyote]

A double post, but because this time around I wish to address the Hobby Lobby case since I had only glanced over it before and it didn't really come to my attention until my mother discussed it with me over coffee. For reference, she is a woman who is adamantly against abortion, but she is fully supportive of birth control and finds this ruling very misogynistic in consequences if not intent.

 

Her main concern was this could go beyond birth control and extend into rulings on many matters. Sure, the decision itself states that it only applies to birth control... but Ginsburg raises a good point. What's the justification for stopping there? It's unfair to give some religious views weight and not do the same for others. Normally when religion is overruled, it's because of the public interest... but research is quite clear in saying that birth control serves the public interest by keeping many people out of poverty; "abstinence only" is highly idealistic nonsense that doesn't even come close to the reality of your average relationship.

 

My view? When you obtain your business license, the government gains the right to regulate everything you do in the course of business. If you don't like your personal views being marginalized... don't go into business. Sounds unfair, but you likely have a lot more money than anyone else so really can't complain about the arrangement. You could be one of the many millions of people who barely scrape by on their meager paychecks, but you're not. I'm sorry your religious views are being "oppressed," but it's a small price to pay to be part of the socioeconomic elite. I used to be part of the rabid propertarian crowd as well, but then I realized how much businesses owe to society for their success, and thus the government which maintains that society. It justifies higher taxation, and it also justifies regulations, I think.

 

And I say that as a businessman myself. I happily follow those laws and pay those fees and taxes, because I know I'm better off in the long run for it. I may gripe about how stupid I think certain fees and rules are (I'm looking at you San Francisco), but I still follow them.

 

So. Either turn in your license, or give women their birth control. I think we both know which one is in the company's interests.

[Patticus]

Cases involving the religious bigotry, or otherwise religiously clothed anti-government stances of business owners, are lining up to take shots at the ACA:

 

Danger sign: The Supreme Court has already expanded Hobby Lobby decision

The Becket Fund, the religious law firm that represented Hobby Lobby in its legal case, lists 49 pending federal cases in which for-profit companies have brought purportedly religious objections to the ACA. An additional 51 cases involve nonprofit organizations. The floodgates aren't about to open--they're already open. 

 

[...]

 

For example, the Korte family, which owns an Illinois construction company, refuses to pay for or support not only "contraceptives, sterilization, abortion, (or) abortion-inducing drugs," but "related education and counseling." (Emphasis added.) In other words, if a woman asks her doctor for advice on reproductive options, the consultation may not be covered. 

 

In a case involving the Gilardi family, owners of an Ohio produce firm, Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the Washington, D.C., circuit appeals court wrote in a 2-1 decision overturning the mandate that "this case is not about the sincerity of the Gilardis’ religious beliefs, nor does it concern the theology behind Catholic precepts on contraception. The former is unchallenged, while the latter is unchallengeable."

 

But why should that be? If the only requisite for an exemption from this important mandate is a religious claim, why should it not be subject to challenge? Otherwise, how do we limit the exemption only to those with genuinely religious scruples?

[...]

Allowing exemptions to a federal law based on "unchallenged" and "unchallengeable" claims of subjective belief is the antithesis of secular law. That may be why religious exemptions have been handed out very carefully, until now.

The minimal rule should be, if you want one, prove you deserve it. In the past, courts have been loath to conduct such inquiries, because they can lead down a bottomless, subjective rabbit hole. But the Supreme Court has now turned claims of subjective belief into an enormous loophole. Somewhere, a court may try to narrow that loophole so not just anyone can fit through it. That's bad for the law, and it may be bad for religion, too.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1

 

Nice going, SCOTUS, you just opened up a whole a can of worms that'll take a very long time to deal with, if it even can be. It is quite depressing to see this shit unfolding the way it is.

 

 

While I'm here:

 

Following the recent Hobby Lobby ruling, a group of religious leaders wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday asking to be exempt from a pending executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in hiring practices, reported The Atlantic.

“We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need,” the letter says, according to The Atlantic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/religious-leaders-want-exemption-hiring-lgbt-peopl/

 

So, is this going to be the status quo, post-Hobby Lobby? The religious right probing away at the margins, trying to get even more special protections for themselves from certain laws, all the while complaining about being persecuted? I don't understand why being religious entitles you to the privilege of ignoring the laws of the land.

 

 

Oh, and:

 

3 Lies About Birth Control That Were Just Reinforced By The Hobby Lobby Ruling

1. Birth control is the same thing as abortion.

 

The entire legal challenge against the Obama administration was based on the fundamental lie that certain types of FDA-approved contraception can end a pregnancy. The plaintiffs in this suit took the unscientific stance that pregnancy begins at fertilization and certain types of contraception, like the morning after pill and IUDs, are “abortion-inducing” because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. But according to the legal definition of pregnancy, a woman is not actually considered to be pregnant until a fertilized egg is implanted in her uterine lining — so anything that inhibits ovulation, fertilization, or implantation is defined as birth control. And on top of that, there’s evidence that those types of contraception don’t actually prevent implantation in the first place.

 

The justices who joined the Court’s 5-4 opinion didn’t appear to be concerned about scientific evidence, however. Monday’s decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, simply allows the business owners to follow their own definition of abortion. “The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients,” he writes. “If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions.”

 

Without challenging the plaintiffs’ definition of what constitutes an abortion or an abortion-inducing drug, the Supreme Court has essentially allowed unscientific beliefs about birth control to carry the weight of the law.

 

2. Birth control should be separated from other types of medical services.

Hobby Lobby opponents have been concerned about the case’s implication for services beyond contraception, pointing out that other companies might cite their religious beliefs to refuse coverage for vaccinations, blood transfusions, or services for transgender individuals. The Court briefly attempted to quell those concerns, specifying that Monday’s decision “concerns only the contraceptive mandate” and shouldn’t be interpreted to apply to other services like vaccines.

That’s perhaps well-intentioned, but it brings up questions about what exactly makes birth control different from those other health services. Why should it be singled out? Why do female employees need a workaround to access their reproductive health care? Why are employers allowed to refuse coverage for services that solely affect women, but not other medical interventions that serve the public good, like vaccinations?

 

“It is completely inappropriate and unacceptable for women to be expected to look to some special out of the usual way of accommodating what is a core and basic health care need,” Marcia Greenberg, the co-president at the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement provided to Vox regarding the Hobby Lobby decision.

 

This artificial divide already exists between abortion services and the rest of women’s health care, and it’s something that has effectively undermined women’s access to abortion. Segregating birth control in this way threatens to have similar consequences for the 99 percent of U.S. women who use contraception at some point in their lives.

 

3. It’s easier for the government to pay for people’s birth control so that companies don’t have to.

 

In his opinion, Alito suggests that the government could simply “assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections.” That may sound like a reasonable compromise. But in the context of our current insurance system, it doesn’t necessarily make much sense.

 

First of all, as Amanda Marcotte argues in RH Reality Check, separating out everyone’s birth control coverage from the rest of their private insurance plans actually could make things much more complicated within our employer-sponsored insurance model. Insurers would need to implement new billing processes. Women may need to make a special “contraception only” trip to the doctor to get their government-funded prescriptions filled. The myth that birth control is somehow different from the rest of women’s health care would become even further entrenched.

 

And, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg writes in her dissent to Monday’s opinion, the government’s safety net system for affordable contraception can’t necessarily accommodate more women. The Title X program is currently the publicly-funded family planning program that’s supposed to help low-income women afford their reproductive health care. But it’s been plagued with rounds of budget cuts in states across the country — often led by Republican lawmakers who oppose the idea of taxpayer funded birth control — and it’s struggling to provide care for all the women who need help. As a result, unintended pregnancies have become increasingly concentrated among poor women who lack access to birth control.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3454815/birth-control-lies-hobby-lobby-ruling/

 

Well done, SCOTUS. Well done. Bravo! Dicks.

[Tani Coyote]

It really is sad that the dissent has been proven right. The majority opinion tried to say "oh this will only apply to birth control," but there really is no logical reason to stop religious protections there.

I hope the SCOTUS show reason as they have in numerous other cases (such as upholding ACA despite conservative leanings), see where this is going, and quickly reverse their original decision. Of course that involves admitting they were wrong, and we all know how much human beings love doing that.

On the other hand, I don't think the conservative supporters of this decision are reading at what Alito suggests there. He technically just endorsed single payer by stating the government (not private insurance) should pay for birth control. Why stop there?

On a completely different topic...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/six-californias-residents-poised-to-vote-on-splitting-up-state/

If I'm not mistaken, South California, Central California, and Jefferson would lean Republican or at least be highly competitive, and that would probably help convince the House GOP to approve of the split. There's no way in Hell they'd give ten new Senate seats to the region unless a good deal of them will swing GOP. Partisanship is the new free state versus slave state.

[shdowhunt60]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/12/the-nra-even-more-ridiculous-than-usual/

Well, this is a fucking debacle.

The way the ATF determines how ammo is indeed armor piercing is astoundingly retarded. It's based on bullet composition, instead of, you know, how it actually performs against body armor. While it's true that 5.56 will go through level IIA body armor... So will just about every damned rifle cartridge. Level IIA only stops standard handgun rounds, it's very light daily use armor.

The truth is, is that even M855 is no more armor piercing than any other commonly available 5.56 ammo out there. The armor that's actually rated to stop calibres like it, will still stop it. And quite honestly, M855 is shit, its made to terribly low standards and has an awful reputation for being horribky inaccurate. People buy it because it's cheap.

Oh, and I'm also wondering how many cops out there have been killed by this stuff. Because, God knows, the streets are teeming with thugs that conceal fucking AR-15s. Good God, Liberals astound me.

[Tornado]

What handgun can shoot .223? It's gotta be humongous.

[shdowhunt60]

What handgun can shoot .223? It's gotta be humongous.

Quite.

What the ATF considers to be a "handgun" is a weapon that's designed to be fired with one hand. That sounds fine at first, till you see people do stuff like this

http://youtu.be/veWGl-5lx-o

Oh look, that gentleman can shoot an AK-47 with one hand. Gee, that must make it a pistol. Well, shit, that definition no longer works, so let's add some arbitrary definitions, and say that it must also be less than 26' long AND it cannot have a buttstock.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the AR-15 pistol.

"But that's a rifle"

No it isn't. It can be fired with one hand, is less than 26 inches long, and has a barrel shorter then 16 inches, and also has no buttstock. It is considered by the ATF to be a pistol, and this in no way opens any sort of legal can of words.

Except it does.

You see, what's going on now, is that back in the 80s they banned "armor piercing ammunition" in pistols, because "they could be used to kill cops".

... While ignoring the myriad different ways that one could theoretically kill a cop, but that's beside the point. The point is, is that they basically said that bullets of certain composition cannot be made for a pistol cartridge, because that would theoretically allow it to penetrate body armor commonly worn by police.

So, do you see where all these blurring and intersecting lines here cause problems? The ATF's definitions of what's a pistol and what's a rifle, and what is considered armor piercing are so arbitrary that it creates a plethora of loopholes and gray area where things are so unclear that its basically guesswork and whosay that what's what at this point.

And that's precisely what's going on here. The ATF is being completely arbitrary on purpose and trying to abuse laws that make absolutely no sense, to try and loophole gun control in, because they realize there is no way they can actually legislate it.

[Patticus]

What possible reason is there for any law-abiding gun owner to have armor-piercing rounds? Not many burglars, deer or turkey wear Kevlar, and those who do probably don't wear military-grade body armor or use APCs for getaway vehicles. It seems like common sense to outlaw ridiculous shit like that, for which there is no call.

 

Or is this more about the principle of regulating firearms, than the practical everyday need to pierce armor? You see, I have no idea why the far-right wants to completely deregulate firearms. It seems absolutely irresponsible to me, since if I were in a position for power, I'd be legislating increased training requirements, psych checks and tiered, weapon-specific licensing tied to weapon-specific training. Gun safes in every owner's home, discipline and maintenance knowledge instilled in every owner, periodic exams to make sure Mr. John Doe hasn't developed a drug habit, had serious economic misfortune or mental issues since he was last in. Maybe mandatory ownership with opt-out and non-lethal options tied into all of that.

[Tani Coyote]

What possible reason is there for any law-abiding gun owner to have armor-piercing rounds?

To rebel against an oppressive government, of course! Not that it will do much good against you know, jets, drones, tanks, etc.

Maybe if a person has served in the military or police force I can see reason for allowing them to own one, but the average joe? I don't think they really need assault weapons.

I'm all for mandatory ownership and all as a means of deterrence, but I don't think the common break in is with military-grade hardware.

But anyway, government regulatory bodies being dumb? What else is new. As far as I know there isn't a requirement for regulatory heads to even know what the hell they're regulating on.

[shdowhunt60]

What possible reason is there for any law-abiding gun owner to have armor-piercing rounds? Not many burglars, deer or turkey wear Kevlar, and those who do probably don't wear military-grade body armor or use APCs for getaway vehicles. It seems like common sense to outlaw ridiculous shit like that, for which there is no call.

 

Or is this more about the principle of regulating firearms, than the practical everyday need to pierce armor? You see, I have no idea why the far-right wants to completely deregulate firearms. It seems absolutely irresponsible to me, since if I were in a position for power, I'd be legislating increased training requirements, psych checks and tiered, weapon-specific licensing tied to weapon-specific training. Gun safes in every owner's home, discipline and maintenance knowledge instilled in every owner, periodic exams to make sure Mr. John Doe hasn't developed a drug habit, had serious economic misfortune or mental issues since he was last in. Maybe mandatory ownership with opt-out and non-lethal options tied into all of that.

What does this have to do with anything? What I need or don't need is none of your damn business, but that's entirely besides the point. The point is, what's considered armor piercing by the ATF is fucking arbitrary, and irresponsible legislation is being used for backdoor gun control to ban ammunition that's not designed to be armor piercing, nor has any armor piercing properties beyond what's concerned the norm for contemporary ammunition.

Thank you for taking absolutely no fucking time to understand anything that's going on in context to take yet another piss attempt to go "HURR DURR STUPID REPUBLICANS CLINGING TO THEIR GUNZ LOL".

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Thank you for taking absolutely no fucking time to understand anything that's going on in context to take yet another piss attempt to go "HURR DURR STUPID REPUBLICANS CLINGING TO THEIR GUNZ LOL".

Considering how high the gun crime in America compared to other developed countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, hell even China, that's actually a fair point Patticus made, and I'm someone who is pro-gun ownership.

 

And mind you, while the left has some who are downright hypersensitive about having guns around at all, it's not like the right views on gun ownership aren't as problematic enough to give them cause for their sensitivity, and Patticus' point about gun control are pretty damn tame compared to either camp. Not so sure about the part on armor piercers tho - if it can't pierce standard kevlar body armor...then how in the hell does that count as armor piercing?

[shdowhunt60]

Considering how high the gun crime in America compared to other developed countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, hell even China, that's actually a fair point Patticus made, and I'm someone who is pro-gun ownership.

 

And mind you, while the left has some who are downright hypersensitive about having guns around at all, it's not like the right views on gun ownership aren't as problematic enough to give them cause for their sensitivity, and Patticus' point about gun control are pretty damn tame compared to either camp. Not so sure about the part on armor piercers tho - if it can't pierce standard kevlar body armor...then how in the hell does that count as armor piercing?

Again, what does this have to do with anything? Next to nobody uses AR-15s with or without M855 ammunition to shoot at cops. Hell, rifles alone are borderline almost never used in crimes.

This is a solution in search of a problem.

I happen to have rifle ammunition that would fall under the ATF's definition of armor piercing, not because it actually has any armor penetrative qualities (it doesn't), but because they have a mild steel core. This ammo is no more armor piercing out there than in comparison to any other rifle ammo, but because of it's bullet composition, if the ATF decides arbitrarily that it's pistol ammunition, I could be in a position to buy ammo like this.

Hell, they HAVE banned ammo like this. Just last year they reclassified 5.45x39 as pistol ammunition, and banned 7n6 because it has a mild steel core.

This is the point here. The ATF is going around and classifying ammunition as being pistol ammunition, so they can declare certain types of ammunition as being "armor piercing" ammunition.

I am not talking about owning actual armor piercing ammo. That's not what it is. This is common ball ammo that people buy, because it's cheap and available, and not because it actually is designed to penetrate armor.

[Tornado]

Thank you for taking absolutely no fucking time to understand anything that's going on in context to take yet another piss attempt to go "HURR DURR STUPID REPUBLICANS CLINGING TO THEIR GUNZ LOL".

While what you are saying is correct, and I will probably explain it in detail when I get home, there really is no excuse to go off on another member like this. It is very frustrating to see members consistently not understand points regarding firearms and minutiae, but it is very rarely a deliberate action and you shouldn't automatically treat it as such; certainly not in such an abusive manner.

You also should, in the future, bring up sources that are less full of shit. It just makes your job harder when you argue against editorials that are already widely twisting things against what you are saying without an objective source to argue from yourself.

[shdowhunt60]

While what you are saying is correct, and I will probably explain it in detail when I get home, there really is no excuse to go off on another member like this. It is very frustrating to see members consistently not understand points regarding firearms and minutiae, but it is very rarely a deliberate action and you shouldn't automatically treat it as such; certainly not in such an abusive manner.

You also should, in the future, bring up sources that are less full of shit. It just makes your job harder when you argue against editorials that are already widely twisting things against what you are saying without an objective source to argue from yourself.

Sorry, but it's hard not to take it as being deliberate when someolbody else starts talking about something completely different from what you are talking about, and using that as an opportunity to sit there and shit-talk. And it's hard not to take it as deliberate when this is something done repeatedly.

Yes, I could've taken a not-bullshit source, but at the same time what they're talking about is not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about owning armor piercing subject. I'm talking about ammo that's being classified as armor piercing, when it is in fact not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oabwuyEgIKI

[Patticus]

I apologize for my post, I misunderstood what you said and assumed that it was a legislative issue. When guns are brought up  in conversations nowadays, the subject is usually how x person or y group is trying to take them away, or how x, y and z legislators are pushing for further deregulation.

 

Anyway, what about at 15 yards or 10 yards? Is there a certain short distance at which bullets can penetrate armor, after which point they no longer can, or is it always armor piercing, be it from 2 yards or 32 yards?

[Tara]

Sorry, but it's hard not to take it as being deliberate when someolbody else starts talking about something completely different from what you are talking about, and using that as an opportunity to sit there and shit-talk. And it's hard not to take it as deliberate when this is something done repeatedly.

Yes, I could've taken a not-bullshit source, but at the same time what they're talking about is not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about owning armor piercing subject. I'm talking about ammo that's being classified as armor piercing, when it is in fact not.

You're going to have to assume the better of other members, then, instead of contributing to the alleged circle jerking.  Regardless, a lack of source still ultimately discredits your source, regardless of discrepancies and misunderstandings.  You won't last long in any sort of sociopolitical debate here if you don't provide some kind of backing for your argument.  So please do try to shape up on that in the future, especially if you're going to rebut any requests for a source with a dismissive "sorry, but no" attitude.

[shdowhunt60]

I apologize for my post, I misunderstood what you said and assumed that it was a legislative issue. When guns are brought up  in conversations nowadays, the subject is usually how x person or y group is trying to take them away, or how x, y and z legislators are pushing for further deregulation.

 

Anyway, what about at 15 yards or 10 yards? Is there a certain short distance at which bullets can penetrate armor, after which point they no longer can, or is it always armor piercing, be it from 2 yards or 32 yards?

Sorry about the misunderstanding then.

Well, that's the problem. It doesn't really have to do with the composition of the bullet or the distance. It has to do with velocity. Ask anyone who's ever developed a penetrator for tank armor, the secret for any kinetic energy penetrator, it's speed that goes through hard armor.

Also too, there's also the nature of armor that we need to talk about. What kind of projectiles is the armor supposed to stop? If we're talking about police body armor, that's only designed to stop pistol bullets, then of course something like M855 is going to go through it. It's a rifle cartridge. It doesn't matter what the bullet is made out of, it's gonna go right though it.

And that's what the ATF is trying to do here. They're saying "this ammo can be fired in pistols, it can go through police body armor. It has steel in its construction, so we should ban it".

They did this before with a lot of imported ammo, because a lot of countries use steel as opposed to lead cores because it's cheaper. Notably the Russians.

The ATF defines Armor Piercing not because it actually is armor piercing. They define armor piercing by the projectiles composition.

http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/guides/gun-control-act-definition-ammunition

M855 was previously exempted, because it doesn't have a steel core, it has a steel tip. The actual bullet core is still lead.

[Burnt Ash]

I figure a lot of you know this by now, but Hillary Clinton's officially announced that she's running for president:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-campaign.html?_r=0

[Patticus]

Here comes the wild misogyny, Benghazi rehashes, deleted e-mail shit and more. No doubt they'll whip out the thing she said about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, too.

 

The fact that they are already banging the anti-Hillary drum shows that they are terrified of her and are trying to put her on the defensive from day one to compensate.

[Burnt Ash]

Yeah she has a lot of mistrust to fight against. I was looking at the DNC's facebook page and their attack ads really make it seem that they're scared of Rand Paul.