Below is a link to an article supporting the other side of the argument about whether civilian should have access to armor piercing bullets:
Excerpt: #-------------------------------- More recently, last month David Hernandez Arroyo killed two people and wounded several police officers in Tyler, Texas, before police shot him dead. One of his victims was 50-year old Mark Wilson, a citizen licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Wilson, who came to the aid of others attacked by Arroyo, shot Arroyo several times in the chest. But Arroyo was wearing body armor so Wilson’s bullets didn’t incapacitate him. Although Wilson saved the lives of others by distracting Arroyo, he himself was killed. If he had been using armor-piercing ammunition, he would be alive today. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0504e.asp #------------------------------------- Regards, LelandJ On 11/10/2009 03:25 AM, Jean Laeremans wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Michael Madigan<[email protected]> > wrote: >> It's in our Constitution. > > And you don't know what you're talking about > Nihil novi sub sole > > http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/57/ > > A+ > jml > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
