Letter Re: What’s the Story Behind ATF “Banning” 5.56mm Ammo?

Good Sir, Mr. Bellamy:

I have a quick comment reflecting your article of recent publication, if your time permits please, regarding “the law banning armor piercing handgun ammunition”.

I agree with everything you have written (cited) and even the punctuation details thus far, until this closing statement (above referenced) in your sample letter. To me, it would be more effectual if you used quotation emphasis in this sentence. At first glance, it seems to affirm exactly the perception of the argument being an “armor piercing” ballistic projectile available for sale to the general population; and your statement could be misconstrued as agreeing to this effect.

[the law banning “armor” piercing handgun ammunition] [the law banning “armor piercing” handgun ammunition]

These two examples of a particularly worded sentence, could be very important when (possibly?) TPTB review any comments or concerns of the dialogue received from their constituents during the review period.

Since we seem to have been media/forcibly evolved into such a politically correct world (albeit a legal term currently decided by the appointed rulers), I believe in using this tactic to an advantage to defend my First Amendment rights and our Constitution as a whole, whenever and if possible. Miranda Rights bear to mind; then context and intonations apply.

There is no disrespect intended at all, and my apologies for dissecting your commentary. Please consider my position. I would absolutely send a letter of your original draft with no hesitation, aside from my notations I have provided above. My humble opinion is just that.

Jeremiah 29:11

Regards – DC

Bookmark the permalink.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.
Anonymous comments are allowed, but will be moderated.
Note: Please read our discussion guidlelines before commenting.