Santorum: Armor-piercing bullets are ‘a right in our country’

[AgingAmerican]

World Net Daily columnist and former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday insisted that Americans were entitled to armor-piercing bullets because they are “a right in our country.”

The Pennsylvania Republican told an ABC News panel that conservatives “should stick to our guns” and oppose President Barack Obama’s efforts to curb gun violence in the wake of the slaughter of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut.

...

“Armor-piercing bullets, why do you need that?” Granholm interrupted.

“Why do you need to protect Hollywood?” Santorum shot back.

“You’re deflecting,” Granholm observed. “Deer don’t wear armor. Why do you need an armor-piercing bullet?”

“But criminals could,” Santorum quipped.

“And police officers certainly do,” Granholm noted.

More Here...

So, we need armor piercing bullets? Regular bullets don't kill people dead enough? Would Jesus use armor piercing bullets?

[Brother Buzz]

1. Well, Santorum would certainly have had John Dillinger and Clyde Barrow's support

[sasha031]

2. my question is why what was this POS doing on This Week??

[DollarBillHines]

8. Exactly. It just points to the irrelevancy of MSM. nt

[cthulu2016]

3. Santorum is wrong in the same way the"well regulated militia" crowd are wrong

There is very little mystery what the 2nd Amendment means in American law.

There is much debate about what it ought ot mean, but since we got two Supreme Court decisions clarifying the court's stance only two years ago there is little debate in what it means as a governor of actual law and policy.

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee a right to armor-piercing shells. Santorum is free to argue that it should receive that interpretation.

It also does not apply only to a well regulated militia, though anyone is free to argue that it should receive that interpretation.


It means, in terms of assessing real-world law and policy in 2013, what the Supreme Court said it means.

[Thinkingabout]

4. Santorum proclaims to be Pro-life but wants any and all to have WMD's which abort lives.

He can not have it both ways, to protect rights to guns designed to kill makes him Pro-Abortion. He needs to wear this title as long as he is unwilling to regulate weapons. He has talked about his children, how would he feel if he was notified one or more of his children was gunned down. He is just running and talking gun crazy. Rick Santorum, die hard abortionist.

[zbdent]

5. Like any Rethug/Con/Tbagger, when cornered on his logic ...

refuses to answer the question.

[SummerSnow]

6. Santorum is a stupid male.I left out "man" on purpose.

[datasuspect]

7. diahrrea is good

[BlancheSplanchnik]

65. take a wide stance, there, RickO

Lolol!

I LuLlzed! Yep, third grade sense of humor. I haz it.

[AlinPA]

9. That stance should help him with the GOP base in 2016.

[struggle4progress]

10. How can I fuggin protect myself from my fuggin neighbors without havin a fuggin nuclear weapon?

Oh, I know you think they all look and act like nice people but my neighbors are actually fuggin dangerous crazy blood-thirsty killers

[Recursion]

11. Counterintuitively, they're less deadly than softer bullets

But, yeah, there's certainly no specific right to them.

[MNBrewer]

13. even if you're armored?

[Recursion]

14. No, not then

But for those of us who aren't.

[backscatter712]

25. IIRC, armor-piercing rounds go straight through you...

while other bullets deform, spin & otherwise do things that cause more damage to flesh.

Hollow point bullets, in particular, are designed to deform into a sort of mushroom shape, and in the process, cause tremendous damage to flesh. Soldiers are banned from carrying them on the battlefield by the Geneva Convention.

You know, that may be a legitimate proposal. Ban armor-piercing bullets, but also ban hollow-point rounds. Get people carrying FMJ only.

[Autumn]

12. How in fucking hell have we got the the point in this Country that

people ACTUALLY vote for these fucking dumb ass fucking idiots? I don't know anyone stupid enough, and that includes republicans that I know that would vote for someone like this. What the fuck is wrong here

[Gidney N Cloyd]

46. He did hold on in the primaries quite a while as the 'anti-Mitt.'

No shortage of dumbasses who can vote. And no shortage of millionaires to finance campaigns of dumbasses. Scary.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Armor piercing bullets - as recommended on DU for home defense

Alternated with hollow point bullets for 'stopping power', of course: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2145794

It's not just Santorum and his supporters we have to worry about.

[Canuckistanian]

19. Wow

DUers advocating for hollow points, the most destructive bullets in human firepower history.

I don't understand this lust for killing. I really don't.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. Hollow-points are inherently safer for legitimate self defense.

a) overpenetration. A hollowpoint is designed to come to a stop in the target. That is why police carry them - so rounds don't go right through the bad guy and unintentionally into someone/something else.

b) If you have a legitimate life-threatening situation where you are trying to STOP a perpetrator immediately - the hollow point will do it faster.

I would have to think the most destructive and inhumane bullets would have to be Depleted Uranium Armor Piercing Incendiary.

[backscatter712]

27. I'm for banning hollow point bullets.

They're deliberately designed to destroy as much flesh as possible.

In fact, soldiers are banned from using them on the battlefield by the Geneva convention.

Put me in favor of making civilians carry FMJ rounds.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. Then they will just invent something else.

Expanding FMJ, Sintered FMJ, Fragmenting... if you ban it, you'll just end up getting another variant out there that's 100% legal. Until you ban that. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[backscatter712]

36. Fine. Ban any round designed to expand, fragment, or tumble on impact.

Bullets already do enough damage. You don't need a round that gratuitously adds to the carnage.

[NickB79]

41. What you propose would be a buckshot cartridge

A load of buckshot doesn't expand, fragment or tumble, since the balls are round.

It's also absolutely the most devastating round to be hit by inside 25 yards, causing far, far more damage than any hollowpoint bullet could.

[backscatter712]

45. Then delagate the regulatory details to the DOJ and relevant regulatory agencies.

They already have scientists and ballistics experts, they INVENTED ballistics gel. Come up with a specification on how a bullet is supposed to behave when it hits ballistic gel, dead pigs, whatever. A specification that is designed to ban ammunition that is engineered to do much other than make a nice clean hole. There's a reason why we have agencies with regulatory power delegated to them, and a process for rule-making, so when people try to game the system to circumvent a law that bans them from doing what they're doing, they can revise the rules as necessary.

[NickB79]

48. If I'm hunting, I don't want a nice clean hole

I want a big, bloody wound cavity so that the animal I just shot is dead on the ground rather than slowly bleeding to death or dying from sepsis in the bushes somewhere.

Seriously, if everyone who keeps calling for the support of responsible, reasonable gun owners who use their guns for hunting is sincere, this is a big gaping flaw that must be addressed. I don't know how it is in your home state, but up here in the Midwest deer hunting is almost a religion unto itself. If laws were passed that inadvertently impacted the ability of hunters to bag a buck in the fall, the political blowback would be huge.

[Bandit]

64. I don't know about most hunters but I hunt for meat not sport.

I don't want any meat spoiled by being blown away from a bullet. They don't run very far if hit in a vital area....

[NickB79]

35. They're the most humane round available for hunting

When you shoot a game animal, you want to do as much damage as possible to ensure it bleeds out rapidly and doesn't suffer. In fact, it is ILLEGAL to hunt game with non-expanding rounds, like FMJ's.

[backscatter712]

40. And they're completely unacceptable to use against people. n/t

[NickB79]

43. How do you propose we accomodate hunters?

Like I said, it's illegal and inhumane to hunt with FMJ's. What would you propose to use in place of expanding ammo so that the tens of millions of hunters out there would still be able to hunt?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. I don't think FMJ is illegal for hunting, is it?

I've never never seen someone stupid enough to choose FMJ over a softpoint, hardcast, ballistic-tip, or hollowpoint... but it's not illegal is it?

[NickB79]

54. Here is what Minnesota hunting requirements say

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/regulations/hunting/legalcartridges.html

It is at least .220 caliber and has center fire ignition;
It is loaded only with single projectile ammunition;
The projectile used has a soft point or is an expanding bullet type;*

So, that rules out FMJ bullets here, but DOES make it legal to use an AR-15 for deer hunting since it uses a .224 caliber bullet.

[aikoaiko]

16. Why are we talking about armor piercing ammo ?

What next -- rehash teflon bullets?



There are already laws minimizing the availability of armor piercing bullets. There are mostly old stock be resold at gun shows and those are dwindling away.

Have armor piercing bullets been used in any big shootings lately?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. ANY hunting rifle will punch through NIJ IIIa body armor. More woo woo from anti-gunners.

I don't see the big deal about "armor piercing bullets". Any rifle round in america (aside from the .22LR rimfire) will punch through a standard NIJ IIIa vest like a hot knife through butter. This rings true whether you're shooting a Bushmaster .223 or an 1863 Sharps 45-70.

Rifle & shotgun rounds travel much faster than pistol rounds (longer barrel & more powder). Bullets with high velocity have disproportionately more kinetic energy (KE is related to the velocity squared). Kinetic energy concentrated in a small area is ultimately what defeats body armor.

Now, are there "Armor Penetrating" rated bullets? Yes - and they cut through a police vest easily too.
Is there body armor designed to stop rifle rounds? Yes - and that armor generally stops AP rifle too.
Moral of the story? Police vests (or any other IIIa armor) pretty much only stop most (not all) handguns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I guess cops should start wearing

EOD armor...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. If I were a cop, I wouldn't. My level IV ceramic plates with IIIa kevlar backing is like 45-50lbs.

It's not so much the weight that's annoying as the lack of torso mobility.
But hey, it'll stop multiple .30-06 AP rounds fired point blank! Which would still probably hurt like a MFer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. You forget, your armor is MILITARY ONLY.

So what is the other solution? Hmm..I wonder.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

49. Umm, no. Here's a civilian website that sells vests, plates and carriers:

They sell bulletproof backpacks and breifcases too as well as dog bodyarmor, if my memory serves me well. There are no federal restrictions on domestic body armor possesion - only ITAR restrictions. Some states do restrict it though.

http://www.bulletproofme.com/

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Hmm hmmm I guess it's time to transform

CONUS into a real combat zone. And it is not allowed in some states. That is owning body armor, and police departments buy it.

You guys will do all you can to not restrict anything. So let me make it crystal clear. The AR platform, or the Ak for that matter, do not belong in civilian hands.

Is that clear enough? There are plenty of older weapons that are more than sufficient for hunting and home defense, really.

The AR or the Ak, or any future platform deriving from new research military platforms, to cover our asses, does not belong in civilian hands.

Now if you somehow manage to drop the effective ROF to one a second, a round a second, sure...it can. Limit your magazines to hunting legal...sure. So it is nothing personal to looks. You want to own a macho looking gun that is not going to do what it does, no detachable magazine, no ability to change parts so it can chamber other ammo, none of that nonesense...be my guest.

In many ways people have had it with the minority of the minority that want nothing to change. And I say this as a gun owner.

So you understand this now? This is where most of us are. We want an AWB...period.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

57. Umm, all I did was point out that AP ammo is a silly distraction tactic and

that civilians can own body armor. Two technical points that were relevent to the posts I responded to. I never took a stance or outlayed a personal opinon on anything regarding restrictions (or wanting a lack of restrictions) in this subthread. You need to take an internet break... I'm not sure why you're getting all irrational, here, and projecting onto others.

I'm not even sure How you managed to drag civillian AK/AR possession into this thread. The thread is about armor peircing ammunition, which I do believe there is a restriction on already from the 80's or 90's - no handgun AP ammo and no new rifle AP ammo (only old leftover bullets on the market). It sounds like your biggest gripe lies with technological advancement and the inability to govern The People's inginuity in regards to working around poorly written, ignorantly conceived and ill-performing legislation.

As to your mini-diatribe on minorities and "We want an AWB...period", I don't give a shit who "we" is or what they want. Rights are recognized inherently protect the minority. That's the point; so a majority of We's/Wanter's demands don't trample the rights and actions of minority groups. So unless "we" includes enough people to repeal 2nd amendment protections then Have a nice day, you're concerns are noted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Simple...the right to life, the right to assemble.

Is also protected. I really am tired of having to think what if...somebody brings an assault rifle to a theater. I really am tired of thinking about every time we get an emergency involving gun play that t may be another mass shooting.

You want to hunt, by all means, you do not need an AR-15 or an Ak or any future weapon.

Relevant my ass. When even retired Generals tell you they have no place in the civilian word, time for you or wake the fuck up, or not.

And this will not stop hunting, or competitive shooting. Speaking of that, have you looked at what is used in Olympic sports? Nope, not an AR or an AK. Care to think WHY?

None is telling you not to hunt...none s telling you anything. Just that we need to balance public safety and the RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE...with the second Ammendment. I can't scream fire in a theater. I cannot state falsehoods on a private individual...why care tell me should there not be limits on your precious? Once your rights conflict with mine, that is the point where regulations are needed

NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE...understand this? Or civics was not your strong point.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

61. The 2A is not absolute. There are numerous weapons restrictions. Most are reasonable.

There is a right to life and to assemble. Who is threatening that? And before you say massed shooters armed with WMDs or whatever, those acts (murder and assault) are illegal so that right there is proof of the victims' rights being violated.

There were no standing armies when our country formed, so if the founders 2nd amendment intent was to ensure that The People had the means to form an effective well regulated Militia when called upon... then the assumption would be that to form an effective well regulated Militia, The People would have to show up weapons expected to be commonly used by infantry (or else risk being ineffective and ill-regulated).

And what weapons are used at the infantry/insurgent level? Well, nowadays it's the AR and AK and other assault-style rifles. Any modern effective well regulated Militia DOES use these items. So in order for The People to be able to form an effective well regulated militia, The People's right to keep and bear militia-effective arms must not be infringed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. This is reasonable too

I am sorry you can't understand it. They come form a similar place by the way.

[Walk away]

42. Nauseating! nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. What is so nauseating?

Regular hunting rifles have always been WAY more powerful than pistols or typical assault weapons.

[Wind Dancer]

44. Oh FFS!

[SWTORFanatic]

18. Rocket launchers are a right in our country

you never know when a criminal might show up in a tank or armored vehicle

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. AP rounds in Barrett 50 cal

I tell you, pesky ducks are getting real thick skinned. (Those feathers are made from Kevlar)

[backscatter712]

23. You never know when that 30 point buck is wearing kevlar!

[okaawhatever]

24. Copy of Reagan's stmt when he banned armour piercing bullets in 1986, use for protection against

rwnjs who claim this is all about the democrats.

This bill, recognizes that certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited. Such action is long overdue.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/082886b.htm

That being said, if armour piercing or cop-killer bullets really do nothing more than other bullets are capable of doing these days, i'm not going to support it. I don't want extra problems for normal hunters that don't help solve the problem.

[NickB79]

30. That bill only applied to handgun ammo though

I believe the OP's link was discussing rifle ammo as well.

[okaawhatever]

38. Yeah, that's fine. The point is there are so many GOP Pres and legislators that have added gun

regulation for the betterment of the country and the GOP is turning this into a democrat issue. The idea that so many are falling for it truly saddens me.
Thanks for the info though. Didn't know it was limited to handguns. I remember at the same time they banned those guns they were making to avoid metal detectors. lulz

[NickB79]

28. Any deer-legal rifle cartridge will penetrate armor

“You’re deflecting,” Granholm observed. “Deer don’t wear armor. Why do you need an armor-piercing bullet?”

A soft-point, expanding bullet required for hunting, fired from a .270 or .30-06, will punch straight through virtually any bulletproof vest short of military-grade ones with metal/ceramic trauma plates.

A ban on any ammo capable of penetrating police body armor would effectively outlaw all game hunting with rifles in the US.

I'm sure that would go over well with all the responsible hunters out there when they find out deer season's been cancelled on account of no ammo for their guns.

[williamc1967txlib]

29. Oh god, why can't this guy just go away?

So armor-piercing bullets are a right? What's next, we have the right to own a nuke? A SAM? Madness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Think of the possibilities

Neighborhood superiority through superior firepower. I get dibs on a suitcase nuke.

[indepat]

31. Glad to have the right to express how the thought of Rick makes me think frothy fecal

mix whenever he makes ludicrously unfounded comments like these.

[lpbk2713]

33. WorldNut is the only bunch of losers that would give Santorum the time of day.

That RatPhucks fifteen minutes expired months ago.

[Walk away]

37. If I were a police officer I wouldn't lift a finger to protect him from a shooter.

He deserves to be treated the way he treats the rest of us.

[Downtown Hound]

50. Republicans: You don't have a right to:

abortions
choose who you marry
smoke pot
health care
a cold planet
disaster aid
protest outside of a free speech zone
an accurate version of history
vote (if you're a minority)

But hey, you do have a right to armor piercing ammunition! Whoo Hoo!

[elleng]

52. He's wrong,

about this and many other things.

[cantbeserious]

53. Santorum Terrorizing Americans Daily

eom

[bossy22]

55. ARMOR PENETRATING AMMUNITION IS ALREADY BANNED

by federal law

The problem is that there is this push by many pro-gun control politicians to redefine it using the term "ability to penetrate armor". While this may sound "common sense" the reality is that most rifle rounds (especially commonly used hunting rounds) will penetrate most types of armor that is worn by police officers. the fact is that police body armor is not designed to stop rifle rounds- only moderately powered handgun rounds. And power isn't the end all either- it has to do with ballistics. Some less "powerful" rounds are capable of penetrating armor better than more "powerfu"l rounds

Also there is an attempt to catagorize hollow point ammunition as armor piercing- which is the furthest thing from the truth since hollow points are even less likely to penetrate armor then there FMJ counterparts.

[ManiacJoe]

59. Ruin a good rant by inserting facts....

[GeorgeGist]

58. World Nut Daily.

[Archae]

62. Isn't this the guy who slandered the Dutch by saying they kill their old people?

Yup, same total fucking idiot.