Quote from: Mad Max on February 28, 2015, 08:01:35 PM

Forgive me, I know nothing about ammunition. What about the .223 doesn't make it an armor piercing round? I feel like if it's so easy for the layman to point out, it's an open and shut case.

Well, you can manufacture any size round to fit the definition of an AP round. It's based on construction and material.
M855 ammo (the specific round the actual ATF legislation concerns) isn't made in a way that fits the category, so that's why this is making a big stink.

Quote from: Mad Max on February 28, 2015, 07:00:13 PM

Well...is it?

18USC section 921

Quote

(17)(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means-

    (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

    (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

In short, no.

Further information from a 2011 informative piece

Quote

A few things to take note of is that the classification as “armor piercing” is for bullets only, not the complete cartridge. Despite the mention of handgun caliber above, you can take that to mean that it’s a round that has been made as a handgun caliber at some point.

The bullet (projectile) must also have a core made entirely out of the metals listed above, or be a full jacketed bullet with a jacket weighing more than 25% of its overall weight. This means that the SS109/M855 bullets wouldn’t be covered, as their cores are partly steel, and partly lead. Lead isn’t listed in the metals above. Furthermore, as you’ll see in the list below, the ATF has specifically stated that the SS109/M855 bullets are exempted from AP status.
ATF AP Classified Rounds

    All KTW, ARCANE, and THV ammo
    Czech made 9mm Para. with steel core
    German made 9mm Para. with steel core
    MSC .25 ACP with brass bullet
    BLACK STEEL armor and metal piercing ammunition
    7.62mm NATO AP and SLAP
    PMC ULTRAMAG with brass bullet (not copper)
    OMNISHOCK .38 Special with steel core
    7.62×39 ammo with steel core bullets

ATF Exempted Rounds

    5.56 SS109 and M855 NATO rounds, with steel penetrator tip.
    .30-06 M2 AP ammo

I build a toll road. You pay me to drive your car on it. My road is designed for many small cars mainly, each contributing. Then a bus company (let's call it Netcar) comes along and offers to give tons of people rides for a small fee, and these buses don't have to pay a toll for each person. Eventually, these buses take up over a third of all traffic on the road, but I'm not getting paid for its usage. In addition, my toll has been forced to be lower and lower every year. Each year, it costs 30% less to use the road. So now I'm making pennies and 1/3 of my traffic isn't even paying to use the roads. Now, other companies come along and want to use the stuff I built to run their bus companies and use my infrastructure to build more roads (I already have the asphalt and trucks ready). To account for the massive increase in usage and the decrease in revenue I'm getting, I'm forced to restrict the buses and charge more for the cars. People say this isn't fair, and when other companies with very little investment use my equipment to build more roads and offer the same or lower prices, the customers accuse me of wringing them for cash. When I go to the government about it, they pass a measure that allows those other companies to use my roads, my equipment, my infrastructure to run their business, all without chipping in for my initial massive investment which laid the foundation for all of the roads for everyone. That's legal because now it's regulated, meaning I lose the ability to charge different users (like the buses or other high-use vehicles) more than I would a little car, and I lose the ability to make faster lanes for those that would like to pay for it (although this is largely hypothetical now).

Heavyhanded analogy aside, this isn't the cyber-liberty battle that it has been talked up to be.

Quote from: Mad Max on February 27, 2015, 11:17:58 AM

Irvine, CA. The only ISP available to us is Cox Communications. Luckily, they aren't complete assholes so it's not so bad, but since there's no competition, there's no reason for them to lower costs or provide better service.

losing net neutrality would have only made things worse for start-up ISPs.

They're not forced. Google is laying down their own fiber, and cell providers build their own network. The infrastructure is an investment, and allowing other companies to use it freely, as this FCC decision does, isn't preventative of monopolies, it's destructive to fair competition. Why should anyone build any more of this infrastructure if they don't benefit from its exclusivity?

Spoiler

government interference in the internet and motions against free expression rights

Quote from: Jono on February 26, 2015, 04:37:13 PM

Quote from: Septy on February 26, 2015, 04:34:11 PM

Quote from: Jono on February 26, 2015, 04:33:29 PM

>Thinks East Coast is better
>Has Florida

>California

At least California doesn't have hurricanes every week like Florida.

>implying east consists only of Florida

Plz

Google Fiber wrote in an FCC filing that if the FCC proceeds with reclassifying broadband providers under Title II of the Telecom Act, it could enable it to more readily gain access to utility poles and related infrastructure like ducts owned by electric and gas utility companies.

Austin Schlick, Google's director of communications law, said in a letter that all service providers, including Google Fiber, would gain the same access to utility poles that have been mainly given to traditional telcos and cable operators like AT&T and Comcast.

"As the Commission considers regulatory classification of broadband Internet access service ("BIAS"), the question of forbearance pursuant to Section 10 of the Communications Act also arises," Schlick wrote in a letter to the FCC. "Should the Commission determine that BIAS is a telecommunications service, then Section 224 of the Act would afford all BIAS providers, as telecommunications carriers, a statutory right of nondiscriminatory access to utility poles and other essential infrastructure. Cable systems and telephone companies have long had this right."

Getting access to utility poles and other rights-of-way has been a key challenge for Google Fiber.