The anti-gun Violence Policy Center is out with another "Study" highlighting the next threat to public safety... and the next target for gun banners: Big Boomers," handguns designed to take rifle-caliber cartridges that can penetrate Kevlar vests.


Read the entire 40-page "report" at: _http://www.vpc.org/studies/bigboomers.pdf

I just KNEW they'd find an angle on Fort hood.
the gun being the fiveSeven using a bottle necked rifle like round

Another skid mark stained diaper,
from another red diaper doper baby organization.
(With prop's to Michael Savage for use of the phrase)

MX3

HMM? I wonder if they would ban my compound bow,you know i'm sure my carbon arrow with a 100 grn thunderhead blade at 300 fps would "penetrate" a kevlar vest.Just a thought,maybe a week one, but a thought all the same.

I love the Goldilocks angle - can't be to big (500S&W) and can't be to small (FN 5.7). Somehow I have a hunch that they don't have a "just right" handgun at the VPC.

Violence Policy Center has always been a phoney front and a shame. Only three or four libs making a scam living writing anti-gun "special reports". Most probably will be out of busness in the near future as they lost a major part of their lib money funding from the Maddoff scandal.

So how many of the Ft. Hood victims were shot through body-armor??

That won't matter.
What WILL matter, is that they COULD have been!
And the only thing to do about that, is to ban ALL of the noisy nasty things that keep the proletariat and paradise apart.

What the libs fail to comprehend is that if the radical Muslim terrorist at Ft. Hood had not had access to handguns (which he illegally carried on to the base), he probably would have used a bomb . . .

They also COULD have been armed, in which case we would not be having this discussion.

In actuality, they SHOULD have been armed. I seen no reason why E-6 & above, and O-4 & above could not be routinely armed on a stateside military base.

Speedshooter -- Don't give the "anti's" any ideas!

I have suspected that the FN fiveseven eventually would be on the anti's hit list after reading a newspaper article a few months back that reported the fiveseven as "a high-capacity automatic pistol that uses high powered rifle ammunition and is a favorite weapon of the drug cartels because it can penetrate a protective vest."

What they don't report is that the ammunition with the penetrator is not sold on the civilian market; ammo for commercial sale is loaded with either a 28- or 40-grain Hornady V-Max bullet.

After the terrorist murdered those soldiers at Fort Hood, the media reported that he had two guns, one of which was "an automatic that used rifle cartridges," accompanied by a photo of the fiveseven. I have never read any mention of the other gun.

I have also read letters to the editor condemning the commercial availability of the fiveseven and declaring that "nobody should be allowed to own such a weapon."

I have never had much interest in the fiveseven, other than it is different, but I will buy one because I can imagine it will become a victim of the herd-mentality hysteria that surrounded the so-called "assault" weapons during the 1990s.

As an aside, I also read a fairly recent article in one of the major newspapers that condemned bolt action rifles as "long-range, high-powered sniper rifles," and questioned anybody's "need" for such a weapon. We will have to keep an eye out for that, too.

Time to rant: What really pulls my pin is when people argue in favor of restricting military-style weapons because "nothing the Second Amendment protects them," or "they aren't any good for hunting," or "people don't need that type of weapon." The Second Amendment is not about "need" (think communism -- "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.") and it is not about hunting. The Second Amendment is about our right to own arms. It is not framed in terms of hunting or need!

Rant No. 2: The other comment that gives me a mental wedgie is when someone, like Greenie Gore, declares that "people register their cars, why not their guns?"

This correlation is false. Vehicles are registered, and their operators are licensed, to operate them in public. Firearms, however, are kept and maintained on private property; Federal, state, and local laws already address firearms' transportation, carry, and use in public. How anyone came up with the "register your car, ergo register your gun" is beyond me.

As for the ongoing bromide that registration doesn't lead to confiscation, the following URL highlights what happened in California 10 years ago. The confiscation letters were the result of a court ruling that post-deadline registrations were illegal. California's Roberti-Roos "assault" weapon ban had a registration requirement for existing privately owned weapons, but it was largely ignored. In an attempt to gain compliance, the deadline was extended, with not much success.

The state attorney general, in an attempt to encourage compliance, allowed post-deadline registrations. An anti-gun group sued, and the judge ruled that nothing in the Roberti-Roos legislation allowed post-deadline registrations, and that post-deadline registrants were in possession of illegal weapons. A letter of confiscation was sent to those owners.

CALIFORNIA ORDERS STATE-WIDE CONFISCATION