I just received an email in my spam folder from Raul Labrador titled “Winning the fight against the bullet ban.” Forgive me if I’m wrong about its content since I didn’t open the email, but I assume it was about the fight against banning armor-piercing bullets. I have to ask Rep. Labrador, just what is this “fight” and what does “winning” it really mean (forget the rhetoric about our “constitutional rights” since armor-piercing bullets were never mentioned in the Constitution).
If I recall, this issue came up long ago, with Sen. Steve Symms being the only holdout in Congress against banning this type of ammunition. The only reason for having this type of munition is to kill or maim people. It has little practical application beyond that, and is a military or tactical munition that shouldn’t be freely made available to criminals or terrorists. Is that the “battle” we are winning — making a killer bullet available to those who would use it against law-abiding Americans? Steve isn’t doing this anymore, but someone new has stepped in to protect the monetary interests of munitions makers, all the while feeding us the line we’re “winning” some spinmaker’s “battle.”
Robert Dodson, New Plymouth